God caused or uncaused?

mark24:I did not anticipate that response...Are you saying that if we could duplicate that, you would beleive that the universe is essentially one giant lab, and that God used?Most seem to think it would prove that life arose by purely natural means.

mike the wiz: It is frustrating, because the logical quesiton is, 'why'?They have to have a philosophical purpose for doing so. they cannot just pull it out of thin air...But that is exactly what they do.They have to get outside of the box to make it stick.It is utterly sophist. But I don;t think all that many are aware of it. It takes a pretty keen discernment to uncover the contradiction. I didn't find it myself... But now that I see it, it is becoming more clear all the time, and it is getting easier to communicate.mike the wiz: Not only that, the statement is based upon a philosophical pressuposition.And that, my dear Watson... is the whole point.ps. hope you don't mind me calling you Watson...

Arachnophilia: I've argued this one before, but not here at EVC.God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How can he be all three?Well it's easy to see that they are interdependant. You couldn't be omnipotent, unless you were also omniscient. And you couldn't be omnisicent, without being omnipresent.It's the same with Justice and mercy. If one is merciless toward the victem, then one cannot deliver justice to the guilty. As for job, it doesn't take a great deal of faith to believe that omnipotence knows how to dispense both... for the goal of total justice when all is said and done.If we look at a smal frame in time, then justice appears to be lacking in some cases. But in the eternal scheme of things (which is the proper Biblical context), God is absolutely Just, while being absolutely merciful.I would however, expect it to be a bit of a mystery to us as we are very impatient creatures. And that leads to unecessary criticisms which really reveal a lack of belief, rather than any actual shortcomings of the concepts in question.No gymnastic philosophism necessary. it's rather logical and straightforward thoelogy. But it will take some baseless assertions (inevitably founded on 'unkown to the author gymnastic philosophisms') to argue against it.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

mark24: Well that's easy... according to some of our most sophisticated scientific theorists, the whole universe... 'Life and all (irrespective of time)' did just that! Bang!We are here mark24... I guess if you can't be God (which would be required to witness such an event), you won't believe in the Biblical God.And the Historical accounts of the miracles are not valid either I presume?Has it ever occured to you what a miracle really is? They're ultimately, not all that miraculous really...May I reccomend 'Miracles' by C.S. Lewis to you?

mark24: Something necessarily designed... I see!Will a bacteria do? The Evolution of the FlagellumOr try this one: Abiogenesis and click the play button on the 'Harvard Biovisions' video.mark24: Well some people don't believe in the Holocaust you know? Your point is valid...But that only goes to show that someone is wrong, and that the truth is exclusive. At least your not one of those who believe 'we are all right' (except that I'm wrong not to believe that of course) kind of guys. I can respect that.However, we have tests for historical credibility and accuracy. One of which you have already mentioned, and that is the test of internal consistency.Do you know them? Put the Bible on trial alongside other history that is considered fact: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.htmlmark24: Nah... unicorn is not synonymous with reality.Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. And that is the context of 'the God' of the Bible. The creator of all things. Like logic, He is axiomatic or self evident. Not some being that exists in reality, but is what it is.When Moses asked God's name, what did God say? "I am that I am". You cannot make the connection?

EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?Edited by Admin, : The link had been rendered improperly, so just rerendering to fix it.

mike the wiz: Well ID is not science by definition. But that is because science is defined as 'methodological naturalism'. What I was showing is that that is a contradiction.Methodological naturalism is based upon a philosophical assumption that contradicts it's own claim to be non-philosophical.So the problem isn't really that ID isn't science. The problem is that so called science isn't what it claims to be.And since both are ultimately only philosophical constructs, and ID is ultimately more philosophically coherent (logical) than 'methodological naturalism', then if anything, ID is more scientific than so-called emperical science.ID is certainly an inference to the best explaination.If you want to chew on that, here is a link to an excellent video which explains what I have just said 'in their own words': AbiogenesisGive it a moment to load, and then just scroll down to the man on the chalkboard. After clicking play, watch the clip (which is clip 6, about ten minutes) and then watch clip 7 by finding it in the menu that should pop up automatically after clip 6 is finished.Study it carefully....

pbee: It my utmost honor maddam... watch the whole thing (about 18 times).The only one better (or equal) is called 'The Privilaged Planet'. But rather than biology it deals with the cosmological side of the issue. I don't however know of any links to it online.I own both (well I did... until I gave my copies away). Just can't seem to keep it to myself.

mark 24: Yes, and Reality is God...For example, when you said: You are making an absolute assertion that (if true), there is nothing I can do to change it. And any position contrary to that, would put me in conflict with reality. The point is... reality is sovereign.I think what your trying to say is that reality cannot be known, therefore we cannot know what is sovereign. Which brings another problem (usually for the postmodernist)... how can you know that if reality cannot be known?Yours is almost a Bart Simpson-like perspective... 'You can't prove it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything.'mark24: But neither does gravity, the quantum, the earth's electromagnetic field etc... we don't understand how they work, they just do (reality).You can't see them, but we see their effects. It's the same with God, particularly in the moral realm. We see the pain resulting from sin, and get a clue as to God's purpose being contrary to the result. But for this discussion, the quantum will do. I notice you don't like talking about the quantum. Your material panacea isn't very material...The fact is, you can deny all day that lack of understanding is proof of God's sovereignty, but you'll never prove it.. which is what you say science does.It's true I can't prove anything. But this lie that science can is equally disturbing. Science is really only a sophist exercise in doubt as practiced by the likes of you. It gives you something to believe in, that cannot be proven but only demanded, so as to not to believe in God.I gotta go to work for a day or so...

pbee: As for the unknown quote you provided: There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature. That is a myth. At the very least, laws exist to guide certain processes. But the mechanism itself cannot have created of the laws. There is a great quote from Issac newton to this effect, but I have to go for now.The only documented theory for the self-organizing and self sustaining assembly of life is not a scientific one. It is the doctrine of the Trinity. And it was made up by a few fishermen who got lucky I guess...

pbee: Sorry it took so long... but I wanted to say more for you to think over. But it has already been said, so I'll just provide the links.Another member suggested this 'maginary' self replicating scenario that you are asking about. Listed 1st below is his claim, 2nd my response, 3rd molbiogirls response, and 4th my response to her. Of course you can read the rest of the thread, before and after to your onw satisfaction.1.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=120#1192. http://EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA -->EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA3. http://EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA -->EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA4.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#123You may also find nosyned's response to this last post interesting. He is the same one who a short time later suspended me indefinitely from all 'Origin of Life' threads. In his defense, I did lose my cool in another thread and resorted to the blasphemy of preaching a little hellfire.

No... they just gave the name to the already existing concept affectionately known as God.As for the terms, I believe they are the proper way to distinguish between what is being claimed, and what the reality is. Anything can self assemble if it has the instructions. But who organized the instructions be they physical laws or DNA?

Where so?

So the universe is not actully logical? We invented logic to describe it? You mean the 'Stong Nuclear Force', and the weak Nuclear Force' etc...? In other words, the laws of physics that we invented?So these 'philsophical constructs' that are assumed to be, and expected to be coherent, to which we affix the name science really are only philsophical constructs afterall?I'm shocked!You know, there's a lot of boys out there that actually believed that it was real concrete stuff... but hank you Sidelined.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

mark24: Can you prove that emperically, or is it a philosophical assumption?