Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by jockeys

has been experimented with and partially re-created in laboratories as well. it is a thoroughly scientific endeavor, with some very interesting experiments being done as far back as 50 years ago.

So we are creating life in a laboratory to prove the hypothesis that life was not created? I have got to be missing something?!?

Originally Posted by jockeys

the idea that life can't come from non-life was abandoned decades ago when it was realized that the line between alive and not-alive isn't a line at all, but a very broad and ill-defined zone. the first lifeforms were, it is commonly thought, not single celled or even close to being that complex.

Do you have citations for your position that this idea was abandoned?

Matt

Originally Posted by singlewedge

I guess inside of this ramble all tied up I can say that God is a farce dreamed up by a cast of bishops and others to keep people in line and subjugate those that would not fall in line. It was a dream to help people and a reason to spill blood through the centuries.

Organized religion in many instances may have now become what you are proposing here.

But what about the early Christian Church?

The Disciples of Christ had just had their leader killed on the Cross, and they themselves were under severe persecution, threatened with death or imprisonment themselves.

Were they in it for the money? The power?

"Hey, we're in hiding. They just crucified Jesus, and Stephen was just stoned to death for proffesing his beliefs. This new faith of ours will be a great way to keep others under our thumbs!"

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Organized religion in many instances may have now become what you are proposing here.

But what about the early Christian Church?

The Disciples of Christ had just had their leader killed on the Cross, and they themselves were under severe persecution, threatened with death or imprisonment themselves.

Were they in it for the money? The power?

"Hey, we're in hiding. They just crucified Jesus, and Stephen was just stoned to death for proffesing his beliefs. This new faith of ours will be a great way to keep others under our thumbs!"

People of faith and "religion" are all too often lumped into the same category. Organized religion can be a tool of power like any other hierarchical group of humans. (not that all are, or that it has to be....)

By the way, that last paragraph would make a great sig line.

Originally Posted by mhailey

So we are creating life in a laboratory to prove the hypothesis that life was not created? I have got to be missing something?!?

Do you have citations for your position that this idea was abandoned?

Matt

1. intentionally creating life would not be much of an experiment. re-creating various probable primordial conditions and seeing what happens when the experiment is left alone is quite another thing altogether. there have been some very interesting experiments that confirm, albeit partially, the ability of RNA to self replicate, as well as the tendency of certain amino acids to self organize into nucleic acids. for a very shallow introduction to the subject:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
not nearly as helpful as reading biology textbooks, of course, but anyone can read this article with not much background and understand what's going on.

2. to quote from the definition of life from wikipedia (sloppy, I know, but I don't have any textbooks with me at the moment:
"There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"

I cannot provide a citation that indicates nobody still thinks that way, because many people do. perhaps I should have stated it "most serious scientific academians have abandoned". didn't mean to be unclear.

Originally Posted by jockeys

2. to quote from the definition of life from wikipedia (sloppy, I know, but I don't have any textbooks with me at the moment:
"There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"

I cannot provide a citation that indicates nobody still thinks that way, because many people do. perhaps I should have stated it "most serious scientific academians have abandoned". didn't mean to be unclear.

So, what was previously scientifically accepted as fact, is now scientifically abandoned no longer valid?

And yet to say that creationism should not be taught as being valid, as it lacks a scientific basis?

What I'm getting at here is that when talking about the beginings of life, there is no scientifically proveable facts. Nothing any more scientific than what is proposed bt Creationists. Just because the guys making the guesses are scientists, does not make it scientific.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, what was previously scientifically accepted as fact, is now scientifically abandoned no longer valid?

yep. that's what makes science so beautiful! not afraid to admit wrongness and learn new things. a scientific theory is nothing more than "this is the best explanation we have... FOR NOW." continuous study and experimentation will gradually improve the theory over the years, and even if humanity can never explain all the mysteries, I think getting closer to the truth, fractionally and slowly, is certainly better than the alternative...

"my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."

Originally Posted by jockeys

"my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."

Is that what you used to tell them?

By the way I am with smokelaw, this thread is interesting!

Originally Posted by jockeys

yep. that's what makes science so beautiful! not afraid to admit wrongness and learn new things. a scientific theory is nothing more than "this is the best explanation we have... FOR NOW." continuous study and experimentation will gradually improve the theory over the years, and even if humanity can never explain all the mysteries, I think getting closer to the truth, fractionally and slowly, is certainly better than the alternative...

"my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."

Well, what if one of the new things to be learned is the possibility that an invisible friend in the sky did create the world?

Apply Ockham's razor to this:

In an inexplicable series of events, and contrary to all ideas about entropy, life came about on its' own, able to reproduce, and evolve into the varied life we now know today

or

There actually is a Supreme Being, and He did create everything.

Who re-dug up this thread anyhow?!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Well, what if one of the new things to be learned is the possibility that an invisible friend in the sky did create the world?

Apply Ockham's razor to this:

In an inexplicable series of events, and contrary to all ideas about entropy, life came about on its' own, able to reproduce, and evolve into the varied life we now know today

or

There actually is a Supreme Being, WHO IS NECESSARILY INFINITELY COMPLICATED and He did create everything.

fixed that for you.