A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: craterman

Please prove those odds and give your source for the calculation. It sounds like you are assuming that abiogenesis was a sudden process rather than an incremental one. A common mistake used by science haters. That calculation comes from religious propaganda and people that know nothing about abiogenesis or science. If the odds are THAT low, then how is it scientists were able to duplicate the creation of amino acids in a lab multiple times? Surely that would be extremely improbable if your odds are correct, but we know they aren't.

Second law of thermodynamics says a closed system will increase in entropy. How did life come about if that is true?

The earth isn't a closed system, we get new energy from the sun constantly. Entropy won't apply to us until the sun runs out of energy. This is yet another thing that creationists don't understand and misrepresent on purpose for the dishonest crusade against evolution. Entropy is about HEAT and fuel that causes heat. It doesn't mean that we are magically turning to chaos and life can't evolve here.

originally posted by: Barcs
Here's a simple question that has stumped theists and deists alike.

Where did god come from? How does he just randomly happen to exist? Why can god exist eternally just randomly out of nowhere, but the universe can't?

I've never heard a theist or deist answer this question without major deflection and changing the subject.

Gods are allowed to be eternal, are expected to be. Universes can't be eternal because they have to be born from a Big Bang. But if a universe has to be "born" that would suggest a god can't just happen of its own accord either. The infinite regression problem persists.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs
Here's a simple question that has stumped theists and deists alike.

Where did god come from? How does he just randomly happen to exist? Why can god exist eternally just randomly out of nowhere, but the universe can't?

I've never heard a theist or deist answer this question without major deflection and changing the subject.

Gods are allowed to be eternal, are expected to be. Universes can't be eternal because they have to be born from a Big Bang. But if a universe has to be "born" that would suggest a god can't just happen of its own accord either. The infinite regression problem persists.

While not mainstream science, there are some that have argued for eternal universe models. For example the fringe electric universe, and also big crunch big bang cyclic models, it could also be some sort of naturally occurring simulation on a natural time crystal in some fundamental medium, also there's the block time universe where all moments are eternal and the passage of time is an illusion.

One way or another the universe may very well be eternal.

The universe is not a closed system either, that is my point. Just after the big bang, there was and over abundance of entropy, that should have increased but it didn't.

a reply to: Barcs

That explanation completely ignores two things. A spirit is not a material thing and things that apply to the material world do not have to apply to the spiritual and the spirit can be eternal.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I find it interesting that you require proof of a God, but offer no proof of the opposite. Those calculations are by an atheist BTW.

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: craterman
The universe is not a closed system either, that is my point. Just after the big bang, there was and over abundance of entropy, that should have increased but it didn't.

a reply to: Barcs

Would you please provide a link to a research paper that says that? Where did you get that idea from?

originally posted by: craterman
I find it interesting that you require proof of a God, but offer no proof of the opposite. Those calculations are by an atheist BTW.

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space a reply to: Barcs

That is for a cell. The idea of abiogenesis can occur with one or a few molecules that self replicate being the beginning of the line. Slowly adding more molecules over time.

Evolution is known for creating dependence. For example given a rich vitamin C diet the ability of an organism to generate vitamin C can be lost, and then some could say how could that organism exist without a source of vitamin C? Similarly as more molecules are added the system, over time, becomes dependent on them, even for basic functions. You could say how could it function without said molecules, but the problem is the evolution of interdependence of components.

That interdependence also serves as error correction in a way, as any mutation that seriously affects function of a vital piece upon which there is dependence, will result in lethality, allowing only error free replication of said piece.

originally posted by: craterman
The universe is not a closed system either, that is my point. Just after the big bang, there was and over abundance of entropy, that should have increased but it didn't.

a reply to: Barcs

The big bang was a very low entropy state, and entropy has been increasing ever more since then.

Some controversial opinions hold that the big bang never happened and the universe is eternal.

originally posted by: craterman
The universe is not a closed system either, that is my point. Just after the big bang, there was and over abundance of entropy, that should have increased but it didn't.

Please offer a citation on this. Right after the big bang, our heat energy was at an all time high because of the tremendous energy that started the expansion. It's been slowly decreasing ever since, but this is completely irrelevant to the fact that the earth gets new energy from the sun on a daily basis that fuels all thermodynamics processes on earth. The universe might be closed, but we really don't know that and entropy won't affect earth until the sun runs out of energy, as I already stated. The problem is that most people don't comprehend what entropy is. They think it's a magical process of decay. It's not. It's about heat and only heat.

A spirit is not a material thing and things that apply to the material world do not have to apply to the spiritual and the spirit can be eternal.

Prove that a spirit even exists. You are just making up your own rules as you go along to justify believing all kinds of nonsense.

find it interesting that you require proof of a God, but offer no proof of the opposite. Those calculations are by an atheist BTW.

Did I require proof of god? I just said that I lack belief without evidence of it being true. Burden of proof is not on the negative position. This is basic logic 101. And you didn't offer a citation, you posted some random book. Where is the peer reviewed research paper on that? Anybody can write a religious book. Show the proof. Those calculations assume that the original cell is as complex as the modern cell and that abiogenesis was the same as spontaneous generation, and both of those are flat out wrong.

originally posted by: craterman
I find it interesting that you require proof of a God, but offer no proof of the opposite. Those calculations are by an atheist BTW.

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space a reply to: Barcs

Context is everything when quoting Hoyle in support of some variation on Abrahamic Creation. Hoyle favored Pansoermia over Abbiogenesis. Hoyle was also a staunch Atheist so his estimate of the odds against Abiogenesis aren’t in any way a support of Creatiin by a specific deity or any deity at all for that matter. It’s a hypothesis, nothing more. All Pabdoermia does is push Abiogebesis back to another stellar or interstellar source instead of originating on earth. Even in Pansoermia, some variation on Abiogebesis had to have occurred somewhere else in the universe.

At the end if the day, you’re misquoting someone to fit your personal narrative and choose not to provide appropriate context to prop up your dismissal of one hypothesis for life’s origin on earth in favor of another that you also don’t acknowledge. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest or willful ignorance?

originally posted by: Barcs
Here's a simple question that has stumped theists and deists alike.

Where did god come from? How does he just randomly happen to exist? Why can god exist eternally just randomly out of nowhere, but the universe can't?

I've never heard a theist or deist answer this question without major deflection and changing the subject.

First of all nothing eternal would pop into existence randomly out of nowhere. The universe included. It too must be eternal. If the universe was indeed formed in the Big Bang as much scientific evidence would suggest, it must have existed as potential prior to that event, perhaps as a huge black hole or something, who knows?

Or if the Big Bang theory isn’t entirely accurate any of the other theory’s could be true and the universe would still be infinite. Personally I like the simulation theory as I’m confident everything is in fact information at its core. But that’s for another debate.

If the universe were finite, we would rightly wonder what then is beyond it? We can’t just say the void or nothingness because that in turn would have to be infinite and we know through science we don’t get something from nothing, ever. Except for that one time when we get everything from nothing though, really? We also know through conservation of energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed, as such it must also be infinite.

It follows that god must also be infinite as a finite being can’t create an infinite universe. I’m not remotely religious either, I suppose my inclination is more that of a Deist though.

a reply to: craterman

Cite that calculation Or perform it here. Otherwise its what we in science call a "numb", a number that is with out meaning. What units are you working in? OR is that a probablity, a percentage or something in a log or natural log scale.

Next prove that we are in a closed system. I'm very familiar with thermodynamics, I was very good at Physical chemistry, my PhD was a mixture of Physical organic and synthetic chemistry.

As a s scientist I would not say there is an outside force, and I'm theist, because scientifically there is NO proof.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I see what you are saying, but the fact remains that if god exists eternally, then he just happened to randomly exist. That means he didn't come from anything, which is the same as coming from nothing. That doesn't mean he poofed himself into existence, it means he has no origin or explanation. He's just there (or the universe is just there). The causality problem still exists with god or the universe being eternal because how did one or the other come to exist in the first place?

Either way something has to be eternal, but how could something eternal just happen to exist? I feel it's far more complicated than simply god or nothing. What we see as the physical known universe, is probably like .0000000000000000001% of what's actually out there.

Too much presumption there to even respond. You have no idea what happened 13 billion years ago and only want to diminish the probability of a God.

a reply to: Barcs

You have to get a cell first. How do you get a cell? Not even any protein for a cell.

a reply to: Xenogears

That's my point. There has to be an eternal. And that alone overwhelms the human mind. Materialistically, as we know and understand it, that makes no sense whatsoever. This is where the atheist says 'oh, but all the laws of physics breakdown at the point of compression or expansion' and they unwittingly admit that all those laws of physics and chemistry really don't mean anything in that aspect. At least I guess we can all agree on that.
Not directed to Barcs, just in general:

Say the big bang did occur. Something may have caused it. What? I don't know is really the only answer any of us have. I say God. You say you don't know. But somehow I am wrong?

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see what you are saying, but the fact remains that if god exists eternally, then he just happened to randomly exist. That means he didn't come from anything, which is the same as coming from nothing. That doesn't mean he poofed himself into existence, it means he has no origin or explanation. He's just there (or the universe is just there). The causality problem still exists with god or the universe being eternal because how did one or the other come to exist in the first place?

Either way something has to be eternal, but how could something eternal just happen to exist? I feel it's far more complicated than simply god or nothing. What we see as the physical known universe, is probably like .0000000000000000001% of what's actually out there.

Sorry Barcs, but I can't stop giggling about this statement:

if god exists eternally, then he just happened to randomly exist.

One can't "randomly exist" if one "exists eternally".

It's one way or the other - not both.

originally posted by: craterman
Say the big bang did occur. Something may have caused it. What? I don't know is really the only answer any of us have. I say God. You say you don't know. But somehow I am wrong?

You just answered why you are wrong.

When Barcs says "I don't know" he is telling the truth and when you say "God" you are wrong because "I don't know is really the only answer any of us have."

originally posted by: edmc^2
One can't "randomly exist" if one "exists eternally".

It's one way or the other - not both.

There is no proof of any of that and no reason to believe that they are mutually exclusive.

You are just making things up.