Re: Re: More questions 
Originally posted by whatsupyall
Natural as well..God can be part of nature as he wills. He is not confined to it, but Her can as He wills.
The question is; Is God defined by natural laws? The answer for Christians must be “No”, because he preexisted those laws and is therefore supernatural by definition. This does not mean that he could not interact with nature or affect change through those laws.
Once again you dont know all of the laws of nature so if you see something isnt fitting to the law of nature (a 3 tons rock flying) it doesnt necessarily mean "beyond the laws of nature" for the other "undiscovered" laws of nature may permit this, but there is no way for you to know.
No, an argument from ignorance is not valid. You can say that it “might” be due to supernatural causes but unless you have proof of such or you have disproved the possibility of a natural explanation you cannot make that assertion.
Once again, you cannot define God to be supernatural (as in defying the law of nature) because AGAIN FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE, AND PHYSICS, AND BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, THIS HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESFULL, A FACT...You got it???
No. God, by Christian definition, is supernatural. Period. Because he is not dependant and not caused by natural laws. Or are you suggesting otherwise? Please note that anything else is not a Catholic or even a standard Christian definition of God.
It was theorized that the laws of physics were formed seconds after the big bang...So this laws of physics "LUCKILY" FORMED AND "LUCKILY" HAPPEN TO BE A PERFECT DESIGNED AND SOLE RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE TO EXIST?
No, the laws of physics did not spontaneously appear at random after the big bang. No one is suggesting that they did. What is suggested is that they coalesced out of a unified law… which we are still attempting to define. Already we have been able to define and measure the unification of three of the four primary forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic), and are currently working on the incorporation of the fourth (gravity).
Prove Jesus? Prove King Henry exist.
No, I wasn’t asking for historical proof that Jesus exists. I’m well aware of the available evidence and my conclusion is that he or someone much like him did exist. Of course, that does not prove that he was the “Son of God” or that he ever actually performed any miracles. What I am asking you to prove is your assertion that "With pure knowledge, nothing is impossible".
I am not talking about blocking the sensation of pain...I am talking about a certain drug (which I am not sure if its morphine, I think it was PCP) that raises up your adrenaline, and in my health class, it showed a skinny man running naked, and when the police handcuffed him, he broke it, and it takes about 500 lbs of pressure in order for the handcuff to break.
PCP was developed as an anesthetic agent. It blocks pain and increases blood pressure and heart rate. It has also been attributed to causing some rather psychotic behavior. Adrenalin causes the following physiological responses: causes a breakdown of glycogen to glucose in the liver, encourages the release of fatty acids from adipose tissue, causes vasodilation of the small arteries within muscle and increases cardiac output.
You may insist that this is natural, fine you have your reasons and evidence, but for others who doesnt know the evidence take this as supernatural.
They would be wrong.
Today "Placebo" is THEORIZED to be natural
No, the placebo effect has been extremely well documented and is a fact.
POINT BEING ONCE AGAIN IS THAT NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL LIES ON THE OBSERVER
WRONG!!!
No, you cannot.
You can learn that if abiogenesis is impossible (for all the necessary physics are attempted and is unseccesfull)
This would not be knowledge from ignorance but knowledge from experiment. Of course, all the experiments have not yet been tried.
Therefore the knowledge earned is that life to evolve from nowhere through abiogenesis is impossible
Wrong, we are only just beginning to understand the concepts and dynamics that would make abiogenesis possible in experiment.
No. Without supporting evidence or even a proper hypothesis it is simply fantasy.
How is the universe chaotic?
This is a huge topic. But I suggest you research the chaos theory of mathematics, virtual particles, quantum entanglement, and superposition to begin with. The universe seems to be probabilistic rather than atomic in nature.
YOUR MAKING A CLAIM THAT YOU ARE SMARTER THAN EINSTEIN
Hardly. But I do know a few things that he did not thanks to the efforts of science since his time.
So you could prove they are wrong?
It doesn’t matter. According to your example they would be wrong.
Yes I believe that no man can ever create life form, for if so, this will prove that God dont exist
No, it wouldn’t. It would only mean that God did not miracle life into existence but that it arose though natural causes. As you believe God is responsible for the existence of those natural forces there is still quite a bit of room for him.
SO FAR THE CURRENT EVIDENCE POINT OUT TO US
No, so far there is simply no valid evidence as to the cause of the Universe. There are quite a few hypotheses, one of which is God.
If so, then demonstrate and create life forms then for that is the whole point of the theory.
No. It is not. We understand quite a few things that we cannot yet reproduce technologically.
OH YOU CANT? THEN DONT LIE AND SAY THE THEORY IS PROVEN BECAUSE IT IS NOT.....LYING ISNT HELPFULL.
Abiogenesis is not just the single theory that life arose naturally from non-life. That, indeed, has not been proven. But the field of abiogenesis contains many theories as to how life might have arisen naturally, some of which have been proven; such as the theory that organic chemicals can form naturally from inorganic chemicals.
I’m not lying; you’re simply not understanding what it is I have said.
Considered the best and the closest to you doesnt necessarily mean it is the closest.
True. This is why science is always pushing at the borders and trying new things. There is a constant effort to improve.
For instance, to Cris and many atheists, it is the closest thought that the word "Knowing" means "To control"
No. You misunderstand the argument. If God knows that something must happen a certain way then it cannot happen otherwise. Thus “choice” is illusionary… it’s doesn’t exist. Choice indicates the possibility of alternatives. If everything is known, absolutely, then there are no alternatives.
No, it only indicates that either God is omniscient OR we have freedom to choose (freewill); the two cannot exist simultaneously if there is a God that interacts with the Universe.
Whats closest understanding to one scientists doesnt necessarily mean that it is to another scientist.
Granted, there are some areas of debate. But many of the things you are contesting are pretty much universally agreed upon.
Like the entire history and your words?
History is indeed based largely upon hearsay. Thus it is not considered to be a science but a separate pursuit in its own right. The primary methodology used in History is independent corroboration. Physical corroboration is also important and is the endeavor of archaeologists.
As to my own words to some extent this is true, however, I have never indicated that anyone should believe my assertions based solely on my opinion and when available I give the proper references and arguments.
I dont also believe anything simply because someone else does, I am with you on these, the truth must be found through intensive research, study, and HOPE.
I can agree with that.
Give me your reasons why God is a fantasy to you?
Quite simply, I have yet to see argument or evidence that indicates otherwise. All I have heard and seen falls into error, subjective opinion, or unproven assumption. While there are indeed arguments based on propositions that I cannot refute, neither can I find a reason to believe to believe those propositions are true.
~Raithere
