Well you said creating the universe is a pretty big deal, intimating that God creating the universe is an extraordinary claim. I’m just saying it is less extraordinary than abiogenesis.
The formation of all of creation, including all matter, energy and spacetime is necessarily more extraordinary than the conglomeration of a handful of
existing atoms into a self-replicating configuration.
The latter is a
subset of the former.
The universe can - and did - exist without life.
Life cannot - and did not - exist without the universe for it to exist in.
Of course it does!
Why wouldn’t it?
Sound vibration mobilising particles into geometric shapes is a well documented physical phenomenon. Why shouldn’t it be a consideration for how God created the universe?
That's a rationalization. Once again, it is not a phenomenon that rules out natural physics and rules in God. You are just preferring one explanation over the other.
Maybe so, but it makes for interesting conversation, and is also very challenging g. I bet you’ve not had a Christian on here talking about sound vibration.
Talking about the Bible is not interesting.
At the very least, it falls into the very weak category of evidence. if not completely dismissable. It is too full falsehoods and self-contradictions to have anything in it taken seriously.
I think that is pretty strong evidence.
You are welcome to. But it's woefully inadequate for anyone who doesn't presuppose its truthiness.
Why would you think it is wishful thinking?
Read what you wrote:
"Think what a being like God could do with sound."
I can "think about" what a unicorn could do with a bolt of purple satin, but that too is wishful thinking.
Are you suggesting sound vibrations instantly mobilising particles into perfect geometric shapes, or altering the flow of water particles is not ordinary?
I am not saying anything about that at all.
Physics is a fascinating subject. what is has to do with God is a case you still have yet to make.
I have got right to the heart of the matter we are discussing.
No, you have got to the heart of your diversion.
I've given you some free rein, with the expectation that it will give you room to provide your evidence of God. Now it's time to do so.
You should learn from me,
I haven't learned anything new that I didn't learn from you ten years ago.
and start explaining your concept of God
I only have a concept of what
other people imagine it to be. And there are as many imaginative ideas as there are people on the planet. thjat; pretty damning in itself.
My personal concept of God is that it is likely a construct of superstitious minds, passing their superstition from generation to generation. We know for a fact that people do have superstitions, and the concept of a god is very consistent with human psychology. It just happens that bunch of us know that superstitions don't equal reality.
So there's mine. Where's yours?
and how you came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God,
To be clear: I have never said there is no evidence for God.
Evidence - its strength or weakness - is essentially in the eye of the beholder, for what is really a
philosophical question. (There is no objective right or wrong; there is only belief and argument).
For you, apparently, abiogenesis is evidence of God. You present that evidence to me as-such. The fact that it is easily dismissible (because abiogenesis has other explanations), doesn't mean it's not evidence - in your eyes - it just means it's dismissible evidence in the eyes of an objective person.
Maybe a primer in organic chemistry might go a ways to dispelling your incredulity about how lipids can naturally form water-repellent sacs that trap nutrients for consumption.
There are, by the way, self-replicating cycles in nature that have nothing to do with DNA. They are very simple. Just a few dozen atoms, and a short cycle of chemical reactions. The point being, self-replication is a very short jump from basic chemistry.
I can point you at them.
If you're interested in learning a bit.
and what evidence you would accept.
I have given an example several times of what I would seriously consider good evidence of God's exstence.
To be clear, it is not the
only evidence i would accept. I'm just pointing out that I can be convinced by, say, God showing up and doing God-like things in a objectively, repeatably, controlled way for all to examine.
That would make for a better conversation, instead of trying to catch me out all the time.
You wouldn't be constantly caught out if you didn't keep making claims you can't defend, dodging questions by responding with question instead of answers, and being infracted for calling people liars without any possible justification. You made made the bed you're lying in.
Now, I given you plenty of answers. Your turn.
- What is your idea of God, in your own words? I don't care about anyone's definition who isn't here to defend themselves.
- What evidence can you present that your God is anywhere but in your own imagination?
