The Mystery of Existence: Exploring the Concept of a Creator in Our Universe

[zoobyshoe]

When we get to where we can create a living thing of even the simplest form, then I will consider the question.

I don't pay much attention to biology research, but I'm pretty sure I heard something about them having created amino acids in the lab in a way that could happen by itself in nature, and that this was considered a breakthrough in understanding how life came about by itself.

Anyone know the details of this?

 

[Evo]

And there we are...
We have concrete evidence and explanation about many if not most our physical universe but we haven't got jack on a most basic thing, "life". So why not believe in a God? It at least gives an explanation or some reasoning to where science does not.

See the connection now?

No. Just because I don't know how something was made doesn't cause me to jump to the conclusion that the origins are supernatural.

 

[deckart]

OK ok ok. Here is a good question:

Is it scientifically wrong to believe in the supernatural? Actually, yes, there isn't any scientific evidence to suport the supernatural, the supernatural is just that, it defies the known laws of physics.

Is it wrong to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain some very basic questions about life?

I'm listening...

 

[zoobyshoe]

the supernatural is just that, it defies the known laws of physics.

The supernatural isn't one thing or another beyond being speculation.

Is it wrong to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain some very basic questions about life?

I would say it's a mistake, yes.

 

[Evo]

OK ok ok. Here is a good question:

Is it scientifically wrong to believe in the supernatural? Actually, yes, there isn't any scientific evidence to suport the supernatural, the supernatural is just that, it defies the known laws of physics.

Is it wrong to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain some very basic questions about life?

I'm listening...

I don't find anything wrong with believing in the supernatural as long as you don't hurt others. I just don't need to make up something to explain what I don't know yet. I can accept that I just don't know, no one does, it doesn't bother me.

 

[deckart]

It is a mistake to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain something that can easily be said is happening supernaturally (life)?

It cannot be reproduced by scientific means. I would go as far as to say that it never will.

I don't see how that could be called a mistake?

It's almost as if we are talking about two different things. The physical universe and something supernatural that operates within it (and must abide by physical laws).

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is a mistake to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain something that can easily be said is happening supernaturally?

Yes.

It cannot be reproduced by scientific means. I would go as far as to say that it never will.

Science couldn't do a lot of things yesterday it can do today, and for anything it can do today there was once a group of people saying it couldn't be done, ever.

How life happened to come about may not yet be understood, but that fact doesn't imply the supernatural explanation is the correct one. Someone may put the critical information together tomorrow, or in ten years, or in a hundred years. It's pretty nutty to think that all things not yet explained are due to supernatural causes. You've made some funny assumption about science being all done, and at the end of it's options.

 

[Evo]

It is a mistake to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain something that can easily be said is happening supernaturally (life)?

It cannot be reproduced by scientific means. I would go as far as to say that it never will.

Life was created through natural, not artificial means, there is no need for a supernatural creator. Why do we need to artificially create life? I guess if we could artificially create life, then we could say it's possible that some supernatural creature also artificially created life. I don't buy it, I believe we were created through a series of natural events.

 

[deckart]

Please, don't put words in my mouth, I never said that everything that can't be explained must be supernatural. That simply isn't a fair statement.

It is interesting that as soon as someone says they believe in a God they are immediately thrown into a stereotype.

Saying that life was created by any means at this point in time is simply speculation. Until it can reproduced in an experimental setting. Am I being fair?

 

[LeonhardEuler]

OK ok ok. Here is a good question:

Is it scientifically wrong to believe in the supernatural? Actually, yes, there isn't any scientific evidence to suport the supernatural, the supernatural is just that, it defies the known laws of physics.

Is it wrong to believe in the supernatural because science cannot explain some very basic questions about life?

I'm listening...

What do you mean by "supernatural"? The only reason things are called supernatural is because they don't generally happen. For years, blackbody radiation defied the laws of physics. Does that mean it was supernatural? No. It just meant the laws of physics were wrong, and they were changed. If life defied the laws of physics, which it does not so far appear that it does, then the laws of physics would have to change. Whatever happens in the world is natural, because in a broad sense of the word, the entire universe is nature. Science does not explain things fundamentally. It just describes. Physicists try to find simple rules to explain all phenomenon, but if these don't exist that does not imply the supernatural. It would just mean the universe is unpredictable, and that would be the way science should describe it.

 

[Evo]

Saying that life was created by any means at this point in time is simply speculation. Until it can reproduced in an experimental setting. Am I being fair?

I believe that life happened as a result of natural events. The series of events that caused life to first form may not be something that can be reproduced in a laboratory. Unless we were all created in a laboratory.

 

[deckart]

fair enough

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

i say God is a fairy tale

 

[Gokul43201]

Saying that life was created by any means at this point in time is simply speculation. Until it can reproduced in an experimental setting. Am I being fair?

I don't know about "fair", but it certainly isn't right to call it speculation.

Nobody has directly observed a superposition of states, as required by QM, but several good experiments have verified outcomes that result from such a superposition. Quantum Mechanics, by your criteron, would be pure speculation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nobody has directly observed a superposition of states

Try arguing with Tsu.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Please, don't put words in my mouth, I never said that everything that can't be explained must be supernatural. That simply isn't a fair statement.

You didn't say it, you implied it, by coming to that conclusion about life. If it's not a mistake to conclude life was supernaturally created because science can't explain it, why should it be otherwise for anything else science can't explain?

It is interesting that as soon as someone says they believe in a God they are immediately thrown into a stereotype.

What was the stereotype?

Saying that life was created by any means at this point in time is simply speculation.

This seems to be completely different than your argument that since science can't explain life, it must have been created by God. Have you changed your stance?

 

[deckart]

Yeah. I'm wrong. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah. I'm wrong. Don't know what I was thinking.

well come on, you post that in a physics forum. What kind of a response did you expect?