Post by Athans on Nov 20, 2014 4:42:34 GMT -6
The idea of a deistic god has been addressed in the First Mover thread, which makes an argument based on science and our knowledge of the Big Bang theory. That argument only addresses a deistic god, a non-personal god that can disobey the laws of nature. One may accept the possibility of a deistic god but what if I told you there is an argument for a theistic god?
Once again it comes down to science, or rather what science cannot answer.
We cannot scientifically answer how or why the Big Bang. The other major scientific question we cannot answer is the origin of life. There are several competing theories, but they are not actually scientific theories, they are hypothesizes. There is not a complete testable or observable scientific theory for the origin of life.
Many mistakenly believe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of life, it is not. Darwin’s theory is a theory about how life changed overtime and starts AFTER life already came into existence.
I will not get deep into the theories (I am going to use this term loosely,) unless someone wants to have that conversation, rather I will focus on the basics.
A couple of the leading theories are Panspermia and Abiogenesis.
These two really include all of the ideas. Abiogenesis is the theory that life originated from non-life. All of the theories, which do not include an intelligent creator, are based on this premise. The debate is exactly how.
Panspermia also holds weight because it suggests that life originated elsewhere, which means we would not know the conditions and could not test the conditions in which life arose.
The fact of the matter is we have failed to reproduce life in a lab setting. We have done as much as creating complex amino acids in a laboratory setting. For me personally, I can make the leap amino acids to say, the RNA world, which led to DNA and life. Based on what we know, I believe it is more likely that there is a natural answer to this question, that life arose from non-life.
That being said, we cannot prove that scientifically. It does leave the door open to argue that an intelligent designer was needed to fill in that final step we cannot fill in. As with the deistic god argument, I see no reason to inject a god or supernatural force. At the same time, it is not illogical. The argument is not any more illogical than an atheist claiming we know how life was created.
What is different about this argument is this would not be a deistic god, a simple First Mover, it would be a theistic god, one that is able to interact with or changes the natural laws. Once again, this is not necessarily an argument for the Christian God, but it is a valid reason for belief in a personal god.
Any comments or objections?
Once again it comes down to science, or rather what science cannot answer.
We cannot scientifically answer how or why the Big Bang. The other major scientific question we cannot answer is the origin of life. There are several competing theories, but they are not actually scientific theories, they are hypothesizes. There is not a complete testable or observable scientific theory for the origin of life.
Many mistakenly believe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of life, it is not. Darwin’s theory is a theory about how life changed overtime and starts AFTER life already came into existence.
I will not get deep into the theories (I am going to use this term loosely,) unless someone wants to have that conversation, rather I will focus on the basics.
A couple of the leading theories are Panspermia and Abiogenesis.
These two really include all of the ideas. Abiogenesis is the theory that life originated from non-life. All of the theories, which do not include an intelligent creator, are based on this premise. The debate is exactly how.
Panspermia also holds weight because it suggests that life originated elsewhere, which means we would not know the conditions and could not test the conditions in which life arose.
The fact of the matter is we have failed to reproduce life in a lab setting. We have done as much as creating complex amino acids in a laboratory setting. For me personally, I can make the leap amino acids to say, the RNA world, which led to DNA and life. Based on what we know, I believe it is more likely that there is a natural answer to this question, that life arose from non-life.
That being said, we cannot prove that scientifically. It does leave the door open to argue that an intelligent designer was needed to fill in that final step we cannot fill in. As with the deistic god argument, I see no reason to inject a god or supernatural force. At the same time, it is not illogical. The argument is not any more illogical than an atheist claiming we know how life was created.
What is different about this argument is this would not be a deistic god, a simple First Mover, it would be a theistic god, one that is able to interact with or changes the natural laws. Once again, this is not necessarily an argument for the Christian God, but it is a valid reason for belief in a personal god.
Any comments or objections?