Evidence for God from Science

Hello,

I was wondering if any of you had any thoughts on spontaneous creation. Hawking claims there is no need for a creator to "set the Universe going"

Here's a link for more details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

I like this article, it explains the whole issue thoroughly and in detail:
http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... g-bang.htm

Or, simply put by the author of our site:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/ha ... ssary.html

By the way, welcome to the forum, Mircea. Why don't you introduce yourself in the thread on the General Chit-Chat subforum?

Welcome also from me, Mircea.

You may be interested what Hawking said in his book:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p100026

P.S.: I also have not introduce myself in the subforum. Should I?

1over137 wrote:P.S.: I also have not introduce myself in the subforum. Should I?

No, you're familiar. You put a link to your own website and all.

Spontaneous creation seems rather "supernatural' doesn't it?
;P

PaulSacramento wrote:Spontaneous creation seems rather "supernatural' doesn't it?
;P

You're right, it seems. It isn't such, however. We're genetically preconditioned to believe in the supernatural because of survival advantages - i.e. harmony in tribes that evolved into what we know as social groups today. It's far from easy to break this delusion, but it's slowly becoming evident that the society is evolving to succeed in that feat, thus replacing the outdated concept of worshipping an invisible, bearded old man in the sky.

Just kidding, of course.

it seems it is pasteur rememberance that it has been proved that only life begets life[Pasteur] - twinc

twinc wrote:it seems it is pasteur rememberance that it has been proved that only life begets life[Pasteur] - twinc

Great scientists will be quoted only when their words are compatible with beliefs of the person quoting.

Reactionary wrote:

twinc wrote:it seems it is pasteur rememberance that it has been proved that only life begets life[Pasteur] - twinc

Great scientists will be quoted only when their words are compatible with beliefs of the person quoting.

guess you missed I said proved not believed - twinc

I missed a meeting, when was this proved?

Proinsias wrote:I missed a meeting, when was this proved?

it was not a meeting - it was a post,the one above - have a quick squint and absorb - twinc

I was under the impression Pasteur got rid of commonly held notions such as piles of rubbish produce rats. He didn't prove that only life can beget life he simply showed that the most probable explanation for new lifeforms was that they were descended from current lifeforms which seems fair enough to me, to extend that to all life on earth must have a living cause is well beyond the scope of Pasteur's experiments and to me rather lame as a proof that only life begets life.

Proinsias wrote:I was under the impression Pasteur got rid of commonly held notions such as piles of rubbish produce rats. He didn't prove that only life can beget life he simply showed that the most probable explanation for new lifeforms was that they were descended from current lifeforms which seems fair enough to me, to extend that to all life on earth must have a living cause is well beyond the scope of Pasteur's experiments and to me rather lame as a proof that only life begets life.

in the beginning "the Way,Truth and Life of the world created all life" - non has been or can be created in the Labs or anywhere else - twinc

I gather that's what you believe but saying that the way, truth and life of the world created all life isn't much of a proof in my book. It's an unprovable theological and philosophical position.

Creating life in labs doesn't really conflict with your stance, humans creating non-human life doesn't break your so called law of only life begetting life.

It seems you along with many other disagree with the idea of molecules to man, which is fair enough, but I'm not seeing much substance behind your particular claim.

It seems you along with many other disagree with the idea of molecules to man, which is fair enough, but I'm not seeing much substance behind your particular claim.

Proinsias, you're asking for a lot from twinc. He doesn't do "substance". He does dogmatism.