A short while ago I was contacted by a Youtube user who asked “Does science prove God?“. He has graciously replied to my post:
Hello Askegg.
Thank you for your reply.First I would like to say that I really dont care much for your immortal soul, thats your business.
Can you feel the love? If I knew people were destined for ever lasting torture I would spend a lot of time trying to prevent it. Why are some Christians so uncaring about these things?
If you dont know who Jesus is by now than youve probably been living in a hole.
Of course I have heard of Jesus, but I see no reason to believe the stories about him.
I am not trying to push my faith on you. I have just been looking for scientific minded people to review my paper and find any holes I have not seen. I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply, but more so the politeness of you response.
I am not always polite – depends on my mood when replying to these things.
1. My first reference to the universe was intended to be metaphorical to all mater and energy in existence. I can understand how it was confusing and will change it. I was also trying to introduce my thesis, the idea that if you go far enough back something had to be created somehow.
There’s the flaw in your argument. There is no reason to assume that anything was originally created. If you are going to posit a deity to create the universe, then you must explain why this deity is immune to creation. Just saying something is uncreated does not make it so.
Also, if there is a causal chain (which seems to be the case in our universe), then saying something outside it “caused” the universe makes no sense. God created IS a causal event, and it makes just as much sense to say “God did not create” if there is no causal chain.
Moreover, if one thing can exist outside of space/time then how many others things can?
2. As to the idea that an intelligent creator being able to explain himself to us; I merely intended to show that we were (in some form) created by something. I never meant to express omnipotence. But for argument sake, in defense of an omnipotent force I dont know if it would want us to understand everything.
3. The eye. Given enough time any mutation is possible. But even when striped down to the most basic components necessary to function the random mutation of any eye is so improbable, as to be considered impossible, especially with how early on in life existence it appears.
I think you are proposing a fully formed eye forming from nowhere in a single mutation – this is certainly not the case. Small incremental improvements are made, each serving its owner just a little better than its competitors. Individuals with this mutation have a slightly higher probability of survival and will be “selected for”. Natural selection in action.
The order of evolution does not follow any predetermined plan, so the assertion of “since eyes appeared early they are impossible” is highly inaccurate.
Also, you say events that are improbable are impossible. Again, this is clearly not true. Even improbable things will happen given enough time (provided the laws of nature allow them).
4. Abiogenesis: if you have any information regarding evidence of abiogenesis occurring more than once, I would be very grateful for the information.
Abiogenesis is still an emergent field, but there is no reason to believe that if life can start once it could not start again or simultaneously.
