🙏 Life after death? ✨

from the very beginning, Genesis recounts the creation of the world. To summarize: 6 days of work for God and then a well-deserved day of rest for our creator.

Yes, and you want to know something amazing? We are made in His image: One day of rest is scientifically proven to be vital for the overworked and burned‐out😊

Which version of creation do you believe in, Follower-of-Christ: Instantaneous or immensely long? The question is actually quite simple.

Obviously I do not expect to change your perspective (only God can do that), but if you truly did read the Bible and its entirety, you would find that God does not experience time in the way we do.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

‐ 2 Peter 3:8

However, my personal opinion (since you've asked for it), based on the research I have done, does support the instantaneous. I'm fairly certain that is remains the general understanding of how the universe started, even within the atheistic religion.

God bless you and give you peace. I pray knowledge and wisdom never escape you. In Jesus' name. Amen♥

It seems that we agree on treating each other decently and with respect as regards different personal beliefs and convictions Azryffel. No further additions needed on that part.

One possible erratum: I have never said or suggested that I do not believe in an afterlife because I find the thought uncomfortable. I just do not believe in an afterlife and find any evidence presented for that narrative - including as stated in this forum chain - unconvincing. That is my personal belief which may naturally differ from that of others. See further my previous note for background and context.

Whether science has proven the absence or existence of an afterlife is a highly contentious matter. I do not believe that there is at this stage - also noting science is not static but is evolving and will likely continue to share that characteristic as long as the human race roams the Earth - a communis opinion or even a prevailing view on this matter. For anybody who wishes to engage that topic: there is a lot available in scientific discourse which is impossible to replicate or properly summarize in a single forum thread of a penpal site. This is not to suggest that anybody who makes an effort does so in vain - quite the opposite - but I choose to spend my sparse time on holiday on our itinerary for tomorrow.

Having said that I will at some point in time read the sources mentioned by you in one of the posts above and will do so with a willing mind. However, I must admit that I have several other works on top of my reading list - including a unique work of a chap named Dante who had some heartache to voice over his ‘second deity’ in life: Beatrice - the flight back home should provide sufficient time!

One possible erratum: I have never said or suggested that I do not believe in an afterlife because I find the thought uncomfortable.

I didn't mean that as being you, that was just a general example. Sorry if that didn't come out clearly

Having said that I will at some point in time read the sources mentioned by you in one of the posts above and will do so with a willing mind. However, I must admit that I have several other works on top of my reading list - including a unique work of a chap named Dante who had some heartache to voice over his ‘second deity’ in life: Beatrice - the flight back home should provide sufficient time!

Reading time is limited, I know that it's fine even if one never gets around to it. But if one doesn't take the time to read, then one can't make claims based on the text either

Science of course, if it works properly, changes its views and theories as new information becomes available. That said, it is entirely possible that no matter how long science continues, some questions might never have a definitive answer. And that's fine too. Yet, while there is no definitive answer - and we can also argue if it is possible to have such a thing as a definitive answer - all theories hold equal footing. =)

No need to apologize! You've been one of the more respectful of the bunch, @Azryffel. I've appreciated your honest exchanges here.

But to the point of "science" (a term often used willynilly), I think it may be helpful for some to grasp the true definitions of things.

The scientific method consists of 7 steps: observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, and conclusion.

If all works properly, we will come to an accurate conclusion. Whereas improper/inaccurate "science" results in flawed theory and views, meaning the approach in understanding a process must change. The more advanced the question, the more often scientists are wrong, but there are indeed definitive truths ‐ it is simply a matter of discovering them.

And of course all humans who hold theories are respected, but even the very phrase "hold equal footing" implies there are better locations to rest our feet😊

Love y'all! And so does Jesus Christ🤗

Azryffel: in our family reading time takes a prominent spot. Limitation in time can be a problem, but the bigger issue is consistency of allotting daily when submerging yourself in any volume. After finishing La Vita Nuova I will first - finally - turn my attention to The Buddenbrooks. That should be an interesting classic for May. Hopefully, you have some time available this month to find some time to read a book that appeals to you.

Follower of Christ, your faith is certainly very strong, but I have the impression that it prevents you from reasoning soundly. Taking the Bible as a scientific reference doesn't seem like a good idea; fortunately, you don't seem dangerous. I'm going to disappoint you by telling you once again that no, God did not create the world in six days. Even saying that for God, a day is equivalent to a thousand years is still insufficient to grasp the timescale of the creation of the Universe. Six days would therefore be equivalent to only six thousand years for God? We are still very far from fourteen billion years. So, if you believe in Genesis, the rest of the absurdities and falsehoods written there are, for you, the truth. This means that for you, God decrees that there must be light after creating the earth and the heavens, separating the waters above and below, and creating celestial bodies to determine days and years. Of course, after creating living species without regard for evolution, he creates man from clay and gives him a wife made from a rib of the first man. I conclude that you also believe that a single couple could have generated humanity? That's obviously false. Yets millions of people believe that. Religion is a powerful means of stupefying people. Some Christians interpret this at least as a parable, but you see it as absolute truth, even though this nonsense has long been debunked. That's why I can't take such a book seriously. Why would the promises of eternal life in paradise be any more true than anything else? The most logical conclusion is that after our life on Earth, we will be where we were before, which is to say, nowhere. Perhaps some vestiges of our existence will remain, but in a few billion years, even the Earth will disappear, and a few billion billion years later, the entire Universe will too. All for nothing? Unfortunately, this remains a possibility, but you never know; perhaps a superior intelligence behind all this has something in store for us? But in any case, it cannot be as ignorant as the God of the Bible.

@anil, I realize the days are far spent...I do not hold all the time as God does. Even so, I cannot but speak of the things which I have seen and heard! Oh, how a part of me wishes the thing people demand ‐ more evidence, more miracles, etc. would convince the world of the truth. But as Jesus said, and as you may have witnessed yourself, people choose to believe the things they do, and so often in spite of truth, because we have been sold the lie, "do what thou will" (satanic motto).

he creates man from clay

Dirt, to be precise: "God formed Man out of dirt from the ground". All scientific data appears to be in agreement here : ‐ )

My response to the people who say we are related to apes is, we are a 90% match to worms, and pigs, too. Just because two things are made up of the same material, doesn't make them the origin of eachother. If I make a cup and a plate from the same clay, telling me the cup made the plate would be rather absurd!

and gives him a wife made from a rib of the first man.

I sincerely pray you research it yourself, but a resounding🇾‌🇪‌🇸! Scientists have discovered that the rib is home to a rare population of Sox9+ messenger cells that are responsible for the rib's unique regenerative properties. In fact, for surgeries requiring bone grafts, doctors frequently use ribs now as they have the ability to grow back when taken out.

I conclude that you also believe that a single couple could have generated humanity?

Population growth statistics and mathematical models show that two people can reach billions in just a few thousand years ‐ to boot, the generations actually line up perfectly with the first couple !

The sad truth about the atheist religion is that it cannot be logically and rationally lived out. If we were just blobs of primordial soup, then morality shouldn't matter, and we shouldn't pay any mind to the wickedness of eugenics because, "it's evolution, survival of the fittest, baybee!" When we see crime, we cannot sit idly by and say with a straight face that the evil guy is doing what his natural urges tell him to do. We have standards, morals, a conscience (AKA God's Law written on our hearts), obviously whacking a watermelon is different than whacking a human, so we throw his rear in prison because he knew this moral law just as we do.

Dear friend, I believe you have a sound mind. I believe you are intelligent and capable of reason. I believe your questions are neither "gotcha" or vain. That is the reason I've decided to take the time to write this. Because I love you, and want you too to experience the love of God.

I will address your billion year old earth belief briefly with a few more points:

• I do ɴᴏᴛ think the world was created in 7 human days

• the Bible verse I shared as an ᴇxᴀᴍᴘʟᴇ of how time is to God

• I ᴅᴏ think the earth is younger than even one million years

Why? To tell you the truth, there are too many reasons to count! Dating (carbon in particular) is hilariously unreliable and dependent on ideal conditions (funny "fact" they used to tell us back in the day: stalactites and stalagmites taking millions of years...meanwhile our 100 year ol' reclining Abe memorial has already accrued several), the lack of adequate "in‐between" fossils (evolution over kabillions of years leaves more than enough material, and yet, no cat‐dogs, bull‐deer or bird‐lizards. No animal kind can breed with another because they are not from each other), genetic corruption (proof we are NOT evolving for the better, rather we are cursed to death by our sin), layers within massive craters like the Grand Canyon do not need millions of years to form (happens on impact and water erosion), manmade diamonds with simple heat and pressure (HPHT) disprove the billion‐year requirement, evidence of micro rather than macro evolution (animals adapting, not morphing into another animal kingdom‐ hence you won't find a monke or dog doing your taxes), etc.

Whoops! I could go on, but that'd make this ramble a whole lot ramblier😂

I suppose the takeaway is both of our conclusions about Creation are theories, and you may trust your books over The Book, however if I knew about it as a skeptic, I would be inclined to lend an ear to the world's bestseller of all time!

perhaps a superior intelligence behind all this has something in store for us? But in any case, it cannot be as ignorant as the God of the Bible.

There is much hatred in the world for the Christian God, but the Bible speaks of a different ignorance ‐ another god:

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." ‐ Corinthians 4:4

May the Lord Jesus Christ grant you a new heart with new desires that love goodness and light rather than darkness. Amen.

That's quit easily - that's our children, there is a part of us in them, and that is our life after death.

More than just that, @Ivanovae ! When we dePART, the flesh is left to die, while the true essence of who we are (the soul) lives on forever. Whether we choose darkness (sin and life apart from God = AKA permanent life apart/eternal torment) or Light (God) is up to us now, in this very day and hour.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." ‐ Hebrews 9:27

"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." ‐ 1 Corinthians 6:9

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." ‐ Romans 6:23

Pick up your cross, follow Him♥

The scientific method consists of 7 steps: observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, and conclusion.

If all works properly, we will come to an accurate conclusion. Whereas improper/inaccurate "science" results in flawed theory and views, meaning the approach in understanding a process must change. The more advanced the question, the more often scientists are wrong, but there are indeed definitive truths ‐ it is simply a matter of discovering them.

That's the point, we might not know that our current understanding of any given phenomenon is correct. In science, there is no such thing as forever true. Everything is just hypothesis and drafts of reality. Accuracy improves with more research. It is also part of scientific thinking to accept that we may never be able to explain everything or anything completely. A lot of people fail to see how incomplete the picture science paints of the world actually is. Most ranches of scientific knowledge are still in their infancy and have only scraped the surface.

I find the problem with science is that too many who claim to be scientists actually aren't. They have decided what things are true and then they try to disregard proof that does not fit their idea of what the end result should be. Then there are brilliant ones, of course, LIke Rupert Sheldrake who actually delve into these matters with curiosity and passion. His books are brilliant too, if someone is looking for interesting reading. =)

That's quit easily - that's our children, there is a part of us in them, and that is our life after death.

Well said and fully agree with this statement. And it is a joy to witness in close proximity on a daily basis! No other life experience can compete with that - at least in my opinion.

@Azryffel, your curiosity is infectious! Loved reading your thoughts (and will likely read the author recommendation, thank you)♥

To your point though, I think we do base our scientific endeavors on what one might call a "forever truth"... I'd even go as far as to say the pursuit itself ‐ the desire to understand, to discover ‐ is based on the belief that we CAN know, hence we try (random thought: Science comes from the root Latin word "scire". In other words, "to know")😊

Studies and expirements explained by atheists often amuse me, especially those involving genetics, as there is a sort of nearsightedness regarding how data is looked at. The way DNA (and the whole of the universe) is made reveals a careful order, with rules and laws capable of being both read and understood. The fact this is even possible ought to make the inherent design very evident to the reader! DNA is known as a code, which is by definition an intelligent system with the purpose of communicating a message. Codes are not random, and just as learning a language allows you to understand and read from it, so too does learning the laws of our universe. To put it simply, if language had no meaning or design, you could not read or understand it. The same is true for God's Creation.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ‐ Galileo Galilei

Studies and expirements explained by atheists often amuse me, especially those involving genetics, as there is a sort of nearsightedness regarding how data is looked at. The way DNA (and the whole of the universe) is made reveals a careful order, with rules and laws capable of being both read and understood. The fact this is even possible ought to make the inherent design very evident to the reader! DNA is known as a code, which is by definition an intelligent system with the purpose of communicating a message. Codes are not random, and just as learning a language allows you to understand and read from it, so too does learning the laws of our universe. To put it simply, if language had no meaning or design, you could not read or understand it. The same is true for God's Creation.

How about God creating very simple rules that, when intertwined, can produce much more complex systems rather than making him intervene in the middle to make a work that seems rather questionable in terms of effficiency? On my part, I find this much more impressive, given the chaos and countless outcomes you can get by slightly changing initial conditions of a system.

The code you mention is essentially a metaphore used in biology to make it simpler to imagine, but it's always arising from more "primitive" rules of chemistry and, even earlier, physics.

More than that, I believe we are here mixing the territory of science and the one of religion by mixing the "how" and the "why". That said, I would have never get closer to religious belief with an engineering God coding like a dork, I find it slightly reductant...

How about God creating very simple rules

Despite what the untrained eye might think, the systems in place are actually extraordinarily intricate, even down to the cell and molecule. Scientists are discovering more and more detail in His design 🙂

that, when intertwined, can produce much more complex systems rather than making him intervene in the middle to make a work that seems rather questionable in terms of effficiency?

I believe I've mentioned this before, but the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The key word here is the beginning. He finished the work ‐ meaning the systems for sustainability are already in place.

The atheistic faith however, believes not in one miracle (like God creating), but a whole series of miracles ‐ something from nothing, order from randomness, life from non‐life...and we haven't even scratched the surface of how vastly impossible it would be for us to come about along every step of the way. It is more outlandish to me than if someone claimed a toddler could slap a keyboard with a towel and write up three volumes of American History!

The code you mention is essentially a metaphore

It is actually a description, and of a real system! Put into place by an intelligent mind.

To give you an example,

let's say the words you are reading now were NOT written by a thinking brain. But then you realise they would be jibberish, without meaning or readability. It'd look something like, "sgishefaufxejtbaryebvxo". And to say that lacks a mind would be a stretch too, because the very letters themselves were designed!

I hope you see where I am coming from, and why all the greatest founding scientists and philosophers who observed Creation found God to be the One responsible for it all.

Ah it's foolish to be so proud to believe that ADHD keyboard warriors like us could think more deeply on questions we merely ponder in passing, while the giants before us devoted their hearts, minds and entire lives to such studies.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." ‐ Issac Newton

Despite what the untrained eye might think, the systems in place are actually extraordinarily intricate, even down to the cell and molecule. Scientists are discovering more and more detail in His design 🙂

You can't come with condescending "untrained eye" to justify your belief and support it with "there is complexity, thus it supports design". This, and the way the sentence was cut, shows a clear misunderstanding of my previous statement and how simple rules can give birth to very complex systems. This is a twist.
Moreover and like I said, this sounds like a rather reductant view of a tinker God who could not define all initial parameters, making an initial flawed desiggn that needs to adjust his creation later on, like a mechanic on an engine.

Science favours the principle of parsimony, the most elegant and least cost path as explanation for how things are. An intelligent Design, especially in biology where neo-darwinism explains biological complexity emerges fairly well already, is far from being the parsimonious idea. It doesn't say anything about the existence of a God or the origin of life, let's this be clear, but the "how" question has a reasonable explanation.

The atheistic faith however, believes not in one miracle (like God creating), but a whole series of miracles ‐ something from nothing, order from randomness, life from non‐life...and we haven't even scratched the surface of how vastly impossible it would be for us to come about along every step of the way. It is more outlandish to me than if someone claimed a toddler could slap a keyboard with a towel and write up three volumes of American History!

There is a contradiction in mentioning that Christianism needs one miracle only while saying that God needed to "finish the work"; that implies several miracles.
Furthermore, limiting all the contradictory views to yours as "atheistic" won't strenghten your point, for a bunch of theists themselves also embrace different conceptions of God, just like the one I previously mentioned.

Taking the risk of repeating myself: complexity can emerge from simplicity. The very evidence of that in your daily life is that you can make gastonomic cuisine with the same rules you use to make boiled potatoes only. More scientifically, the theor of Evolution or just Chaos Theory show that very well and are very imaged.

Something important to notice here, since I strongly suspect it is the case: randomness isn't how things work in evolution/biology. You can also be deterministic to the extreme and still not call for intervention of God to explain biological complexity or the state of the Universe. In fact, this is very much my own case in Evolution.

It is actually a description, and of a real system! Put into place by an intelligent mind.

To give you an example,

let's say the words you are reading now were NOT written by a thinking brain. But then you realise they would be jibberish, without meaning or readability. It'd look something like, "sgishefaufxejtbaryebvxo". And to say that lacks a mind would be a stretch too, because the very letters themselves were designed!

No, no, it's a metaphore, the real system is a chain of nucleotides that obey to biochemichal rules, themselves following physical rules. There is no such thing as an obscure code behind DNA and a good hint of that is how some nucleotides can potentially be replaced...

To give you an example;
When you put your hand on fire, heat energy is transferred to your hand, hydrogen bonds weakens and end up breaking, whereas enzymes reach a temperature under which they stop functionning properly: proteins start to unfold. Heat will evaporate water, increase the pressure within your cells and tissues making cells probably explode and your tissues get damaged,; later, your skin will adopt a delicious smell of pork, alongside a grilled bbq coloration.

No code needed, no design at this stage (just like at DNA stage), just simple physical and chemical reactions leading to a complex disaster I barely started to scratch explaining.

I hope you see where I am coming from, and why all the greatest founding scientists and philosophers who observed Creation found God to be the One responsible for it all.

Ah it's foolish to be so proud to believe that ADHD keyboard warriors like us could think more deeply on questions we merely ponder in passing, while the giants before us devoted their hearts, minds and entire lives to such studies.

That's cherry picking mixed with call to authority and historical bias. As far as I notice, a vast part of the scientific community is irrelegious nowaday. As a personal experience, I also have met more people losing their faith than gaining it...

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." ‐ Issac Newton

This refers to previous scientists setting the stepping stone for Newton's discovery, but careful with the giants, because when you can very much find any dead good scientist or philosopher to justify your point of view. I could very well quote Laplace to say how God is not a needed hypothesis here. (which is also why I suggested another belief in my previous statement; God setting initial conditions in such a way that the world as we know emerges; thhis is, however, only a belief , which I myself subscribe to, and not any proof of existence).
I feel forced to specify that it doesn't dismiss the existence of God; it's just not necessary to explain some things (could have used Dawkins else...)

Again, here, I think there is a lot of "why" mixing with "how", creating further misunderstandings. Here, you ask "why complexity?", whereas "how complexity?" is a question one can answer.

You can't come with condescending "untrained eye" to justify your belief and support it with "there is complexity, thus it supports design".

Dear friend, I did not mean to condescend. If I did, I apologize. When I speak of the untrained eye, I am referring to even my own. Perhaps I should have said "naked eye", but some complexity can be seen, so I did not.

As for the entirety of my belief being hinged on the complexity of God's design ‐ this is simply not true. It would be like reducing your belief to "there is complexity, thus it supports uncomplicated undesign."

There is evidence beyond complexity: physical, moral, philosophical, etc. I have mentioned several in my previous posts.

This, and the way the sentence was cut, shows a clear misunderstanding of my previous statement and how simple rules can give birth to very complex systems.

I'm not sure if you read on after the first misunderstanding, but that was one of the full sentences I actually included! Normally I will not quote the entire thing, rather a reference to it, so the person I'm talking to understands what is being referenced, but I liked the spark of enthusiasm.

As for the "simple rules" ‐ I have a question for you: what do you believe a "rule" is? I understand it as an authoritative direction for conduct (governed by an entity more complex than the thing created). An example: 8 men on a field want to enjoy the grass. If all of them decided to do so on their own, we would have chaos. But the invention of a set of rules (which came from the unknowably complex mind) brought about Football.

It doesn't say anything about the existence of a God or the origin of life, let's this be clear, but the "how" question has a reasonable explanation.

Yes, and because your faith, belief and theories regarding this follow modern darwinianism, the logical and reasonable answer I offer (A Creator) will likely not be considered.

There is a contradiction in mentioning that Christianism needs one miracle only while saying that God needed to "finish the work"; that implies several miracles.

Oh no, just one. If an intelligent entity created the universe, it easily explains all the impossibly improbable steps to our development along the way. Rather than everything coming from nothing, an Intelligent Creator designed it. Instead of miraculously developing over billions of years from a tadpole ‐ that Creator made us from dirt (and scientists discovered we are in fact made of dirt!).

In the words of a famous atheist: "the essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale" To that I say, without a Creator, yes.

Don't get me wrong though, the Christian life is a miracle daily. The fact God could love and transform a wretched thing like me is beyond my understanding☺

Taking the risk of repeating myself: complexity can emerge from simplicity. The very evidence of that in your daily life is that you can make gastonomic cuisine with the same rules you use to make boiled potatoes only. More scientifically, the theor of Evolution or just Chaos Theory show that very well and are very imaged.

I disagree, as I only know the opposite to be so. But what you said about creating cuisine was an excellent observation! Many atheists cannot believe we are made from the same material without coming from each other. Clearly, a chef can take the same two ingredients in differing ratios to make unique meals (no, the spaghetti did not come from the meatball, just as hamsters did not come from the amoeba kekek).

You can also be deterministic to the extreme and still not call for intervention of God to explain biological complexity or the state of the Universe.

Don't you ever look at your life and wonder why you are living? Why you have a heart? One of the biggest issues I have with atheism is the lack of moral responsibility that entails. If we are just blobs of evolved soup, why should we care if someone is stabbed? If truth is relative, I could live life my way, you live life yours. But no, God gave us a heart, a working mind, a conscience.

God's intervention is unnecessary as He has put the laws in place already, including the moral law written on our hearts. Jumping out a window results in splat, and in the same vein, breaking the law rightly condemns you to prison. All have sinned and broken God's law, all rightly deserve justice for it. But Jesus Christ came to take our place, pay our fines and suffer for us on the cross. All we have to do is repent (turn from the stuff we know is morally wrong) and trust in Jesus. God cannot lie, and His promise is everlasting life with a new heart with new desires that love Goodness and Light rather than darkness. I pray you will think about this soberly and come to know Christ. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen

When you put your hand on fire, heat energy is transferred to your hand, hydrogen bonds weakens and end up breaking, whereas enzymes reach a temperature under which they stop functionning properly: proteins start to unfold. Heat will evaporate water, increase the pressure within your cells and tissues making cells probably explode and your tissues get damaged,; later, your skin will adopt a delicious smell of pork, alongside a grilled bbq coloration.

Love the nerding out! And yes, this is part of the many laws God has put into effect. These physical and chemical reactions you describe are simply observations of a process, not an origin, motivating force, or reason for them.

thhis is, however, only a belief , which I myself subscribe to, and not any proof of existence

We agree here. However, one could go as far as to claim there are no proofs that I exist! Who's to say I'm not just a bad dream you're having?

Of course we are thinking, rational beings as well as compassionate. You are not a blob of worthless mush Lianshen. I value you as a beautiful person made in the image of God. You are loved greatly♥

Again, your response shows clear misunderstanding of what I was sharing, notably on science and evolution, so I will just quickly reply:

As for the "simple rules" ‐ I have a question for you: what do you believe a "rule" is?

I mentionned example with the Theory of Evolution and Chaotic Theory. Football sounds like a rather shaky analogy. I also will repeat: you are blending "how" and "why" here again.

Yes, and because your faith, belief and theories regarding this follow modern darwinianism, the logical and reasonable answer I offer (A Creator) will likely not be considered.

This is the most revealing sentence I think. It shows that you have completely put aside what I explicited and that you have a bias on evolution. Darwin himself mentioned, very fairly, that the theory of Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive; it just isn't needed to reflects the evolution of life. I won't blame anybody on that or misunderstanding the mechanisms of Evolution though, for apparently this is not intuitive (and what students are taught in middle/high school i really poor).

Again, how and why.

Oh no, just one. If an intelligent entity created the universe, it easily explains all the impossibly improbable steps to our development along the way. Rather than everything coming from nothing, an Intelligent Creator designed it. Instead of miraculously developing over billions of years from a tadpole ‐ that Creator made us from dirt (and scientists discovered we are in fact made of dirt!).

2 things;
- No, using a miracle to explain other so called miracles is not just 1

- You are caricaturing science when it doesn't go your way and then trying to use it to support your point. Please, be consistent with other people.

Also no, no consensus on how or why life appeared in science...

Don't you ever look at your life and wonder why you are living? Why you have a heart? One of the biggest issues I have with atheism is the lack of moral responsibility that entails. If we are just blobs of evolved soup, why should we care if someone is stabbed? If truth is relative, I could live life my way, you live life yours. But no, God gave us a heart, a working mind, a conscience.

Irrelevant and caricatural. This doesn't look like simple misunderstanding anymore...

God's intervention is unnecessary as He has put the laws in place already, including the moral law written on our hearts.

You preach interventionism through Design... Again, be consistent for what you describe was exactly the point I was mentioning in my initial post : setting the initial conditions at the begining => development with no need for intervention.

God cannot lie

People can.

Love the nerding out! And yes, this is part of the many laws God has put into effect. These physical and chemical reactions you describe are simply observations of a process, not an origin, motivating force, or reason for them.

One very last time; How and Why are different questions to respond for which there is a need to be a differentiation. I clearly separated them from post 1.


-----------


To end that more properly on my side:

You are curious it seems, it's good, but it feels like the curiosity has found one intuitive answer and doesn't expand to other explanations, but rather seeks to confirm them... That said, my point was to separate clearly 2 things too:

You have metaphysical questions, not scientific ones, hence your questions "why life", "why universe", "why complexity" should stay apart from science and not summon it since it tries to answer "how life (evolves, appears eventually for example)" , "how universe/galaxies form", "how complexity". Science does NOT address purpose; hence my correction on DNA as a "code" being essentially a metaphore and not carrying hidden meaning like a crypted book (it "simply" follows biochemichal rules, which is already a lot).

Those 2 types of questions are fundamentally differents. Although I oversimplified by saying why vs how questions; it's the ultimate purpose thhat is targeted here.

My first question on "how about a God" was meant to explore Creation with a different perspective. Since you like citing great philosopher and scientists, some of them also have pushed further away the idea of God : Marcus Aurelius like many Stoicians blend it with Nature, Spinoza seems to do the same; and Laplace is essentially an hardcore determinist and, to some extent, even Newton you mentionned earlier could be used to justify an idea of God as I described (that's why I called to be cautious with that too).

Yes, we are in agreement that "how" and "why" are different questions (though answering both requires a reasonable and rational mind). We also agree on evolutionary theory and God not being mutually exclusive ‐ I was simply sharing my take on it.

I do believe however, that it is a mistake to separate science and faith, as faith is a response to evidence ‐ essential to science (one must trust in rational intelligence to even make a scientific inquiry). The Bible says what many of the pioneers of modern science believed: that nature itself is evidence of God.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" ‐ Romans 1:20

Thoughts and prayers🤗