I have read with interest the biological arguments from the expert(s) on here. All they amount to is some scientific god of the gaps.Really bad argument against god's existance.Yeah right you'll find the answer as to how life began.As if that would prove anything!What ? nature is God now? That is so laughable.Even if you found out whether some pre RNA or whatever did it you have to ask why the heck its there in the first place.nature is not all there is!There could be something more! Same old crap about not wanting there to be a God or even Judeo christian God-no way we couldnt have that now could we? You all upset now?. I dont call you fools but the scripture is clear-the fool in his heart says there is no God.

Science experts, I still dont see how you can argue from existing order back to a self replicating system of cells/proteins or whatever that came into existence by itself?Or maybe from another planet-yeah thatll do it.lol That puts the question back further-how the heck did the system arise and why is  there at all?Metaphysical questions guys. Loads of genetic fallacies on here explaining how it might have happened.They are irrelevant.God's existence does not depend on them.Get it straight!

And...... science experts, you still did NOT explain how the first self replicating systems emerged.Yes you argue from order which is very slippery of you.What? the intrinsic order just existed?Or did it begin to exist?sorry ,i am not really educated to understand.

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

1. St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
2. The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
3. The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.

A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.

Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.
 

The Teleological ArgumentThe teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

 

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."    Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument

Conclusion

Of course, these  proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.

Richard H,  ThD, M.ed, Dip. Phil. et artibus, H.Dip in Ed.,H.dip in Appplied info tech.

Welcome to the forum, Richard Head.

Um, lol, God of the gaps can't be an argument against God. Theists put God into the gaps of knowledge left by science. That's why it's called God of the gaps.

It would show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a precise natural explanation for the origin of life.

Obviously, but how do you know it's your God?

If that's what the evidence suggests, then sure.

No. You seem pretty bewildered and furious though.

Okay, dude.

I agree.

Actually, we've already worked out plausible processes by which this could have happened.

Define 'intrinsic order.'

Define 'faith.

Edit: I don't understand some of the abbreviations at the end of your post, but, so, you have college degrees? I would expect someone like you to at least be able to consistently construct grammatically correct sentences.

NASA Reproduces A Building Block Of Life In Laboratory

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the basic structure for uracil, part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is central to protein synthesis, but has many other roles.

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

Nuevo is the lead author of a new research paper in the journal Astrobiology.

NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer solar system for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been identified in meteorites, and are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are six-carbon ringed structures that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

Pyrimidine also is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

"Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat whimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don't have nitrogen," said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. "We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil."

In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from radiation destruction. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).

These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (approximately -- 340 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in water ice, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA component uracil, which is found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

"We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development," said Stefanie Milam, a researcher at NASA Ames and a co-author of the research paper.

"Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.

Additional team members who helped perform the research and co-author the paper are Jason Dworkin and Jamie Elsila, two NASA scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

The research was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) and the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program. NAI is a virtual, distributed organization of competitively-selected teams that integrates and funds astrobiology research and training programs in concert with the national and international science communities.

Did not say he had a definitive "I do not know" He suggested he had a possible explanations, which is all he needs to suggest that your explanation is not a necessity.

"Abductive necessity" is simply nonsense.

The proper and honest response to the absence of any satisfactory current evidence-based explanation for something is "we don't know".

Whatever the merits of the 'best' of a bunch of inadequate current explanations for something, there is no logical justification for declaring it "necessary".

If it has some slight predictive merit, ie it does seem to model some aspect of reality, we can use it to reduce some uncertainty, but that doesn't justify giving it any more status than its actual degree of match to reality justifies.

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved. I think everyone on this site could benefit from an introductory course in the philosophy of science. You could give yourselves a chance to learn about the problem of induction. You guys should read some Hume.

Who is to say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: you can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was not involved.

Regarding the 'problem of induction', the standard example of 'all swans are white ' is itself a caricature  of a serious empirical argument.

To be more realistic, it should include observations on related categories, such as how much, if any, variation in color is observed within other bird species, or within sets of closely related or otherwise very similar creatures.

Otherwise the conclusion amounts to the truism that 'all white swans are white'.

Philosophy is at least as likely to lead to error as truth. I used to be 'in to' philosophy, but have become progressively disenchanted the more I got to hear the nonsense that even 'famous' philosophers could come up with.

It is true that the more respectable and useful parts of philosophy are on the fringes of empirical disciplines, such as the philosophy of science, when used to extend speculation into regions beyond established areas of knowledge, and to comment on the methodology employed. The link to an actual field of research helps to keep the philosophy from going completely off into fantasy.

Moral philosophy also has value in what is inherently a subjective field.

EDIT: I have read Hume. I like him.

Welcome to your future.

 Bayesian logic has no "refining" powers of induction.  I think your knowledge of A (BL) is not an answer to B (your being bound to induction).  I think this is the problem with most natural isolated frameworks.  Recognition of your inductive behaviors and the subsequent dismissal because you have somehow evolved past its parameters is problematic.  You make choices in the deductive world, but those are unrelated to your inductive behaviors--you've conflated the two. 

Your statement about faith, revelation etc. and induction is begging.  They are the same, exactly.  Your induction has no validity any more than mine.  You just apply deductive principles to justify your inductive behavior (which is the real straw person).  

"All men are mortal" as P1.  When this was written, it was an inductive conclusion to demonstrate a deductive syllogism (no data, only experience).  

I do agree that Phil guy needs to do some more work.  

Yeah umm... I just wanted to steal some MSN smileys from RRS for windows live messenger; you may delete this now.

Bayes' Theorem specifically provides a more rigorous way to calculate, from the estimates of likelihood, of confidence, of all the relevant input data, the implied likelihood of any specific conclusion based on that data, so it most definitely helps us to refine the justifiable confidence in any conclusion we draw based on that data. Which is important when deriving conclusions from significantly uncertain or 'fuzzy' data.

It is not an 'answer' to anything as such, it is a tool to make more accurate estimates of the implications of the uncertainty in any of the input data to a some specific analysis.

I have already discussed the problem of induction.