I don't believe anything, but I see no reason to think that isn't possible. There's much about this subject that even top scientists don't understand. What I do believe is nobody should feel confident about it either way based on intuition or philosophical arguments based on intuition. Human intuition is demonstratably unreliable.
Predictable heh? I especially like the part, "god of the gaps fallacy. we could in principal discover how to do it at any time." Do we have a contender about become the first? I presume the use of "we" implies some knowledge of the possible genius. I sure as hell don't know of anyone on the verge of filling in for the creator.
Ha! I love the way you set aside Kurt Gödel's work. Have you read any of his work? I suggest his theory of Incompleteness, your arguments certainly resemble the idea..
I have no idea if the universe is infinite, but Dr. Michio Kaku's podcast for last week was on two subjects, the beginning of man, and more related to this discussion, the history of theories building up to the Big Bang. You can find it on iTunes. But one interesting part was prior to the Big Bang theory, there was a paradox that many scientists struggled with, that the universe was infinite, yet when you look into he nights sky you see black, with scattered stars, instead of pure white light that would be emanating from infinite stars eventually filling the entire sky like sand on a beach. But once the Big Bang was realized, it was noted that the universe has been expanding for 13.6billion years. But light from much of the universe couldn't have reached us yet. So the universe may be infinite, but it does not appear so because we only see areas of which the light has had time to reach us. If I am not explaining it well, take a listen to the podcast, it's well worth a listen.
I was responding to the claim that almost no cosmologists think a multiverse is possible. Obviously many (probably most) do. Gödel's incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with the big bang, abiogenesis or other specific empirical topics. Also Gödel himself was predisposed to theism and tended to compartmentalized that part of his thinking as many smart people do.
There is no evidence life requires a creator, so no reason to presume one "until proven otherwise". That's overtly god of the gaps. Neither one of us knows how life started. You are the one pretending to do so, not me. I don't know. There may have been intelligence involved. There may just as easily be some natural god-free mechanism for abiogenesis we have yet to discover.
Actually there is evidence. Life needs life to create life. Everything that is living needed living cells to create it. Show me one instance where science observed life coming from non life? The actual observation is that life cannot exist unless life creates it. Show me the empirical evidence of when this hasn't happened? Don't say we can't because we need billions of years and shit. That is a theory that can't be observed then; which is an ideology of faith. No different than the Christian that believes in a God you cannot see:
There isn't much of a gap in the truth of creation. We observe this on a daily bases. A seed is need to grow a plant. The womb is needed for a baby to be born. Bacteria needs other cells to reproduce. Any living thing alive today all requires life for their survival. The biggest gap is science of the gaps. They put faith that life can exist without life creating it and can't prove it with observation. They use theory and suspect that everyone needs to agree because you cannot believe a creator had something to do with it.
scientists don't believe in a creator because there is no evidence for one. also, although there's no reason to think so, if it happened to be true that natural abiogenesis is impossible how do you know life hasn't always existed continually seeding more life as the natural state of an infinite universe? no need for a creator in that scenario, so that's one (of many) alternate hypothesis you'd have to disprove to validate "life requires a creator".
You keep bringing that up; yet these very same scientist believe in things they cannot observe like the first self replicating molecule manifesting from non life. Your belief is just as "faith driven" as those that belief in a creator. You can say I don't know therefor I have an agnostic view on it. Yet you boast an opinion that a christian or any theist, for that matter are flawed because they put faith in something that they cannot physically observe. If you do not believe a creator does not exist, then you believe life happens by chance. That there is no purpose for this universe. And with that ideology; you accept that chance brought about life. So even admitting "I don't know, therefor I have justification not to belief" is about as justified as thinking a square can fit into a circle hole. You've admitted that you believe in Darwin to a full extent. That you do believe this life we live was merely chance; yet you care not to prove it. It's called being passive.
What's getting boring is how you think you are rational; yet you've wrote nothing to prove your rationale. I admit I am bias. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and he is God. I believe I will not worry about death or any negativity in this world because I don't have to. Christ made that possible. You only have proven to me that you are bias, but you are trying to put this "I am unbiased" cloak over you. Problem is; it only hides what's on your outside. You are still bias and hardened to your own faith.
Life doesn't happen by chance. Try to comprehend what he's posted. We have clear evidence of broth, chicken, vegetables, noodles, and seasonings without any need for intelligent design or a creator. We have chicken soup in all it's glory. All of this with 100% certainty. God of the gaps says we didn't see the ingredients assembled to make the soup that leprechauns made the soup. Regardless of the fact there is not one shred of evidence that leprechauns actually exist.
Funny you talk about chicken soup like that. You still need the chef in all of its glory to make it! I've never seen chicken soup be made by chance, have you?
