********

Your argument is also well reasoned and spot on about the existence of the creator being a metaphysical argument. However Grugore's post was not pertinent to who or what created our universe, instead it was a reasoned proof that life could not have arisen from the primordial soup through random chance. The existence of the soup was a given; how it got there was not mentioned. You have demolished a straw man.

Again however, if the conclusions of that post are accepted then several questions immediately arise: how did the soup get created, and if not random chance, what is the cause of the animating principle?

These questions, as you noted, cannot be answered by science and are indeed in the realm of Metaphysics.

The fundamental argument in this thread is about the existence of God. All the rest is window dressing; an effort to create a scientific façade to confirm the necessity of God to facilitate existence by demonstrating the inability of nature to produce what obviously exists.

To accomplish that end, the argument must avoid dependency on metaphysics. If this is supposed to be an attempt to show a scientific t***h then it must entirely rest on science.

The argument begins by stating that, "Principle 01: Nothing comes from nothing or “ex nihilo nihil”."


If nothing comes from nothing then it must be understood what 'nothing' comprises. If the argument is that there was a time when nothing existed therefore nothing could possibly come into existence, that pretty much ends the debate right there.

If 'nothing' is defined as nothing existed at the beginning except God then we have abandoned reality as defined by science and relegated the argument to metaphysics. The entire argument falls into the logical fallacy category of begging the question; because God has always existed, He must have created everything, therefore a Creator must exist and His hand is evident in the creation. Again, no basis for debate.

If 'nothing' is defined as empty space, devoid of everything but a 'singularity' (an unknown and unproven subatomic something-or-other from which sprang the universe), then a peculiar definition of 'nothing' is being applied because clearly, something isn't nothing.

If it is argued that God and the universe always existed then what was the point of presenting the Principle 01? Since the entire presentation rests on that founding principle, the entire argument fails.

If anyone, Atheist or Believer, wants to enter the domain of the other with the intent of proving the other in error, he must be able to define the argument in terms applicable to both points of view.

If it is your belief that God has always existed and is therefore the true architect of the universe and the life within it, so be it. Just don't imagine for an instant that you have anything scientific to offer in support or anyone else in refutation, neither one has.

Belief in God is a matter of faith in that belief, not one of scientific verification.

Belief that science holds all the answers is every bit as much a matter of belief.

Any argument supposedly scientific based that begins with nothing as a founding principle has produced exactly that, nothing.

(Edits made shortly after posting.)

How so? He claims that formalism over arches physicality. This is true.

His main argument is pretty simple. Chance and necessity cannot create a computer, nor the software that operates it. A cell is a biological factory controlled by instructions in it's DNA. It reads instructions, then produces output. DNA is a language. Every other language we have was created by a intelligent mind. They would not exist if humans hadn't invented them. So, who invented the language of DNA? Surely you don't believe it's the result of chance.

Yes, and it is an effective contradictorial controllers defense, when you have left the realm of theme of the subject ,you can hover over the spelling punctuation or inconsequential quibbling for the quibblers sake .

Really , as theme must not be considered. substance must be destroyed with out discussing the actual study. No need to do the math, I am completely uninterested in this study it does not serve purpose for my purpose . As I simply can not control the narrative, I must change the argument by first being contradictory, then diversionary. Such as ......well that depends what is is.

This study and any evidence that supports even the possibility of God as represented in the bible is a threat,( To the unbeliever ) some unbelievers are threatened by the possibility of a whole book of rules.
Those who are threatened , some, reject it.
These are not men who seek to become wise.
These are men who believe themselves wise.
Clever, tricky, yes but unwise.
Not all are unkind or cruel , however you will find those who change the parameters or sequence of things. They who truly believe they have conquered with what they know is proven false. How by false premise, they set about to divert, and dissuade by endless discussion over trivialities rather than substance or thought. They are having their own argument so to speak it is not with you it is with God that the fibers of their beings strain.
These are the d*****t's. They only have the c***ter, liars victory, yet they are satisfied.

Thank you again for posting this thought provoking study.
I, join others in prayer and praise that the thoughtful will give it consideration and be encouraged to persue knowledge.

How so? He claims that formalism over arches physicality. This is true.

His main argument is pretty simple. Chance and necessity cannot create a computer, nor the software that operates it. A cell is a biological factory controlled by instructions in it's DNA. It reads instructions, then produces output. DNA is a language. Every other language we have was created by a intelligent mind. They would not exist if humans hadn't invented them. So, who invented the language of DNA? Surely you don't believe it's the result of chance.