Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

The effects of mass on spacetime can and have been directly measured. That is a fact.

a reply to: TerraLiga

The effects of mass on spacetime have, we call the phenomenon Gravity however we have absolutely no direct evidence for it's existence, or how that relationship with matter works. It requires dare i say it "belief" in the most convincing current Theory, of which there are many.

But again, where is your proof or measurable theory of one or more deities?

a reply to: TerraLiga

I can measure the effect of intelligent design. DNA being a perfect example. Similarly to Gravity i need to believe in the cause, rather than directly measure.

If i see a complex chain of natural language which encodes information to create a conscious being, it makes logical sense to me that this code was the result of design. Have you ever seen matter randomly combine in such a way that it creates complex structure without interference from intelligence?

Again as an example, if i see a sand castle on the beach, i assume someone built it. If i wait for the wind to blow just the right way in order to make a complex castle structure i'll need more than a few billion years. Never-mind the complexity and structure we see in organic life.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TerraLiga

The effects of mass on spacetime have, we call the phenomenon Gravity however we have absolutely no direct evidence for it's existence, or how that relationship with matter works. It requires dare i say it "belief" in the most convincing current Theory, of which there are many.

That depends on if the effects of 'gravity' are due to a physical element, a combination of elements or forces, or something else undiscovered. The effect is real, so we have to discover what is causing it. Whether gravitons exist or not is one question of many.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Sounds like a lot of speculation and belief.

Perfectly ordered systems in my experience do not happen randomly.

There's a reason there's a cross-over in vernacular between computer programming and biological systems. Both use coded language and similar functions.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TerraLiga

I can measure the effect of intelligent design. DNA being a perfect example. Similarly to Gravity i need to believe in the cause, rather than directly measure.

If i see a complex chain of natural language which encodes information to create a conscious being, it makes logical sense to me that this code was the result of design. Have you ever seen matter randomly combine in such a way that it creates complex structure without interference from intelligence?

Again as an example, if i see a sand castle on the beach, i assume someone built it. If i wait for the wind to blow just the right way in order to make a complex castle structure i'll need more than a few billion years. Never-mind the complexity and structure we see in organic life.

Nicely said

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TerraLiga

I can measure the effect of intelligent design. DNA being a perfect example. Similarly to Gravity i need to believe in the cause, rather than directly measure.

If i see a complex chain of natural language which encodes information to create a conscious being, it makes logical sense to me that this code was the result of design. Have you ever seen matter randomly combine in such a way that it creates complex structure without interference from intelligence?

Again as an example, if i see a sand castle on the beach, i assume someone built it. If i wait for the wind to blow just the right way in order to make a complex castle structure i'll need more than a few billion years. Never-mind the complexity and structure we see in organic life.

The problem with this argument is you are starting from the completion of a highly complex structure - but one which follows very basic rules. There are many theories on abiogenesis, but none yet have been proven beyond doubt to be ours. Aside from creationists from several religions, nobody has seriously theorised a deital influence.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TerraLiga

Sounds like a lot of speculation and belief.

Perfectly ordered systems in my experience do not happen randomly.

There's a reason there's a cross-over in vernacular between computer programming and biological systems. Both use coded language and similar functions.

There's no belief in what I said. There is speculation because a definitive cause has not yet been found. General Relativity is excellent, but has flaws when the bodies measured are more complex.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Again, the vast majority of the pioneers within Science and Natural Philosophy have done exactly that.

Newton
Einstein
Schrödinger
Galileo
Marconi
James Clerk Maxwell
Kepler
Max Planck
Michael Faraday
Nicholas Copernicus
Descartes
Heisenberg
William Thomson Kelvin

All of these men attribute the creation of the universe to a supreme being or intelligent creation event.

You really need to try and separate the idea of Creation and Religion. Personally i'm not religious, yet i'm convinced of Creation.

a reply to: TerraLiga

General Relativity falls to pieces at Galactic scales unless you invoke even more immeasurable magical properties of the Universe, created only in the minds of men. We call them Dark Matter and Dark Energy and they're simply ways to square a flawed equation, again with no direct measurement or observations.

Scientists of an atheistic persuasion love to criticize religion with one hand while using the other to create fables and myths of their own.

a reply to: Grenade

These are all people from when everyone was religious, or had faith. They're all Western, too, which is a bit of a slight to many Eastern researchers and philosophers.

Times change and religion is dying, and with it the belief in creationism.

a reply to: Grenade

They are not fables or myths, they are theories to account for anomalies in our current understanding. It is the march of progress.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Over 60% of the world still considers themselves religious. Atheism is actually in decline contrary to your claims.

Personally, i consider myself agnostic but lean toward creation.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Discrepancies exist among sources as to how atheist and religious demographics are changing. Questions to assess non-belief may ask about negation of the prevailing belief, rather than an assertion of positive atheism.[16] Also, self-identification is not congruous to people's lack of beliefs automatically. For instance, merely not having a belief in a god, for whatever reason, does not automatically mean that people self-identify as an "atheist".[17] According to global Win-Gallup International studies, 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists" in 2012,[18] 11% were "convinced atheists" in 2015,[19] and in 2017, 9% were "convinced atheists".[20] However, other earlier global studies have indicated that global atheism may be in decline due to irreligious countries having the lowest birth rates in the world and religious countries having higher birth rates in general.[1]"

a reply to: TerraLiga

You're entitled to that BELIEF, despite having no evidence to backup the claim.

a reply to: Grenade

I don't know what you're referring to. It is generally understood that there is not enough mass or energy in our universe to account for its actions. There are theories to account for those. Are you saying I don't believe this? I don't understand.

originally posted by: Saloon

I just wanted to point out that you don't get decide that for anyone.

Not even yourself.

We are having kind of a mixed message here in whether life/universe is intelligently designed or if it is the God of the bible.

originally posted by: Grenade

Over 60% of the world still considers themselves religious. Atheism is actually in decline contrary to your claims.

Personally, i consider myself agnostic but lean toward creation.

A big part that makes humans, human is religion. Doesn't make it real though. Even with that, I would not want to see it magically eradicated as that would mean our ability to think within the abstract world would be gone too and we would be closer to ape than ever before.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Times change and religion is dying, and with it the belief in creationism.

Religion will never die... It might evolve, but it will always be here in one form or another.

originally posted by: Grenade

Newton
Einstein
Schrödinger
Galileo
Marconi
James Clerk Maxwell
Kepler
Max Planck
Michael Faraday
Nicholas Copernicus
Descartes
Heisenberg
William Thomson Kelvin

I actually disagree with your list. What site did you happen to pull it off of? I mean such as Kwepler 1571 to 1630, really? lol Also look into the words of Einstein to get a better understanding of his beliefs. So I see James Clerk Maxwell who was very religious and memorized the bible to debate, so what does his faith have to do with it all?

The problem is you are mixing faith with reality.