A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God.
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins' foundation says that the theory has put God "on the ropes" and has "terrified" Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.
"You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.
Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins' site, said that the theory could make things "a whole lot worse for creationists".
As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers. But England's theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html
Quote"You start with a random clump of atoms,
Anyone see a problem here?
Even if this leads somewhere, how could it "prove" there is no god?
Material evidence is irrelevant to something supernatural. And even if believers were to accept that this would be latest "accomplishment" to be taken away from gods, they'd merely move the goalposts back a bit, to the creation of the universe or whatever.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 25, 2015, 10:04:36 PM
Quote"You start with a random clump of atoms,
Anyone see a problem here?
With what?
The thread title or the random clump of atoms?
Where did the ramdom clump of atoms come from??
There might well be something in this but it will not amount to "proof that god does not exist".
Not that means that there is any reason to conclude that god does exist or that "his" existence and non-existence are equally likely
Quote from: J70 on February 25, 2015, 10:06:38 PM
Even if this leads somewhere, how could it "prove" there is no god?
Why should proof be needed that something doesn't exist?
What should be asked for is proof, or even substantial evidence of existence, but don't hold your breath.
Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 10:15:59 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.
You obviously aren't a member of mumsnet. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/
Quote from: Agent Orange on February 25, 2015, 10:24:19 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 10:15:59 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.
You obviously aren't a member of mumsnet. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/
Um, no. I'm not.
???
Got as far as when you mention Richard Dawkins then stopped reading.
That is brilliant. ;D
"Nothing about dinosaurs is suitable for children, from their total lack of family values through to their non-existence from any serious scientific point of view.
Recently my sister foolishly gave my two youngest some dinosaurs toys for Christmas. After telling her to get out of my house I burnt the dinosaurs. My children were delighted because they know that dinosaurs are evil. I am fortunate that my family has been very supportive, and has disowned my children's former aunt."
Quote from: muppet on February 25, 2015, 10:32:50 PM
That is brilliant. ;D
"Nothing about dinosaurs is suitable for children, from their total lack of family values through to their non-existence from any serious scientific point of view.
Recently my sister foolishly gave my two youngest some dinosaurs toys for Christmas. After telling her to get out of my house I burnt the dinosaurs. My children were delighted because they know that dinosaurs are evil. I am fortunate that my family has been very supportive, and has disowned my children's former aunt."
(http://i.imgur.com/FQ9sp.jpg)
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000356367/polls_profiles_images5_1830_559730_3231_92348_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)
Quote from: armaghniac on February 25, 2015, 10:04:36 PM
Quote"You start with a random clump of atoms,
Anyone see a problem here?
You know Armaghniac, for an Armagh man, you're actually and surprisingly quite clever.
You know Agent Orange, for an Armagh man, you're... well... lets see if you can answer Armaghniac.
I was once at a debate where "the existence of god" was debated. Lots of clever (and convincing) things were said as to why "he" didn't exist. No robust evidence was even offered to prove that "he" did. Goaded by the athiest side of the debate the spiritualists reacted and asked what evidence was there that "he" didn't exist? Quick as a flash one contributor (the comedian Mark Steele) said "the order in which the Beatles are dying".
What more proof do you need.
Perhaps there are three questions:
1) Did something create the Universe?
2) Did something create the Universe with a specific purpose?
3) Is that something keeping an eye on us?
(2) and (3) are for the Bible thumpers.
Quote from: Orior on February 25, 2015, 11:37:41 PM
Perhaps there are three questions:
1) Did something create the Universe?
2) Did something create the Universe with a specific purpose?
3) Is that something keeping an eye on us?
(2) and (3) are for the Bible thumpers.
And of course a god wouldn't provide an answer to the first question as it would just create even bigger questions - Where did the god come from? who created the god? what was this god doing with his time before he started creating the universe?
Quote from: Agent Orange on February 25, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 25, 2015, 10:06:38 PM
Even if this leads somewhere, how could it "prove" there is no god?
Why should proof be needed that something doesn't exist?
What should be asked for is proof, or even substantial evidence of existence, but don't hold your breath.
I agree.
Quote from: LCohen on February 25, 2015, 11:45:14 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 25, 2015, 11:37:41 PM
Perhaps there are three questions:
1) Did something create the Universe?
2) Did something create the Universe with a specific purpose?
3) Is that something keeping an eye on us?
(2) and (3) are for the Bible thumpers.
And of course a god wouldn't provide an answer to the first question as it would just create even bigger questions - Where did the god come from? who created the god? what was this god doing with his time before he started creating the universe?
In fairness these type of further questions would also apply to any scientific answer.
Quote from: muppet on February 26, 2015, 01:03:31 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 25, 2015, 11:45:14 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 25, 2015, 11:37:41 PM
Perhaps there are three questions:
1) Did something create the Universe?
2) Did something create the Universe with a specific purpose?
3) Is that something keeping an eye on us?
(2) and (3) are for the Bible thumpers.
And of course a god wouldn't provide an answer to the first question as it would just create even bigger questions - Where did the god come from? who created the god? what was this god doing with his time before he started creating the universe?
In fairness these type of further questions would also apply to any scientific answer.
True, but at least science deals in plausibility. And if science ever does solve the origin of the universe, the fig leaf offering cover to those appealing to god-caused origins and events will be getting pretty damn miniscule.
"so God created the universe then Father, who created God?"
When did time start ?
Quote from: heganboy on February 26, 2015, 03:58:54 AM
"so God created the universe then Father, who created God?"
"No Son, he did not, according to Stephen Hawking anyway. Hawking says God did not create the universe. It created itself all out of nothing about 13.7 billion years ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy
May as well investigate practically every contributor to that show. Or, indeed, half the country.
I read Richard Dawkins book the God Delusions and was majorly dissapointed. Just full of hypothetical arguements and no questions answered.
Isn't there a theory some scientists have that life is more or less a computer programme and that there have being glitches found to prove it? Can't remember where I read it.
Humans are herd animals. That is why there is Fianna Fáil.
Most people want to belong, to share values. That is why there is religion.
Maybe there is a God. Or Gods. Maybe nature is in charge. Maybe it is all pointless.
God has served up a lovely day out there lads, enjoy it.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 07, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy
May as well investigate practically every contributor to that show. Or, indeed, half the country.
Great stuff. Given that the complainant was not offended I wonder are they motivated by exposing the shear folly of the blasphemy law. In which case good luck to them
Quote from: seafoid on May 07, 2017, 11:31:59 AM
Humans are herd animals. That is why there is Fianna Fáil.
Most people want to belong, to share values. That is why there is religion.
Maybe there is a God. Or Gods. Maybe nature is in charge. Maybe it is all pointless.
Love that one!
Quote from: seafoid on May 07, 2017, 11:31:59 AM
Humans are herd animals. That is why there is Fianna Fáil.
Most people want to belong, to share values. That is why there is religion.
Maybe there is a God. Or Gods. Maybe nature is in charge. Maybe it is all pointless.
If there is no hell what do you call an hour listening to Gerry Adams talking shite?
Is there a word needed for the act of reading an old thread and thinking "Did I really post that shite?"
This thread reminds me of the saying on this subject in the military
Read it in micheal Heers excellent book "dispatches "
"Never seen an atheist in a foxhole"
Funny how people including posters on this thread when confronted with death might have change of heart
Does fear of death make you believe in God now? Another interpretation of the foxhole scenario is that you're shit scared & clutching at straws. Fear of death / the unknown is not an endorsement of Religion or God, it's a natural human reaction.
Are we supposed to believe that there have never been atheists in a foxhole who did not turn to god?
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 07, 2017, 07:05:13 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 07, 2017, 11:31:59 AM
Humans are herd animals. That is why there is Fianna Fáil.
Most people want to belong, to share values. That is why there is religion.
Maybe there is a God. Or Gods. Maybe nature is in charge. Maybe it is all pointless.
If there is no hell what do you call an hour listening to Gerry Adams talking shite?
+1 ;D ;D
Or maybe a half hour with seafóíd!
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 07, 2017, 10:14:11 PM
This thread reminds me of the saying on this subject in the military
Read it in micheal Heers excellent book "dispatches "
"Never seen an atheist in a foxhole"
Funny how people including posters on this thread when confronted with death might have change of heart
Well, I was and I didn't.
I figured that if there was a god, he/she/it wasn't going to be fooled by last minute changes of heart and if there wasn't it wouldn't matter one way or the other. I felt if I had to go before my maker, the up or down verdict would depend on my actions throughout my life and there was feck all I could do to change anything at that stage.
I've nothing against God but I don't think any man made religion has got the mix right yet.
I mean Tony Fearon says, "God made the world" ans Stephen Hawking says, "No, he effin' didn't. Matter appeared out of nowhere and it keeps on appearing all the time."
It's a toss up as to which of them is the biggest laitcheko.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on May 07, 2017, 10:36:18 PM
Are we supposed to believe that there have never been atheists in a foxhole who did not turn to god?
And even if people do it's hardly proof???
A Pascal's Wager type situation will hardly fool an Omnipotent being either.
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 07, 2017, 10:14:11 PM
This thread reminds me of the saying on this subject in the military
Read it in micheal Heers excellent book "dispatches "
"Never seen an atheist in a foxhole"
Funny how people including posters on this thread when confronted with death might have change of heart
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this canard is true.
What does that prove?
That there is a god?
Or that someone shitting his trousers with fear of being killed suddenly either hopes there might be or doesn't want to hedge his bets?
This is similar to the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" tale that circulates in creationist circles. Its not true, but even if it was, so f**king what?
A scared, confused, dying man having doubts at the moment of death has no relevance whatsoever to the science of evolution by natural selection. That stands on its own feet, independent of Darwin, as it has done ever since. If Darwin hadn't come up with it, someone else would have, and indeed did, in the form of Alfred Russel Wallace. And if Wallace hadn't been around to give Darwin the kick up the arse to finally publish, someone else still would have come up with it. Science had advanced to the point where those steps were waiting to be taken.
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
How do you know, Joe?
Talking of foxholes...
Two members of an IRA active service unit had planted a bomb under a road bridge. They were waiting for a UDR patrol to cross over the bridge, at which point they would detonate the bomb.
The patrol had been expected at 12 noon, but after waiting 2 hours there was still no sign of the soldiers.
One IRA man turns to the other and says "They're very late - jeez I hope nothing has happened to them"
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 09, 2017, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
So then... does that make you silly?
IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?
And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?
Quote from: Imposerous on May 09, 2017, 10:09:36 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
How do you know, Joe?
I don't... its called faith, but thats the standard definition of God
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 25, 2015, 10:04:36 PM
Quote"You start with a random clump of atoms,
Anyone see a problem here?
lmao :o
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 09, 2017, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
So then... does that make you silly?
IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?
And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?
whats the scientific evidence for maths????
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Which ones aren't?
Quote from: Hardy on May 09, 2017, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Which ones aren't?
Robbie Fowler.
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:09:13 PM
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?
Just like Russell's teapot then...
A legal challenge by a Humanist couple to seek parity.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39859481 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39859481)
Stephen fry will be laughing at the effect of his thoughts on God........
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/referendum-on-blasphemy-more-complex-than-originally-thought-1.3077422 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/referendum-on-blasphemy-more-complex-than-originally-thought-1.3077422)
Quote from: Hardy on May 09, 2017, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Which ones aren't?
Sorry, poorly worded. I don't think there is a God but if somebody does and that is based on faith, not proof, then would that person not have to accept that any belief is just as valid? So for example, if I said I believed in Gozer the Gozerian and could only eat Weetabix on a Thursday shouldn't any believer of a God accept my beliefs as entirely valid?
According to their own standards, yes.
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:09:13 PM
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?
You already do... your entire experience of the world is subjective.
Firslty no you couldnt just make it up, you'd have to truely believe it. Ideally we could all do that but for me part of spirituality is connecting with other souls so they'd have to believe it to, so thats when it gets complicated and where religion comes in to join us together, and leads on to your next point
[/quote]
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Possibly they are all right who knows..... maybe you should join the Masons ;)
My own belief is that religion is a way of answering the call of the spiritual and there are different ways of answering that call because it is subjective, although most religions do accomdate for this to some degree.
But then of course just by answering that call means that you believe one belief system is closer to the spiritual "correctness" than another. Its a bit of a conundrum I admit and if you want to take it to a black and white objective conclusion(s) you can say well there is either one correct, they are all correct, or none are correct.
But for me its alot more fuzzy than that since the source of the spiritual is subjective and we all have a personal relationship with God as we all see him in different ways even within religions (which actually most preach). Religion is a man made construction of that spirituality and only a guide to our personal spiritual journey.
Then again is this paradox proof or evidence of no God? Not for me. But if thats your point its not disimilar to saying that because Black Holes dont make sense logically then the entire model of the empirical universe that we understand must be wrong.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 09, 2017, 03:17:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 09, 2017, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
So then... does that make you silly?
IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?
And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?
whats the scientific evidence for maths????
Did they find some? I'm all ears?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:24:29 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 09, 2017, 03:17:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 09, 2017, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
So then... does that make you silly?
IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?
And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?
whats the scientific evidence for maths????
Did they find some? I'm all ears?
All Maths would take a while but the basis is if you have one banana and you get another banana you have two bananas, this is proved because you can count them in front of you.
We can make the assumption on what the circumference of a circle is if we know the radius, using C=2πr, we know this because we have measured the circumference of existing circles and it has worked out every time since, if it is later proven to be wrong science will change its understanding as it is not an absolute.
This stands that Science currently has no evidence of a god because it hasn't been proven, if it is proven later science will state so. Science doesn't care whether their is a god or not but merely what can be proven through evidence.
https://youtu.be/1EGDCh75SpQ
all this science to discredit a spiritual anchor to many
Instead of references and quotes of scientist and philosophers to strengthen the debate maybe we should be reading some scribe written closer to home to explain the mindset of the non beleaver
" limits of the diaphane "
james Joyce
Sometimes logical transparency is a handicap
But respect must be given to all posters views, it's the Christian thing to do
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:09:18 AM
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:09:13 PM
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?
You already do... your entire experience of the world is subjective.
Firslty no you couldnt just make it up, you'd have to truely believe it. Ideally we could all do that but for me part of spirituality is connecting with other souls so they'd have to believe it to, so thats when it gets complicated and where religion comes in to join us together, and leads on to your next point
Quote from: Zulu on May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?
Possibly they are all right who knows..... maybe you should join the Masons ;)
My own belief is that religion is a way of answering the call of the spiritual and there are different ways of answering that call because it is subjective, although most religions do accomdate for this to some degree.
But then of course just by answering that call means that you believe one belief system is closer to the spiritual "correctness" than another. Its a bit of a conundrum I admit and if you want to take it to a black and white objective conclusion(s) you can say well there is either one correct, they are all correct, or none are correct.
But for me its alot more fuzzy than that since the source of the spiritual is subjective and we all have a personal relationship with God as we all see him in different ways even within religions (which actually most preach). Religion is a man made construction of that spirituality and only a guide to our personal spiritual journey.
Then again is this paradox proof or evidence of no God? Not for me. But if thats your point its not disimilar to saying that because Black Holes dont make sense logically then the entire model of the empirical universe that we understand must be wrong.
[/quote]
It's not entirely subjective though. The vast majority of what we do or experience isn't subjective, if I put my hand into a fire I'll burn my hand and it will hurt, the same would happen to everyone else if they did the same. There's very little that's subjective I would say. Linking to others is simply a numbers game and doesn't make a religion or God more or less likely.
Bottom line is nobody can categorically prove Santa Claus, Zeus, God or Budda doesn't exist so not believing in them is as valid as doing so. Under normal circumstances most people wouldn't accept believing in something based solely on faith so I find it hard to accept there is a God. Furthermore, if I told people who believe in God that I was visited the previous night by God and we spoke at length about various topics would they believe me? Would they take me at my word and if not, why not? If God exists why couldn't he visit me?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:24:29 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 09, 2017, 03:17:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 09, 2017, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
This was an interesting read musta been before
Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God
Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe
God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity
How can anyone tie the two together?
Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.
there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly
I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass
So then... does that make you silly?
IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?
And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?
whats the scientific evidence for maths????
Did they find some? I'm all ears?
I'm confused by what you mean when you say whats the scientific evidence for maths
Archbishop Eamon Martin enters the argument by stating that 'Every Catholic position on concrete morals is argued from reason even when there exists a biblical warrant for that position.'
From The Irish Times:
Catholic Church's good deeds are being erased, says archbishop Eamon Martin defends religious role in education and healthcare
Tue, May 9, 2017, 01:00
Decades of service by countless nuns and priests in education and healthcare are being "almost obliterated by a revised and narrow narrative that religious ethos cannot be good for democracy", Catholic Primate Archbishop Eamon Martin has said.
He said there was a view that religious ethos stands "against the progress and flourishing of society and the rights of citizens" and that there was a tendency in some public discussion to give the impression that things related to faith were
"In fact every Catholic position on concrete morals is argued from reason even when there exists a biblical warrant for that position."
Archbishop Martin was speaking at the University of East Anglia in England on Monday night where he delivered the Newman lecture on The Church in the Public Sphere – a perspective from Ireland. His comments come after major controversy over the Sisters of Charity being given ownership of the planned new national maternity hospital, prompting calls for a total separation between the Catholic Church and the State.
There has also been a long-running debate over the church's patronage of more than 90 per cent of the State's 3,200 primary schools with many parents calling for more options as to where their children are educated. Archbishop Martin said it was "simply not true that the Catholic Church has a desire to create a theocracy in Ireland, North or South.
"However, the church does expect that in a true pluralist democracy or republic, religion and faith will continue to have an important part to play in the national conversation."
He was convinced "that the failures of the past must not be allowed to define us, but should instead help all of us in the public sphere learn lessons for the present about where church and society might today be similarly marginalising the poor, stigmatising the unwanted or failing to protect the most vulnerable".
The role of religion and faith in Irish society, North and South, had been "hugely impacted by secularisation and is evidenced by a steady decline in church attendance and in vocations to the priesthood and religious life," he said. "What began as a gradual drift of people away from Mass and the sacraments became a stronger current. . . Like other parts of Europe and the western world, more people in Ireland are living their lives without reference to God or to religious belief," he said.
Archbishop Martin cited the State's most recent census (2016), which showed the numbers identifying as Catholic had fallen by 132,220 since 2011 and that the numbers declaring no religion had risen by 198,610 in the same period. The figures, he said, confirmed "that we have moved, or at least are rapidly moving, from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith is one human possibility among others".
If anyone can prove there is no God by the end of the week, I will give them €100 and I will wear a Down jersey to the opening Armagh-Down championship game.
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Jeebers, you'd want to be brave to play poker with a leprechaun.
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Do that is a no on the whole proof that there is ni God for the hundred quid then?
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 10, 2017, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting
I know it's been said before but surely the burden of proof is on the religious? You're saying the world was created by a God, those of us who don't believe that don't really know but accept the likelihood of science being able to explain it.
That's the way it seems to work for these lads:
I can kill goats by staring at them.
- Hmm. That seems rather unlikely. Can you prove it?
Why should I? You prove I can't.
- Well, 1, I have no motivation to prove you can't. 2, it's impossible. By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's why in debate it's accepted that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. If he can't provide proof, reasonable people will generally ignore or reject his assertion.
See! You can't prove it. I win.
- OK. Where can I find the sensible people in this village?
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 04:21:10 PM
That's the way it seems to work for these lads:
I can kill goats by staring at them.
- Hmm. That seems rather unlikely. Can you prove it?
Why should I? You prove I can't.
- Well, 1, I have no motivation to prove you can't. 2, it's impossible. By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's why in debate it's accepted that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. If he can't provide proof, reasonable people will generally ignore or reject his assertion.
See! You can't prove it. I win.
- OK. Where can I find the sensible people in this village?
Read the thread title? Now where does that leave the burden of proof?
Do you understand the definition of faith and God?
If so why do you then persist with the empirical straw man scenarios?
Good man, Joe. At least it's a new one. A thread title now changes the rules of debate.
Do I understand the definition of faith and God? I think so. What's that got to do with my point that it is neither necessary nor possible for the reasonable person, who has no reason to believe there is a god, to prove that there is no god. A learned epistemologist like yourself will have grasped, of course, that that's not the same as asserting that there is no god. I would no more feel the need to make such an assertion than I would to assert that there's no purple milk vapour in the atmosphere of Mars.
What's an empirical straw man scenario? Wait, don't answer. I forgot I'm not engaging with your very engaging non sequiturs.
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 04:50:29 PM
Good man, Joe. At least it's a new one. A thread title now changes the rules of debate.
Do I understand the definition of faith and God? I think so. What's that got to do with my point that it is neither necessary nor possible for the reasonable person, who has no reason to believe there is a god, to prove that there is no god. A learned epistemologist like yourself will have grasped, of course, that that's not the same as asserting that there is no god. I would no more feel the need to make such an assertion than I would to assert that there's no purple milk vapour in the atmosphere of Mars.
What's an empirical straw man scenario? Wait, don't answer. I forgot I'm not engaging with your very engaging non sequiturs.
I thought the thread title would define the debate but if you want to change the rules to suit your argument go ahead.
Where's the non sequitur? Your trying to define God as empirical and disprove him using those means. That's the definition of a straw man Hardy.
Quote from: Zulu on May 10, 2017, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 10, 2017, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting
I know it's been said before but surely the burden of proof is on the religious? You're saying the world was created by a God, those of us who don't believe that don't really know but accept the likelihood of science being able to explain it.
I never said that god created the world but I now you mention it yes I do subscribe to that
The same as you subscribe to the scientific evidence
There is the question of how god created it
If you do your homework
The Big Bang theory
Quantam mechanics
String theory etc is just theory and these mathematical experts you put your trust in are not in agreement how it all started and why
They can't even decide if dark matter exist
They spent billions building the hadron collider just to crash some particles together just to try and prove another theory ( Higgs boson )
I stand corrected but some of these experts are very religious and curious as to how god got this whole thing up and running
Maybe he is the greatest mathematician of them all
Not sure I follow. I don't believe there is a God because I have seen nothing to suggest there is and the Gods have changed over the years and even now, we can't agree on what or who God is. It seems odd to me there are different Gods or that the current Gods weren't even always the ones we believed in. Why did people think Zeus was a God at one time but now nobody gives the Greek Gods credence?
I don't know, for certain, there isn't a God, it just seems very unlikely as there is nothing leading me that way. Science seems to be able to gradually prove why things are the way they are so I tend to accept that though I don't fully understand the science behind everything.
You are fully entitled to believe in a God but if it's based purely on faith then surely you should believe that anyone following any God is as likely to be right, whether it's Buddha or fairies at the bottom of the garden? And if you believe there is a God surely you would believe that God could engage with people on earth and if so, would you believe me or someone in your circle of friends if they said they were visited by God?
Quote from: Zulu on May 10, 2017, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 10, 2017, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?
Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting
I know it's been said before but surely the burden of proof is on the religious? You're saying the world was created by a God, those of us who don't believe that don't really know but accept the likelihood of science being able to explain it.
Ibget where you are coming from but I think there is an equal burden on those who are adamant there is no God to be able to prove it. Myself, I'm a believer. I think. Sometimes I wonder if I'm scared not to believe just in case. You know
An Omnipotent being knows all so the common 'just in case' stance is particularly nonsensical if you think about it.
Quote from: Zulu on May 10, 2017, 06:27:44 PM
Not sure I follow. I don't believe there is a God because I have seen nothing to suggest there is and the Gods have changed over the years and even now, we can't agree on what or who God is. It seems odd to me there are different Gods or that the current Gods weren't even always the ones we believed in. Why did people think Zeus was a God at one time but now nobody gives the Greek Gods credence?
Does that not say more about us than about God?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2017, 07:42:38 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 10, 2017, 06:27:44 PM
Not sure I follow. I don't believe there is a God because I have seen nothing to suggest there is and the Gods have changed over the years and even now, we can't agree on what or who God is. It seems odd to me there are different Gods or that the current Gods weren't even always the ones we believed in. Why did people think Zeus was a God at one time but now nobody gives the Greek Gods credence?
Does that not say more about us than about God?
Does it not just say we don't know there is a God so we make up entities that represent one? I understand that people from ancient history would see the world in terms of an all seeing creator. They couldn't comprehend many things but science has explained a lot of what we didn't understand even 200 years ago.
I think we'd all like to believe there is something after this life. It's understandable that meeting our friends and relatives again and being rewarded for living a good life would appeal. This is particularly so when life is tough, as it has been for the majority throughout history. Is it a coincidence that as more and more people live lives of plenty that they have less attachment to a God?
I can't convince myself there's a God but if others do that's fine. However, if I accept someone saying the Christian God is real and should equally accept a guy who tells me Zeus is the only true God. Neither person can prove to me they are right and I can't prove either is wrong. Is the Christian God to be accepted more purely because it has the numbers now and the Greek Gods don't?
Quote from: bennydorano on May 10, 2017, 07:38:02 PM
An Omnipotent being knows all so the common 'just in case' stance is particularly nonsensical if you think about it.
well thats why its called faith instead of knowing. Everyone has doubts.... apart from the empiricists it seems who somehow know that our senses (made for survival and reproductions) can tell us everything
No, doubts are doubts, but "Sometimes I wonder if I'm scared not to believe just in case. You know" is just hedging your bets. Pascal would be proud.
Quote from: bennydorano on May 10, 2017, 09:56:45 PM
No, doubts are doubts, but "Sometimes I wonder if I'm scared not to believe just in case. You know" is just hedging your bets. Pascal would be proud.
No.... (feel free to correct me tonto) having doubts comes first, keeping them in check with "just in case" comes second.
No, there's a clear distinction between a conscious choice to choose to believe as a safety net and having doubts about your faith. One is genuine, the other is calculated. If there's no difference, there's no point!
My prediction is that in years to come our descendants will laugh mighty heartily at those who had a dilemma over whether there is a God or not. But we'll never experience their humiliation. Apart from the Portglenonese Monks.
If there ever was a God in Tyrone then I suspect that he has retired.
Quote from: bennydorano on May 10, 2017, 11:26:53 PM
No, there's a clear distinction between a conscious choice to choose to believe as a safety net and having doubts about your faith. One is genuine, the other is calculated. If there's no difference, there's no point!
No, the faith is a choice! You weigh up everything and make a decision. Having the intuitive believe in God, (or indeed self, morals, freewill, etc) is not a choice (unless you can train it out of your mind). But you weigh that intuition and other things like beauty kindness etc against the doubts, bad, evil etc and make your choice in faith or not.
That is not what my interpretation of what faith is or should be. It would go a long to explain the gobshitery present in Irish RC society tho. We've got the perfect example of someone with 'devout' faith on this board who does nothing but undermine what he professes to believe in.
Quote from: bennydorano on May 11, 2017, 07:45:27 AM
That is not what my interpretation of what faith is or should be. It would go a long to explain the gobshitery present in Irish RC society tho. We've got the perfect example of someone with 'devout' faith on this board who does nothing but undermine what he professes to believe in.
Good man benny nothing like a bit of Ad hominen when you realise your point is a load of balls eh?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 11, 2017, 12:19:00 AM
If there ever was a God in Tyrone then I suspect that he has retired.
If there is a God in Tyrone he has a lot of explaining to do.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 11, 2017, 12:19:00 AM
If there ever was a God in Tyrone then I suspect that he has retired.
Retired a few years back. Working for Sky in the summer these days
Quote from: take_yer_points on May 11, 2017, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 11, 2017, 12:19:00 AM
If there ever was a God in Tyrone then I suspect that he has retired.
Retired a few years back. Working for Sky in the summer these days
well of course God can be found in the Sky!
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 07:54:51 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on May 11, 2017, 07:45:27 AM
That is not what my interpretation of what faith is or should be. It would go a long to explain the gobshitery present in Irish RC society tho. We've got the perfect example of someone with 'devout' faith on this board who does nothing but undermine what he professes to believe in.
Good man benny nothing like a bit of Ad hominen when you realise your point is a load of balls eh?
Dead on Joe. Fabricated Faith rocks.
Anyone attend the Prof. Brian Cox lecture last night in the SSE Arena?
It was an explanation of the beginning of the universe and the remaining 'mystery' of how we evolved on this planet through a series of probabilities that didn't occur on other planets in this solar system but have they occurred in the trillions of others in the universe and beyond.
Excellent lecture delivered to a crowd of over 5,000. Not sure how well it would have gone down with Tony and the creationists.
There is perhaps too much focus placed on some western religious dogma on how they claim the universe was created. For example, most of the catholic church adherents believe in evolution.
I don't quite know how accurate this graph is, but it is worthy of interest. It does support many other studies that Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict most religious /spiritual deeply held religious beliefs/understanding on how the universe and all who live in it, have evolved.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/07/evolution.gif)
Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2017, 12:15:03 AM
There is perhaps too much focus placed on some western religious dogma on how they claim the universe was created. For example, most of the catholic church adherents believe in evolution.
I don't quite know how accurate this graph is, but it is worthy of interest. It does support many other studies that Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict most religious /spiritual deeply held religious beliefs/understanding on how the universe and all who live in it, have evolved.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/07/evolution.gif)
Evolution as put forward by Darwin is just a small part in the overall cosmology that describes the development of the universe. Latest theory explained by Brian Cox on Tuesday evening is based on a development of a tiny piece of space which grew in incremental steps until for some reason it led to the steps before the big bang.
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2017, 12:15:03 AM
There is perhaps too much focus placed on some western religious dogma on how they claim the universe was created. For example, most of the catholic church adherents believe in evolution.
I don't quite know how accurate this graph is, but it is worthy of interest. It does support many other studies that Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict most religious /spiritual deeply held religious beliefs/understanding on how the universe and all who live in it, have evolved.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/07/evolution.gif)
Evolution (or any scientific explanation) is only at odds with those religious dogmas which stakes everything on a literal, word-by-word, interpretation of whatever ancient (transcribed over millennia mind you!) text or other source they use as a basis.
There's plenty of wiggle room in Catholicism, with everything interpreted through a priesthood and thus subject to some form of evolution itself. Fundamentalist protestantism or LDS, not so much.
Whether that is a good thing or not for the credibility of a particular religious group depends on your perspective.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
You are claiming certainty about your belief that the universe was created by chance?
Brian Cox was asked once what he dislikes most, he replied, "people with certainty" ;D
Well, what are the odds of all that happening by chance? Chance was the creator. Chancists or Chancers have a belief in Chancism. Chance being the creative force behind all creation, all evolution. In the beginning, before everything there was chance who happened upon an empty space, lo and behold by chance there was energy crackling in that space and then by chance this universe was born, the movement of the planets, everything in this wide and wonderful universe, all by chance. Humankind evolved by chance, consciousness evolved by chance.
Astronomist/cosmologist Fred Hoyle once wrote
"the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2017, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
You are claiming certainty about your belief that the universe was created by chance?
Brian Cox was asked once what he dislikes most, he replied, "people with certainty" ;D
Well, what are the odds of all that happening by chance? Chance was the creator. Chancists or Chancers have a belief in Chancism. Chance being the creative force behind all creation, all evolution. In the beginning, before everything there was chance who happened upon an empty space, lo and behold by chance there was energy crackling in that space and then by chance this universe was born, the movement of the planets, everything in this wide and wonderful universe, all by chance. Humankind evolved by chance, consciousness evolved by chance.
Astronomist/cosmologist Fred Hoyle once wrote "the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"
Fred was spouting bunkum. It's a completely misconceived and ridiculous analogy. Higher life forms were not conceived in a sudden, singular event like his tornado creating a 747. Darwin explains how life forms, culminating in the higher ones, evolved through natural selection over millions of years.
It's hard to comprehend how anybody, never mind an eminent astronomer, who read "On The Origin Of Species" could so misunderstand it as to produce such a stupid misrepresentation of its conclusion.
If evolution is true how does that explain people from Meath?
Quote from: foxcommander on May 26, 2017, 11:37:32 PM
If evolution is true how does that explain people from Meath?
God created them to test us.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
What happened by chance? Are you saying you don't believe in the laws of physics?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 28, 2017, 08:12:30 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
What happened by chance? Are you saying you don't believe in the laws of physics?
Depends on what you mean by laws of physics? Newtonian have been passed by and Einsteinian laws have evolved to much more sophisticated views of how the universe began, continues to expand and will end.
You need to divide the two things, the development of the universe and the development of life on our Earth.
The development of life occurred because at specific points in time, conditions and events coalesced to provide the circumstances in which the original primitive life forms began and then evolution carried on. The laws of physics had nothing directly to do with the chance events and circumstances which led to life as we know it.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 28, 2017, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 28, 2017, 08:12:30 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
What happened by chance? Are you saying you don't believe in the laws of physics?
Depends on what you mean by laws of physics? Newtonian have been passed by and Einsteinian laws have evolved to much more sophisticated views of how the universe began, continues to expand and will end.
You need to divide the two things, the development of the universe and the development of life on our Earth.
The development of life occurred because at specific points in time, conditions and events coalesced to provide the circumstances in which the original primitive life forms began and then evolution carried on. The laws of physics had nothing directly to do with the chance events and circumstances which led to life as we know it.
Your directly opposed to the overwhelming consensus in science, the belief is that the laws in physics set in motion and have been governing the universe from its "beginning". That there is no chance (at least in the classical realm of physics)
Time is not separate from the laws of physics it is governed by them so it does not come into it in terms of a "chance" factor.
You cant divide evolution and the development of the universe the latter defines the former, or at least thats the belief. Unless of course you believe there was some "magical" spark that started "life" in the first place....