This is false. Energy definitely exists. I don't know precisely what you mean by matter. I conjecture that by matter you mean inertial mass. Inertial mass exists also.
Energy is a physical quantity and inertial mass is a physical quantity.
The laws of science include conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. These two laws inertial the existence of inertial mass. Many experiments have been done to falsify these two laws.
The conservation of energy entails the existence of energy, of course. Conservation of momentum implies the existence of inertial mass. So they are both physical quantities.
So scientist deduce that the these two laws closely approximate laws of nature. If they didn't, the experiments would have falsified them already. So there is an inertial mass.
How you
So allow let me rephrase what that other poster said.
There is no law of science that contradicts abiogenesis. Neither Daniel nor you have found a formal statement of ANY law of science that contradicts the possibility of 'living things' be generated by natural and unguided processes. Therefore, it is very plausible that abiogenesis does not contradict the laws of nature as well.
There may be a law of nature that implies, 'God guides everything'. The corresponding laws of science have not produced any predictions that could be falsified even in principle. Investigations of abiogenesis have produced predictions that could have been falsified but have not.
A God that guides everything would contradict every law of science investigated by scientists. Many investigations have uncovered processes that are not directly guided. Many of these unguided processes are biological.
Every law of science that contradicts the existence of unguided biogenesis has been invalidated, thus far. There are phenomena that have not been explained by the laws of science. However, there is no logical way to deduce the existence of God from these gaps.
There also is no way to falsify the existence of a God that violates some laws of science some of the time. Therefore, there is sort of wiggle room for rational people who believe in a God. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. However, the same argument applies to abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is consistent with all currently known laws of science. God by definition contradicts all known laws of science. So to make up the existence of a God who created life is basically making up a new law of science. In fact, every attribute one attributes to God is a separate law of science. So the existence and descriptions of God violate Occam's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a law of science, either. There are too many times that it has been violated to count. I admit that Occam's razor is not sufficient to rule out the existence of God. However, it doesn't prove His existence, either.
'There is a God' is a law of science that can not be falsified except by continuous and direct communication with
Nattering on about 'information' doesn't really help you since scientists use the word in different ways. Physicists working with thermodynamics do not use the word 'information' to denote an intelligently guided process.
Thermodynamics, well established laws of science, do not in any way contradict abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics does not contradict abiogenesis.
The thread has been split by the moderators. Let me point out that Daniel has abandoned the quantum mechanics thread. He made some convoluted argument about the path of a particle requiring the conscious guidance of an intelligent being.
He quit that thread soon after I posted those links to articles on the 'two slit experiment' where the scientist did not consciously guide the trajectory of a particle. The scientist merely heated the wave and the particles appeared.
Heating is not really guidance as the scientists, after heating, had no idea which slit the particle would go through. I listed loads of articles showing how the wave front collapses forming the particle with out conscious guidance of the scientists.
Hence, quantum mechanics does not provide a law of science that requires a conscious entity to guid it. Daniel had no answer to this.
Neither quantum mechanics nor thermodynamics really entail the existence of a conscious God. I don't know any other law of science that does so either. The currently known laws of science are consistent with an unguided biogenesis.
God requires belief in Him to help His Creations. That is a hypothesis that is often added to the hypothesis that God exists. So that is two laws of nature that at present seem unfalsifiable. Then there is, 'God blesses people who believe in him AND do good deeds.' That is three unfalsifiable hypotheses.
That doesn't mean God exists, but he may be very different from what Daniel envisions. Just because God exists doesn't mean that he cares about whether anyone 'believes' in him. He doesn't communicate with each of us directly, so there is no way falsify this. Daniel is left with the option to find a law of science that requires the existence of God. He himself claims that he requires 'evidence' for the existence of God, though he never presented real evidence.
I can not say whether there is a God or not, but I do know that the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain the existence of life. You may find the God hypothesis sufficient. On the condition that you are right, let us hope He blesses us each and every one without the unexplained requirement for belief!
My Word (lol, btw)
