Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

So what is it, exactly, that we can't know about God? I mean, we can say there are things we can't know about God's nature, but what are they? Perfection? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Or perhaps all of these - or something else?

All of the above plus His motivations and His methods. People always ask why a benevolent God would allow bad things to happen, but how could he not and still allow us free will? People ask how bad things can become good things (Romans 8:28 "God works all things for the good of Man&quot but they don't know what effects those bad things have, now or in the future. No human can know because we are simply too limited by a finite existence to recognize and understand everything involved.

For example, imagine someone has set up a large collection of dominoes that, only after finishing the complete sequence of domino effects, will form a picture. The person who set up the dominoes knows where they all are, how they all will fall, and what the final picture will be. From the perspective of those dominoes there's is only an impact, a fall, and a second impact followed by the continuation of the fall. And if you give people a snapshot of a single domino or a small group of dominoes at random points in time during the effect they won't know what the picture is or how the whole thing started, they'll only know how the domino/es in their picture will fall. God set up the dominoes, the dominoes are random events and other such things that don't act of a will but simply seem to happen through coincidence or as the result of other effects, and we're the people looking at snapshots. We see such a minute fraction of the whole that there's simply no way to understand it all, but the whole is also so complex that even if we could somehow see it we'd never understand it in the same way as the person who set it up.

rational thinking is the gift of god to mankind.

What? No it isn't?
Rational thought is what Adam and Even achieved whenever they ate from the tree, which they only did due to the devil's trickery. Rational thought is the immediate effect of the original sin. Rational thought was a 'curse' by the devil, not a gift of god.

Every notable name in the history of science prior to Hawking, at the very least, acknowledged the existence of a higher power.

Should be noted many of these people (as in, the ones from much more bleaker ages) lived in a time when it was preposterous, if not threatening to one's safety, to not be religious.

It fails on "common sense" level, on the scientific level, and on the incosistency-level.

Religion, or theistic/deistic belief?

Why "god"? Why not "godESS"? Why not "god(ess)S"? You question is biassed

When many people state "god" they are doing so in a non-gender manner

But as we all know you can't prove a negative

Actually, you can
"There is no largest prime number" and "There is no rational square root of 2" are both provable negatives ((taken from rationalwiki))
Also a good quick read on the idea of proving a negative

Now as I clearly proved I know what I am talking about, and was harassed by a moderator without reason, I want an apology from Moegreche, because named moderator stepped beyond the moderating, and started favouritism.

Before I even noticed his comment on your page and his comment to you on here, I was planning on addressing how rude and aggressive you have been in this thread. Completely unnecessary.

He told me to break because he favours religious views, and is uncomfortable for someone pointing out (through your view) religious views in general is illogical nonsense.

Moe favors philosophical and logical discussions. He has, many times, discussed against religious views.

Rational thought is what Adam and Even achieved whenever they ate from the tree, which they only did due to the devil's trickery. Rational thought is the immediate effect of the original sin. Rational thought was a 'curse' by the devil, not a gift of god.

I am no expert, I'll have to dig it up, but I think that there is a whole chapter in Genesis where god creates the world. The creation of mankind is further analyzed and I think that what is stated is that god wanted something different from the animals. So when he made the first human, he gave him rational thought but also, innocence and purity. The fruit of knowledge merely made them vulnerable to human sins. The immediate effect after they ate from the tree for example was that they saw they were naked and tried to hide their nudity.

Will this placate everyone getting abit carried on about definitions? It's abit simplistic in itself, but it does go around the basics admirably. Also, Gnosticism is used in a fashion not totally in sync with how most would use it. Cheers.

@nichodemus I like the subnote! Yeah it is pretty simple but it will work if there are any doubts so thanks! (Actually now that I remember I've stumbled upon this before on 9gag)

A bit of backtracking here, because I've been busy the last few days:

[from all over the place]

@FishPreferred Just compare it to the bottom of page 460.

@yielee; I am aware of the repeated sentence structure. I am questioning your rationale, not your motive.

In fact, every attempt to confirm that abiogenesis is even possible has failed to produce more than a few amino acids (a small fraction of the hundreds that would have to spontaneously form and then combine to create even the simplest cell) [...]

No, actually, that's not the case at all. A great deal was produced by the Miller-Urey apparatus alone, including sugars, nucleic acids, and a variety of other organic compounds. Because experiments of this type require a contained system and various gaseous elements and compounds, the major inhibiting factors are time and starting material. If you have enough of both (and Eoarchaean Earth certainly did), you have your required hundreds in greater variety than you could possibly need.

And the theories on how the big bang occurred are often so laughably vague and self-contradictory [...]

They have to be vague. Given the state of matter, space, and time that the models predict, anything more is extremely difficult to explain to anyone outside of theoretical physics. They are not self-contradictory. Nothing with internal contradiction can ever attain the prestigious rank of 'theory'.

BTW, Charles Darwin became a deist after writing The Origin of Species and giving up on his dream of becoming a Christian priest.

Um, no. Darwin did not become a deist, nor was taking up the clergy necessarily even an aspiration of his.

Einstein was a theist who fled to the U.S. in order to escape the Nazis' persecution of Jews.

Einstein was a spinozan pantheist/immanentist. This is a far cry from the type of theism you're propounding and, according to some theologists, not technically a theism or even a religious belief.

Every notable name in the history of science prior to Hawking, at the very least, acknowledged the existence of a higher power.

No.

Actually they do.
Take for example the most obvious example here: xianity: just on the first page of their booklet says the earth is flat, the earth is the first planetary object, there can be light without distinction from darkness, there can be night&day w/o a sun.
Then in the second chapter it says snakes eat dust and speak (human language).
Still in the first story speaks about a "garden2 which is guarded by a "cherub" and exists today still, but noone found it despite the "flaming sword" and the supposed "tree of life".
And this is just the first story's most obvious mistakes.

Those are some great points on the fallaciousness of Genesis. Unfortunately, they don't relate to the current discussion in any way whatsoever.

First: the starting position is AGAIN that "we don't know", and not "we don't know therefor goddidit".

[...] Ishtaron challenged the theories about how and why the big bang happened, not the theory about it happening.

Those are the theories about it happening.

Now as I clearly proved I know what I am talking about, and was harassed by a moderator without reason, I want an apology from Moegreche, because named moderator stepped beyond the moderating, and started favouritism.

You have, in fact, made a very compelling argument to the contrary. Also:
a) Favouritism ≠ Harassment
b) Harassment ≠ what Moegreche is doing ≠ Favouritism.
c) As many ardent theists can attest, pleading harassment whenever your views are challenged will not increase your credibility.

As finite beings we are physically incapable of truly understanding infinity as anything other than an abstract concept.

Actually, infinity is probably one of the easiest things to understand. Omitting the boundaries from an otherwise finite system results in an infinite system. This is universally applicable, as the boundaries can represent any set quantity. Congradulations; you now understand infinity in a real and practical sense.

All of the above plus His motivations and His methods. People always ask why a benevolent God would allow bad things to happen, but how could he not and still allow us free will? People ask how bad things can become good things (Romans 8:28 "God works all things for the good of Man&quot but they don't know what effects those bad things have, now or in the future. No human can know because we are simply too limited by a finite existence to recognize and understand everything involved.

So, essentially, your explanation of every logical contradiction in your beliefs is "He works in mysterious ways"? Sorry, but irreducible complexity is not enough to eliminate the need for logical consistency.

Rational thought is what Adam and Even achieved whenever they ate from the tree, which they only did due to the devil's trickery. Rational thought is the immediate effect of the original sin. Rational thought was a 'curse' by the devil, not a gift of god.

Ah, but you forget; this was all cunningly orchestrated by God, Himself, as I'm sure Ishtaron will affirm. Obviously, this is not the cruel tyrrany it seems, but a kindness and benevolence so great that mere mortals simply cannot comprehend it without going mad.

For example, imagine someone has set up a large collection of dominoes that, only after finishing the complete sequence of domino effects, will form a picture.

@Ishtaron - This is one of my favourite things I've ever hear. This is just beautiful. Like, seriously.
But the problem of evil, as least how I learned it (and how I approach it) isn't on this kind of scale. Take a child who is dying from cancer and is suffering immensely. We might ask why this is happening, but even this is too large a question. Suppose the child finally succumbs to his illness to 10:43. The question I have is: Why not 10:42? That extra minute of suffering seems needless. I realise that the domino analogy isn't meant to address the problem of evil directly, but it's quite fitting. And yet it just doesn't satisfy those nagging questions for me.

So, essentially, your explanation of every logical contradiction in your beliefs is "He works in mysterious ways"? Sorry, but irreducible complexity is not enough to eliminate the need for logical consistency.

This isn't quite irreducible complexity (at least as I understand it) but I share your concern. I think the point here, though, is that there is logical consistency in place. It's just that we don't have epistemic access to it.

Take one of the most blatantly inconsistent - yet most fervently held - tenets of the Christian faith -- Trinitarianism. (Note that not all Christian denominations accept trinitarianism, perhaps because it's logically incoherent.) This claim is, pure and simple, a logical contradiction. There are some attempts to make sense of the claim (e.g. using the three states of matter of water as an analogy) that ultimately fail. But perhaps this aspect of God - this part of His nature - is simply unknowable.

Is it intellectually unsatisfying? Sure. But perhaps part of meditating on the nature of God brings believers at peace with these unknowable aspects. Perhaps this is a big part of what faith is about.

@FishPreferred

Actually, infinity is probably one of the easiest things to understand. Omitting the boundaries from an otherwise finite system results in an infinite system. This is universally applicable, as the boundaries can represent any set quantity. Congradulations; you now understand infinity in a real and practical sense.

That doesn't sound like understanding it as a concept. Merely understanding how it can be represented.

Those are the theories about it happening.

Ah, but you forget; this was all cunningly orchestrated by God, Himself, as I'm sure Ishtaron will affirm. Obviously, this is not the cruel tyrrany it seems, but a kindness and benevolence so great that mere mortals simply cannot comprehend it without going mad.

@Moegreche

The question I have is: Why not 10:42? That extra minute of suffering seems needless. I realise that the domino analogy isn't meant to address the problem of evil directly, but it's quite fitting. And yet it just doesn't satisfy those nagging questions for me.

Take one of the most blatantly inconsistent - yet most fervently held - tenets of the Christian faith -- Trinitarianism. (Note that not all Christian denominations accept trinitarianism, perhaps because it's logically incoherent.) This claim is, pure and simple, a logical contradiction.

Of course it is logically incoherent. This is one aspect of god that can be considered unkowable to man according to Christianity. That god has in a way 3 "faces" but is still one god. Similarly unkowable would be the description of Jesus as having 2 natures: One divine and one human. Though the way I said it now appears to make sense, Jesus Christ is described as both completely human and completely divine not just the equivalent of a demigod. This could not fit in the minds of some believers, so they started some of the famous heresies.

Sure. But perhaps part of meditating on the nature of God brings believers at peace with these unknowable aspects. Perhaps this is a big part of what faith is about.

This is one of my favourite things I've ever hear. This is just beautiful. Like, seriously.

I have those moments. They scare the hell out of me because I have no idea how I do it. I'm not saying it's God, in fact I highly doubt He has anything to do with it, my brain just does incredibly weird things sometimes and no amount of introspection or analysis has provided me with any clue as to how it happens.

But the problem of evil, as least how I learned it (and how I approach it) isn't on this kind of scale.

Not all of the dominoes are evil. As I said, they're the coincidences and random events. Cancer is one end of the spectrum, someone winning the lottery could be considered the other.

Take a child who is dying from cancer and is suffering immensely. We might ask why this is happening, but even this is too large a question. Suppose the child finally succumbs to his illness to 10:43. The question I have is: Why not 10:42? That extra minute of suffering seems needless. I realise that the domino analogy isn't meant to address the problem of evil directly, but it's quite fitting. And yet it just doesn't satisfy those nagging questions for me

Most people do ask "why is this happening?" and I applaud you for recognizing the actual scale of that question. As for that extra minute, I don't know. Perhaps that extra minute of suffering is, so to speak, the straw that broke the camels back changing that child's cancer from unnecessary misery to a life-changing event for someone else. Perhaps that extra minute itself is what's unnecessary and isn't determined by God but by that child's will to fight. Positive thinking has been noted to have a significant impact on how people fight/recover from terminal illnesses and crippling injuries, and I've already said that God does not control every aspect of our lives otherwise we couldn't be said to have free will.

No, actually, that's not the case at all. A great deal was produced by the Miller-Urey apparatus alone, including sugars, nucleic acids, and a variety of other organic compounds. Because experiments of this type require a contained system and various gaseous elements and compounds, the major inhibiting factors are time and starting material. If you have enough of both (and Eoarchaean Earth certainly did), you have your required hundreds in greater variety than you could possibly need.

All of which assumes that; A) We can accurately depict and replicate the environment of Earth before there was any life. B) That a natural source of electricity would not only be sufficient to produce but wouldn't be so powerful as to destroy the bonds of those chemicals. C) That other environmental factors, like the volcanic eruptions that provided the atmosphere and chemicals needed to form these organic compounds, wouldn't destroy the organic compounds. And D) that with time organic compounds can spontaneously combine to form a living cell. We can artificially produce literal tons of these compounds and yet the only time I've ever heard of them combining is in lab conditions designed to force them together.

Regardless, my point was not to debate abiogenesis but to point out that the scientific theories twilight believes prove God doesn't exist aren't rock solid. A theory is not a fact, that's science. A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by experimentation and evidence. It is not proven, and by it's very definition it is still falsifiable. There is a very large line between theory and law, a line atheists seem to ignore whenever it doesn't suit them.

So, essentially, your explanation of every logical contradiction in your beliefs is "He works in mysterious ways"? Sorry, but irreducible complexity is not enough to eliminate the need for logical consistency.

No, my explanation for the nature of God is that he's beyond understanding. My explanation for the questions atheists like to use as &quotroof" that God doesn't exist by trying to force believers into questioning His benevolence is that we are too limited to know everything. If you want to discuss specific logical inconsistencies feel free, but I am not a biblical scholar and if I had to define myself I would have to say that I'm an agnostic theist so be prepared to read "I don't know", because I'm not going to research the history of every culture and language the books of The Bible are written in just to be able to knowledgeably argue specifics.

Actually, infinity is probably one of the easiest things to understand. Omitting the boundaries from an otherwise finite system results in an infinite system. This is universally applicable, as the boundaries can represent any set quantity. Congradulations; you now understand infinity in a real and practical sense.

Great, now imagine a space with no boundaries. Imagine a line of numbers that never ends. Not a line of numbers that seems to stretch off into infinity but an actual infinite line of numbers. You can't, can you? Because the idea of omitting boundaries is not a real and practical vision of infinity, it's an abstract concept that allows us to define infinity. The human mind is limited by physical constraints and personal experience. Even imagining millions of anything is nearly impossible for most people because we lack the experience to accurately portray such large numbers. We can define what a million is, we can use it in mathematics, we can even compare it to something we do know for a general idea of scale but that doesn't mean our minds truly understand it.

Um, no. Darwin did not become a deist, nor was taking up the clergy necessarily even an aspiration of his.

He went to the University of Cambridge with the intent of joining the clergy. He joined the crew of The Beagle as a last hurrah before doing so and was looking for "centers of creation" where he believed God had separated creatures into their various sub-species through adaptation. When asked to define his own beliefs in 1879 he responded that he never was an atheist and could probably be most accurately defined as agnostic. The actual term deism was rarely, if ever, used after about 1800 until relatively recently but the term does fairly accurately describe Darwin late in life.

Einstein was a spinozan pantheist/immanentist. This is a far cry from the type of theism you're propounding and, according to some theologists, not technically a theism or even a religious belief.

I've never been completely familiar with Einstein's specific beliefs, so I'm sorry if my comment implied something that isn't true. However, nothing I actually said was untrue. Einstein and Darwin are often referenced as atheist scientists and are two of the most well known names in the modern world which is why I used them as examples.

No.

More of this. Stop just saying "No" or "You're wrong". If you can actually show me a well-known scientist from the past that was definitively atheist go ahead and prove me wrong. Otherwise there's no point in responding.

They are not self-contradictory. Nothing with internal contradiction can ever attain the prestigious rank of 'theory'.

Really? They're not? Can you explain for me then how gravity, the weakest atomic force, managed to overcome the explosive force of the big bang and the accelerating propulsion caused by negative energy to pull together hydrogen atoms into supersized stars? Because there's all sorts of nonsense involved in relatively weak forces overpowering much greater forces. That doesn't even get into the concept that the laws of physics were created by an unknown event or the idea of what caused the big bang. Once again, I'm not trying to start a debate on the subject just trying to point out that that theories are not absolute. Or even as prestigious as you think they are.

I don't want to sound offensive or insult you in any way but all I can think to this is: "What?" What do you mean?

As I said, they're the coincidences and random events. Cancer is one end of the spectrum, someone winning the lottery could be considered the other.

All of which assumes that; A) We can accurately depict and replicate the environment of Earth before there was any life.

B) That a natural source of electricity would not only be sufficient to produce but wouldn't be so powerful as to destroy the bonds of those chemicals.

C) That other environmental factors, like the volcanic eruptions that provided the atmosphere and chemicals needed to form these organic compounds, wouldn't destroy the organic compounds.

And D) that with time organic compounds can spontaneously combine to form a living cell. We can artificially produce literal tons of these compounds and yet the only time I've ever heard of them combining is in lab conditions designed to force them together.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by experimentation and evidence.

It is not proven, and by it's very definition it is still falsifiable.

There is a very large line between theory and law, a line atheists seem to ignore whenever it doesn't suit them.

Great, now imagine a space with no boundaries. Imagine a line of numbers that never ends.

More of this. Stop just saying "No" or "You're wrong". If you can actually show me a well-known scientist from the past that was definitively atheist go ahead and prove me wrong. Otherwise there's no point in responding.

Do you see a problem here? You did well on the last two counts by providing some easily verified information and explaining your position, but here you make a definitive and nigh-universal positive assertion (every notable scientist up to Hawking did ___) that is not only outlandish, but also unexplained and completely unsupported. All that should be required of me is to refute it, yet you expect me to "prove" the contrary.

Can you explain for me then how gravity, the weakest atomic force, managed to overcome the explosive force of the big bang and the accelerating propulsion caused by negative energy to pull together hydrogen atoms into supersized stars?

Because there's all sorts of nonsense involved in relatively weak forces overpowering much greater forces.

That doesn't even get into the concept that the laws of physics were created by an unknown event or the idea of what caused the big bang.

Once again, I'm not trying to start a debate on the subject just trying to point out that that theories are not absolute. Or even as prestigious as you think they are.

1. That would require the existence of randomness.
2. That would impinge upon omnipotence.

I was using common terms to describe specific phenomena. This is just arguing semantics.

No, it doesn't. That has been verified by this very same experiment and others besides. How often does a lightning strike vapourize everything in its blast radius?

I still don't want to argue about the theory here, but there is an extreme flaw in your "evidence" on this one. How has it been verified? There are entire facilities dedicated to generating large bursts of electricity to study how it behaves in order to more accurately understand and predict lightning, yet none of them come close to actual lighting. Electric discharges that powerful can easily affect atomic bonds, they don't have to "vapourize everything" in order to break apart or burn apart organic chemicals. But full scale lightning strikes cannot be simulated in a laboratory environment.

Every theist that ever existed in any field of science has denied the existence of any supreme being at least twice. Prove me wrong.

Do you see a problem here? You did well on the last two counts by providing some easily verified information and explaining your position, but here you make a definitive and nigh-universal positive assertion (every notable scientist up to Hawking did ___) that is not only outlandish, but also unexplained and completely unsupported. All that should be required of me is to refute it, yet you expect me to &quotrove" the contrary.

I made a reasonable statement. It's well known and commonly acknowledged that in the past religious belief was far more prevalent. The scientists noteworthy enough to be well known (Darwin, Einstein, Newton, etc.) were all religious to one degree or another. The farther back you go in history the more prevalent religious belief is and the more religious organizations impact scientific discovery. To reference pangtonshu's link, I used reasonable inductive logic to prove a statement. To deductively prove it I would have to provide proof that literally every notable scientist was religious. The only thing you would need to do to disprove it is provide a single example of me being wrong. Instead you just post "No" and it's something you have a habit of doing whenever you disagree with something but can't or don't want to argue it. Prove me wrong or don't bother replying, simply telling me I'm wrong is a waste of everyone's time and does not allow for genuine debate.

Theories are absolute. If they were situationally dependent, they would only be laws. They are exactly as prestigious as I think they are. If you describe something that doesn't meet the exact qualifications, it isn't a theory.

Theories are not absolute, they are guesswork supported by limited evidence. Laws are absolute, they function the same throughout the universe. Laws cannot be falsified, there is no evidence that can disprove them. Theories only work as long as scientists find evidence to support them, the moment something doesn't fit with a theory it has to be changed, arguably becoming a new theory, or abandoned for a more likely theory (ex. gravitons vs higgs fields in regards to the theory of gravitational mechanics) and in recent years seem to be more dependent on the support of scientific consensus than scientific evidence.

Most people do ask "why is this happening?" and I applaud you for recognizing the actual scale of that question. As for that extra minute, I don't know. Perhaps that extra minute of suffering is, so to speak, the straw that broke the camels back changing that child's cancer from unnecessary misery to a life-changing event for someone else. Perhaps that extra minute itself is what's unnecessary and isn't determined by God but by that child's will to fight. Positive thinking has been noted to have a significant impact on how people fight/recover from terminal illnesses and crippling injuries, and I've already said that God does not control every aspect of our lives otherwise we couldn't be said to have free will.

The more important point here, to me is, does the ends justify the means? You talk about God having some plan, but what plan worth carrying out entails the suffering of countless billions or eventually trillions? Why does God, this all powerful being, need to have children die of a disease? It's not a question you can answer, which is why you give the empty response of "god works in mysterious ways."

Whenever I start thinking about how a utopia could possibly exist, without violating anyone or anything's rights, I can't think of one. Animals kill each other to survive. Plants fight for resources. People have different views and opinions. This all leads to conflict. It is impossible because of how life works for there to ever be absolutely no problems. Somewhere, something will be hurt or denied something they want due to the existence of something else.

Not even the cop-out of a perfect afterlife justifies horrific abuses. Is it somehow okay that someone is raped and murdered, or forced to live their life as a slave, or have their body mutilated, if they go on to this "perfect" afterlife (not even getting into what heaven precisely is)? I don't think so, and I certainly wouldn't accept that kind of "solution" from a being that supposedly is all knowing and omnipotent.

A theory is not a fact, that's science. A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by experimentation and evidence. It is not proven, and by it's very definition it is still falsifiable. There is a very large line between theory and law, a line atheists seem to ignore whenever it doesn't suit them.

You are half right. A theory describes phenomena and is supported by hypothesis and experimentation. It remains "falsifiable" in that we never say that it is the absolute truth, but what we can conclude with our current knowledge. This isn't the same as saying we think there isn't a very good reason to conclude what is being concluding.

A law and a theory are not related. Theories do not evolve into laws with more proof. A law is like a mechanical operative. Heat does this. Matter does this. Theories explain complex phenomena of interactions of developments.

My explanation for the questions atheists like to use as "proof" that God doesn't exist

I can prove your version of what you call God doesn't exist by listing a single contradiction in your belief. You, by putting form to your belief, create something that can be examined.

Does a supernatural deity exist? We have no evidence for one, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Can snakes talk or an entire species originate from two interbreeding ad infinitum, or is it possible for it to rain for 40 days and is there enough water to have covered all the landmass on earth? Those are claims that can be examined.

A god, if one does exist, is certainly nothing like what anyone believes it to be through religion.

Can you explain for me then how gravity, the weakest atomic force, managed to overcome the explosive force of the big bang and the accelerating propulsion caused by negative energy to pull together hydrogen atoms into supersized stars?

1) The universe is still expanding. It's a matter of some debate (afaik) whether gravity will overcome that and pull everything back together eventually, or if everything will keep spreading out forever.

2) The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.

3) Negative energy?

The farther back you go in history the more prevalent religious belief is and the more religious organizations impact scientific discovery.

And in every time period, the more educated and smarter people were the least likely to hold religious convictions (note: this doesn't exclude theistic beliefs). Dogma has always been known to be bogus.

Does a supernatural deity exist? We have no evidence for one, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Can snakes talk or an entire species originate from two interbreeding ad infinitum, or is it possible for it to rain for 40 days and is there enough water to have covered all the landmass on earth? Those are claims that can be examined.

Well, this is on the bible alright, but it is supposed to be a metaphor. Many people don't get this, but many things on the bible are metaphors.

A law and a theory are not related. Theories do not evolve into laws with more proof. A law is like a mechanical operative. Heat does this. Matter does this. Theories explain complex phenomena of interactions of developments.

Depends on the theory. Some theories are very precise and work like laws with the exception that they have not been proven (admittedly few).

Whenever I start thinking about how a utopia could possibly exist, without violating anyone or anything's rights, I can't think of one

I am sorry but what do you mean? Yes there is no such thing. So?

@Ishtaron Forget the lightning for a moment. Other sources of energy have been taken into account; it is probable that life originated around deep sea hydrothermal vents or similar environment. This is pointed at in the video I linked before, if you haven't watched it, do so. But other research has also shown that hydrothermal vents are a very likely candidate for the cradle of life on earth, due to the availability of energy and the necessary minerals and other material.
.
Being able to demonstrate how life can form from anorganic matter is important. While not directly disproving the existence of a deity, it shows we have no reason to rely on a 'creator being hypothesis' to explain abiogenesis.

Well, this is on the bible alright, but it is supposed to be a metaphor. Many people don't get this, but many things on the bible are metaphors.

Electric discharges that powerful can easily affect atomic bonds, they don't have to "vapourize everything" in order to break apart or burn apart organic chemicals.

Which is why molecules in the blast radius can be affected without being destroyed. Case closed.

I made a reasonable statement. It's well known and commonly acknowledged that in the past religious belief was far more prevalent.

Theories are not absolute, they are guesswork supported by limited evidence.

Laws are absolute, they function the same throughout the universe.

Laws cannot be falsified, there is no evidence that can disprove them. Theories only work as long as scientists find evidence to support them, the moment something doesn't fit with a theory it has to be changed, arguably becoming a new theory, or abandoned for a more likely theory (ex. gravitons vs higgs fields in regards to the theory of gravitational mechanics) and in recent years seem to be more dependent on the support of scientific consensus than scientific evidence.

Depends on the theory. Some theories are very precise and work like laws with the exception that they have not been proven (admittedly few).