Jump to content


Photo

Life Only Comes From Life


  • Please log in to reply
432 replies to this topic

#421 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:42 AM

Man there are so many things I could say...

For one thing: If God created everything from nothing, then everything may be considered nothing as well, so in a sense, it is "virtual" to the perspective of God. And If God is absolute and all powerful and he CREATED EVERYTHING, then logically you can conclude that he is the only thing that really "exists" -- I put quotes in there because God also created the concept of existing, and the concept of creation and the concept of concept. Basically you get to a point where you can not define anything regarding this topic because you have no rights "outside" reality -- that is God's domain since he created reality.

Second, perhaps matter does not exist the way we think it does. Maybe it is part of a infinite numbers of system and systems of systems forever and ever... But then, get this, perhaps the whole of these systems does not actually exist. Maybe it is like the Matrix where everything is simulated in a computer. Maybe everything is simulated within the mind of God and there really is no matter or anything, just God. I mean, everything is already a mass illusion anyway -- Everything is basically made of the same thing, whatever that is. There is no difference among individual objects on the grand scale as far as the universe is concerned.

More practical: The Big Bang could be the product of some other higher dimension of reality within the universe and all the matter is actually something else in the form of atoms...

Also, you said something about a "fairy poofing everything into existence." Well, wouldn't God be that fairy? LoL.
EDIT: Also, yes I have read the bible and knew that thing about Moses was in there.

View Post


Another fine example of spherical reasoning gone awry. You’re attempting here, to criticize someone by saying they “can not define anything regarding this topic because you have no rights "outside" reality”, whilst at the same time defining things "outside" reality” in doing so.

#422 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 June 2009 - 09:18 AM

Another fine example of spherical reasoning gone awry. You’re attempting here, to criticize someone by saying they “can not define anything regarding this topic because you have no rights "outside" reality”, whilst at the same time defining things "outside" reality” in doing so.

View Post

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

#423 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2009 - 10:55 AM

Another fine example of spherical reasoning gone awry. You’re attempting here, to criticize someone by saying they “can not define anything regarding this topic because you have no rights "outside" reality”, whilst at the same time defining things "outside" reality” in doing so.

View Post


Well that is my point man. Is God separate from everything he created? I would assume so right? Or maybe all matter is essentially God's energy, and it is him in part, and he is at one with everything that exists since he is the only thing that truly exists -- in that he is the foundation of foundations and the base level of existence all the way through reality.

Or do you assume that God is within the universe? That would mean that he is subject to his own environment.

I do understand that it is hard to think less relatively.

#424 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:05 PM

Well that is my point man. Is God separate from everything he created? I would assume so right?

View Post

No, according to His word and my experience, that would be incorrect. God is a part of His creation much in the same way a parent is a part of their children. Only more so because He can interact with, and yet work outside of, His creation.


Or maybe all matter is essentially God's energy, and it is him in part, and he is at one with everything that exists since he is the only thing that truly exists -- in that he is the foundation of foundations and the base level of existence all the way through reality.

View Post


No, all matter is God’s creation and we exist as well. He made the foundation of foundations and the base level of existence all the way through reality.

Or do you assume that God is within the universe? That would mean that he is subject to his own environment.

View Post

No assumption necessary Dave. God said He created the universe; He is only subject to His righteousness and good/Holy nature. He is not subject to the nature He created any more than you are subject to the automobile you own and drive.


I do understand that it is hard to think less relatively.

View Post

Not hard at all, just open your eyes and quit pretending that materialistic nature is the end-all and be-all (because, deep down you know it isn’t true).

#425 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:06 PM

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

View Post


:P Indeed!

#426 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 26 June 2009 - 06:53 PM

The question's pretty simple: Possible or impossible? You can't have it both ways. I take it you have no intention of making up your mind.

View Post


I think I have made it abundantly clear where I stand. I don't know why you insist maintaining the position that I am undecided. But just to reiterate, it is possible for man to exist through natural processes in the universe. Does that mean you can make a man out of dirt? No, not any more than you can make cake out of stars. Does it mean that we are not made out of the same things, of course not, because both are made out of the universe. But there is a huge amount of changes that must take place in between when the molecules were dirt and when they become human, so many in fact that it doesn't make sense to say we were made from dirt. If god did not do it instantaneously, how would you make the distinction between the process being natural and supernatural? If it happened in the natural realm, and it was a process, what makes it supernatural?

Actually you said that when you were caught claiming a scientist could do it, or it could happen by itself, but God couldn't do it. It doesn't begin to solve your problem. The only solution is to stop making nonsensical assertions.

View Post


I never said a scientist could do it, nor that it could happen by itself. I believe in the theory of evolution and in that model it doesn't start with dirt and the next step human. That's precisely what I am saying is impossible, and that's how I understood the bible said it was done. If that is not what the bible indicates, then I misunderstood.

I get it now. Generally when one says one thing, and then says the exact opposite, they are abandoning the first one.

View Post


I agree, but since I didn't do that, this does not apply to me.

That's not what you said before. You said "he only logical conclusion anyone can make from the existence of man is that man is a product of the universe. Anything beyond that is pure conjecturing. I would argue that the very nature of the biblical conception of god is unfathomable, outside the realm of our logic and beyond our reasoning capabilities, correct me if I'm wrong. Thus, for you to say "logically, god must of made man," is to say "logically the cause of man is a non-logical, non-reasonable explanation." A contradictory statement to say the least."

I have shown that God is the only logical conclusion, so now you respond by trying to disqualify the conclusion from being logical. Sell it to whatever suckers you can. Your response indicates you fully understand the logic I presented.

You even have to invent a new category: "non-logical". Logic only recognizes two categories: logical and illogical. Thus your argument is not consistent with the former.

View Post


There are many things that do not subscribe to logical reasoning in that they are neither logical or illogical. Why someone loves another cannot be described in terms of being logical or illogical, logic has nothing to do with it, therefore it is non-logical. God talking through a burning bush is not logical, but he supposedly did, so it can't be illogical either, therefore understanding that event does not utilize logic, therefore the term non-logical. When God is concerned, how he is omnipotent, or why he is omniscient absolutely cannot be understood through logic, does it make it illogical, no, it just means it can't be understood in a logical paradigm. That's why I said that asserting god as a logical cause is inappropriate. What can't be understood by logic can't be used in logic to determine truth.

What's funny? Logic applies to the forms and consistency of arguments themselves. It does not assess the topic of any argument. Well, real logic, anyhow...

View Post


It does if you want the argument to be sound. Your argument is one of the following two:

1. Its impossible for life to come from non-life
2. God can do the impossible
3. life exists
4. therefore, god created life

or

1. Life cannot come from non-life through natural processes
2. god is supernatural
3. life exists
4. therefore, god created life

While I will agree both these arguments are valid, neither argument is sound. In order for them to be sound all premises would have to be true, and whether they are or not is exactly what we are debating. The following argument is just as valid as the ones above:

1. It is possible for life to come from non-life through natural processes.
2. Abiogenesis is a natural process
3. life exists
4. therefore life came about through abiogenesis.

All three arguments are logically valid, none of them are sound. Only one has the possibility of being validated through science. All can be validated through faith. The first two contain an element that cannot be understood using logic. All are on equal footing through unbiased eyes. But none of them can be considered the only logically valid argument because all of them are valid. None of them can be considered the only logically sound argument until all premises in one argument can be proven true.

philosophik wrote: If you are asking "can there be no void," and by doing so you are not describing 'something', then what are you talking about? If there is 'no void,' it's pointless to consider it as being subject, or not subject to anything. That's why I initially thought you meant 'can non-existence exist'. There can either be nothing or something; if you start the question by saying 'can there be no nothing' and are not referring to 'something' then you are describing non-existence.


Those who understand my point have done understood it. I expected you'd throw something in to confuse them, but dropping it suits me just fine.

Both versions of my question can be interpreted properly by anyone who tries to do so. And anything can be misinterpreted with a little effort. It appears you mistakenly took a no-effort-whatsoever approach.

View Post


Alright o'wise one, please help the incompetent. If there is no nothing and there is no something, what is there? Please elaborate, what is it you are describing? If it takes no effort to understand, then you should be able to explain it without using double negatives that don't allude to a positive. Don't be so arrogant and say 'It's so easy to understand if you just try a little, but since you don't understand you must not be trying." I look at things in terms of something or nothing, but since what you are describing is neither, I'm asking you to enlighten me, what else is there? And saying 'you just don't understand my question' is a non-answer, it just shows exactly how hard your question is to comprehend if you can't describe what you are talking about in terms of being something or nothing.

#427 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:44 PM

Alright o'wise one, please help the incompetent. If there is no nothing and there is no something, what is there? Please elaborate, what is it you are describing? If it takes no effort to understand, then you should be able to explain it without using double negatives that don't allude to a positive. Don't be so arrogant and say 'It's so easy to understand if you just try a little, but since you don't understand you must not be trying." I look at things in terms of something or nothing, but since what you are describing is neither, I'm asking you to enlighten me, what else is there? And saying 'you just don't understand my question' is a non-answer, it just shows exactly how hard your question is to comprehend if you can't describe what you are talking about in terms of being something or nothing.

View Post

Your original definition of 'nothing' requires that all places where there is nothing are subject to being filled with something. You'd be fine if you claimed this about all places within the universe. It is universally observed to be true, and this is how we obtain knowledge about many natural laws, including the one which used to be the topic of this thread.

But you did not restrict yourself to nothings within the universe. You included nothings outside of the universe also, a metaphysical claim. You still evade, because you know quite well you cannot substantiate this claim.

And it isn't hard to present counter-examples. Take the common ideas about imaginary dimensions, for example. If all somethings are 12-dimensional, and 14 dimensions exist, there's no way for the nothing in the extra dimensions to be filled. It must always be nothing. Inaccessible, unfillable nothing. A permanent void. A place where nothing can gain access. Emptiness which cannot be occupied. A nothing where nothing can exist. A lack of something, which has always been and always must be a lack of any and all somethings. A place with zero contents and zero potential to contain content. The true total sum of all probabilities God does not exist.

#428 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:55 AM

Your argument is one of the following two:

1. Its impossible for life to come from non-life
2. God can do the impossible
3. life exists
4. therefore, god created life

or

1. Life cannot come from non-life through natural processes
2. god is supernatural
3. life exists
4. therefore, god created life

View Post


That would be incorrect, and a gross misinterpretation of the syllogism and logic. But, this being a common tactic of the atheistic evolutionist, in a sad attempt to reconcile their belief system like patchwork on a poorly made quilt, it is expected every time atheists make the argument.

Premise 1 - ALL life observed has come from life
Premise 2 - NO life has ever been observed coming from non-life
Premise 3 - There is no logical reasoning then, to believe life comes from non-life
Conclusion – Therefore; it is logically and scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life

Premise 1 - Life has NEVER been observed coming from non-life
Premise 2 - atheists don’t like God
Premise 3 - Life exists anyway
Premise 4 - atheists have to postulate the imposable to disprove God
Premise 5 – Life coming from non-life is impossible
Premise 6 – An impossible feat would be a miracle
Conclusion – atheists believe in miracles

Premise 1 – It is scientifically and logically undisputed that the universe had a beginning
Premise 2 – By observation and inductive reasoning, everything that had a beginning, had a beginner
Premise 3 – The universe had a beginner
Premise 4 – atheists believe the universe came from nothing
Conclusion – atheists believe in miracles

While I will agree both these arguments are valid, neither argument is sound. In order for them to be sound all premises would have to be true, and whether they are or not is exactly what we are debating. The following argument is just as valid as the ones above:

View Post



Neither argument was sound because you purposively twisted the syllogisms to look unsound. I, and others, have posited the correct lines of reasoning in many places of this forum. So, you may want to go look them up before you make the same mistakes again.

1. It is possible for life to come from non-life through natural processes.
2. Abiogenesis is a natural process
3. life exists
4. therefore life came about through abiogenesis.

View Post


Again, you put forward a flawed syllogism that is easily put down (and out of it’s mysery).


Premise 1 - Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed
Premise 1 – All existing life has been observed to come from life
Therefore – Abiogenesis is neither “natural”, “logical” or “scientific”.

Premise 1 - ALL life observed has come from life
Premise 2 - NO life has ever been observed coming from non-life
Premise 3 - There is no logical reasoning then, to believe life comes from non-life
Conclusion – Therefore; it is logically and scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life

All three arguments are logically valid, none of them are sound. Only one has the possibility of being validated through science. All can be validated through faith. The first two contain an element that cannot be understood using logic. All are on equal footing through unbiased eyes. But none of them can be considered the only logically valid argument because all of them are valid. None of them can be considered the only logically sound argument until all premises in one argument can be proven true.

View Post


None of your arguments are logically valid because they all contain logical (and scientific) flaws. But you can state them all you want (and make plain the illogical flaws they contain).

#429 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 June 2009 - 11:43 AM

I'd like to point out one more thing, being made from dirt is very logical. Dirt is essentialy dead animals/carbon. The same exact stuff we are made out of. When we die, our bodies are broken down back into the soil... or back into soil itself.

#430 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 27 June 2009 - 06:53 PM

That would be incorrect, and a gross misinterpretation of the syllogism and logic. But, this being a common tactic of the atheistic evolutionist, in a sad attempt to reconcile their belief system like patchwork on a poorly made quilt, it is expected every time atheists make the argument.

Premise 1 - ALL life observed has come from life
Premise 2 - NO life has ever been observed coming from non-life
Premise 3 - There is no logical reasoning then, to believe life comes from non-life
Conclusion – Therefore; it is logically and scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life

View Post


Ok, but I can do the exact same thing and just insert God.

1. All life observed has come from the natural realm.
2. No life has ever been observed coming from the supernatural realm.
3. There is no logical reasoning then, to believe life comes from the supernatural realm.
4. Therefore, it is logically impossible for life to come from the supernatural realm.

That is following your assumption that if it hasn't been observed then it is impossible. But I think you will agree that just because something has not been observed, does not necessarily make it impossible. Whether you take the position for the natural or supernatural origin of life on this planet does not matter, there exists no verifiable evidence from the actual first life from either standpoint to validate which position is accurate. All that exists for both standpoints are stories on how we think the first life existed. So as far as logic is concerned, both can be presented in logically valid syllogisms, but neither in logically sound arguments. This will be the case until A. God produces life supernaturally for all to see, or B. scientist can recreate conditions that allow life to emerge from non-life naturally for all to see, or C. somehow scientist observe and document life emerging from non-life somewhere in the natural world. And none of these positions can refer to already existing life and use it as proof to say it has already been done, because none of them can prove that it was the actual cause.

That Premise 1 - Life has NEVER been observed coming from non-life
Premise 2 - atheists don’t like God
Premise 3 - Life exists anyway
Premise 4 - atheists have to postulate the imposable to disprove God
Premise 5 – Life coming from non-life is impossible
Premise 6 – An impossible feat would be a miracle
Conclusion – atheists believe in miracles

View Post


If you want to talk about an incorrect, and a gross misinterpretation of the syllogism and logic, you have done just that. This would be more accurate from a naturalists standpoint:

1. All life has been observed being produced naturally.
2. At one point on the natural earth there was no life.
3. Non-living components needed for life are natural.
4. Life exists.
5. Therefore, at some point non-life naturally becomes life.

Premise 1 – It is scientifically and logically undisputed that the universe had a beginning
Premise 2 – By observation and inductive reasoning, everything that had a beginning, had a beginner
Premise 3 – The universe had a beginner
Premise 4 – atheists believe the universe came from nothing
Conclusion – atheists believe in miracles

View Post


It is scientifically undisputed that our observable universe had a beginning. It does not mean it was produced from nothing, it only mean we can't observe what it was or where it came from before the big bang. We can't observe whats happening in a black hole, that does not mean nothing is there, it just mean we don't know how the center of the black hole operates and exists, and our universe was considered the mother of all black holes before the big bang. What or how anything existed before the big bang is unknowable by observational science, that does not mean that our universe materialized from nothing. Its like being born on a small deserted island and trying to explain the whole world with out ever leaving the island. The only things you can explain are based on the data you collect on that island. There would be no way to explain what Antarctica is like because you have no idea it exists. As far as miracles are concerned, they exist like beauty, only in the eye of the beholder.


Again, you put forward a flawed syllogism that is easily put down (and out of it’s mysery).

Premise 1 - Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed
Premise 1 – All existing life has been observed to come from life
Therefore – Abiogenesis is neither “natural”, “logical” or “scientific”.

View Post


Why do you insist that because something has not been observed it means that it can't exist or didn't happen? Do you know how hard it would be to observe abiogenesis in the natural world? Even if it's still happening today, scientist would have to be continuously looking at all the place where the conditions are right for it to happen through a microscope. Only if that impractical, arguably impossible, massively expensive undertaking took place would you be able to observe abiogenesis happen. Because if you look at a sample and discover a microorganism for the first time, how would you know it evolved from another microorganism, or was produced by abiogenesis? You wouldn't, you can only observe what it is doing now that it is here. There is no way to continuously observe and document every place on earth where abiogenesis could possibly happen, and even now if a scientists were to discover the existence of a new previously unknown microorganism, he would be too late to witness if it was a result of the abiogenesis process or of reproduction. However, I will agree with you on one point and that is that how the original abiogenesis process happened on earth will never be observed because it requires a planet where the conditions are right and absolutely no life exists. And because our earth is currently the opposite of that, as far as the existence of life is concerned, we can only artificially recreate a scenario that we think could have possibly happened, but would never know for sure.

Premise 1 - ALL life observed has come from life
Premise 2 - NO life has ever been observed coming from non-life
Premise 3 - There is no logical reasoning then, to believe life comes from non-life
Conclusion – Therefore; it is logically and scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life.

View Post


In order for your conclusion to hold any merit, you would have to be able to continuously observe everywhere in the world at once. Only then can you determine that all currently living organisms came from life, because you would have actually witnessed every living thing on this planet coming from another living organism. But since there is no way to observe the beginning of every living microorganism as it exists, which would be the only living organism that is suggested to be a product of abiogenesis, then there is no way to absolutely conclude that it is impossible for life to come from non-life, instead, a more appropriate conclusion would be that it is nearly impossible to observe such a process.

#431 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:52 PM

But you did not restrict yourself to nothings within the universe. You included nothings outside of the universe also, a metaphysical claim. You still evade, because you know quite well you cannot substantiate this claim.

View Post


I completely agree, my claim is purely metaphysical and can not be substantiated. I'm not making the claim based on observation, but my claim is purely theoretical. By nature, the nothing I am describing cannot be observed because it is not part of our observable universe.

And it isn't hard to present counter-examples. Take the common ideas about imaginary dimensions, for example. If all somethings are 12-dimensional, and 14 dimensions exist, there's no way for the nothing in the extra dimensions to be filled. It must always be nothing. Inaccessible, unfillable nothing. A permanent void. A place where nothing can gain access. Emptiness which cannot be occupied. A nothing where nothing can exist. A lack of something, which has always been and always must be a lack of any and all somethings. A place with zero contents and zero potential to contain content. The true total sum of all probabilities God does not exist.

View Post


That is an interesting hypothetical, when it comes to dimensions understanding each dimension after the fourth becomes more and more complex. The way I look at it, once you get to the infinite possibilities of the 10th dimension awareness of reality becomes so much more bizarre than what we are normally used to, that it is arguably impossible to comprehend it's magnitude; and once you enter the 11th dimension, dualistic awareness ceases. So any dimension beyond that, if they exist, cannot be perceived in dualistic terms, thus the distinction between something and nothing disappears and becomes 'one', so to speak. It is a level of consciousness that transcends the intrinsic dualistic nature of a subject observing an object. Anything beyond the 10th dimension is unknowable through a subjective perspective, or our dualistic mode of knowing. The 11th dimension is non-dual awareness, an awareness that is beyond conceptualization, because conceptualizing necessitates subjectivity. This of course is my understanding of the metaphysical nature of reality from the 0 dimension to the 11th, and there is by no means any way I can prove it, but a position I maintain none the less.

#432 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:37 AM

Ok, but I can do the exact same thing and just insert God.

View Post


You can, but you would be incorrect.


1. All life observed has come from the natural realm.

View Post

Is the "Natural Realm" all there is? Be careful here, you can get yourself into a sticky situation.

#433 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 06 July 2009 - 06:59 PM

You can, but you would be incorrect.

View Post


Not according to logic. The argument I presented is logically valid and is no more incorrect than the argument you presented. The whole crux of this debate hinges on the fact that both sides will never produce enough evidence to sway the view of the other. The suggestion that the bible is indisputable evidence for the existence of god is easily dismissed by scientist who adhere to the scientific method. Any theories suggested by scientist concerning the origins of life and cosmology are insufficient for believers because the theories do not posit god as a cause. Believers will never be fully satisfied with scientific explanations concerning origins until science admits that everything was created, and scientist will never be satisfied with creationist explanations concerning origins until they explain in detail the process of how god did it.



Is the "Natural Realm" all there is? Be careful here, you can get yourself into a sticky situation.

View Post


That depends on the definition of natural realm. If you define our universe as the only natural realm, then no, it is not all there is. If you define any dimension that is subject to it's laws of physics as a natural realm, then yes that is all there is. As far as the way I was using it, I was subscribing to the second definition. All life is subject to the laws of physics that govern our universe, and our universe being the natural realm for hosting it's biological life is directly responsible for the natural production of the life it is hosting. The exact mechanism for the emergence of life in a universe where life at one point was not present is unknown, but such a mechanism exists none the less.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users