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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.