By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[YoursTrue]

So then you do not believe that life can only come from life.
Cause if you do, you just created a most interesting dilemma for yourself.

If life can only come from life, that means that god has to be a life since he created all life on earth.
But it also means that since life can only come from life, god could not have always existed.
He had to come from life as per the declaration life only comes from life.

That being the case, what life did god come from?
Cue the mentagymnastics

Again -- here is what I believe: God is alive and always has been alive. He cannot die. He was not created. He was not given life. God is.

 

[McBell]

Again -- here is what I believe: God is alive and always has been alive. He cannot die. He was not created. He was not given life. God is.

So then god is not a life, right?
Cause life has to come from life, right?
Which means that God could not have created life, right?

By all means, take as long as you need to get it figured out before replying.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained that in the rest of the post you replied to.

Try reading the rest of that post.

I did. Nobody gave God life. He is the one that gives life. He has no beginning and no end. He is from everlasting to everlasting.

 

[McBell]

I did. Nobody gave God life. He is the one that gives life. He has no beginning and no end. He is from everlasting to everlasting.

Then you do not believe that life has to come from life.

Cause in order for god to not have a beginning he cannot be life because life has to COME FROM life...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know the total energy of the universe. Do you?
Also, in reference to nothing, since you mentioned that scientists are probably using a different definition that what I am, do you know what scientists mean by nothing?

The total energy of the universe is zero. At least as closely as scientists can measure it. And that is by two different means.

What a scientist means would probably depend upon the scientist. But as far as physicists would mean they could be saying that the universe could have come from a state of "nothing" when it comes to energy and matter. When the Big Bang occurred, from my understanding which I am sure is wrong in some way, the energy made was matched by negative energy. And yes, scientists can observe negative energy. Gravitational potential energy is negative energy. If somehow the entire universe collapsed on itself it could according to my limited understanding go back to nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, they did state they do not know.
Then followed that up with doubt that you know.

And by the way, I don't know that, and I doubt whether you do either. Post#1164​

I will say that I do not know, because I cannot explain how it is known. But scientists that have to put their work through peer review do seem to know it. They know how the measurements that they have taken demonstrate a total energy of zero. This is not "faith" be an earned trust.

 

[YoursTrue]

So then god is not a life, right?
Cause life has to come from life, right?
Which means that God could not have created life, right?

By all means, take as long as you need to get it figured out before replying.

It means that God is God. He is not a human. He is beyond defining in certain aspects. So however you want to define it, I believe God is the ultimate Life-giver and can take life away. When I speak of God as the originator of life, or lifegiver, that does not mean someone gave God the Almighty life.

 

[McBell]

I will say that I do not know, because I cannot explain how it is known. But scientists that have to put their work through peer review do seem to know it. They know how the measurements that they have taken demonstrate a total energy of zero. This is not "faith" be an earned trust.

I agree.
I do not understand the math behind it.
But I do trust that it is at the very least accurate.

Peer review is a major hurdle to over come.
One that the every day joe has no idea about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a very oversimplified article, that is probably wrong all over the place too:

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

Most cosmologists believe the universe contains exactly zero energy.

www.livescience.com

 

[McBell]

It means that God is God. He is not a human. He is beyond defining in certain aspects. So however you want to define it, I believe God is the ultimate Life-giver and can take life away. When I speak of God as the originator of life, or lifegiver, that does not mean someone gave God the Almighty life.

So since you believe that god is not life
AND
God created life

It means that you do not believe that life has to come from life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you do not believe that life has to come from life.

Cause in order for god to not have a beginning he cannot be life because life has to COME FROM life...

I do believe that life is generated by life. But -- God is not generated by anyone or anything. He is. He is the source of life. That is my belief and it makes sense to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

So since you believe that god is not life
AND
God created life

It means that you do not believe that life has to come from life.

Unfortunately you keep telling me what I believe, and that is not true about what I believe. Or to be more specific, you are saying that I believe that God is not life and created life. I don't even know what you mean by that, but anyway -- at this point I think I made it clear that God is God and beyond our full understanding. So with that in mind, have a good night.

 

[McBell]

I do believe that life is generated by life. But -- God is not generated by anyone or anything. He is. He is the source of life. That is my belief and it makes sense to me.

That it makes sense to you is problematic.
You claim that life has to come from life then declare the nonlife god created life.

That is a direct conflict in your beliefs.

 

[McBell]

Unfortunately you keep telling me what I believe, and that is not true about what I believe.

What part is not true?
You said you believe that life has to come from life.
You said that god created life.
You said that god has no beginning.

Which one did I get wrong?

 

[YoursTrue]

What part is not true?
You said you believe that life has to come from life.
You said that god created life.
You said that god has no beginning.

Which one did I get wrong?

God is the Life-giver.
God created the heavens and the earth, including plants and animals and humans.
God has no beginning. No one made or created God.
By the way, I see you use a lower-case g when you speak of God. I do not. So if you're going to tell me what you think I say or believe, at least put the capital G there. Not sure why you use the lower case g anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

...
You claim that life has to come from life then declare the nonlife god created life.

I never said the second part of your sentence which I underlined above.

 

[McBell]

God is the Life-giver.
God created the heavens and the earth, including plants and animals and humans.
God has no beginning. No one made or created God.

If god is not life, then god could not have created life if life has to come from life.
So which is it?
Can life come from nonlife or is God life?

By the way, I see you use a lower-case g when you speak of God. I do not. So if you're going to tell me what you think I say or believe, at least put the capital G there. Not sure why you use the lower case g anyway.

I use the lower case g out of respect for all the other gods you disrespect.

 

[McBell]

I never said the second part of your sentence which I underlined above.

Except you did.
Just not directly.
Because life has to come from life, god could not have come from life if god has always existed.

Therefore, for god to have created life, life has to be able to come from nonlife.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that life is generated by life. But -- God is not generated by anyone or anything. He is. He is the source of life. That is my belief and it makes sense to me.

That does not match the biological definition of life. In other words you have to use a bogus definition of "life" to make your claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except you did.
Just not directly.
Because life has to come from life, god could not have come from life if god has always existed.

Therefore, for god to have created life, life has to be able to come from nonlife.

If you're going to tell me what I said, please do use the words I use, not what you think I said. You speak of other gods. That's interesting. I won't tell you what I think you mean by that, but anyway -- have a good evening, thanks for the conversation.