Every living entity comes from another living entity

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By logic we can infer there must be an original living entity that is the source of all the others.

No, you can't. Not validly, anyhow.

Here's what we can validly infer:

- each ancestral tree has an initial "trunk" from which the "branches" split off.
- this "trunk" is different in some way from the "branches".

That's it. That's all you have. Maybe the difference between the trunk and the branches is that the trunk is non-living. Maybe the difference is that the trunk is living but was never born. At this point, you don't have any good reason to argue your preferred option over the other.

OTOH, our understanding of the laws of physics and chemistry allows us to say that a non-living source is plausible, while a living, unborn source goes against our understanding of how the universe works.

 

[I-Ching]

No, you can't. Not validly, anyhow.

Here's what we can validly infer:

- each ancestral tree has an initial "trunk" from which the "branches" split off.
- this "trunk" is different in some way from the "branches".

That's it. That's all you have. Maybe the difference between the trunk and the branches is that the trunk is non-living. Maybe the difference is that the trunk is living but was never born. At this point, you don't have any good reason to argue your preferred option over the other.

I have billions of good reasons, since the life comes life principle is well evidenced while the life coming from matter principle is based on nothing but the hopes of the atheistic.

OTOH, our understanding of the laws of physics and chemistry allows us to say that a non-living source is plausible, while a living, unborn source goes against our understanding of how the universe works.

It's only implausible because you are an atheist. My argument it showing that it is plausible. An "understanding" that can't be demonstrated is nothing but a belief.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I was an atheist when I was young. I had all sorts of arguments against the bible even though I had never really read and studied it in detail. Its strange how Atheists argue about something they have no knowledge of.

I have grown up and completed a Masters degree in Science specialising in power conversion, multi dimensional switching algorithms and high speed algorithms. Never in my life have I brought my mind to a more critical and rational platform.

At this rational platform I also realised that I was extremely irrational picking on Christians with no real knowledge of the bible when I in fact also had no real knowledge of the bible.

Its quite ridiculous, 2 people agruing over a book they have never read with effort and study.

One day I decided to read this book and I can tell you out of all the models and philosopies of our age,never have I read a more rational, consistent and frightfully accurate book. I say accurate in that is so well understands mankind and prophetically hits the nail on the head without error every time.

For example, spend one hour studying the history of Israel and the biblical predictions about them. First time I realised how accurate these predictions were I almost fell off my chair. This is a remarkable book. Im sure you have read many books, why not read this one from cover to cover.

 

[I-Ching]

Im sure you have read many books, why not read this one from cover to cover.

Thank you for the story of your life perhaps you can preach on another relevant thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have billions of good reasons, since the life comes life principle is well evidenced while the life coming from matter principle is based on nothing but the hopes of the atheistic.

Baloney. If you have evidence, it supports just as much the principle that life comes from things that are born. You're engaging in Ockham's Broom: you're picking and choosing the pieces of evidence that suit your preconceived hypothesis, while discarding the pieces that contradict it.

It's only implausible because you are an atheist. My argument it showing that it is plausible. An "understanding" that can't be demonstrated is nothing but a belief.

If thinking this makes you feel better, then that's up to you, but me failing to accept your poor argument has more to do with its poor quality than the fact that I'm an atheist.

 

[PolyHedral]

One day I decided to read this book and I can tell you out of all the models and philosopies of our age,never have I read a more rational, consistent and frightfully accurate book. I say accurate in that is so well understands mankind and prophetically hits the nail on the head without error every time.

For example, spend one hour studying the history of Israel and the biblical predictions about them. First time I realised how accurate these predictions were I almost fell off my chair. This is a remarkable book. Im sure you have read many books, why not read this one from cover to cover.

I have 476 objections and rising.

 

[1948_its_happening]

Bottom line is. Your argument has nothing to do with God. He is a multidimensional being who sweeps back and forth over dimensions we are not even aware of.

He is also the God of Science. What is more impressive?
1) To click your fingers and make everyting magically appear.
2) To create an entire rational engine on which the universe can be somewhat modelled.

I choose the latter. I believe God used Science to create his creation. He did this so that it would be richer for us. Life is so much more beautiful if you have a mind to scratch deeper. Out God knew this and so created creators with a developing knowledge of creation.

BUT, be careful not to use simplified assumptions and allow the understanding of your mind restrict your understanding of God. For Science and creation is only the small piece of the pie of life however wonderful it is. God loves science otherwise he would never put it in place but do not be so ignorant to think that he is restricted by his own creation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bottom line is. Your argument has nothing to do with God. He is a multidimensional being who sweeps back and forth over dimensions we are not even aware of.

Oh... so God's like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, then?

 

[1948_its_happening]

Now the arrival at that conclusion from what I wrote is hard to trace out. Exactly what thought process were you executing the arrive at pink unicorns.

OR

Was that simply sarcasm which is both irrational and unproductive. I'm supposed to be the irrational religious nut.

No seriously, any intelligent thoughts on my thoughts are appreciated

 

[I-Ching]

Baloney. If you have evidence, it supports just as much the principle that life comes from things that are born. You're engaging in Ockham's Broom: you're picking and choosing the pieces of evidence that suit your preconceived hypothesis, while discarding the pieces that contradict it.

Perhaps you can point out what those pieces of evidence are that I have discarded. I far as I've read you haven't presented any living entities emerging from matter.

 

[Willamena]

The reference to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) refers to a model that has "God" being invisible "being" yet still holding attributes.

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps you can point out what those pieces of evidence are that I have discarded. I far as I've read you haven't presented any living entities emerging from matter.

He doesn't need to if you can't provide evidence of something being living but not born.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now the arrival at that conclusion from what I wrote is hard to trace out. Exactly what thought process were you executing the arrive at pink unicorns.

Not pink unicorns in general; THE Invisible Pink Unicorn: Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OR

Was that simply sarcasm which is both irrational and unproductive. I'm supposed to be the irrational religious nut.

No seriously, any intelligent thoughts on my thoughts are appreciated

I was trying to make a serious point: that the sort of claims that you're making are impossible to substantiate in any respect, and are therefore as reasonable to assume as true as the Invisible Pink Unicorn would be, an entity which is described with similar fantastic characteristics, but is obviously contrived.

To put it another way: if there are any "multidimensional beings who sweep back and forth over dimensions we are not even aware of", then by definition, you, a limited three-dimensional being yourself, are not aware of them. Therefore, any time you make claims about such a being, we can be safe in the knowledge that you're talking out of your butt.

 

[I-Ching]

Bottom line is. Your argument has nothing to do with God.

You clearly have not understood my argument then.

I choose the latter. I believe God used Science to create his creation. He did this so that it would be richer for us. Life is so much more beautiful if you have a mind to scratch deeper. Out God knew this and so created creators with a developing knowledge of creation.

I choose to follow scripture and you choose to follow your speculative concoction of science and scripture. You are making yourself god and creating your own beliefs. Picking and choosing from science and scripture. Simply because you are attached to a scripture that is 5th class. Find a scripture that you can actually believe in.

Science is inherently atheistic since you are accepting the authority of your senses over the authority of scripture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps you can point out what those pieces of evidence are that I have discarded.

For starters, the fact that all living entities you have ever observed yourself have been born. You ignore this when you infer (invalidly, mind you) that a chain of living, born organisms needs a living, unborn creator as its initial cause.

You make an argument based on some notion that causes must be similar to their effects (which IMO is invalid itself, but setting that aside for the moment), and then use it to infer a cause that's significantly dissimilar from its effects in many important ways.

This is conflicted at best, and hypocritical at worst.

I far as I've read you haven't presented any living entities emerging from matter.

Well, no. This thread is about your claim.

 

[1948_its_happening]

You are going to go around in circles if you assume life ever had a beginning. Time is but another dimension that needs no finite restrictions imposed on it.

Say there was even a beginning, what options do we have:
1) Whether life came via spermidia (comets).
2) Lighting into some sort of primordial fluid.
3) The intelligent design of some other life concious being
4) The random collection of the right atoms at the right place and time. Good theory by the way given inifinite time and space statistcally makes sense mabe.

Evolution is a given, there are enough unbiased bookes and bones to support it but the fact that is happened unguided is a huge leap.

A group of mathematicians recenty proved that evolution as we understand it is statistically impossible by a factor of 10^400 or so. They don't dispute its obvious path but the speed in unexplainable.

These are the kind of questions we should ask. the beginning is irrelevant.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I think it would be fair to say that we do not know how life came to existence. Whether this was created by God, or without God, scientifically it is just unknown.
Just as it is not possible to prove God, it is also impossible to prove God doesn't exist.
What makes me wonder is, how could some people call themselves Atheist, when there is no proof that God does not exist. Wouldn't it be more correct to say "unknown" or "seeker of truth" rather than saying with absolute certainty that there is no God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A group of mathematicians recenty proved that evolution as we understand it is statistically impossible by a factor of 10^400 or so.

No, they didn't.

 

[I-Ching]

For starters, the fact that all living entities you have ever observed yourself have been born. You ignore this when you infer (invalidly, mind you) that a chain of living, born organisms needs a living, unborn creator as its initial cause.

You make an argument based on some notion that causes must be similar to their effects (which IMO is invalid itself, but setting that aside for the moment), and then use it to infer a cause that's significantly dissimilar from its effects in many important ways.

God may be dissimilar is some respects but He is certainly more similar than a blob of dead matter.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I agree with teh Penguin. You cannot assume anything even a beginning. That is why I don't see much resolution in discussing the beginnings. Rather more telling evidence will rise in investigating the evolutionary theory and its statistical probability of progressing as it has unguided.

Even if the stats are plausible within the time frame that still puts you at quare 1 because you cannot assume that God creates his own statistically probable scenarios to meet his own ends from day one without even even having to intervene.

Who is more awesome:
1) He who can intervene in the natural world (supernatural)
2) He who from the onset of the natural world new all variables and probabilities and thus had no need to intervene.

Either way you cannot disprove the creator. But you can prove his presents by presenting huge statistical anomilies that contradict random selection.