Every living entity comes from another living entity

[McBell]

The idea of there having been a creator god who is now dead is bizarrely scary!

Now dead?
If god was never a living thing then he was always dead and could not possibly have created humans.

The whole argument is based upon making god an exception to the very rule that is supposed to prove god exists.
Sad thing is how so many people fail to understand how it is a failure.

 

[idea]

God has always, and will always live... we too have always existed in one form or another.

 

[crocusj]

God has always, and will always live... we too have always existed in one form or another.

But with poor memories, presumably.

 

[camanintx]

What is a living entity is another issue? But I am happy to accept something that can die as being living.

If you cannot say what a living entity is then how can you argue that they can only come from other living entities?

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

If the evidence shows that modern life was preceded by successively simpler life back until the only living things were simple cyanobacteria, then by logic can't we infer that it could have been preceded by something that was not quite alive?

Dead matter certainly has no ability to create a state of low entropy

By itself, no, but life never exists by itself does it.

Living entities are sentient God is sentient. Every sentient being comes from another sentient being. No sentient beings have been observed to emerge from matter.

Are you saying that zygotes are sentient beings?

 

[otokage007]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

They actualy did some experiments to produce a very primitive cell, but I agree it may be more lifeless than alive. However, you should do some research about Alexander Oparin's work and the experiments that support his theory. I've seen other people in the forum interested in the Origin of Life, I think you all will find quite cool to read Oparin's opinion, and there's also some other scientists with alternative hypothesis that you may find interesting.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I can respect an agnostic saying he hosnestly just does not know how life manifested from matter but to flat out deny a creator especially when organisms are walking around wondering about a creator takes a lot of faith.

With all the money and all the acientists in the world we could not even replicate an ant. Even if we had to try build a robotic one, it would suck. We are walking super computers, runnning of sandwiches, thinking about God, building space stations, repairing ourselves, reproducing. Any real scientist should be in awe.

I spent a lot of time just trying to build ai systems to copy certain human behavior. Even a mentally retarded person has better algorithms and hardware when they are born. We are so far off from creation. To think it happended by a succession of random mutations over 6 billion years is mathematically impossible.

Yes, evolution happened, but it happened at an illogical speed. There is overwelming evidence all over the net that talks about hyper evolution and its statistical improbability given the complexity of the creatures and the time limit given.

Evolution is a best attempt explanation but is so far from a concluding theory. Anyone who replaces God with the fiddly theory we are working on has more faith than anyone.

 

[Agnostic75]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

What did God emerge from? If it is reasonably possible that God has always existed, what is wrong with the possibility that energy has always existed in a naturalisitic universe?

If a God exists, how can you be reasonably certain who he is, and what his agenda are?

 

[PolyHedral]

I spent a lot of time just trying to build ai systems to copy certain human behavior. Even a mentally retarded person has better algorithms and hardware when they are born. We are so far off from creation. To think it happended by a succession of random mutations over 6 billion years is mathematically impossible.

You are a rubbish AI programmer if you haven't heard of genetic programming.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution is a best attempt explanation but is so far from a concluding theory. Anyone who replaces God with the fiddly theory we are working on has more faith than anyone.

In the U.S., over 99% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution.

The vast majority of the supporters of evolution are theists, not atheists. When Charles Darwin wrote 'On the Origin of Species,' he was a theist, not an atheist. Most judges who have ruled against creationism being taught in public schools are Christians. Regarding the Dover trial, the judge who ruled against creationism being taught in public schools is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president.

Evolution does not address how life started, only how life has evolved.

If a God exists, he can use evolution if he wants to.

 

[Alceste]

What is a living entity is another issue? But I am happy to accept something that can die as being living.

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

OR we can infer that at some point chemical elements picked up the habit of sexual reproduction due to reactions we may soon be able to observe in a laboratory.

Is there any basis to prefer your inference to mine? Mine doesn't have the fatal weaknesses yours does: 1) If everything that lives must come from something else that lives, where did your god come from? and 2) How can we verify that your inference is the correct one? Can you design an experimental model by which we can observe that God created life?

 

[outhouse]

I can respect an agnostic saying he hosnestly just does not know how life manifested from matter but to flat out deny a creator especially when organisms are walking around wondering about a creator takes a lot of faith.

With all the money and all the acientists in the world we could not even replicate an ant. Even if we had to try build a robotic one, it would suck. We are walking super computers, runnning of sandwiches, thinking about God, building space stations, repairing ourselves, reproducing. Any real scientist should be in awe.

I spent a lot of time just trying to build ai systems to copy certain human behavior. Even a mentally retarded person has better algorithms and hardware when they are born. We are so far off from creation. To think it happended by a succession of random mutations over 6 billion years is mathematically impossible.

Yes, evolution happened, but it happened at an illogical speed. There is overwelming evidence all over the net that talks about hyper evolution and its statistical improbability given the complexity of the creatures and the time limit given.

Evolution is a best attempt explanation but is so far from a concluding theory. Anyone who replaces God with the fiddly theory we are working on has more faith than anyone.

DO You confuse nature with a man made deity???

 

[Alceste]

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.


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.

I'm sorry, but it isn't at all plausible. It hinges entirely on an arbitrary, human linguistic category: the definition of the word "life". How can we know when something stops being "not-life" and becomes "life"? Is a furious chemical reaction "life"? Is a virus alive? Is the planet alive? Is a dormant seed that could still sprout after decades of drought - but no later - alive?

A plausible explanation must be founded on an observable phenomenon. It can't be entirely contained in your head.

 

[Alceste]

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 hasn't, YOU have: God.

 

[Me Myself]

Just like the Christians are waiting for Jesus the atheists waiting for some actual proof for their beliefs.

Lack of beliefs.

Atheists just don´t believe in god.

Evolution =/= "tenet of atheism"

 

[outhouse]

OR we can infer that at some point chemical elements picked up the habit of sexual reproduction due to reactions we may soon be able to observe in a laboratory.

Is there any basis to prefer your inference to mine? Mine doesn't have the fatal weaknesses yours does: 1) If everything that lives must come from something else that lives, where did your god come from? and 2) How can we verify that your inference is the correct one? Can you design an experimental model by which we can observe that God created life?

True


I think a great explanation is this

we have two models

One of science
One biblical




One stands up on its own and has been observed and there is no evidence it is not correct. It is followed by the brightest minds on the planet. This one is agreed upon by those with a education on the subject.

This one is taught by EVERY major university around the world as higher learning.




The other however has a mountain of evidence it was a fabricated fable and has been proven false on so many different levels it is known as a myth. This one is followed by theist. This one is not agreed upon by anyone including theist.

This one is outlawed from public schools

 

[Alceste]

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?

It's easy: I don't believe in any of the deities that have thus far been described to me by their believers. Therefore I am an atheist.

The burden of proof doesn't like on the one who doesn't believe an implausible claim, it lies with the one making the claim. I don't believe in ANY gods, so which one should I pick to disprove? Shall I try to disprove them all? There are thousands of them! Tens of thousands!

Further to the above, I'm quite sure that all gods are imaginary: anthropomorphic projections of the super-ego. This is the only explanation consistent with the empirical evidence regarding the nature of belief. So there is no further "truth" on the subject to seek as far as I am concerned.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution =/= "tenet of atheism"

so wrong on so many levels

Evolution is only a matter of education. those who have it and those who dont



THEIST discovered evolution and promoted the theory, and many theist follow the theory to this day.

 

[Alceste]

Dead matter certainly has no ability to create a state of low entropy

 

[outhouse]

I'm quite sure that all gods are imaginary:

I agree


If one has half a education in history its obvious how man has created all deities

 

[Alceste]

I agree


If one has half a education in history its obvious how man has created all deities

In fairness I realized this is the case shortly after graduating from high school during a peak Zen meditation experience. I don't have a higher education. I found school way too suffocating, repetitive, slow-paced and boring to inflict any more of it on myself after I graduated. In retrospect (20 years later), I often wonder if that may have been a mistake, but oh well. At least I had no debts.