-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life
- Thread starter 4troof
- Start date
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
What's "faith" got to do with it?
What should be employed as a faithometer? What are its units? How is it calibrated?
More interesting, perhaps, is the claim hidden in the rhetorical question posed by the thread, that being the claim that the proposition requiring 'more faith' is therefore 'less true'. It would be interesting to see such a claim openly argued.
oldcajun
__BE REAL
I would think so. Some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life. They just use a different terminology. Silly, silly evolutionism.
Wow! Do you have evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Does it take more faith to believe that life arose from very simple forms that arose spontaneously, or to simultanously believe both that even simple life can't arise spontaneously and that an intelligent designer arose spontaneously from whole cloth?
Please be so kind as to point out a modern accepted theory that attributes the origin of maggots to the physical and chemical processes of rotting meat, and not to insects laying their eggs.
Do you have evidence that of life ever coming from something non living?
I understand that at some point there had to be an uncaused first cause...right?
Who made up that rule?
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I think that's the most obvious take-home point that can be made on this subject.
You can have unintelligent biological life arise spontaneously from non-living chemical matter.
Or you can have a monumentally powerful and intelligent ethereal entity arise spontaneously from oblivion, then create biological life from non-living chemical matter.
I don't know about how much faith it takes to believe in either scenario, but it seems to me fairly obvious which is the more reasonable.
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy called "special pleading"? Just curious.
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
Not absolute proof, something could prevent it, but there's plenty of evidence that it will happen.
Cacafire
Member
Evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is technically, "incorrect". In actuality, we have evidence the the earth revolves around the sun, while simultaneously revolving around its axis. Giving the impression that the sun, "rises".
Since closed systems undergo no change until something from without interacts with the system, we have good reason to believe the sun will "rise", tommorrow.
Why do I bother...?
Since closed systems undergo no change until something from without interacts with the system, we have good reason to believe the sun will "rise", tommorrow.
Why do I bother...?
Ahhh ... you meant non-absolute proof! Got it.
The distinction between "good reason" and "proof" is not unimportant.
Not trying to plead with my question. Just assuming.
Going back to my original question though...is it faith to say that life started from non-life at some point?
Good, because it looked like you were hinting at using the Argument from First Cause, which is a classic example of special pleading. In essence, it says "because everything must have a cause, the very first thing ever did not have a cause." It applies its arguments inconsistently (that's where the "special pleading" comes in), and you can recognize that it's self-contradictory if you think about it for any length of time at all.
I'm glad you weren't going to use it.
No, that's just looking at the evidence and deciding that it's the most likely explanation.
But, that is where it gets very shady to me...
the evidence to me shows very distinctly a designer.
Have you heard of the scrabble game example? If you were to come upon a scrabble game that someone had dropped on the floor with letters everywhere...and in the middle of the letters was a sentence that read "I love to play scrabble"...would you see it as random chance, or as designed?
I don't think that's a good analogy. Here's a better one: if you and a billion of your friends each dropped your bags of scrabble letters on the floor repeatedly for a billion years and the phrase "I love to play scrabble" came up a few times in all of those tries, would you see it as random chance, or as designed?
Have you ever studied the biochemistry of cells?