The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[Wandering Monk]

Of course. Are you?

Proof through the law of non contradiction is not a logical fallacy.

"Science" based on a already proven false assumption is.

What is the false assumption science is making? Origin of life ideas are hypotheses. Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and evidence?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Once billions and evolution have been shown to be false, then it does come down to which God.

Even if the theory of evolution were falsified, gods don't go to the top of the list, and certainly not gods that have already been ruled out by the evidence for evolution. If the theory were falsified today, a deceptive intelligent designer paradigm would replace that, but not a supernatural one. A race of technologically advanced extraterrestrials moves to the top of the list. Supernatural explanations are always a distant last in terms of likelihood for their extreme violation of parsimony in hypothesis formation.

Brahman is a Hindu god. And the Hindu religion believes in reincarnation correct. I have never lived before nor has anyone I know. That proved the Hindi religion false. So Brahma is out.

The Christian religion believes a resurrection occurred. As far as we know, nobody has ever witnessed a resurrection. By your reckoning, that "proves" that Christianity is a false religion and its god a false god. I assume that if you consider yourself Christian, you will bristle at that.

Abiogenesis is not possible.

Even creationists know that abiogenesis occurred, that is, that the first life didn't come from other life. Do you consider your god alive and to have always existed? If yes, then that is life that didn't come from other life. If no, then what it allegedly created didn't come from previous life.

 

[F1fan]

Abiogenesis is not possible. Thanks for the candid post.

False, it is a hypothesis because it is based on facts and other theories in science, and that makes it plausible. It's plausible because the science works. There are experiements that do show this can work.

Can you suggest any plausible alternative that is based on facts?

 

[Heyo]

The first living creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

A first living creature would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,300,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.Where would such an amount of amino acids even occur in nature to even make a first creature? They must be in very near proximity to where the first creature came to be. In water they would immediately diluted and chemical reactions would destroy it. And above ground or in space, it would be destroyed by the the sunlight. So the first creature is impossible.

If such a great miracle did occur, the poor creature will not survive long at all. It is not protected from its environment. Chemical reactions will begin to destroy it within seconds. Which is just another problem. It would take too long to assemble itself. Destruction will happen faster than construction.
The poor creature cannot feed itself. It will also not be able to repair itself.
It will not be able to have any offspring. So it could never exist. So even if it did come into existence, it would die quickly and could not have offspring

And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.

A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradictions. Therefore, God exists.
The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

The atheists have been deceived into believing that the first creature could come into existence by random chance.
Never has been observed. Simple analysis shows it is impossible. There is no record that it ever did.
So, the evolutionist has the burden of proof.

Do you know what a PRATT is? You just started with half a dozen of those in a Gish gallop. That's why you got so much flak from all sides.
But you didn't put this into the science or evolution vs. creationism sections so I assume that science is not the topic of the OP. Let's therefore assume we both don't know about the science and just analyse the validity of your "proof" without regarding the soundness of your premise. I'll put your "proof" into a syllogistic form:
P1: There is no god.
P2: Life on Earth could not have formed by itself.
P2 contradicts P1 therefore:
C: God exists.

The fallacy you're committing here is the false dichotomy. You assume that god is the only alternative to random chance. P2, even if true, doesn't contradict P1. Imagine an alien civilisation that created the first cell on Earth and imagine also that those aliens have a biology that could easily form by chance so that the problem isn't just transferred.
There you have a third option that dismantles the validity of your "proof". No need to view the soundness of the premises.

I didn't come up with that debunking myself but I can't cite the originator because I've heard it from too many sources over the years to remember who made that argument first. As you see, your "proof" is also a PRATT, just as your claims about reality.

 

[Jimmy]

The earth hasn’t existed for billions of years or 6000 years imo. It’s only been here for about 40 years. It’s hard for me to believe that people don’t know this. Oh well.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The earth hasn’t existed for billions of years or 6000 years imo. It’s only been here for about 40 years. It’s hard for me to believe that people don’t know this. Oh well.

You appear to be the only person on earth who believes that this planet is only about 40 years old. In my opinion, this belief is even less credible than the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old. While you're entitled to believe whatever you want, you shouldn't expect others to accept your belief as well.

 

[Jimmy]

You appear to be the only person on earth who believes that this planet is only about 40 years old. In my opinion, this belief is even less credible than the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old. While you're entitled to believe whatever you want, you shouldn't expect others to accept your belief as well.

There’s a difference between expecting something and having a hard time believing something.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There’s a clear difference between expecting something and having a hard time believing something.

Why is it hard for you to believe it?

 

[Jimmy]

Why is it hard for you to believe it?

Because I know it’s the truth.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Because I know it’s the truth.

You believe that your spiritual beliefs are the truth, while others believe that theirs are the truth. I know that some people believe that their beliefs are the absolute truth, regardless of the empirical evidence to the contrary. They tend to be intolerant toward anything that contradicts their deeply held beliefs.

 

[Jimmy]

You believe that your spiritual beliefs are the truth, while others believe that theirs are the truth. I know that some people believe that their beliefs are the absolute truth, regardless of the empirical evidence to the contrary. They tend to be intolerant toward anything that contradicts their deeply held spiritual beliefs.

Yes that’s unfortunate

 

[F1fan]

Because I know it’s the truth.

Almost as if you are a God. How wonderful to be that certain and not suffer virtues like humility.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes that’s unfortunate

You are merely stating your spiritual beliefs, just as everyone else does on this forum, except you seem to be stating yours as if they were a definitive fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I know it’s the truth.

I doubt if you know that. The odds are that you have conflated knowledge and belief.

Knowledge is demonstrable. Show how you "know" this. If you fail that means that you only have mere belief.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are merely stating your spiritual beliefs, just as everyone else does on this forum, except you seem to be stating yours as if they were a definitive fact.

The proof was pure scientific facts and logic. It is irrefutable. I have more proofs which do the same.

 

[Jimmy]

Almost as if you are a God. How wonderful to be that certain and not suffer virtues like humility.

Knowing and humility can coexist imo.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Knowing and humility can coexist imo.

But God knows and He has a book. I humbly agree with the Almighty.

 

[Link]

The first living creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

A first living creature would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,300,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.Where would such an amount of amino acids even occur in nature to even make a first creature? They must be in very near proximity to where the first creature came to be. In water they would immediately diluted and chemical reactions would destroy it. And above ground or in space, it would be destroyed by the the sunlight. So the first creature is impossible.

If such a great miracle did occur, the poor creature will not survive long at all. It is not protected from its environment. Chemical reactions will begin to destroy it within seconds. Which is just another problem. It would take too long to assemble itself. Destruction will happen faster than construction.
The poor creature cannot feed itself. It will also not be able to repair itself.
It will not be able to have any offspring. So it could never exist. So even if it did come into existence, it would die quickly and could not have offspring

And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.

A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradictions. Therefore, God exists.
The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

The atheists have been deceived into believing that the first creature could come into existence by random chance.
Never has been observed. Simple analysis shows it is impossible. There is no record that it ever did.
So, the evolutionist has the burden of proof.

Bro simplify. Even if we say it was something so simple, like 20 sequences of 3 amino acids. Even that, to replicate, you need it to be designed because replication takes an irreducible complex design. People have lost their brains. Well done though.

 

[Jimmy]

You are merely stating your spiritual beliefs, just as everyone else does on this forum, except you seem to be stating yours as if they were a definitive fact.

They are. What would make you feel better? If I say they are for me?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The proof was pure scientific facts and logic. It is irrefutable.

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what this means, as others in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated.

I have more proofs which do the same.

Yes, I know that is what you believe.