Where did life begin? (Merged)

[orangeblooded2]

I voted yes. But there's still a lot left to be explained, if indeed we all look past faith.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I believe he is everywhere, and no where.

read the bible some day.

Pretty convenient that you don't have to account for the physics of god being everywhere and nowhere at the same time, eh?

I've read it. 2/10 stars.

 

[PKT_VOL]

see my post above this one. because it works both ways.

God/a creator has not been proven to either exist or not exist. just as much as life has not been proven to exist or not.

I believe God will constantly remain beyond the understanding of science. Its what my faith and many religions teach. that makes many people uncomfortable because they can't measure and weigh it. but if it was science, we have to accept that it MIGHT exist or work one day?


you are better than a double standard.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.

I was merely pointing out that if one holds the premise that something cannot come from nothing, such a premise would also apply to a prospective creator.

It's a double-edged sword either way. If the premise is true, it undercuts the whole concept of a prime mover and you start back at where you started. If the premise is false, a prime mover is possible, but so is a natural phenomenon (something-from-nothing event). Thus, either way, you are back where you started.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

ahhh, the "Transitive property" card. oft mentioned by those with no real argument in an effort to conflate two things.

We are talking about God/creator and whether he/she/it/Cthulhu exists. a god/God/creator does not depend on religion to exist

He brought Muslims I was just responding to that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Nothing in this universe makes itself.

That's one hell of statement.

We barely know what is going on around us on planet Earth on a macro-level, let alone the sub-quark level or the rest of observed/unobserved universe.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Nonsense. No such thing as halal Italian food.

What is it with you Trump nut huggers and knowing nothing about food?

I laughed. Nicely played.

I feel like Asian are being discriminated here. Lots of noodles over there, too.

 

[K9Buck]

I was merely pointing out that if one holds the premise that something cannot come from nothing, such a premise would also apply to a prospective creator.

In our existence, that's the way it is. We cannot comprehend the concept that something could have always existed and didn't require a "creator". That's why it's impossible for some to believe in a creator. However, we can agree (I believe) that something (or someone) had to come first that did NOT require something (or someone) else to create him/it, right?

 

[K9Buck]

That's one hell of statement.

We barely know what is going on around us on planet Earth on a macro-level, let alone the sub-quark level or the rest of observed/unobserved universe.

You might be right. Can you cite something in our universe that made itself?

 

[LouderVol]

Pretty convenient that you don't have to account for the physics of god being everywhere and nowhere at the same time, eh?

I've read it. 2/10 stars.

I have already "explained" the physics of it. We don't know yet. just like we don't know if there is life out there or any number of other scientific discoveries waiting to be made.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.

I was merely pointing out that if one holds the premise that something cannot come from nothing, such a premise would also apply to a prospective creator.

It's a double-edged sword either way. If the premise is true, it undercuts the whole concept of a prime mover and you start back at where you started. If the premise is false, a prime mover is possible, but so is a natural phenomenon (something-from-nothing event). Thus, either way, you are back where you started.

you are assuming that this creator works under the same rules we do. as the creator there is no need for him too. which is why it is oh so difficult to "physics"ly explain a creator or lack there of.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I have already "explained" the physics of it. We don't know yet. just like we don't know if there is life out there or any number of other scientific discoveries waiting to be made.

So what convinced you there's a God?

 

[K9Buck]

you are assuming that this creator works under the same rules we do. as the creator there is no need for him too. which is why it is oh so difficult to "physics"ly explain a creator or lack there of.

Let me make an analogy. A video game programmer can create a "world" in a video game. He can create characters to inhabit that world. The only thing the programmer cannot do is give those characters consciousness. If he could, those characters would inhabit their "world" or their "universe" and they too might very well debate the existence of the programmer.

 

[K9Buck]

So what convinced you there's a God?

The universe.

Life.

Countless people who have shared near death experiences, some of whom I know.

Common sense.

Logic.

My children.

Animals.

The presence of good and evil in the world.

Our innate knowledge of morality.

 

[PKT_VOL]

In our existence, that's the way it is.

On our very limited macro-level, with our limited senses and intelligence, it appears so. Those are massive qualifers though.

We cannot comprehend the concept that something could have always existed and didn't require a "creator". That's why it's impossible for some to believe in a creator. However, we can agree (I believe) that something (or someone) had to come first that did NOT require something (or someone) else to create him/it, right?

Why?

Both concepts, eternal regress/eternity and something-from-nothing, are utterly and equally absurd given our current understanding.

Favouring one absurdity over another is nonsense. Acting as if such favouring is necessary, is ludicrous.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You might be right. Can you cite something in our universe that made itself?

I can't.

I can't even begin to reasonably rule it out either. I severely doubt you can either.

 

[PKT_VOL]

you are assuming that this creator works under the same rules we do. as the creator there is no need for him too. which is why it is oh so difficult to "physics"ly explain a creator or lack there of.

If the creator is unbound by logic, it ceases to be intelligible. If such is the case, wouldn't agnosticism be the correct selection?

 

[K9Buck]

I can't.

I can't even begin to reasonably rule it out either. I severely doubt you can either.

Fair enough.

 

[LouderVol]

If the creator is unbound by logic, it ceases to be intelligible. If such is the case, wouldn't agnosticism be the correct selection?

agnostic as far as the OP or real agnosticism?


I am trying to keep my arguments in the frame of reference that the OP was asking if a "being" existed. not if the Christian God existed.

to my mind once you have accepted the possibility of a being it becomes a matter of faith to define what that being is to you.

 

[Wafflestomper]

The universe.

Life.

Countless people who have shared near death experiences, some of whom I know.

Common sense.

Logic.

My children.

Animals.

The presence of good and evil in the world.

Our innate knowledge of morality.

Okay, why are any of those justification for belief in a particular god? I could say all those are a reason to believe in the flying spaghetti monster as well.

 

[K9Buck]

On our very limited macro-level, with our limited senses and intelligence, it appears so. Those are massive qualifers though.



Why?

Both concepts, eternal regress/eternity and something-from-nothing, are utterly and equally absurd given our current understanding.

Favouring one absurdity over another is nonsense. Acting as if such favouring is necessary, is ludicrous.

Neither of us can prove one way or the other. I'm simply sharing why I believe. I could be wrong. It's certainly possible that there is no creator. I'm 99% confident that there IS a creator, however.

As far as I can glean, nothing in this universe can make itself. Yea, perhaps one day science will uncover something that CAN make itself, but I doubt it. So, I'm inclined to believe that the universe itself had a creator and that life did too.

I also believe it's logical to conclude that there HAD to be something that exists and that has ALWAYS existed and did not require a creator. That would be - God, or so I believe.

I can't prove any of it. It's simply what I believe.

 

[K9Buck]

Let me flip the question. What evidence is there to compel one to believe that the universe created itself or that, somehow, it has always existed without the need of a creator?

 

[PKT_VOL]

agnostic as far as the OP or real agnosticism?


I am trying to keep my arguments in the frame of reference that the OP was asking if a "being" existed. not if the Christian God existed.

to my mind once you have accepted the possibility of a being it becomes a matter of faith to define what that being is to you.

The OP.

We are merely discussing reasons for either actively believing, actively not believing, or being agnostic towards the notion.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Neither of us can prove one way or the other. I'm simply sharing why I believe. I could be wrong. It's certainly possible that there is no creator. I'm 99% confident that there IS a creator, however.

As far as I can glean, nothing in this universe can make itself. Yea, perhaps one day science will uncover something that CAN make itself, but I doubt it. So, I'm inclined to believe that the universe itself had a creator and that life did too.

I also believe it's logical to conclude that there HAD to be something that exists and that has ALWAYS existed and did not require a creator. That would be - God, or so I believe.

I can't prove any of it. It's simply what I believe.

You seem to be distinguishing natural phenomenon from a "creator" on these matters. I think that is a false distinction. What applies to one (eternal status, uncreated, etc.) ought to apply to the other.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Let me flip the question. What evidence is there to compel one to believe that the universe created itself or that, somehow, it has always existed without the need of a creator?

The question is the same, regardless of whether one is talking about the universe or a creator. Either eternal existance, uncreatedness, etc. exists or or it doesn't.

In other words, the principle matters, not the subject.

 

[1972 Grad]

I didn't vote because I have no idea what I believe. This stuff is way beyond my comprehension.