Undeniable logic proving that god created the universe.

dragonridr
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

This isnt about if we have free will its a comment on the mindset of god. Yes mankind has free will what ever thats supposed to truly mean. But its like you being able to prevent someone killing someone and doing nothing.It says something about the individual just because i give my kids the ability to make decisions doesnt mean im not going to step in if there going to do something to hurt themselves or worse.

From your perspective I'm sure it makes no sense... but your perspective is limited. If you could actually view things from a fully enlightened perspective you might be able to understand....

According to scripture... man brought evil into this world through his own actions. It's basically that simple. God honors his promise of free will and allows evil to exist but will eventually drive evil out again.

...in a nut shell.

reply to post by peter vlar


I understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, I apologise if the document was flawed.

I found your post to be illuminating. There is a scientific rational for everything that exists in this dimension. Ultimately it is unknowable how life is created but from the weight of the circumstantial evidence I would choose to believe that there is a creator.

You would prefer to try and catch god's farts in a bottle than take a deep breath?

Sorry that was a joke.

Science is a fantastic thing which I am in awe of, yet why should it stand in the way of anyone's faith? Through infinite variation which exists in our universe, there will always be difference. Dont all living entities have to consume organic matter to survive? How is that created, by life. Abiogenesis could be the understanding of gods creation, or life on earth could have started in a diffferent way but you are only ever trying to catch up with creation rather than actually focusing on the things in the life that are of god like love.

TO attempt understand the complexity of creation is mind boggling. There are some strange things at work though dont you think? Like us on a planet in space communicating via a thought pattern pressed into a microchip of human creation.

How do you think you were created? Who devised reproductive systems? How are you even 'alive'?

Cedik
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Dont all living entities have to consume organic matter to survive?

No... Cyanobacteria... blue green algae.. does not consume organic matter. It utilizes photosynthesis to obtain energy.

Cyanobacteria is one of the earliest forms of life on the planet and is responsible for producing most of the free oxygen in the atmosphere.

reply to post by iterationzero

Is a "living organism", by your definition, one made up of organic matter?

I would say yes.

Out of interest. How can you prove scientifically that a plant is alive? Is there a term for this?

reply to post by helldiver


Please explain what I have confused. Why does the timescale of evolution matter? Does evolution even matter? In this argument I would say not.

I do not really know what the most basic properties of life are. What would you say they were?

Cedik
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Is a "living organism", by your definition, one made up of organic matter?

I would say yes.

Out of interest. How can you prove scientifically that a plant is alive? Is there a term for this?

Because all living things have certain things in common whether they be people plants or animals.
They grow and die.
They need energy, nutrients, air, and water.
They produce young.
They are made up of cells.
They react to what's around them.

reply to post by Cedik

I would say yes.

Where do you then draw the dividing line of living/nonliving on the continuum between a single amino acid and a fully fledged "organism", say a human being?

reply to post by Cedik


Since you say, "only life can create life" can you explain what "life" created the "life" which created us???
If you can "fully explain" this? And "God is eternal" will not be acceptable as your statement does not allow for this to be.
I should ask for solid physical proof which would stand up in court, but I won't.

reply to post by Cedik


Ah, metaphysics and it's application to religion, to those of us already religious it is a no brainer but to those with a more enquiring mind and perhaps less religious persuasion it is merely a branch of philosophy.

Take superspace, a hypothetical realm without law's and with all law's of physics that both does and does not exist, it has perhaps a infinite number of universe within it's undefinable confines yet for something to exist those confines must be defined so what is doing this, well not to quote simple boolian algebra and the point that a not not is not a not we must there fore conclude that it is itself, let us call it the GOD of superspace that by it's will defines existance and manifests from the otherwise self anihilating chaos a level of order, we might call it the GOD of order or the GOD of chaos whom creates and enforces order, now weather a person if religious or not the very fact existance is -- is itself a miracle of the most improbable and statistically unlikely kind that the the very universe itself should not exist or for that matter even superspace or the greater sea of chaos should not exist as it should cancell itself out yet something maintains it, maybe we don't exist and maybe we do- (back to the padded cell, Ah ha they said I was mad but I'll show them - "mad scientist cacking").
(We need a Janus Emoticon or a ying yang symbol here).

Your logic is flawed, you have a loop to contend with,
if life only creates life then who created gods life?
is it an infinite loop of creation?

reply to post by bloodreviara


welcome to the whacky theistic world of special pleading

in short :

theistic claim = everything needs a creator , ergo god

rebuttal = who created god

theistic answer = god doesn't need a creator

skeptic = WTF ????????

LABTECH767
reply to post by Cedik

 

Ah, metaphysics and it's application to religion, to those of us already religious it is a no brainer but to those with a more enquiring mind and perhaps less religious persuasion it is merely a branch of philosophy.

Take superspace, a hypothetical realm without law's and with all law's of physics that both does and does not exist, it has perhaps a infinite number of universe within it's undefinable confines yet for something to exist those confines must be defined so what is doing this, well not to quote simple boolian algebra and the point that a not not is not a not we must there fore conclude that it is itself, let us call it the GOD of superspace that by it's will defines existance and manifests from the otherwise self anihilating chaos a level of order, we might call it the GOD of order or the GOD of chaos whom creates and enforces order, now weather a person if religious or not the very fact existance is -- is itself a miracle of the most improbable and statistically unlikely kind that the the very universe itself should not exist or for that matter even superspace or the greater sea of chaos should not exist as it should cancell itself out yet something maintains it, maybe we don't exist and maybe we do- (back to the padded cell, Ah ha they said I was mad but I'll show them - "mad scientist cacking").
(We need a Janus Emoticon or a ying yang symbol here).

I can't believe I read this.
And people tell me I sometimes talk in circles.
This is the first time I have ever experienced a verble circle-jerk.

Do you think you could explain this concept a little further?

reply to post by teamcommander


Sorry I came accross a bit troll like and that was not my intention, but to put it in a simple term, if there was no cause there would be no effect, the universe exists and nothing comes from a void as the basic priniciple would be equal and opposing forces that would cancell each other out, therefore it must mean there was a causality of interactions, the improbability of a structure such as the universe existing at all negates the chance interaction of superfields with such cancellation's as would occure unless there was a primary cause - something that introduced the imbalance that allows reality to exist and may be the reason it occurs at all.

To those of us whom are theists regardless of religion it is something we accept with no difficulty but to the atheist one must ask therefore what is that original kernal and were/how did it come into being/existance.

An infinity does not exist as a state of superspace (it would be a state of chaos as if every permutation could exist it must there fore cancell out) as that would be regarded as a dimensional form of superspace. It is difficult but unless you have years to sit and think about the nature of reality and how anything even without a God or cause could exist then it is nigh impossible to impart the cyclical (though one might say spiral) structure of feed back thinking required and it is not something you simply say I do or do not understand as the concept of understanding this matter in itself is not possible, Maybe if we had a mind as large as the universe we could begin but we are at the perspective we are at and must make do, like science (though admittedly with a big PSEUDO) it is not necessarily the achieving of the final theorem but often the tangents the thought process follows off from it that makes it more rewarding though that reward is very personal and has nothing to do with living day to day (what do you think the alchemists were searching for in the philosophers stone and later the physicists in the grand unified theorem), things like this often make you realise that a simple shepherd whom despite missing out on our idea's often has a more rewarding life, it is all about understanding and we are all seeking that but it is often enough simply to be fulfilled and happy.

Those of us whom inherintly believe in GOD will alway's do so and those whom do not will probably never do so, maybe we are both right and maybe we are both wrong.

Cedik
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

Im going to point out that "life creates life" is not what abiogenesis claims.

As per usual creationists are not prepared to even discuss these topics.

I had not heard of abiogenesis and clearly the cursory glance that I gave the wiki page will not effectively enlighten me however I did notice this:

In 1952, in the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is very interesting because it is finally some evidence to hint that in fact life could be created from dead matter. I would say that this effect could also be as a consequence of the electricity used in a wave type reaction.

My point is exactly like you said (see above). You're harping on about "life begets life" but apparently you've only just been introduced to abiogenesis. How can you debate something effectively if you haven't the foggiest about the subject.

Seriously man you might as well believe in Darth Vader, that's how ridiculous your argument is. All the time and effort you contribute to this creation fallacy is such a waste.

reply to post by LABTECH767


believing in god is all fine and good, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, especially if you actually follow the tenets of your faith and respect others appropriately. But, have you ever considered the possibility that you're praying to the wrong god? All the deities people pray to seem to be pretty petty and vindictive, especially if you anger them. Look what Jehovah did to the Jews who were worshipping Ba'al after all.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

You are wrong.

Ok great, thanks for that. May it not be that you are wrong? Can the theory of relativity disprove the theory? If it can, could it be wrong? I had a look around and found this:

At the physics 101 level, you pretty much just have to accept this as an experimental fact. At the upper division or early grad school level, you'll be introduced to Noether's Theorem, and we can talk about the invariance of physical law under displacements in time. Really this just replaces one experimental fact (energy is conserved) with another (the character of physical law is independent of time), but at least it seems like a deeper understanding. When you study general relativity and/or cosmology in depth, you may encounter claims that under the right circumstances it is hard to define a unique time to use for "invariance under translation in time", leaving energy conservation in question. Even on Physics.SE you'll find rather a lot of disagreement on the matter. It is far enough beyond my understanding that I won't venture an opinion. This may (or may not) overturn what you've been told, but not in a way that you care about.

physics.stackexchange.com...

So other physicists have other theories about the creation energy.

I am not saying that I think you are wrong. I do not know enough about science to dispprove the theory of relativity . on the other hand, do you know for certain that theory of relativity could not be flawed in this aspect, or that in a different environment it's findings could change?

reply to post by dragonridr


Computers will never be capable of original thought. They are merely an expression of thought made matter and therefore cannot innovate.

Computers can be programmed to mimic innovation and evolve through existing possibilites but never original thought.

On the other hand, it would be possible to fuse existing life to computers. This makes me shudder.

Who created god?

Second

reply to post by Wertdagf

Maybe a better title for the thread would have been "what I believe, the universe was created" To claim you have undeniable logic and then make appeals to ignorance why back tracking saying "this is a philosophical discussion" seems to be very dishonest. We have a thread for the dishonest tactics of creationists.

I apologise if that is how it appeared. I was incorrect in the thread title, I have already stated that if you would take the time to read the thread. My belief in this still stands but I am now more realistic after this thread. I realise that thinking in such absolutes is dangerous and open to error.

reply to post by greavsie1971

Time is part of the universe, if God created the universe then he created time. Form this we assume (and also told in scriptures but we will leave the religion bit out for now) that God exists outside of time. If there is no time how can he have a beginning?

Ok. So many people are asking about the god thing that I am going to be drawn on it but please remember, this is not the point of the thread. I stated that in the op.

We only have access to the things we experience. From this we can make assumptions about things like the nature of god or where we go when we die. Many people talk about these assumptions as if they are reality yet to the third party, they have no way of telling one from the next. This scares me. The vast majority of religions have elements of this.

I do not think that I am aware enough of god to make a punt at what he/she/it is. I do not see that that is particularly beneficial. I do not rule out the fact that this may be a matrix simulation. I do not rule anything out. You could say that god was a pea cartoon living in a house made from cheese in ron jeremy's anus.

I choose to live my life in the best way I can. Helping those around me and supporting my family. I choose to believe that god is the creator of life and love. I follow this principal. I send out love and try to spread (non cheesy) positivity every day. Our world can be pretty #ty, there are many people trying to make it better and I will continue to do so until the day that I return to wherehence I came. This for me is god.