Could you refute an idea that came into my head

[Upgrade25]

I’m not looking for a debate with atheists. I have no interest in wasting the emotional capacity. I’m just hoping that some CAFers can help me get through an atheistic doubt.

Refute: The idea is that a single cell couldn’t be eternal because it changed, right. What about if there was a canvas(quantum vacuum, etc.) that allowed the cell to exist infinitely back in time and change(Big Bang) without the canvas changing?

 

[tonyrey]

Your hypothesis satisfies the principle of economy but not adequacy. There is no explanation of the increase in complexity.

 

[Upgrade25]

Your hypothesis satisfies the principle of economy but not adequacy. There is no explanation of the increase in complexity.

?

 

[Upgrade25]

If a God can be eternal, a single cell be eternal.

If the Christian God is eternal and also “changed” when becoming a flesh and bone person…then a cell can be eternal and “change”, too.

.

I clearly didn’t ask for a debate.

 

[Upgrade25]

If a God can be eternal, a single cell be eternal.

If the Christian God is eternal and also “changed” when becoming a flesh and bone person…then a cell can be eternal and “change”, too.

.

And why not this? Since he decided to post this, might as well answer it!

 

[Upgrade25]

Or, the idea that a single cell could have existed eternally in a state of decay, eventually causing the Big Bang?

 

[tonyrey]

What about if there was a canvas(quantum vacuum, etc.) that allowed the cell to exist infinitely back in time and change(Big Bang) without the canvas changing? ?

Your hypothesis satisfies the principle of economy but not adequacy. There is no explanation of the increase in complexity.

You give no reason why there is only one cell when scientific evidence demonstrates there are countless billions - and no one lives as if there is only one…

 

[Upgrade25]

You give no reason why there is only one cell when scientific evidence demonstrates there are countless billions - and no one lives as if there is only one…

1 cannot become 2? Couldn’t the cell have broken up and become several?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Whilst single cells don’t have to be eternal and might decay in the course of time, and there is probably a complexity angle as Tony points out, there is nothing in any of the hypotheses expressed in this thread that points particularly to atheism, so I doubt you will get a “refutation” because it will be seen there is no need for one.

Hoping this sets your mind at rest

 

[Upgrade25]

Whilst single cells don’t have to be eternal and might decay in the course of time, and there is probably a complexity angle as Tony points out, there is nothing in any of the hypotheses expressed in this thread that points particularly to atheism, so I doubt you will get a “refutation” because it will be seen there is no need for one.

Hoping this sets your mind at rest

If there is a single cell that caused it, then is God needed?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If there is a single cell that caused it, then is God needed?

A cell is something which exists. Since it exists, it necessitates a creator, because something cannot create itself. If something was created, then it is not eternal.

 

[Hawkmaid]

1 cannot become 2? Couldn’t the cell have broken up and become several?

I think what is being asked is, where did the first cell that you suggest come from? Either the cell was/is eternal, and where is it now? Or it decayed, which means it was on some sort of time frame, and had a moment of creation.

 

[Crusaderbear]

A cell is a construct, it is not eternal, the atoms making it up are closer…but even they will eventually decay into pure energy. Energy, now THATS eternal (probably…)

If you are going for the great reconstruction when everyone gets there bodies back…just hit the I believe button and go watch some TV.

Even the cells you were born with are long dead and replaced…maybe your terminology is not getting your point across?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If a God can be eternal, a single cell be eternal.

This is a non-sequitur.

It doesn’t follow that because one thing can be X, that anything else can be X.

Your logic is flawed.

If the Christian God is eternal and also “changed” when becoming a flesh and bone person…then a cell can be eternal and “change”, too.

Again, the reasons why God is eternal has to do with the specific metaphysical characteristics of God from classical theism – omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc. – that are logically required of the Uncaused Cause of all conditional existents. It doesn’t logically follow that features necessary for explanatory sufficiency are, therefore, transferable to all other existents purely because they “can” be.

You haven’t explained how a cell can be eternal with anything approximating an explanation.

By the way, there is not a claim that God “changed” when becoming “a flesh and bone human.” The reality of what constitutes “flesh and bone humans” exists eternally in God as a determinable aspect of his being Actus Purus or Fullness of Being – in that sense the reality of “flesh and blood human” has existed eternally in God, like everything else in the universe, including cells.

The difference is that the existential dependency is one way. Cells depend on the eternal God for their existence in time, but God does not depend upon cells for his eternal existence.

 

[fisherman_carl]

A cell is a construct, it is not eternal, the atoms making it up are closer…but even they will eventually decay into pure energy. Energy, now THATS eternal (probably…)

If you are going for the great reconstruction when everyone gets there bodies back…just hit the I believe button and go watch some TV.

Even the cells you were born with are long dead and replaced…maybe your terminology is not getting your point across?

Saying energy is eternal is like saying time is eternal. Energy is simply the measurement of something just like time is the measurement of the rate of change. Energy doesn’t actually exist as a thing in the universe. But rather as a concept or an abstraction. For instance as the rate at which something does work. Thus, energy or time only exist in the sense that the things they describe exist. As long as something changes then time could be measured. However, if the universe itself did not exist then neither would energy or time exist.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Saying energy is eternal is like saying time is eternal. Energy is simply the measurement of something just like time is the measurement of the rate of change. Energy doesn’t actually exist as a thing in the universe. But rather as a concept or an abstraction. For instance as the rate at which something does work. Thus, energy or time only exist in the sense that the things they describe exist. As long as something changes then time could be measured. However, if the universe itself did not exist then neither would energy or time exist.

Energy is real…E=mc^2 its waveform will decay, but we don’t have the science to work it out. If you are thinkinh potential energy (mgh fm gravity…) that is a construct.

I’m still unclear on what OP was trying to say…need a biologist!

 

[Mintaka]

Um… guys… the real problem here is that the terms are being defined incorrectly.

Eternity is that which exists outside of time and space. That’s why “everything happens at once” from an eternal perspective; there is no time. All of time and space is equally accessible to God, because He dwells in eternity. (He also indwells everywhere within space/time, but that’s His “omnipresent” attribute.)

A cell that existed inside space/time forever (if space/time never ended), without changing, would still not be “eternal,” because it would not exist in eternity, which is outside of time and space. It would only be “sempiternal,” ie, unending within time and space.

If we use the right terms, we can have a much better conversation.

 

[Upgrade25]

Um… guys… the real problem here is that the terms are being defined incorrectly.

Eternity is that which exists outside of time and space. That’s why “everything happens at once” from an eternal perspective; there is no time. All of time and space is equally accessible to God, because He dwells in eternity. (He also indwells everywhere within space/time, but that’s His “omnipresent” attribute.)

A cell that existed inside space/time forever (if space/time never ended), without changing, would still not be “eternal,” because it would not exist in eternity, which is outside of time and space. It would only be “sempiternal,” ie, unending within time and space.

If we use the right terms, we can have a much better conversation.

Refute: Why can’t the cell be sempiternal? We don’t need God then, right.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Refute: Why can’t the cell be sempiternal? We don’t need God then, right.

Answer. Sempiternal objects still come into existence at a defined point in time, which means that it was created, which means that it has a creator. They may exist forever after their point of creation, but they are not eternal.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

A cell is something which exists. Since it exists, it necessitates a creator, because something cannot create itself. If something was created, then it is not eternal.

This. God is the answer to “why is there something rather than nothing?”

Further, anything that you might propose as an alternative answer to the Christian idea of God (some eternal physical widget) would have to satisfy all of the things we can reason out about God purely from the idea that He is the First Cause.

So you might posit that there is some uncreated eternal doohickey out there somewhere that is the fundamental reason why things exist, but that thing would have to satisfy, for instance the 8 attributes of God that St. Thomas Aquinas deduced from reason alone.

Does it fail to satisfy one of those? Then it’s not the fundamental reason why things exist.