Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
Click to expand...
324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
There was a time when we didn’t know how planets formed. So was it supernatural? No. We just didn’t have the evidence available to know the natural causes.
God of the gaps yet again.
Click to expand...
God of the gaps has it over randomness, because it is at least correct, some might think superficially, but also on the deepest level. The ultimate cause is supernatural, beyond the processes that constitute the universe. We do have a growing understanding of the structure of the physical world, how matter behaves,. We can imagine how planets formed, going back to the beginning, running what we belive to have been the events of time before us, in a backwards direction. Fact is that time moves forward. There was a time whent his did not exist. The natural universe was brought into being, assuming its current form in a step-wise fashion, from the ground up, each created thing/process/event forming the substrate of the next phase of creation.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
IWantGod:
Nobody said that God creates evil.
Click to expand...
We agree He does not.
Click to expand...
He created beings with a free will, and hence the capacity to love, which is a choice that may be rejected, thereby bringing evil into the world.
 
Aloysium said:
He created beings with a free will, and hence the capacity to love, which is a choice that may be rejected, thereby bringing evil into the world.
Click to expand...
In addition, anything He created is not God and will contain degrees of imperfection.
 
buffalo said:
We agree He does not.
Click to expand...
Then God is not the creator of everything, since evil exists and God did not create it. God is merely the creator of some things, not of all things: He did not create either Himself or evil.
 
Wozza said:
Then we still need to know how you determine natural from supernatural.
Click to expand...
LOL! Nice dodge! By the way: that’s precisely the question I asked way back in post 4 of this thread!

So… if we cannot distinguish between the two, then we can’t make claims that purport to demonstrate (and extrapolate from!) “natural processes”. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Wozza:
Then we still need to know how you determine natural from supernatural.
Click to expand...
LOL! Nice dodge! By the way: that’s precisely the question I asked way back in post 4 of this thread!

So… if we cannot distinguish between the two, then we can’t make claims that purport to demonstrate (and extrapolate from!) “natural processes”. 😉
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there are no definitions we can use to differentiate between the two?

It would be easy to do with examples. So why not use definitions that are applicable to those examples. Let’s say a tree growing in my backyard over a period of years and a solid gold three metre cross appearing instantly.

You are saying that we couldn’t define those two occurances differently?
 
Wozza said:
It would be easy to do with examples. So why not use definitions that are applicable to those examples. Let’s say a tree growing in my backyard over a period of years and a solid gold three metre cross appearing instantly.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of a solid gold three metre cross appearing instantly. Examples to be meaningful, should be of something we consider real, and best where the belief is shared. Unfortunately, the example given in the post is off-putting, suggesting the contributor does not understand the matter, deflating the motivation to provide a reply.

Let’s take the calming of the storm. How would one on the shore distinguish between its happening spontaneously and it’s being an act of Divine power? You have to be on the boat.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
Wozza:
It would be easy to do with examples. So why not use definitions that are applicable to those examples. Let’s say a tree growing in my backyard over a period of years and a solid gold three metre cross appearing instantly.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of a solid gold three metre cross appearing instantly. Examples to be meaningful, should be of something we consider real, and best where the belief is shared. Unfortunately, the example given in the post is off-putting, suggesting the contributor does not understand the matter, deflating the motivation to provide a reply.

Let’s take the calming of the storm. How would one on the shore distinguish between its happening spontaneously and it’s being an act of Divine power? You have to be on the boat.
Click to expand...
Al, what are you on about? We don’t need examples that could be interpreted either way. We need examples of something that is obviously natural - a tree growing in my backyard, and something that is obviously not natural - a golden cross immediately appearing.

Of course you haven’t heard of the second example. It’s never happened. It’s unnatural. Which is the point. It could obviously be claimed that it was a supernatural event. Whereas my tree couldn’t.

Now do you have a definition of a supernatural event so that we can compare it to events that are natural? A windy afternoon on my boat doesn’t cut it.
 
Wozza said:
Of course you haven’t heard of the second example. It’s never happened. It’s unnatural. Which is the point. It could obviously be claimed that it was a supernatural event. Whereas my tree couldn’t.
Click to expand...
This gives the impression that you do not believe the supernatural exists.

The fact is that without a relationship with God, however one understands Him, it is not possible to distinguish the natural from the supernatural. This is one grand miracle.

The laws of nature are brought into existence and had a beginning. Science seen in the light that is Jesus Christ, as off putting as that may come across, is all about how Creation took place in steps that reflect the ontological structure of living forms, here and now.

How can one possibly ascertain whether or not an ape gave birth to a human being, whether an organism hatched from an egg, grew its offspring attached by a placenta within its womb, whether a sexually reproducing life form originated through the process of mitosis, or as the OP is suggesting, that the complexity found in nature is the result solely of the interactions found in matter, and no overarching organizing principle that brings them together?
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
There’s a very, very low probability of me winning the lotto. But if we make the draw just once a year over a period of billions of years and even if we only have a Milky Way Lotto, then the chances of me winning are not ‘likely’ but a cast iron certainty.
Click to expand...
Yeah…keep adding those zero…it’s all gonna work out. 🙂
 
Aloysium said:
This gives the impression that you do not believe the supernatural exists.
Click to expand...
Which version of the supernatural? There are many different versions of the supernatural, and most of them do not agree with your version. Do Amaterasu or Shiva exist in your version of the supernatural?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top