God cannot explain the origin of life

[rossum]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

 

[sirach2v4]

For anyone who accepts the Catholic Bible (Old Testament and New Testament), it is a a theology book which*** reveals*** that God is Creator and Father of all. It is not a science book that gives a formula for creating life.

Creation as told in the Bible shows that the objects which pagan people accepted as gods – the sun, moon, animals, etc. – are part of the creation which were brought into being out of nothing by a Creator.

I am not familiar with Buddhist beliefs, so I cannot relate the Catholic teaching to it or draw any contrast from it.

I disagree, God is the origin of life. This is a fundamental theological definition and the starting point for Jewish and Christian belief. Science, and perhaps other philosophies, take God out of the picture and offer alternative ideas. Note, that these other ideas are hypotheses which, so far as we can tell, have not been tested.

If there are an infinite number of universes such as ours, why aren’t they merging together? this is not a Catholic question, just a personal one. It’s easy to say that our universe is not unique and that there are infinite number of them – can this be proven? No, it’s a system of human thought used to debunk faith in God.

 

[LethalMouse]

What?

 

[LethalMouse]

Oh scientifically, well if after God created the universe etc… then it was an affect of energy (lightning type/atomic level stuff) interacting with core matter and forming the building blocks of life. And growing out from there etc.

 

[SilverShadow22]

The question is unanswerable based on the parameters you have set.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

Are you saying that God is not living in the same sense that His creations are. Therefor He cannot be the source of the origin of life?

If so, your right in that God is not living in the same way as His creations are living. He exists outside of the universe. He created a universe in which life has evolved from light.

 

[KEP1983]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

100,000 years from now, after humanity is long gone and forgotten, a group of robots will sit around and say that “an explanation for the origin of digital life must involve a process with no non-digital (name removed by moderator)ut. Any theoretical intelligent organic life-- which we see no evidence of existing-- could not be the cause of digital life.”

 

[tee_eff_em]

Any explanation for the origin of life -]must/-]

may

involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output.

-]The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life./-]

The Abrahamic God is a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence can explain for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

Fixed it for you, and with exactly as much support.
QED
You’re Welcome. :tiphat:

I always get a kick out of these philosophy threads that begin with:

Premise A (because I say so, and with no other support)
Premise B (because I say so, and with no other support)
hence
Conclusion That I Am Precisely Capable of Begging the Question

:whacky:

tee

 

[St_Francis]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

Your first sentence contradicts itself and is totally unsupported; therefore, there is no evidence for your second sentence.

It’s better to start a discussion with an argument for or against something rather than bald statements like this, or else you could ask a question.

 

[meltzerboy]

100,000 years from now, after humanity is long gone and forgotten, a group of robots will sit around and say that “an explanation for the origin of digital life must involve a process with no non-digital (name removed by moderator)ut. Any theoretical intelligent organic life-- which we see no evidence of existing-- could not be the cause of digital life.”

This is an interesting analogy.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

Why would the Abrahamic God not be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut?

 

[Gorgias]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output.

This is a valid point, but only if you state it a bit more precisely. Let’s try and fix the ambiguities and hidden errors in your assertion:

Any explanation for the origin of created life in the universe must involve a process with no living created, physical living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living created, physical output.

There. That’s better.

The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

When we correct your first assertion to properly identify the context of the discussion as life that is ‘created’ and ‘physical’, we see that this second assertion doesn’t hold up to reason.

Blessings,
G.

 

[Tomdstone]

Any explanation for the origin of created life in the universe must involve a process with no living created, physical living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living created, physical output…

Do you claim that life cannot begin from non-living matter? Many scientists say that abiogenesis is possible.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you claim that life cannot begin from non-living matter? Many scientists say that abiogenesis is possible.

Immaterial. The discussion is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, as rossum has set it up. So, whether the ‘process’ includes abiogenesis or not doesn’t really come into play. Instead, rossum’s conditions attempt to prevent a discussion of God’s (potential for) causing life. As such, these conditions fail, since they artificially constrain the discussion.

 

[on_the_hill]

The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process

Why?

 

[Lucretius]

Any explanation for the origin of life must involve a process with no living (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one living output. The Abrahamic God cannot be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to such a process and hence cannot be part of the explanation for the origin of life.

Discuss.

rossum

I think Rossum is saying that since the God of Abraham is alive, He can’t be the origin of Life. That is, a living thing can’t be the cause of life, because it has to be alive to cause life, which is nonsense: a thing can’t create itself.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[rossum]

For anyone who accepts the Catholic Bible (Old Testament and New Testament), it is a a theology book which*** reveals*** that God is Creator and Father of all.

God did not create “all”. Is God created? God, did not create Himself, hence He is not the creator of “all”; at best He is the creator of “all except Himself”.

It is important to keep things accurate in a philosophy forum.

I disagree, God is the origin of life.

The origin of life is the start if life from non-life. Is your God a living God or a non-living God? Your answer to that question will help you to see my point here.

To put it another way, is it possible for God to create the first living thing or can He only create the second living thing?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Are you saying that God is not living in the same sense that His creations are. Therefor He cannot be the source of the origin of life?

I am saying the opposite. God is living just as His creations are living. He cannot be the origin of life because He is already alive to start with. Hence my point about only non-living (name removed by moderator)uts into the initial process.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your first sentence contradicts itself

How? If we are discussing the origin of life then we need to start with no life, and take it from there. For example:

[indent[Q: How did life start?

A: Living aliens from planet Zargon 3 started life.[/indent]

Do you think that is a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life? How can it be a valid explanation if the Zargonians are themselves already alive? It is only an explanation if the Zargonians are not alive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why would the Abrahamic God not be a valid (name removed by moderator)ut?

Read Psalm 41:2 (Septuagint numbering) / Psalm 42:2 (Masoretic numbering)

Notice that I am talking about “life”, not “material life” or “life on Earth”.

rossum