God cannot explain the origin of life

[rossum]

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.

You are putting in assumptions that I did not make. I said “life”, and that is what I meant. If I had meant “material life” then I would have said so. I am Buddhist, so I have no problem with non-material life in many and various forms.

rossum

 

[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.

Congratulations Sir or Madam, you have won the thread. You prize is a no expenses paid holiday to a destination of your choice.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why?

Only non-living things can be (name removed by moderator)uts to the process. Is God alive or dead?

rossum

 

[on_the_hill]

Only non-living things can be (name removed by moderator)uts to the process. Is God alive or dead?

rossum

I understand now what you’re saying.

Maybe the problem is in our definition of what living is. Maybe God is neither alive nor dead, but exists in a condition that we can’t describe, and so “living” is the closest approximation we can conceive.

Why do we think God is alive? Probably because the Bible says so. Remember, though, the Gospels are full of sentences that say, ‘Jesus told them these things but they didn’t understand him at the time.’ There’s a pretty good chance there’s a whole lot more (a whole universe? ) of stuff out there that we don’t understand yet.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

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

Okay. Since you don’t necessarily mean" physical life" or something to that effect, I don’t think this provides much of an objection. The Abrahamic theist can simply say that the existence of “life” in this sense is a brute fact. Basically, they do the same thing they do for the existence of mind.

 

[hasantas]

Sun and it’s light reflects into mirrors. That reflection disappear when light do not come on mirror. The reflection of mirror is from Sun’s light but Sun is not into mirror with it’s essence but by some kind of manifestation. Similarly life is the manifestation(reflection) of life of God. Every body of alive is a mirror for life(light) of God. Life of God do not create itself but reflects. That is just an anology to comprehend the fact.

 

[Partinobodycula]

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.

This line of reasoning leads to some very interesting questions. To begin with…what is life? This may seem like a fairly straightforward question, but it’s really quite troublesome when it comes to describing God.

So how does a Catholic define life? Remember, this definition must apply to God, if He is to be described as being alive.

Problem number two. Is life a necessary thing? We would have to conclude that it isn’t, because there are things that exist without it. Life therefore would seem to be a secondary attribute of existence, and not a necessary attribute of existence. But if God is a necessary being, and life isn’t necessary, by what reasoning is the necessary being (God) alive?

So there would seem to be at least two problems in describing God as being “alive”. 1. How does one define “alive”, in a way that describes God? 2. If God is a necessary being, and life isn’t necessary, then why does that which is necessary contain an attribute which isn’t necessary?

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

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

I understand what you are proposing. Would it be relevant to the philosophical argument that G-d also created non-life in the form of objects consisting of atoms and molecules? Further, what about the fact that there are different forms of life with different levels of or no consciousness, such as plant life: does that have any influence on your proposition? Or forms of life with different abilities to reason and apply logic, such that what we believe is logical or illogical, for example with regard to defining what life is, may not be so according to a life form of higher consciousness?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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

Your understanding of God, as Catholic’s believe, is not correct. God is ‘being’, God is ‘love’, God is ‘existence’, God is ‘good’. I hope that helps you understand. We describe God as living because that helps people form an understanding of a Abrahemic and Trinitarian God.
So your original post makes incorrect assumptions based on a misunderstanding caused by a cultural language barrier.
Material living and immaterial are both created by God who is being, existence, love, good…

 

[Lucretius]

Congratulations Sir or Madam, you have won the thread. You prize is a no expenses paid holiday to a destination of your choice.

rossum

Let’s go with…Italy. I’m going to hike the Apennines, looking for Roman forts and medieval castles

And I’m a Sir What are you?

I think you question misunderstands what we mean when we ask about the origins of life. We speak of material life. We don’t mean spiritual life (that is, angels) or the analogical thing that God is that is like life. That is, God is the cause of all things, including life, and He modeled material life off of His own.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Gorgias]

rossum:

I am saying the opposite. God is living just as His creations are living.

Your understanding of God, as Catholic’s believe, is not correct. God is ‘being’, God is ‘love’, God is ‘existence’, God is ‘good’. I hope that helps you understand. We describe God as living because that helps people form an understanding of a Abrahemic and Trinitarian God.
So your original post makes incorrect assumptions based on a misunderstanding

Rossum,

I was going to reply to your response to me, but I see that 1Lord1Faith has already covered that ground – God is not “living just as His creations are living.” He is, in our theology, the grounds and basis of life itself. He is pure being – and we ‘live’ only by having been created by Him and only by His continued will that we should live.

So, the question isn’t even about ‘material life’ – it’s about created life. The “Origin of Life” question is a question (in Christian theology) about the origins of created life. If you wish to talk about the “origin of God’s life”, you’ll find the discussion to be a rather short one – in Christian theology, God is uncreated and has no ‘origin’; He simply exists, eternally. In Christian theology, if one wishes to talk intelligibly about ‘origins’, then one speaks of things that have an origin…

 

[rossum]

Your understanding of God, as Catholic’s believe, is not correct.

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

“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added)

rossum

 

[rossum]

Let’s go with…Italy. I’m going to hike the Apennines, looking for Roman forts and medieval castles

I have been to Italy many times. My favourite parts are Rome and the Sorrento peninsula.

And I’m a Sir What are you?

Not having been knighted I am a mere Mr.

I think you question misunderstands what we mean when we ask about the origins of life. We speak of material life. We don’t mean spiritual life (that is, angels) or the analogical thing that God is that is like life. That is, God is the cause of all things, including life, and He modeled material life off of His own.

A great many people make that assumption. I, deliberately, do not. I think it makes for a more interesting discussion.

Consider:

• Q: How did life on earth originate?
• A: Life on Earth was created by aliens from Zargon 3.
• Q: Where did the Zargonians come from?
• A: Zargon 3 of course.

Do you think that is a satisfactory answer to the question, even if the Zargonians are immaterial? Jews, Christians and Muslims all assign the origin of life to the Abrahamic God, who describes Himself as alive. To me, that is not a satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So, the question isn’t even about ‘material life’ – it’s about created life

No it is not. I deliberately phrased my OP to include all life, both material and immaterial. You will note that I am Buddhist, so I have no problem with immaterial living entities.

If I wanted to know about the origin of material life then I would have asked a biologist, since the study of material living things is part of the province of science. Here we are in the philosophy section, not the science section, so I am asking about all life, nor just material life.

rossum

 

[Lucretius]

I have been to Italy many times. My favourite parts are Rome and the Sorrento peninsula.

Ahh, I plan to go there too! I’m so jealous!

A great many people make that assumption. I, deliberately, do not. I think it makes for a more interesting discussion.

Consider:

• Q: How did life on earth originate?

• A: Life on Earth was created by aliens from Zargon 3.

• Q: Where did the Zargonians come from?

• A: Zargon 3 of course.

My first thought is that the second answer doesn’t answer the the second question, if the second question is meant to mimic the first question. “Where did Zargonians come from” would mean “what is the cause of the Zargonians,” not “from what place do the Zargonians hail?”

Do you think that is a satisfactory answer to the question, even if the Zargonians are immaterial? Jews, Christians and Muslims all assign the origin of life to the Abrahamic God, who describes Himself as alive. To me, that is not a satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that only natural causes can satisfy the question?

God is alive only analogically, so it makes no sense to ask how God got His life. Furthermore, since God doesn’t become, it makes no sense to ask “what is the cause of God?” In the end, ultimately God is the cause of all things. I see your question as simply a particular instance of this more general question.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Gorgias]

No it is not. I deliberately phrased my OP to include all life, both material and immaterial. You will note that I am Buddhist, so I have no problem with immaterial living entities.

We seem to be dancing.

Angels are “immaterial living entities”. They’re part of “created life”, too. So, again, we’re back to the same point: the question is about created life. If the question were about the “origin of divine life”, then the Christian response would be trivial: God has no ‘origin’ – He is eternal.

You can talk about aliens on Zargon 3 all you want – but they’re still created life, whether material or immaterial. It all comes down to the same thing – either you’re asking us about the “origin of God” (which is answered simply with ‘God is eternal’), or you’re asking us about “origin of created life” (which does not have the issues you assert exist).

Here we are in the philosophy section, not the science section, so I am asking about all life, nor just material life.

So, then, please address the distinction being made: are you asking about ‘created’ life, or ‘divine’ life (or both)?

 

[Partinobodycula]

So, then, please address the distinction being made: are you asking about ‘created’ life, or ‘divine’ life (or both)?

I don’t mean to step on rossum’s toes, but I would be happy if you’d simply define life in whatever context you like. Whether that life is material, or divine, or whatever. What distinguishes something as being alive, as opposed to not being alive. If you believe that there’s a difference between material life and divine life, other than the fact that it occurs in a material being, then pleases explain what that distinction is.

But if you’re going to argue that God is alive, then what do you mean when you say that God is alive?

 

[Tomdstone]

You can talk about aliens on Zargon 3 all you want – but they’re still created life, whether material or immaterial.

I don’t think that scientists will agree that all life is created. Some will say that life can arise spontaneously from certain material compounds.

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that only natural causes can satisfy the question?

No. I am not providing an answer to the question. I am pointing out that the common response from the Abrahamic side: “God created/caused life” is in fact incorrect. God is alive, and did not create/cause Himself. Hence He cannot have orignated life.

Furthermore, since God doesn’t become, it makes no sense to ask “what is the cause of God?”

Hence you have no answer to “what is the cause of life?”

In the end, ultimately God is the cause of all things.

Another common error. God is not the cause of all existing things. God exists and God did not cause Himself. God can only be the cause of all things except Himself.

I see your question as simply a particular instance of this more general question.

Correct, which is why their answer are related.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Angels are “immaterial living entities”. They’re part of “created life”, too. So, again, we’re back to the same point: the question is about created life. If the question were about the “origin of divine life”, then the Christian response would be trivial: God has no ‘origin’ – He is eternal.

Life is life. In this question I am not dividing it up into categories. Hence the thrust of my point: the Abrahamic religions have no explanation for the origin of life because they do not explain the origin of the Abrahamic God.

It all comes down to the same thing – either you’re asking us about the “origin of God” (which is answered simply with ‘God is eternal’)

That is indeed what I am asking. Would you accept “The Zargonians are immaterial and eternal” as a good explanation or merely an avoidance of the question. Would you be happier if I replaced “Zargonains” with “Vishnu” or “Amaterasu”? There are many god/desses to pick from, and being Buddhist, I have a far wider choice than you.

All of this reflects back to the point of this thread: an eternal entity cannot explain the origin of itself, since it has no origin.

So, then, please address the distinction being made: are you asking about ‘created’ life, or ‘divine’ life (or both)?

Both.

rossum