God cannot explain the origin of life

[SilverShadow22]

Agreed. Now the question becomes, is life contingent? The answer may vary depending on how life is defined.

Here I disagree. Does God exist? Then He falls into the category of “things that exist”. Is God necessary? Then he falls into the category of “things that are necessary”. Any adjective used to describe God: omnipotent, omniscient etc. places God into the category of things that possess that property.

Unchanging? I think not. Consider the following dialogue:

Moses: Lord, please part the sea for us so your people can escape the Egyptians chasing us.

God: I’m sorry Moses, I can’t do that. You see, I am unchanging and I did not part the sea yesterday, and because I cannot change, I cannot do anything today that I didn’t do yesterday. Sorry about that.

An unchanging entity cannot change, and hence cannot change how it acts. If it changes how it acts, then it is changing and so cannot be unchanging. Being unable to change is extremely restrictive.

rossum

Uhhh… But since God knew ahead of time what Moses would ask, He didn’t actually change his mind; He allowed the illusion (for Moses’s sake) of a decision that appeared to change from one state to another. If we didn’t have the illusion of ‘changing’ God’s mind, we would not be able to grasp the point of prayer… It’s still a little mind-bending, but knowing everything ahead of time preempts any actual change by there mere act of foreknowledge.

Besides, your example isn’t entirely accurate, because GOD told MOSES He was going to part the sea; that particular solution didn’t occur to Moses. So God was not even in the appearance of changing His mind, but rather informing Moses of what He was already planning to do.

 

[Partinobodycula]

But since God knew ahead of time what Moses would ask, He didn’t actually change his mind;

How could God know ahead of time what Moses would ask? For an entity which is outside of time, there is no ahead of time, there’s only now.

Forgive me if my reasoning is wrong, but isn’t the entity that resides within time, the one that has the power to choose, and the entity that resides outside of it, the one that doesn’t?

 

[SilverShadow22]

How could God know ahead of time what Moses would ask? For an entity which is outside of time, there is no ahead of time, there’s only now.

Forgive me if my reasoning is wrong, but isn’t the entity that resides within time, the one that has the power to choose, and the entity that resides outside of it, that doesn’t?

That is a really good point.

I think I worded it wrong. Thank you for the correction.

 

[rossum]

Isn’t that an extremely important detail not to know?

It is another way of saying, “All descriptions of nirvana are false.”

Any answer would have used words in a human language. By giving an answer, the Buddha would have implied that words in a human language were adequate to describe his status after death.

rossum

 

[rossum]

‘Life can’t come from life.’
Why not?
‘Because life is alive.’

Surely rossum you can see the logical fallacy here.

My apologies for not making myself clearer. As the thread title says, I am talking about the origin of life. A living thing cannot be the origin of life because it is already alive. The origin of life must lie further back.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If it is possible for a thing to simultaneously exist and not exist then you really shouldn’t pretend to know things like - life can only come from non-life.

Consider a chessboard:

• A chessboard is black.
• A chessboard is not black.
• A chessboard is both black and not black.
• A chessboard is neither black nor not black.

Which of these four best describes a chessboard?

Your statement above makes an assumption. That assumption does not always apply. Specifically, that assumption did not apply to the Buddha so the tetralemma is allowed.

rossum

 

[po18guy]

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

1. He is not an “Abrahamic God” - He created Abraham. Billions believe (with reason) that He is the Creator of the universe, and that He is the very definition of existence - for all of the existentialists out there.
2. By what authority do you state this, or who gave you this authority?

 

[Aloysium]

If the tretralemma applies to Buddha, it applies to all of us.
He did not bring himself into existence. The quality that makes possible the reality of enlightenment, we call the spirit. Someone or something achieved enlightenment. It is not a thing, but the very reality of who we are. This existence is not a solipsism; we are truly separate beings, but not separate, existing in relation to one another. We are not alone, and we are alone. We are both alone and not alone. We are neither alone nor not alone.
Giving ourselves to God, Our creator, the One Ground of all being who is love, we are no longer ourselves. In communion with God, we are not God. We are neither God nor not one with God. We are both God and ourselves - Christ-like.

 

[KEP1983]

Rossum, I saw your response to me and you completely missed the point I made. It seems you don’t understand what an equivocation fallacy is. Your argument is obviously this fallacy. If you had a valid argument then atheist philosophers would be using it all the time. They don’t because anyone who has studied the basics if philosophy is aware if this fallacies existence.

The equivocation fallacy is when you try to use a word that has multiple meanings, and try to use a different meaning out of context.

For instance, if I said I got hit by a “bat,” that can mean I got hit with a flying mammal or a long wooden stick used for baseball.

If I said I am “gay”, that can mean I am attracted to other men or that I am happy.

If I say that Tom Brady “threw a bomb”, I can mean that he either threw an explosive device or he threw a football to a wide receiver in football.

If I say “football” I can mean a little round ball that Europeans kick around or a pointy ball that Americans throw around.

If I said my computer is “alive”, that can mean that theres a being made up of cells named Computer that still has their cells multiplying, or it can mean that my plastic processor is still operational.

You’re taking one word-- “living”-- and trying to make them mean one thing. The word “living” when applied to phsycial beings like us has an entirely diffetent meaning than when applied to a conscienceness that exists outside of time and space. The terms have two entirely different meanings.

If we believed that God is a living (i.e. a physical being with multiplying cells) who is the origin of living things (i.e. multiplying cells), then you would have an argument. Obviously that’s not what we believe.

 

[SilverShadow22]

You are not the first to ask that question:

[The Buddha said:] “Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Basically, you see what works, considering the advice of the wise. What works for some people will not work for others. Buddhism provides a very large menu of techniques; select the ones that work for you. The important words are “when you yourselves know”.

rossum

‘Deciding for yourself’ was, and still is, the very first and worst sin. That is the entire point of the first few chapters of Genesis.

 

[Bahman]

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

So you don’t believe on evolution?

 

[DCNBILL]

I am merely following the Bible, which is, I understand, authoritative for Catholics:

“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.”

from Psalm 41:2 (Septuagint) / Psalm 42:2 (Masoretic).

rossum

Is the Bible your authority?

 

[DCNBILL]

If it is a fallacy, then it is in the Bible as well as in my posts. The Bible uses “living” to describe God.

Do angels and devils have “temporal physical parts”? Do they have souls? Are they alive? There are non-material living beings that are not gods in both Christianity and Buddhism.

This is irrelevant. My argument, as made in the OP, does not depend on the presence, or absence, of physical parts. Physical parts are irrelevant to the point I am making about the origin of life.

rossum

You are talking about the origin of life as we understand it. Not being as God is. If you have the Divine knowledge of how God “is,” please share it with us.

 

[Gorgias]

Which of these four best describes a chessboard?

Your statement above makes an assumption. That assumption does not always apply. Specifically, that assumption did not apply to the Buddha so the tetralemma is allowed.

And, in this post of yours, we find the answer to your question. It was there, all along, in your own mind – just waiting for you to find it!

Your answer, then, is: “your question makes an assumption. That assumption does not always apply. Specifically, that assumption does not apply to God, so the statement ‘God is eternal’ is allowed.”

Thanks for playing. Please come again…!

 

[DCNBILL]

Consider a chessboard:

• A chessboard is black.
• A chessboard is not black.
• A chessboard is both black and not black.
• A chessboard is neither black nor not black.

Which of these four best describes a chessboard?

rossum

All of the above

A chessboard is partly black.

A chessboard is not all black.

A chessboard is both partly black and not all black.

A chessboard is neither all black nor not only black.

 

[Tomdstone]

Consider a chessboard:

• A chessboard is black.
• A chessboard is not black.
• A chessboard is both black and not black.
• A chessboard is neither black nor not black.

Which of these four best describes a chessboard?

Only A chessboard is not black is true. A chessboard is black is false because it is only partially black.

 

[LethalMouse]

Philosphy can be interesting… this chessboard stuff and way of wording reminds me of a joke/riddle whatev… hopefully it works out on print:

3 guys get tipsy and to avoid driving drunk go to a hotel and told the room is $30
They each pay $10
So later the concierge realizes he over charged due to a special so he sends the bellhop with $5 to bring. The bellhop realizes he cannot split the $5 3 ways evenly so he pockets $2 and gives the men each $1

Now each man paid $10 and were given $1 so they in fact paid $9

So 3 men times $9 = $27

We have to add in the $2 the bellhop stole so we get

9 +9 +9 + 2 = 29

So when we account for all the money we get $29 instead of $30. Where did the missing dollar go???

 

[thenobes]

Philosphy can be interesting… this chessboard stuff and way of wording reminds me of a joke/riddle whatev… hopefully it works out on print:

3 guys get tipsy and to avoid driving drunk go to a hotel and told the room is $30
They each pay $10
So later the concierge realizes he over charged due to a special so he sends the bellhop with $5 to bring. The bellhop realizes he cannot split the $5 3 ways evenly so he pockets $2 and gives the men each $1

Now each man paid $10 and were given $1 so they in fact paid $9

So 3 men times $9 = $27

We have to add in the $2 the bellhop stole so we get

9 +9 +9 + 2 = 29

So when we account for all the money we get $29 instead of $30. Where did the missing dollar go???

Ah, but although they did indeed pay $9 each, the actual cost was not $30, but adjusted to $25, so they overpaid $2. And this $2 was taken by the bellhop.

peace
steve

 

[magnet]

If the Trinity is accepted as the way things are, then God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. Did Jesus create himself? Is the Holy Spirit alive?

 

[Tomdstone]

Especially since abiogenesis requires pre-existing physical matter, and leaves open the question “how did that physical matter itself come into existence?” …

The question of the thread concerns the origin of life. Is it necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain how life originated from matter or can life arise from matter due to processes which can be explained naturally without divine intervention. Some scientists say that it is not necessary to invoke divine intervention.