God cannot explain the origin of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone we trust, who has never lied and has no reason to lie, tells us what is in the box, but that opening the box is for some reason (it doesn’t matter why) impossible…

If my trust in this person is great enough, I will say that I know what he says is true.

The box doesn’t open until we die. We can either believe or disbelieve, and that’s what we’re discussing, because no one can actually open the box.🤷
What if another person you trust say opposite? We have tons of religion!
 
The origin of life is simply existence. Without you existing, can you prove that God exist? Therefore, He exist.
 
Who is it that failed to attain enlightenment?
The you who took the previous step in Heraclitus’ river. You are not the same now as you were yesterday; what you are today is contingent on what you were yesterday, but you are not the same. The designation “you” is merely a convenience.

You are changing. Each new you is contingent on the previous you. All those different yous make up ‘you’.

rossum
 
What if another person you trust say opposite? We have tons of religion!
Do we have that many? Mojority if humans in existence fall under 3 main religious umbrellas and they all tout the same concept of God.

Some others deep inside them as well. Notably core early Hinduism and Brahmanism which Brahmanism touts the same sort of single God in a trinity with different later aspects (key being mostly LATER aspect) and then Hinduism is “polytheism” but technically all the “gods” are part of the real god. If we account for the telephone game in how things get confused… we have like 75% of the world support the transcendent and ever existing God.

Now I am sure many side religions of lesser note can be found more similar to hinduism in having an original or the original God but later descending into many side factors…

Now we can look at Buddhism which is probably the biggest non God religion. But it also recognizes that gods can exist etc… while it applies a more relative morality to achieve “heaven” or nirvana it isn’t hard to see that in its acknowledgement of God as being someone coud be a missinformed version of Him.

And I just summed up the trust in 90+% of the world

Now how many people do we trust who have met God or an angel etc? This isn’t then just a grand history lesson but beliving “I met X” as I would believe a trusted friend who met anyone. Tbh I have had an encounter (with another human witness) so I find it is like trying to tell you I met that shirtless leather jacket guy one time who help me when my car broke down, you wouldn’t doubt my car break down story but would my other. So what more can be done?
 
No, the origin of life is the origin of God, which is different. God is already alive. What you think is the explanation is actually not the explanation.

God can certainly explain the origin of the second living thing in the world: God created that second living thing. God cannot explain the origin of the first living thing, since God Himself is that first living thing and God is not created.

Hence my thread title.

rossum
God is not a thing–hence God is not the first living thing. Your conception of God is incorrect. What you think is a thing in actually not a thing.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
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.
Any explanation for the origin of beauty must involve a process with no beautiful (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one beautiful output.

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

Etc.

In other words your argument may be paradoxical.
 
God is not a thing–hence God is not the first living thing. Your conception of God is incorrect. What you think is a thing in actually not a thing
If God is not a thing then God is no-thing. I do not think that is what you want to say.

Does God exist? If He does, then He is a member of the set {things that exist}.

That is enough to make god something, and not nothing.

rossum
 
Any explanation for the origin of beauty must involve a process with no beautiful (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one beautiful output.
Here you are reifying beauty. Beauty is a property of other things, not a thing in itself.
Any explanation for the origin of the infinite must involve a process with no infinite (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one infinite output.
Have you ever come across the Peano axioms?
  • 0 is a number.
  • every number n has a successor S(n).
That is sufficient to define a countably infinite set.

rossum
 
If God is not a thing then God is no-thing. I do not think that is what you want to say.

Does God exist? If He does, then He is a member of the set {things that exist}.

That is enough to make god something, and not nothing.

rossum
If we lived on an island with just humans and no other animals there would be Humans, plants, and rocks.

Later we would be astonished as we find out there are fish, row our boat to new land and find animals, OH MY these here lizards exist and defy our understanding of things.

Now we invent microscopes and OOOO look at these strange life forms…

Look up waterbears. we thought “life can not live in space” OH WAIT it can.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

You see what “things” are is not always what things are. We know in limited fashion say for example humans, pigs, dogs. WE KNOW that if you cut off a limb it stays off.

But wait we discover these lizards and we cut off its limb KNOWING it will stay off. But what??? how did it grow back? It is not possible, this lizard is a thing just like us!

Many of these arguments being made are forever assuming we are done understanding and discovering. Years ago half the “things” we take for granted were literally incomprehensible. Go find a secluded Amazon tribe and try to see how they agree with you about atoms… or some such “thing” lol. they will deny you as you deny us. The matter is that the only way you can prove God is or is not within your definition is if you have the full knowledge of the universe. Which you then would not be “asking” questions, but you would be proving the universes answers to us all and become more famous than Einstein.
 
The you who took the previous step in Heraclitus’ river. You are not the same now as you were yesterday; what you are today is contingent on what you were yesterday, but you are not the same. The designation “you” is merely a convenience.

You are changing. Each new you is contingent on the previous you. All those different yous make up ‘you’.

rossum
Interestingly you used “you” when more appropriately it should have been “me”.
The reality is that there exists a “you”.
If it were just “me”, Buddhism would work better, with its emphasis on meditation and the salvation of the individual.

I am, and as an aspect of my being, I have a developed set of ways in which I perceive, understand and respond to my world, outer and inner.
Among these mental phenomena, is a self-image. Clearly, while it describes my being in the world, it cannot encompass the mystery of being, a being which is in the form of a relationship between the knower and the known, the lover and the beloved.

There exist a separation between you and me.
Your indisputable reality, for me exists in its vaguest form within my imagination.
I am me and I project onto you this concept.
Whoever you are in yourself, I imagine you understanding yourself as a “me” out there in time and space looking back at me in your way.
Though limited, we see here that communication is possible.
And, this seemingly unbridgeable gap between us ultimately can be overcome in love.
We have the capacity to not merely react to but actually connect with one another.

In Buddhism, there is no transmigration of the soul.
The karma that would cause us to be reborn may be the outcome of what we do now, but it would generate a new person, unless there exists a soul, timeless, a finite manifestation of one supreme Soul.
Either each person born is a separate being, illusory from the perspective of a one eternal mind, or there exists an eternal separate soul, arising from One supreme Being.
In the first case there is no true salvation; one awakens from a dream that would end regardless, in death.
In the latter, there would be reincarnation, as Hindus believe; or this one life which we form is the seed of life eternal, that would see all creation in loving union with its Creator.

Christianity makes so much more sense.
 
Where your God comes from?
That’s the very definition of ‘God’ that Aquinas offers: for every ‘thing’ (material or immaterial), one must posit a ‘thing’ that produced it. It’s a logical impossibility that for the set of all things that exist, each must have a ‘producer’ – it creates an infinite regress.

One definition of ‘God’, then, is that being that is not himself created. He’s the ‘terminus’ of life – it all proceeds from Him, without extending before Him. 🤷

(As the argument goes: after all, if someone or something created ‘God’, then that creator would be God, not the one we’re positing as ‘God’. 😉 )
 
The materialist says that matter comes from nowhere and has always been there in some form or another.
Which is why materialism, ultimately, fails. As an empirical endeavor, it makes an assertion for which there is no empirical evidence (or ability to provide such evidence).

So, basically, what we’re saying is that it’s not cool to suggest that God has always existed (from rossum’s perspective), but it’s ok to suggest that creation always has (Tomdstone’s perspective)?

:hmmm:
 
Do we have that many? Mojority if humans in existence fall under 3 main religious umbrellas and they all tout the same concept of God.

Some others deep inside them as well. Notably core early Hinduism and Brahmanism which Brahmanism touts the same sort of single God in a trinity with different later aspects (key being mostly LATER aspect) and then Hinduism is “polytheism” but technically all the “gods” are part of the real god. If we account for the telephone game in how things get confused… we have like 75% of the world support the transcendent and ever existing God.

Now I am sure many side religions of lesser note can be found more similar to hinduism in having an original or the original God but later descending into many side factors…

Now we can look at Buddhism which is probably the biggest non God religion. But it also recognizes that gods can exist etc… while it applies a more relative morality to achieve “heaven” or nirvana it isn’t hard to see that in its acknowledgement of God as being someone coud be a missinformed version of Him.

And I just summed up the trust in 90+% of the world

Now how many people do we trust who have met God or an angel etc? This isn’t then just a grand history lesson but beliving “I met X” as I would believe a trusted friend who met anyone. Tbh I have had an encounter (with another human witness) so I find it is like trying to tell you I met that shirtless leather jacket guy one time who help me when my car broke down, you wouldn’t doubt my car break down story but would my other. So what more can be done?
Lets consider two religions for sake simplicity, Islam and Christianity. Jesus is considered as grand prophet in Islam but He is considered as God in Christianity. These two religions however considered as Abrahamic religions. So what is your position now?
 
That’s the very definition of ‘God’ that Aquinas offers: for every ‘thing’ (material or immaterial), one must posit a ‘thing’ that produced it. It’s a logical impossibility that for the set of all things that exist, each must have a ‘producer’ – it creates an infinite regress.

One definition of ‘God’, then, is that being that is not himself created. He’s the ‘terminus’ of life – it all proceeds from Him, without extending before Him. 🤷

(As the argument goes: after all, if someone or something created ‘God’, then that creator would be God, not the one we’re positing as ‘God’. 😉 )
Causality is not valid at big bang point because the laws of physics break down at that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top