R
rossum
Guest
You don’t even need to do a great deal of searching. Just find two verses that contradict each other and, given that contradiction, you can logically prove any statement you want.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
The leaves of a tree have symmetry. Fish have symmetry. Birds have symmetry. Humans have symmetry. There are different types of symmetry. Jellyfish have a different type of symmetry. Symmetry is evidence of a Creator.Alternatively, neither is a proof of the creator. I’ll go for the second option.
You don’t need proof. Preponderance of evidence is sufficient to show an obligation to seek the Source of the order and provision in nature.
E
EndTimes
Guest
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
This presumes Darwinism / Life Evolves without God. .God Created Life…
_
R
rossum
Guest
No He did not, unless either you are saying that God created Himself or God is not a living God.God Created Life…
If God is uncreated and God is a living God, then God did not create life.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
The whole point about this thread was asking how these things could happen without God. Where is the science to show how this happened without God?Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the goalposts shifting. First bilateral symmetry proves the creator exists. Then non-bilateral symmetry proves the creator exists. That is contradictory.
The word evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve.
How did the first light sensitive cells appear in life?
How did they just happen to know they have to bunch together so they will form an eye in half a million years?
There are so many very basic questions that need answers.
Then show us evidence how these things happen without God; as opposed to just giving an opinion.Alternatively, neither is a proof of the creator. I’ll go for the second option.
G
Gab123
Guest
God is not a living thing, God is Life itself, thus all living things owe their existence to God. Likewise all love and truth comes from God becauseIf God is uncreated and God is a living God, then God did not create life.
God is Love and Truth itself
And being that God created you for a purpose, your joy can only be complete in God, because the purpose of your mind is Truth, and the purpose of your will is Goodness and Love. God is not some abstract force, He is an Eternal Being, and making you in His Image and Likeness simply means that you have an intellect for truth and a will for goodness and love.
You exist, but you didn’t have to exist, so the fact that you do exist means that you were created by the Creator. Since you exist it means that existence is reality. If existence is real then existence came from reality.
If nothing existed 500 quintillion years ago then nothing would exist today, simply because nothingness cannot produce anything. God has no beginning: To have a beginning one has to exist in time, whereas God is outside of time, hence He has no beginning. He is Eternal.
Thus our “being-ness” itself comes from a First Cause, an Eternal Being. God is the Eternal Spirit — The Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life.
One has to understand that the Christian faith has foundations in history and logical structure in reality, not legends, superstition and mythology.
F
Freddy
Guest
“The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.” Evolution of the eye | New ScientistHow did the first light sensitive cells appear in life?
How did they just happen to know they have to bunch together so they will form an eye in half a million years?
And a light sensitive pigment could be as simple as one that’s darker than another. Paint your roof black and then paint it white and you’ll notice the difference. That’s all that’s required. For the organism to notice a difference in light intensity.
And just read the rest of the article to see how it evolved from there. And I mean, really…all you had to do was type in ‘how did eyes evolve’ into Google and you’d have enough information to keep you reading for days.
Edit: And you were told in the third post that there is no scientific evidence for the non existence of God. Eyes evolving is NOT an argument against God. If you believe in Him then it simply shows the method He used.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
The article speculates and that’s all evolution does.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the sound of flip flops – one who embraces western philosophy when convenient and rejects it when non-convenient (to a preferred worldview).Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the goalposts shifting. First bilateral symmetry proves the creator exists. Then non-bilateral symmetry proves the creator exists. That is contradictory.
Even when embraced, the logic he/she employs is often, as it is here, in error.
And here:
That God is uncreated and living does not exclude that God also creates life.If God is uncreated and God is a living God, then God did not create life.
R
rossum
Guest
Research HOX genes. I suggest starting with Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” which is an excellent introduction to the evolution of various body plans, including our own tetrapod body plan.The whole point about this thread was asking how these things could happen without God. Where is the science to show how this happened without God?
That ‘before’ is abiogenesis, something that is still a work in progress. So far science has made progress. I have seen no evidence of miraculously created amino acids so far. Do you have any to show us?The word evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve.
You need to back further than that. There are single-celled organisms with a light-sensitive organelle, such as Euglena.How did the first light sensitive cells appear in life?
Your “know” is wrong; a single cell does not “know”. Plants are light sensitive – sunflowers orient towards the sun and flower petals close at night – and they do not have their light-sensitive cells grouped together.How did they just happen to know they have to bunch together so they will form an eye in half a million years?
For some organisms, grouping the cells together is beneficial. For others it is not. Where something is beneficial then evolution will spread more copies of the relevant genes through the population.
And evolution either has them or is working on them. Science is a work in progress.There are so many very basic questions that need answers.
I refer you to your own evidence that these things happened without Zeus. Simply replace “Zeus” in your evidence with “God”. You do have sufficient evidence that these things happened without Zeus, don’t you? Oh…Then show us evidence how these things happen without God; as opposed to just giving an opinion.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Yes, single-celled organisms are amazingly complex. Some have a bigger genome than the human genome. How could random mutations create that? How could natural selection select that? Why not give thanksgiving where thanksgiving is due to the Almighty Creator, Sustainer and Judge and LORD?Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments.
F
Freddy
Guest
It explains, Noose. It tells you how people think things happened. The explanations are theories as to how life has become what it is now. There are thousands upon thousands of theories that all lead to the same conclusion. They all converge.The article speculates and that’s all evolution does.
But none of them are cast in concrete. Any theory that fits the evidence in a better way and explains the evidence in a more comprehensive manner will supersede any previous theory. Until then, if you are looking for a scientific explantion, it makes sense to use the current theories.
If you are looking for an explanation other than a scientific one, then there’s good news - you’re in the right forum. There are many religious explanations that cover the same ground. Most do not contradict the scientific ones but some do. Some people on this thread hold to those explanations and therefore want to deny the science because it doesn’t fit with their fundamentalist beliefs and literal interpretations of scripture.
But please understand that if you ask for a scientific explanation and one is given, it comes across as churlish to deny it on religious grounds. It appears to be a popular pastime in threads such as this to send people on fool’s errands. That is, to ask for information that you have decided in advance will not be acceptable.
One must ask why you bother.
R
rossum
Guest
God is a living God, the Bible says so:God is not a living thing, God is Life itself , thus all living things owe their existence to God.
I will take the Bible as more authoritative on Christianity than a single internet poster.My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?
Psalm 42:2 or 41:2, depending.
R
rossum
Guest
It does exclude that God created the first life. He can only have created the second, third etc. life. He Himself is the first life.That God is uncreated and living does not exclude that God also creates life.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No. To be “first” or “second”, etc. implies a sequence. Sequences can only occur in time. God is eternal, outside time. God cannot be the “first” life. God is eternal life.It does exclude that God created the first life.
G
Gab123
Guest
God is a living God, the Bible says so:
Again, God is not a living thing—as a thing that happens to be alive; God, is Life itself. He is Being itself. Thus in the Bible when He spoke to Moses He revealed His name:My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?
Psalm 42:2 or 41:2, depending.
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I AM WHO AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE WHO IS hath sent me unto you.
You are correct in saying that God is indeed a living God, but not in the sense of a created being, but the Source of Life Itself.
G
Gab123
Guest
One has to understand that the Christian faith has foundations in history and logical structure in reality, not legends, superstition and mythology as we see in Greek Mythology, or Hinduism and it’s subsequent offshoots Which build on mythology.I refer you to your own evidence that these things happened without Zeus. Simply replace “Zeus” in your evidence with “God”. You do have sufficient evidence that these things happened without Zeus, don’t you? Oh…
As for God creating the cosmos, this is based on reason. Reason demands a creator. The universe with all of its comprehensible laws didn’t simply “pop” into existence accidentally. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to Man and the record of salvation history, culminating in Jesus Christ.
W
Wesrock
Guest
(Snipped for char limit)So it would seem to be an inescapable principle that where there’s a Prime Mover there will always be potency. And it must also be true that potency can never be greater than what it is with the Prime Mover.
Potency is not just an intelligible concept of a possibility. It is a type of being, albeit not something that can exist independent of anything actual. You’ve stumbled upon the distinction between passive potency (to be acted upon by another) and active potency (ways in which an act could be different). If the “argument from motion (i.e. act and potency)” follows, then it cannot be that a Prime Mover has any passive potency. I don’t know if I need to spell that out, it follows by a reductio argument (Suppose that the Prime Mover has passive potency…) The argument from motion has already demonstrated that whatever has passive potency cannot be the first term as any such thing would need a term prior to it. The other cosmological arguments reach the same conclusion.
Passive potency involves how a thing’s nature is actualized. Active potency involves the act that comes from its nature. Now, we’re immediately familiar with Newton’s (Physical) Law that every action has an equal but opposite reaction, and that any human action involves some sequential change (actualization of a potency) in the human himself and not just a change in his effects. But what if the act was eternal? What if it is immutable? What if the actor already had perfect knowledge of everything? Strip away the anthropomorphic realities of what it is for a human (or physical/temporal being) to act. That God’s active potency (effects) could in principle be different does not conflict with Pure Act’s nature or essence being unmodifiable.
The passive potency of any created creature is itself created ex nihilo by the Prime Mover. Not as a self-subsisting thing in itself (it’s a mistake to think of “Prime Matter” as a thing that could exist on its own or in a state of Prime Matter).
And again, the argument from motion proceeds from the act and (passive) potency in the things we’re familiar with, and determines that there must be some term which is Pure Act. From things posterior to prior. So the basis for the argument is still in the act and potency of things, which is more evident (maybe you don’t agree it is evident, but it’s at a more evident level of observation if we’re just talking scale) than the things we then deduce from that via reason.
Now, I know you don’t necessarily agree with my responses, lelinator, but the flow of your questions is very astute. And (this may sound weird) sounds similar to the way St. Thomas’ arguments proceeded. He listed objections and questions, then responded to them, then listed the next set of objections and questions that logically followed his previous response, then responded to those… I don’t mean that to inflate my own ego. Again, I just mean you’re asking good questions that naturally follow.
N
Noose001
Guest
Evolution is not a scientific explanation just like Abiogenesis isn’t. Like i said, they are at best speculations, mostly held by those who don’t like the idea of God and those who think that they are good speculations; no they are not.One must ask why you bother.
Genetics/Hereditary science/Physiology/Taxonomy- evolution borrows heavily from these proven disciplines to explain an impossibility, something that is not demonstrable.
A body part function is derived from its structure, change in structure means loss of function. Physiology 101
This alone should stop the speculation called evolution.
A light sensing pigment can not change to an eye that sees because these are two different functions.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Then Adam has existed for the same length of time as God. Hmmm… I suspect that most Christians will disagree with you on that.No. To be “first” or “second”, etc. implies a sequence. Sequences can only occur in time. God is eternal, outside time. God cannot be the “first” life. God is eternal life.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.