How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Dan123]

Again, no such thing as partial evidence, we either have evidence that confirms a fact or we don’t have evidence therefore it can not be a fact.

What? “Evidence of” and “proof of” are not the same thing. You can have evidence of something that doesn’t rise of the level of proof. The more evidence you have and specifically the weight of that evidence increases the certainty of the claim. This is why we have concepts such as ‘preponderance of the evidence’ in court, where no single piece of evidence is proof but the body of evidence is sufficient.

 

[Dan123]

How is it possible that those puny, irrational beings run all the zoos?

Is taking animals out of their natural habitat and forcing them into cages for our education and quite often entertainment rational? I can see the argument either way, but I also watched Tiger King just a few weeks ago so I’m currently biased a bit.

 

[Noose001]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Dan123]

Right…

A spouse saying they’re working late when you know they left the office at the normal time is an “indication” of infidelity, it’s among the body of facts or information that supports the idea that they’re cheating, but it doesn’t by itself exclude other possibilities and is therefore not in and of itself proof. A credit card receipt for a hotel room is additional evidence, and when weighed with the leaving work early is stronger than either two put together, but may or may not be considered proof depending on the circumstances and context.

 

[Noose001]

Right…

A spouse saying they’re working late when you know they left the office at the normal time is an “indication” of infidelity, it’s among the body of facts or information that supports the idea that they’re cheating, but it doesn’t by itself exclude other possibilities and is therefore not in and of itself proof. A credit card receipt for a hotel room is additional evidence, and when weighed with the leaving work early is stronger than either two put together, but may or may not be considered proof depending on the circumstances and context.

Correct, when put together, infidelity becomes evident so we say we have evidence but one on its own is not an admissible evidence and therefore we say we don’t have evidence (the thing you are trying to call partial evidence).

So abiogenesis and evolution and the so called partial evidence to support them, are not admissible.

Jesus existence is well established historical fact.

 

[Abrosz]

How is it possible that those puny, irrational beings run all the zoos?

They have the guns. The difference between humans and apes is that humans can keep apes in cages, but apes cannot keep humans in cages.

 

[Abrosz]

We can argue on what Jesus did but we can not argue about his existence.

There were very many humans named “Jesus”, that is not disputed. What is disputed is the alleged miracles performed by one of them.

 

[Noose001]

There were very many humans named “Jesus”, that is not disputed. What is disputed is the alleged miracles performed by one of them.

There were many humans named Jesus but there was only one Jesus who established a following that is today called Christianity.

What would you admit as evidence of a miracle? even if a miracle is done right now and you witnessed it, you wouldn’t believe i guess.

 

[rossum]

They have the guns. The difference between humans and apes is that humans can keep apes in cages, but apes cannot keep humans in cages.

Apes (i.e Hominids) do keep humans in cages. Those cages are called “prisons” rather than “zoos”, though on occasions humans have been kept in zoos as well.

 

[Abrosz]

There were many humans named Jesus but there was only one Jesus who established a following that is today called Christianity.

Evidence? And if that particular Jesus did not perform miracles, then he is not God incarnate and as such Christianity is jut another irrelevant religion.

 

[Abrosz]

Apes (i.e Hominids) do keep humans in cages. Those cages are called “prisons” rather than “zoos”, though on occasions humans have been kept in zoos as well.

I m sure you know what I meant.

 

[Noose001]

Evidence? And if that particular Jesus did not perform miracles, then he is not God incarnate and as such Christianity is jut another irrelevant religion.

You mean the same Jesus who allegedly cursed at a generation who are after signs (miracles) and rebuked Thomas telling him blessed are those that do not see (signs/miracles) yet they believe?

Miracles were not necessary but had to be done in fulfilment of what was prophesied.

 

[o_mlly]

Is taking animals out of their natural habitat and forcing them into cages for our education and quite often entertainment rational?

The point is that man does dominate the larger, faster, stronger, better equipped with tooth and claw animals by virtue of reason, i.e., rationality.

Evolved or designed with rationality, one cannot deny that humans are categorically different than animals. The argument against design which claims man is mostly irrational is, well, irrational.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The cause of the Big Bang was (God and X), not God alone.

God caused X to happen. X could not happen without God. So I don’t have a problem with your explanation.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Darwin put a very important ‘if’ in his quote. If Darwin were alive today, I am not sure he would be convinced by the level of evidence we have today for the evolution of the eye. Would he be impressed with the Nilsson model of eye evolution?

Fossil evidence from 550 million years ago; is not of the same quality of evidence that Darwin based his theory on.

 

[rossum]

God caused X to happen. X could not happen without God. So I don’t have a problem with your explanation.

If God caused X, then X is as eternal as God. You need (God and Y) to be the cause of X. That brings you back to the same problem, giving an infinite regress of secondary causes. God is eternal, so anything that God alone causes is also eternal. For God to cause something that is not eternal there needs to be a non-eternal secondary cause alongside God.

This is the problem the Gnostics tried to solve with their various demiurges and the Kaballah tries to solve with the Sefirot. How can an eternal cause be responsible for non-eternal effects?

Eric_Hyom:

If Darwin were alive today, I am not sure he would be convinced by …

You are basing your argument on mind-reading a long dead Victorian naturalist? Not exactly a secure basis for any conclusions you may come to.

Darwin did not write inerrant scripture; he made mistakes and there were large gaps in his knowledge. Evolution has changed a great deal since Darwin. The ideas of both Mendel and Kimura have been incorporated along with the results of DNA sequencing and radiometric dating.

 

[o_mlly]

For God to cause something that is not eternal there needs to be a non-eternal secondary cause alongside God.

All that is necessary for a being in eternity to be the primary cause of a non-eternal being is to have willed the non-eternal being eternally. See Jer 1:5.

 

[stoplooklisten]

If God caused X, then X is as eternal as God. You need (God and Y) to be the cause of X. That brings you back to the same problem, giving an infinite regress of secondary causes. God is eternal, so anything that God alone causes is also eternal. For God to cause something that is not eternal there needs to be a non-eternal secondary cause alongside God.

…How can an eternal cause be responsible for non-eternal effects?

I don’t follow your logic here. Are trying to outsmart the concept of God and put restrictions on God and say what an Almighty God couldn’t do?

If you brain came about by blind and random processes, then you shouldn’t be able to trust it. It may not be working and reasoning correctly. It’s ability to have prudent understanding may still be evolving.

Per God’s design, wisdom (and prudent understanding that goes with it) pre-dates matter, energy and physics. At least that’s what the Bible’s Book of Wisdom or Ben Sirach seems to say. Screenshot with highlighting below is from my Verbum.com software. The highlighting is my own work from the past.
Per the opening of Sirach (v.4), “Before all other things wisdom was created and prudent understanding from eternity.” Per v.6, wisdom has its subtleties and no one has it mastered.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

All that is necessary for a being in eternity to be the primary cause of a non-eternal being is to have willed the non-eternal being eternally. See Jer 1:5.

Then God’s will was ineffective for the eternity before the universe was created. What changed to make God’s eternal will effective when previously it was ineffective?

I am not talking about primary cause here, but about necessary and sufficient causes. God alone cannot be a sufficient cause from anything non-eternal. He may be necessary but He cannot be sufficient.

 

[stoplooklisten]

All that is necessary for a being in eternity to be the primary cause of a non-eternal being is to have willed the non-eternal being eternally. See Jer 1:5.

Agree.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

Are trying to outsmart the concept of God and put restrictions on God and say what an Almighty God couldn’t do?

God is eternal. The material universe is not eternal, it had a beginning.

If God were the sole cause of the universe, then the universe would also be eternal, since its sole cause was eternally present. If the cause is present then the effect is also present.

If God is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause then the problem goes away. The universe started when the second necessary component of the full cause appeared, my “X” above.