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

[Noose001]

So, God did not create life then.

God is life. Creation is something you can not understand i suppose.

 

[rossum]

Ok, move from the dictionary and talk about practical things now.

The resurrectionists were perfectly practical, they made a living from their work.

But there’s no such thing as NON-LIVING without LIVING.

There is no such thing as NOOSE001 without NON-NOOSE001. I’m afraid you don’t exist. Someone must be impersonating you on the internet. If you existed you might be able to complain about it, but you don’t so you can’t.

You have to define ‘Time’ before coming up with such figures.

I have a perfectly good definition of time from the ISO. See ISO 8000-3.

God is life.

• God is life.

• God did not create Himself.

• Therefore God did not create life.

QED.

 

[Noose001]

Ignoring the other rant

• God is life.

• God did not create Himself.

• Therefore God did not create life.

QED.

Yeaa but creation means God manifests into…so God created life on earth.

 

[rossum]

Yeaa but creation means God manifests into…so God created life on earth.

That is not what I said. I was talking about God creating life, which He did not. I was not talking only about life on earth.

God did not create life.

 

[Noose001]

That is not what I said. I was talking about God creating life, which He did not. I was not talking only about life on earth.

God did not create life.

What do you think? Was He dead (non living) to create life out of nothing?

Yes, God created life on earth.

 

[rossum]

Yes, God created life on earth.

Irrelevant, as I pointed out. God did not create life, any more than He created intelligence or any other of His own attributes.

 

[Noose001]

Irrelevant, as I pointed out. God did not create life, any more than He created intelligence or any other of His own attributes.

Says one who thinks life is a chemical process. How funny.

God created life on earth and it’s very relevant.

 

[rossum]

Says one who thinks life is a chemical process. How funny.

Do I have to remind you, yet again, that I am Buddhist? There is more to life than chemical processes.

God created life on earth and it’s very relevant.

Not in Buddhism He did not. We all created our own lives by our actions in our previous lives.

You are making far too many avoidable errors.

 

[Noose001]

Do I have to remind you, yet again, that I am Buddhist? There is more to life than chemical processes.

No you don’t but aligning yourself with random speciation and abiogenesis (purposeless processes) doesn’t inspire so much confidence about life being more than chemical processes.

Not in Buddhism He did not. We all created our own lives by our actions in our previous lives.

How does abiogenesis fit? what did the non living chemicals do in their previous life to get into the primordial soup some 4 billion years ago?

 

[rossum]

No you don’t but aligning yourself with random speciation and abiogenesis (purposeless processes) doesn’t inspire so much confidence about life being more than chemical processes.

Speciation is not random because the process includes natural selection, which is not random. Your continued reference to this strawman does you no favours at all.

Abiogenesis and chemicals build a physical body (rupa). The other four components of human life are non-physical: vedana, samjna, sankhara, and vijnana.

How does abiogenesis fit? what did the non living chemicals do in their previous life to get into the primordial soup some 4 billion years ago?

You would do well to study things before posting about them. That way you would not make as many obvious and avoidable errors.

Chemicals are part of rupa, the physical body. The influence of our previous lives is in sankhara, one of the non-physical components. Had you done even a little work to look at Buddhism you would have seen that. You did not, so you made an error. You will not convince me, or any other Buddhist, with such an obviously incorrect post.

 

[Noose001]

Speciation is not random because the process includes natural selection, which is not random. Your continued reference to this strawman does you no favours at all.

Doesn’t matter, evolution hasn’t been demonstrated. It means nothing.

Abiogenesis and chemicals build a physical body ( rupa ). The other four components of human life are non-physical: vedana , samjna , sankhara , and vijnana .

Any evidence?

 

[stoplooklisten]

Speciation is not random because the process includes natural selection, which is not random.

Natural selection is insensitive. It can’t “see” a genetic mutation.

 

[rossum]

Any evidence?

I have evidence for a physical body, obviously. I strongly suggest that you look up what the others are before you ask for evidence. There is more evidence for them than you appear to think.

Again, your failure to look things up is leading you into error. For example, vijnana is consciousness. Are you seriously not aware of the evidence that consciousness exists?

Another failed post from you I’m afraid.

 

[rossum]

Natural selection is insensitive. It can’t “see” a genetic mutation.

It cannot ‘see’ neutral mutations or their effects. It can ‘see’ the effects of beneficial and deleterious mutations on the average number of fertile offspring produced. Those changes in the average number of offspring have a visible effect on the number of copies of those mutated genes passed on to future generations. More copies of beneficial mutations are passed on; fewer copies of deleterious mutations are passed on.

 

[Noose001]

I have evidence for a physical body, obviously. I strongly suggest that you look up what the others are before you ask for evidence. There is more evidence for them than you appear to think.

Again, your failure to look things up is leading you into error. For example, vijnana is consciousness. Are you seriously not aware of the evidence that consciousness exists?

Another failed post from you I’m afraid.

You started well with science but are now appealing to untestable phenomenon.

What’s the origin of consciousness and those other spooky things? like when did they appear in the 13.8B years universe history?

This is a forum where we exchange views, if i have to research about spooky things so that you don’t have to give your views then it ceases to be a forum.

 

[rossum]

like when did they appear in the 13.8B years universe history?

The Buddhist universe is a lot older than 13.8 billion years. That is the age of the material universe: space, time, energy, matter. It is not the age of the spiritual universe, which is a great deal older.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Wheat and corn grow better with music.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/info/how-music-affects-plant-growth.htm

Q. Do you think that RMNS (Random Mutation and Natural Selection) caused that to happen? A. I think not.

God is a Spirit. Music touches the soul. I think that the Creator made wheat and corn to grow better that way.

 

[Freddy]

If ever a thread reached a point when it needed to be canned, this was it.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If ever a thread reached a point when it needed to be canned, this was it.

I think the best scientific answers for how the universe came to be, is we don’t know.

Abiogenesis, although it is work in progress, science still has no real proof either way.

If evolution happened, I feel that science does not have the answers as to how this could happen purely by natural causes.

So if you are to say there is no god, this cannot be backed up by science. Rather it is more to do with personal belief.

 

[rossum]

So if you are to say there is no god, this cannot be backed up by science. Rather it is more to do with personal belief.

Christians deny the existence of the great majority of gods. There is no scientific evidence supporting the denial of Durga’s existence.