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

[lelinator]

And the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the Cause of the universe is an Eternal Rational Source which we call GOD.

Being that we are rational beings,

This is what gets me…someone claiming that humans are rational beings…immediately after making a statement that’s irrational. The word “proof” really doesn’t belong in that first statement, because at best the comprehensible nature of reality can only hint at the nature of its source.

So it seems that at best, humans are quasi-rational. Just rational enough to be aggravating, but not rational enough to actually apply the resource effectively.

 

[Gab123]

This is what gets me…someone claiming that humans are rational beings…immediately after making a statement that’s irrational. The word “ proof ” really doesn’t belong in that first statement, because at best the comprehensible nature of reality can only hint at the nature of its source.

First everyone must realize that no evidence or proof will ever be enough for someone who doesn’t want to believe. Thus discussing theology with an atheist is like discussing algebra and calculus with someone who doesn’t want to believe in logic. It’s not that the logic is not there, is that a psychological complex seems to always get in the way.

Again, the fact that the cosmos is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the Cause of the universe is a Rational Source. Thus evidence of God permeates everything. The real issue is that for some, the word “God” triggers a psychological complex known as atheism. I suggest that for now, you replace the word “God” with “Rational Source”, in order for a dialogue to move forward.

The existence of a “Rational Source” is arrived through logical deduction—much like mathematical equations demonstrate abstract truths through sheer reasoning. Not only are there logical proofs for the existence of the Rational Source, there is intellectual proof for the logical necessity of an Eternal Rational Source in order for you and I and the universe to have existence itself. Modern science holds that Time and Matter came into existence with the Big Bang. Thus the Cause is outside of time and matter, in other words the Cause is Eternal and Immaterial.

It is impossible for Harmony to be accidental. Thus the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is incontrovertible evidence that the Cause of existence itself has to be a Rational Source. Since there is a Rational Source behind Harmony, the logic and harmony that we study in nature and in all the systems that make up the universe —from the macroscopic to the microscopic, right down to the logical code within our own DNA, tell us something about the Rational Source behind our existence. The fact that we can intellectually grasp the rational universe through logical deduction to comprehend the laws that govern the cosmos, is proof #1 that The Source of Existence itself is Logical, Rational and greater than us.

Greek philosophers referred to this order and rationality and harmony in the cosmos as the “Logos”. It is where we get the word “logic” from, Thus the gospel of John in the Bible begins with the statement: “In the beginning was The Logos, and The Logos was with God, and The Logos was God”. In English, “Logos” is translated as “Word”.

 

[lelinator]

Again, the fact that the cosmos is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the Cause of the universe is a Rational Source. Thus evidence of God permeates everything.

Every time you use the word proof, you lose a bit of credibility. Yet you continue to do it. And I have no doubt that you’ll carry on doing it. But I can’t help but find such behavior puzzling, coming from a supposedly rational being.

However, I absolutely love things that are puzzling, so please do continue, while I silently shake my head in bemusement. At least there’s some limited entertainment value in your posts.

 

[Gab123]

Every time you use the word proof, you lose a bit of credibility. Yet you continue to do it. And I have no doubt that you’ll carry on doing it. But I can’t help but find such behavior puzzling, coming from a supposedly rational being.

I have intellectual proof that the source behind the quote above is a rational thinking being. The proof of a rational source is that I am able to comprehend the code written above as a string of symbols arranged in a logical order known as the English language.

Much like a language, DNA is a rational code, it is comprehensible, meaning, there is a logical order. Francis Collins, the scientist who spearheaded the Human Genome Project to decipher the human genetic code, in His book “The Language of God” described the code as a logical language. Collins, a former atheist, presents the DNA code as evidence for a logical source behind the evolution of DNA and the biological genesis of humanity.

While there are countless logical proofs for the existence of the Eternal Rational Source (aka “GOD”), there is not a single intellectual argument for God’s non-existence.

 

[lelinator]

While there are countless logical proofs for the existence of the Eternal Rational Source (aka “GOD”), there is not a single intellectual argument for God’s non-existence.

Here’s one:

Why would a rational God create an irrational being, and then expect them to make a rational choice?

Keep in mind that “rational” is a fairly loose term, and that people do quite often seem to act profoundly irrational. And yet these same people are expected to make a rational choice.

 

[patrick9999]

Science cannot prove that the universe created itself. There are many things science doesn’t have an explanation for, like dark matter and dark energy. And that’s ok.

For the universe to create itself it would have to exist before it existed. It’s a complete absurdity. The reason there’s no explanation for dark matter and dark energy is because there’s no evidence they exist. They are merely fudge factors created ad hoc to make the equations balance because the observational data can’t be squared with the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

 

[Gab123]

people do quite often seem to act profoundly irrational. And yet these same people are expected to make a rational choice.

The answer is simple. The very fact that you can differentiate between rational and irrational is proof that rationality exists. Reason demands rationality, what do you think all the fields of study are studying? Biology is the logical study of life. Paleontology, Psychology, Theology, Cosmology, Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, Library Studies, etc. etc. Build on reason. That individuals do irrational things has to do with an error with their thinking. Just like a computer error pops up when there is a problem with the programming. Human beings are programmed for Truth, Goodness and Love.

The fact that you know that 3x3=9 means that you are exercising the faculty of reason.

 

[AlNg]

Modern science holds that Time and Matter came into existence with the Big Bang.

It does? i thought there were scientists who hold to a cyclical theory.

 

[Gab123]

Modern astronomy is founded upon the concept of the Big Bang, which explains that Time and Matter came into existence together. Phycisist Georges Lemaitres used mathematics and physics to show that the universe not only had a beginning, but that it was also expanding. At the time, instead of being open to the theory, atheists called it foolish; ironically it was an atheist scientist who mockingly coined the phrase “the big bang” to dismiss Lemaitre’s theory. But it wasn’t long after that astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed Lemaitre’s theory with actual observable evidence that the universe was indeed expanding. Today, Lemaitre’s “Big Bang” Theory is the foundation of modern astronomy, and Edwin Hubble has a telescope in space named after him.

 

[Gab123]

Well that’s all for now. I will check back in a few days.

 

[AlNg]

Modern astronomy is founded upon the concept of the Big Bang,

So it is settled and the cyclical theory is completely discarded by everyone?

 

[lelinator]

The answer is simple.

No, the answer isn’t that simple.

The very fact that you can differentiate between rational and irrational is proof that rationality exists.

But it would seem that I can’t differentiate between rational and irrational. Because you think that belief in God is rational, and I think that it’s irrational. Therefore it would seem as though I’m actually incapable of differentiating between rational and irrational.

The ability to reason isn’t evidence of rationality. Rationality rests in recognizing when your reasoning is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion. And this is where your insistence on using the word “proof” demonstrates that you’re not rational. Because your evidence doesn’t rise to the level of proof.

 

[AlNg]

Could you elaborate?

God may be outside of time but He is also in time. For example, God came down from heaven and became man in time. Further the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and is in time.

 

[lelinator]

Next question. Was God’s creative act an example of the actualization of potency?

@Wesrock I didn’t mean to belittle any of your previous answers by seeming to ignore them, it’s just that I’ve encountered people before who insisted that God’s creative act didn’t involve the actualization of potency. There’s any number of reasons why they might believe that this is true. Perhaps they simply believe that “ex nihilo” literally means from nothing, and that even potency constitutes something. Or perhaps they were under the impression that only created things possess potency, and since neither God, nor “nothing” can possess potency, there couldn’t have been any potency before there were created things.

But whatever the reason, my objective was simply to clarify that you do indeed believe that God’s creative act involved the actualization of potency.

If this is indeed the case, then perhaps we can continue.

As an aside, this is also why I couldn’t answer EndTimes when he asked what I meant by ‘actualization of potency?’ Because it seems that like a great many things, each of us decides for ourselves what that phrase means.

It’s sufficient for this discussion that I simply know that you believe that God’s creative act involved the actualization of potency.

As of right now, I don’t need to know what you think that phrase means.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hence life has no start.

Would you care to explain how life started within the last five billion years by natural causes?

 

[rossum]

Would you care to explain how life started within the last five billion years by natural causes?

I was not talking about material life. I was talking about God’s life. The Christian God is a living God, and hence He is alive. Since God is eternal, uncreated, not having a start, then life is also eternal, uncreated and does not have a start.

God, and life, are both a lot older than five billion years.

As to material life on earth, the short answer is chemistry. The longer answer is abiogenesis, but we do not have the complete answer yet, just parts of it. We have, amino acids, lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines, chirality and a number of possible further hypotheses which still need to be pruned down enough to make a consistent theory. Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

 

[Freddy]

lelinator:

This is what gets me…someone claiming that humans are rational beings…immediately after making a statement that’s irrational. The word “ proof ” really doesn’t belong in that first statement, because at best the comprehensible nature of reality can only hint at the nature of its source.

First everyone must realize that no evidence or proof will ever be enough for someone who doesn’t want to believe. Thus discussing theology with an atheist is like discussing algebra and calculus with someone who doesn’t want to believe in logic. It’s not that the logic is not there, is that a psychological complex seems to always get in the way.

This is quite nonsensical. And self serving into the bargain. As if to say ‘My arguments are so devastating compulsive that only someone who actually had a psychological complex could fail to be convinced by them’. Or, even more farcical, that people have decided that they don’t want to believe.

I guess you’d rather not consider that the arguments are a very long way from being convincing. And serve only as a bolster to the beliefs of those who already have a belief in God. The arguments were constructed and are endlessly repeated by people who were already convinced that God exists and looked for something other than personal conviction to support their belief.

In very many years of discussing and reading about religion, I have never come across or read about anyone who started from a neutral position and was then convinced by them. I will bet my house that that includes you as well.

That they are rife with assumptions is a fact that no proponent of said arguments will accept. It’s almost like a ‘psychological complex seems to always get in the way.’ The very first being the assumption that this universe is all there has ever been. And that there is (or was) nothing on the other side of the big bang. And that what apllies within this universe also applies to all other cases.

Maybe if you started the arguments with ‘On the assumption that…’ a few more people that aren’t already convinced they work before they even hear them might listen to you.

 

[Noose001]

God, and life, are both a lot older than five billion years.

Words don’t make sense.

Is God and life older than 13.8 billion years?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I was not talking about material life. I was talking about God’s life.

I know, but that is not what this thread is about.

As to material life on earth, the short answer is chemistry.

We understand that.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

How did abiogenesis happen without any creator God and purely by natural causes. In theory, any chemicals surviving the heat of the Big Bang would be totally sterile.

 

[Freddy]

In theory, any chemicals surviving the heat of the Big Bang would be totally sterile.

Wha…? What the…?