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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
But that there were inorganic materials and then later there was life is a statement on which we can all agree.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

If inorganic materials took about nine billion years to cool down, it should be sterile. The young universe should just about be hot enough to kill off Covid 19.

I struggle to understand how life could start by natural causes under such conditions.
 
Freddy said:
I’m good with that. I don’t believe it, but I have no problem in someone accepting that. Like almost everyone in this forum. But that there were inorganic materials and then later there was life is a statement on which we can all agree.

Except Noose it seems…
Click to expand...
No. We were life then organic material.

The idea that chemicals made life or became alive is unacceptable now and years to come.

If you believe such then you won’t have problems believing in resurrection, it is much easier.
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Freddy:
But that there were inorganic materials and then later there was life is a statement on which we can all agree.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

If inorganic materials took about nine billion years to cool down, it should be sterile. The young universe should just about be hot enough to kill off Covid 19.

I struggle to understand how life could start by natural causes under such conditions.
Click to expand...
You are puzzled about how life emerged from inorganic materials because the materials were free from life? I’m not sure that making any attempt to explain how incredibly odd that statement is will be worth the effort.
 
Noose001 said:
40.png
Freddy:
I’m good with that. I don’t believe it, but I have no problem in someone accepting that. Like almost everyone in this forum. But that there were inorganic materials and then later there was life is a statement on which we can all agree.

Except Noose it seems…
Click to expand...
No. We were life then organic material.
Click to expand...
We came first? You have lost me, Noose.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Wesrock:
The other point is that you seem to equate emergent properties with the sum of the parts. But the reason we have the term emergent property is for properties that are more than the sum of parts.
Click to expand...
Correct. Otherwise not is not “emergent”, since it is already present in the parts. The property of being liquid at room temperature is not present in either pure hydrogen or pure oxygen. However that property is present in water. It is emergent because it is present when the parts are combined, but not present in any of the parts individually.
Click to expand...
We may be going on a tangent here, but I disagree a little with your water example. I’d say that the property to freeze at (what we measure as) 0 degrees Celsius is a property of water that is not a property of hydrogen or oxygen (its constituents). So in that sense it is an emergent property. But as for water itself, even if its solid state is not manifested because the temperature is above 0 degrees, that property is still in the nature of water to freeze at or below that temperature (at standard air pressure).
 
rossum said:
Science works very hard to close those gaps, making any gods fitted into those gaps smaller as well.
Click to expand...
Within its domain, science does well at explaining secondary causes. But all science is dependent upon the scientifically un-provable assumption that nature has laws and a regularity in enforcing those laws. What causes those laws is a question science cannot answer. Likewise, in all “first things” which require first causes, science cannot provide an answer.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
Science works very hard to close those gaps, making any gods fitted into those gaps smaller as well.
Click to expand...
Within its domain, science does well at explaining secondary causes. But all science is dependent upon the scientifically un-provable assumption that nature has laws and a regularity in enforcing those laws. What causes those laws is a question science cannot answer. Likewise, in all “first things” which require first causes, science cannot provide an answer.
Click to expand...
Exactly what do you think natural laws are?
 
Michaelangelo said:
40.png
o_mlly:
40.png
rossum:
Science works very hard to close those gaps, making any gods fitted into those gaps smaller as well.
Click to expand...
Within its domain, science does well at explaining secondary causes. But all science is dependent upon the scientifically un-provable assumption that nature has laws and a regularity in enforcing those laws. What causes those laws is a question science cannot answer. Likewise, in all “first things” which require first causes, science cannot provide an answer.
Click to expand...
Exactly what do you think natural laws are?
Click to expand...
The scientific method presupposes basic principles such as causes having relation to effects. That what you can learn about a particular sample of a type is informative about the type in general. That the same causes generally produce the same effects (under the same circumstances). These are empirically justifiable, and follow from observation (after we feel justified that our observation is itself related to real events), but are themselves prior to any scientific method of controlled and repeated experiments and are themselves not verifiable by the scientific method specifically, because, again, the scientific method would have to presuppose those principles before it could claim to demonstrate them.
 
Michaelangelo said:
Exactly what do you think natural laws are?
Click to expand...
One might wonder…Why are you asking? Well, here’s some thoughts anyway.

Physical constants demonstrate the natural laws of physics. Reference: Physical constant - Wikipedia. They demonstrate orderliness in the physical realm for which, IMHO, a Creator is the best and only explanation. Other explanations are often speculations and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of those who don’t want there to be a God and Creator or a God and Judge to whom they would be accountable. Physical constants include force of gravity, speed of light in a vacuum, etc.

Natural law in the moral realm is another thing. That’s the common meaning of natural law. Even without special revelation like the Bible and the Jesus Christ Incarnate in human flesh, there are constants in natural moral law upon which civil law and criminal law are commonly based (whether that connection is acknowledged or not). Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages, revived and developed the concept of natural law from ancient Greek philosophy. Reference: Natural law - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
A natural law is simply a pattern which has been observed in nature. Sadly the term law was chosen which makes it easy to imagine a conection with written laws in human societies.
 
stoplooklisten said:
One might wonder…Why are you asking? Well, here’s some thoughts anyway.
Click to expand...
I was wondering because the term is tossed around in this kind of disussions in a way that makes me think people view these laws as something other than the simple patterns they are.
Physical constants demonstrate the natural laws of physics. Reference: Physical constant - Wikipedia. They demonstrate orderliness in the physical realm for which, IMHO, a Creator is the best and only explanation. Other explanations are often speculations and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of those who don’t want there to be a God and Creator or a God and Judge to whom they would be accountable.
Click to expand...
Let’s just agree to disagree on this one. 😄
Physical constants include force of gravity, speed of light in a vacuum, etc.
Click to expand...
I think you mean the gravitational constant and c.
Natural law in the moral realm is another thing. That’s the common meaning of natural law. Even without special revelation like the Bible and the Jesus Christ Incarnate in human flesh, there are constants in natural moral law upon which civil law and criminal law are commonly based (whether that connection is acknowledged or not). Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages, revived and developed the concept of natural law from ancient Greek philosophy. Reference: Natural law - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I’m aware of Aquinas. And let’s just agree to disagree here as well 😄
 
Last edited:
Actually, there is a connection between natural laws of morality and written civil law in human societies. Unless a tyrant or dictator wants to impose their whims, generally there is no law against love and generally there are laws against bearing false witness, stealing, etc.
 
rossum said:
Erm… you might want to ask some of your gay friends about that, or Mr. and Mrs. Loving from Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...
Erotic love and brotherly love and selfless, self-emptying love are all different. Lust and love are different. Sex and love are different. You’re smart, rossum. You know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top