Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: randyvs

Ok, I watched all of that one. It was, meh. I've actually heard all that before and I'm not all that impressed by the whole coincidental numerology found in that first sentence.

However, I do have something to add to the amazing number seven which you can add to your tool chest of interesting bits about 7. Starting with any size circle, you can fit exactly 6 more circles of equal size to the first around it giving you 7 total circles. This works in real life too. Take a log or sticks or whatever and you can fit exactly 6 more logs of the same diameter around it creating a complete bundle of 7. Or take 7 coins that are the same and you can fit exactly 6 around 1 with them all just touching the center equally.

a reply to: mOjOm

Circle rings eternal. That's pretty damn awesome.

I'm looking at what just happened between you and I
and I'm astounded. We most likely will never meet in this
life. But I still have hope we do. Thank you for that.

a reply to: randyvs

LoL. You mean our civil exchange of information??? I actually prefer it that way. Hopefully we can have more of it in the future too.

Just because we don't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't still discuss certain subjects or even argue about them and still do it productively and with a positive result. Part of why that may have happened here is because we've touched on an area that we both seem to enjoy and is itself a kind of universal pure truth. By that I mean Numbers and Mathematics.

Since I was young I've always liked the function of numbers and their relationships. They are a pure language and seem to have a built in language and relationship to concepts outside their values. Pythagoras said something along the lines of Math is the language of God. If there is an area where some kind of objective truth and pure eternal universal power I feel it might be found by the better understanding of math and number theory.

There are very interesting patterns and a self contained language with numbers that has always interested me. It's found in a very narrow and difficult to find pathway between normal mathematics and numerology. At least in my opinion anyway.

originally posted by: randyvs
Circle rings eternal. That's pretty damn awesome.

I'm looking at what just happened between you and I
and I'm astounded. We most likely will never meet in this
life. But I still have hope we do. Thank you for that.

I agree, it is pretty damn awesome. Most people are just like, "ya ok". But there is something interesting about it to me. It also compliments the idea of the biblical idea of 7 and completion. This is an example of that relationship of 7 to 1.

The 7 makes another starting point just like the 1. Like a octave in musical scale. The scale increases yet the 7 is really 6 perfectly rested upon that 1 to make the 7 where it all starts again.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure I can prove the premise of my inference because it's based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence.

Since only life can beget life, based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence I can infer then that life on earth can only come from a pre-existing life.

How did I guess that you would ignore my post and just repeat the original argument for the 3rd time? There are problems with that statement that I have already explained. Conversations are supposed to move forward, not backward. Until you actually address my counterpoints to that blatantly fallacious and non provable statement, you have nothing. Origin of life is not birth. Sorry. Equivocation fallacy.

Since a law requires a lawmaker and lawgiver, based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence I can infer then that the laws of the universe must have come from an intelligent lawmaker / lawgiver.

Equivocation... AGAIN. Scientific laws are NOT the same as legal laws. I already explained this.

Try to prove me wrong based on your sound logic if you even have one.

I already did. When you need to rely on assumption and fallacies, your argument becomes void of logic. My guess is that your next response will again ignore all counterpoints and repeat the original argument. You really need to approach the topic with a different strategy if you wish to claim logic is involved in your conclusion.

My next thread...

Why Atheism is not scientific but a mere belief system.

Don't bother. We all know you will use the same exact fallacies from this thread. You don't understand logic. You don't understand science. You don't even understand faith.

a reply to: mOjOm

The 7 makes another starting point just like the 1. Like a octave in musical scale. The scale increases yet the 7 is really 6 perfectly rested upon that 1 to make the 7 where it all starts again.

Why don't you do us( yourself and I ) a favor and at least let
yourself see it both ways? You could choose to defend both sides
of the coin that you could become. Or not defend either one.
I'm not trying to sell you on anything please don't get me wrong here.
It just might be a much more pleasing way for you to go tho.
No reply needed, I just hope you consider it at least. I'm impressed.
At least you would have Pascals wager by the balls.

I agree, it is pretty damn awesome. Most people are just like, "ya ok".

At least you understand how I feel sometimes.



Have a Merry Christmas mOjOm!

a reply to: Barcs

But I addressed your counterpoints already. In case you missed them, let me clarify further per your statements below.

You claim:

Origin of life is not birth. Sorry. Equivocation fallacy.

You seem to be confused Barcs. Did you see what you just did here?

"Origin of life is not birth". In what way manner or form is "Origin of life is not birth"?
If you don't see it let me know and I'll show you.


Next you said:

Equivocation... AGAIN. Scientific laws are NOT the same as legal laws.

To which I say, "law requires a lawmaker and lawgiver".

Again, you missed the point of this simple statement / axiom.

That is, it doesn't matter WHATEVER law there is, in principle, whether it's Scientific Laws or Legal Laws, they ALL REQUIRE a lawmaker or a lawgiver.

Whether in a scientific field or in a legal field, no one can argue that any law can and will exist apart from a law making body.

If you continue to disagree with these well-established facts, then you have an ocean to swim on.

Prove me wrong, please. Show me a law that doesn't require a lawmaker or a mind behind it for that matter.

a reply to: randyvs

In a way I do defend both sides though. I defend the concept of "Religious Freedom" for those who choose to be Religious because it also has effects outside traditional Religion. Like the Freedom for individuals to believe in ideas that may be unpopular or incorrect. That is a Freedom we should all enjoy because without it your Freedom of Thought must be policed and/or controlled.

However, I simply don't buy into many of the details surrounding most Religions. Especially "exclusive" dogma that does more harm than good in my opinion. They all seem to use fear as their method of control and that's BS. Even Pascals Wager that you mentioned does that same which is why I don't like it. I understand the idea and the logic behind it just fine, but I refuse to allow such a decision to be made out of fear, even if logically it's consistent. If fear is the only reason behind the argument for it I will reject it based on that alone.

This has of course put me into the Atheist/Agnostic camp but I'm not Anti-Theistic. I don't like absolutist radical Atheists browbeating arrogance either. Basically I think people have every right to Believe whatever they want but regardless of what beliefs they hold to their actions must still be put in check when they are actions based on Beliefs. Think whatever you want but actions effect others and so they must sometimes yield to respecting others around you.

BTW, I love Scrooged!! One of my favorite movies ever. I watch it every year. Bill Murray is the best.

originally posted by: edmc^2
You seem to be confused Barcs. Did you see what you just did here?

"Origin of life is not birth". In what way manner or form is "Origin of life is not birth"?
If you don't see it let me know and I'll show you.

The origin of life refers to the BEGINNING of the first life on earth.
Birth refers to organisms replicating.

I've said it numerous times, they are not the same thing and you still haven't addressed this problem, you have pretended it doesn't debunk your logical inference, but it does. This isn't rocket science here. You can't be logical and use logical fallacies at the same time. It doesn't work. You would get laughed out of any real debate with that nonsense.

To which I say, "law requires a lawmaker and lawgiver".

Again, you missed the point of this simple statement / axiom.

That is, it doesn't matter WHATEVER law there is, in principle, whether it's Scientific Laws or Legal Laws, they ALL REQUIRE a lawmaker or a lawgiver.

Whether in a scientific field or in a legal field, no one can argue that any law can and will exist apart from a law making body.

Yes, it very much matters what type of law we are talking about. Legal laws are made by humans, hence lawmakers. Laws in science are MEASUREMENTS of certain aspects of reality. Why would they REQUIRE a law maker? You haven't explained this yet without equivocating multiple types of law into one definition when they do not all mean the same thing. Surely you can do better than relying semantics, equivocation, and catch phrases.

If you continue to disagree with these well-established facts, then you have an ocean to swim on.

Prove me wrong, please. Show me a law that doesn't require a lawmaker or a mind behind it for that matter.

Your "facts" are not well established, and are not even facts. They are assumptions. I don't need to prove you wrong, you do that on your own by using fallacies in your reasoning. Show me that a SCIENTIFIC law DOES require a lawmaker, based on verifiable evidence and THEN we'll talk. Until you address this and the other fallacy above, you really have nothing left to stand on here.

*awaits next post where OP ignores everything and repeats the original faulty claims for the umpteenth time.

a reply to: mOjOm

If fear is the only reason behind the argument for it I will reject it based on that alone.

So you imply that I wouldn't? That's what sucks about what you're saying.

Nevermind

I understand.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

This would be induction, and your inductive reasoning still apparently leads you to the CONCLUSION that a God is what best fits the facts.

Now, why would this matter? Surely even if I use deductive reasoning, it really won't matter if it leads me to the same conclusion. Is it not?

Matter fact my inference is based on the established scientific methodology which states that we:

1. Observe what happens
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. And watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In this case, since the origin of life is the object/subject of the theory, which one then fits the facts?

Life can only come from pre-existing life

Or, life can spontaneously arise from non-living matter?

Taking on the later, no matter what experiment you conduct, there's no evidence to prove that it is true. Experiments after experiments have failed to confirm that it is a fact. Any further experimentation and test conducted now and in the future will fail to repeat the process asserted by atheists - that life spontaneously arose from non-life.

And this in addition ESTABLISHED without a doubt the fact that life arising spontaneously from non-living matter IS NOT possible.

Only by blind faith this is possible. Believing without any evidence as atheism does is blind faith.

On the other hand, the former has been proven time and time again.

Life begets life. It's not blind faith, but an established belief based on verified evidence.

Yes, based on mountainous evidence, life can only come from pre-existing life.

Therefore, whether through induction or deduction, the Origin of Life then must have been from a pre-existing life - a living being - God.

One that has no beginning, always existing to impart life.

a reply to: edmc^2

Life can ONLY come from pre-existimg life apart from that one time your imaginary friend apparently sprang into existence.

This is why people laugh at Creationists...

originally posted by: randyvs
So you imply that I wouldn't? That's what sucks about what you're saying.

Nevermind

I understand.

No not at all. You mentioned Pascals Wager that's all. I'm not implying anything at all about you and your faith. I assume you have various reasons for it but I don't know what they are.

a reply to: edmc^2

That's the truth of the matter at the end of the day.
If the mind created time then time could not have created
mind.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: edmc^2

That's the truth of the matter at the end of the day.
If the mind created time then time could not have created
mind.

the universe (and thus time) is far older than the mind.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: edmc^2

That's the truth of the matter at the end of the day.
If the mind created time then time could not have created
mind.

the universe (and thus time) is far older than the mind.

Really. What causes the mind to function Down to the absolute basic elements? Our minds are built up by elements that have always existed in one form or another even before the singularity was formed. The elements that formed Our mind didnt just pop into existance, they have always existed.

The elements that specifically formed Our mind were formed at the moment the singularity was formed. Because the singularity had all the Properties within it to form us.

originally posted by: edmc^2
1. Observe what happens

Your inference doesn't get past step 1. You haven't observed anything in regards to the creation of life. You have never observed god creating life. You have never observed life emerging via natural processes. Nobody's arguing that a rock could give birth to an animal. They are saying that you are wrong in guessing about whether life can ONLY come from life or not. A statement such as that requires absolute knowledge of the universe, something that you do not have.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

Where are the tests and experiments you have done in regards to the origin of life?

a reply to: TzarChasm

the universe (and thus time) is far older than the mind.

That's just bullsh1t and nothing else.

a reply to: mOjOm

Alright fair enough then.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
You seem to be confused Barcs. Did you see what you just did here?

"Origin of life is not birth". In what way manner or form is "Origin of life is not birth"?
If you don't see it let me know and I'll show you.

The origin of life refers to the BEGINNING of the first life on earth.
Birth refers to organisms replicating.

I've said it numerous times, they are not the same thing and you still haven't addressed this problem, you have pretended it doesn't debunk your logical inference, but it does. This isn't rocket science here. You can't be logical and use logical fallacies at the same time. It doesn't work. You would get laughed out of any real debate with that nonsense.

To which I say, "law requires a lawmaker and lawgiver".

Again, you missed the point of this simple statement / axiom.

That is, it doesn't matter WHATEVER law there is, in principle, whether it's Scientific Laws or Legal Laws, they ALL REQUIRE a lawmaker or a lawgiver.

Whether in a scientific field or in a legal field, no one can argue that any law can and will exist apart from a law making body.

Yes, it very much matters what type of law we are talking about. Legal laws are made by humans, hence lawmakers. Laws in science are MEASUREMENTS of certain aspects of reality. Why would they REQUIRE a law maker? You haven't explained this yet without equivocating multiple types of law into one definition when they do not all mean the same thing. Surely you can do better than relying semantics, equivocation, and catch phrases.

If you continue to disagree with these well-established facts, then you have an ocean to swim on.

Prove me wrong, please. Show me a law that doesn't require a lawmaker or a mind behind it for that matter.

Your "facts" are not well established, and are not even facts. They are assumptions. I don't need to prove you wrong, you do that on your own by using fallacies in your reasoning. Show me that a SCIENTIFIC law DOES require a lawmaker, based on verifiable evidence and THEN we'll talk. Until you address this and the other fallacy above, you really have nothing left to stand on here.

*awaits next post where OP ignores everything and repeats the original faulty claims for the umpteenth time.

Isn't you're the one who is playing semantics here?

Origin and birth imply a beginning. But what you're describing or alluding to is biology, a process. In other words, you're stuck on the ground level while I'm referring to an all-encompassing BEGINNING.

And based on OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, since you can't get life from non-living matter but you can from a pre-existing life, then the latter MUST true. Either by replication or by creation, life MUST and always will come from pre-existing life.

But I think this is not the problem. Your problem is with the Creator of Life. You're assuming that because God is life, therefore he must have come from a pre-existing life. And since it's an infinite regress to assume or say that God has a creator, therefore, any answer that supposedly answer the question is nonsense and unscientific.

That, I agree IF we assume that God is a creature, a creation. But He is NOT a creation as he is the prime source of raw material for the creation of the universe. Hence, He always possessed life. He always existed. It's the ONLY logical and scientific answer to the "puzzle" because the alternative is to accept the illogical, the unscientific blind faith on nothing. That everything including God was created from nothing by nothing.

To assume or to say that we don't know notwithstanding the obvious is a cop out, laziness, blind faith in the unknown.

That is where you stand.

Legal laws are made by humans, hence lawmakers. Laws in science are MEASUREMENTS of certain aspects of reality. Why would they REQUIRE a law maker?

Again Barcs, you're thinking at ground level. You need to expand your horizon.

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

If it takes the genius mind of Sir Isaac Newton to formulate the law of Gravity (Fg = G*m1m2/r2), what would it take to create the real thing?

Of course, you will say either "nothing" or "we don't know" which in both cases is irrational and highly illogical and a cop out.

So what then are the facts? Which one is NOT blind faith?

Nothing created the universe or an Intelligent Being - a pre-existing Life created life and the universe?

I'd say the latter.