Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
It just is because there's no other way to get life, other than from a pre-existing life. No way around it.

Then there is no way around it. God came from pre-existing life. Good to see that we can agree this is the case based on your logic. If you disagree with this, then it disproves your claim that there's no other way to get life. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

And how exactly do you know that there is no other way to get life again?

Oh yeah, you DON'T. You appeal to ignorance.

Sorry bud, you have your faith and your opinion, but none of it is based on logic, fact or evidence. I can respect that if only you would admit it rather than pushing your worldview on others as fact.

Ha! "appeal to ignorance."

Nope. You just can't see or refused to recognize the logic of what I'm saying.

Like I said in the OP and from several post. Theist and Atheist will at some point have to come to a FULL STOP.

From the Theist standpoint or point of view, it all ends at the God. That is, there's only ONE True God, the Always Existing God - Yahweh / Jehovah! He is the ultimate source of life. As the ultimate source of life, thus he has no creator for He is the Creator! FULL STOP.

From the Atheist point of view:

It's either "Nothing" created life and everything which highly illogical or "we don't know".

It's really simple as that.

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

originally posted by: Phantom423

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

The only fact of the matter here is that the origin of life is still unknown.

Of course "unknown" to those who refuse to see the obvious. This is why atheism will forever remain to be an unknown point of view.

It just is because there's no other way to get life, other than from a pre-existing life. No way around it.

But it's your choice what to believe.

If the only way to get life is from pre-existing life, doesn't that imply that life had no beginning and will have no end? In that scenario, there is no role for a God.

In a way, you're correct. Since God is the source of life thus life from God's point of view had no beginning and will have no end.

As to His role - quite the opposite. He has an unending role for the maintenance and continuance of life.

As the law of physics state, 'a body at rest will tend to decay' but if there's someone to maintain it then the final outcome will not be realized.

The universe left on its own will - as scientists theorised - will eventually end / decay / collapse. But because there's an Eternal Creator who not only created it for nothing but populated it with a purpose, He will not allow it to decay. It will forever exist as he eternally continue to exist.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Ha! "appeal to ignorance."

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

Ha, indeed! This is your exact position with the "life ONLY comes from life" argument. That statement has not been proven true, you are relying on the fact that it hasn't been proven false, which is ass backwards logic. You can't logically make a claim and then counter it right away, If life CAN ONLY come from life, then god is not life or he came from other life. Do you see the issue yet? It should be obvious, I capitalized the word numerous times, thus proving you are making assumptions.

From the Theist standpoint or point of view, it all ends at the God. That is, there's only ONE True God, the Always Existing God - Yahweh / Jehovah! He is the ultimate source of life. As the ultimate source of life, thus he has no creator for He is the Creator! FULL STOP.

So then god must not be alive, because as per you, life can ONLY come from life! Either your statement is wrong, or god is not life. Which one is it?

It's either "Nothing" created life and everything which highly illogical or "we don't know".

False. "We don't know" is an agnostic point of view. Atheists also do not claim that "nothing" created life. They claim life arose naturally. Big difference.

The falsehoods and lies just keep coming from you. No worries. I'll just keep denying your ignorance.

Nope. You just can't see or refused to recognize the logic of what I'm saying.

Methinks it's the other way around. You are the one using logical fallacies, and I do recognize that it is ILLOGICAL to do this. You have not used any form of valid logic.

As the law of physics state, 'a body at rest will tend to decay' but if there's someone to maintain it then the final outcome will not be realized.

a reply to: edmc^2

Not exactly correct. Newton's first law of motion says "a body at rest remains at rest". That means nothing happens to it unless an external force is exerted on it.

In any case, your logic fits in with religious ideology, but has no grounding in science.

I often wonder why some religious people insist on using science to prove their ideology. Why is it necessary? You have a faith and you believe what the Bible tells you - regardless that the book has been rewritten and reinterpreted many times. Why isn't that enough? Neither you nor science can present proof for a creator so why waste time on it?
Logic, however you construct it, is still a mind game. It's only science when you can present evidence. Which you can't.

originally posted by: Phantom423
And what's your definition of "life" anyway? Biologically, the ability to reproduce defines life. Robots that reproduce will be considered "alive". The first robot to reproduce will be a unique life form that had no pre-existing life form which produced it, except if you consider the engineers who developed it to be its "parents".

And robots which can reproduce will have autonomous evolution. In other words, they will mutate and evolve on their own.

You should think outside the box a little more - there's a lot of "life" that requires no intervention from a God to exist.

Life - in it's broadest term, it's the principle of life or living. It's the animate existence as opposed to inanimate existence.

To earthly, biological physical life, life in general, have the ability and capability of growth, metabolism, response to external stimuli, and reproduction.

In its ultimate definition, human life IS life - a conscious life.

From this exacting definition - robots are not life but artificial life forms with pre-programmed instructions to mimic real life.

As to thinking outside of the box - is fire alive or not?

a reply to: edmc^2

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

No matter how you argue it. The infinite must exists.

How would science argue that there is no infinite? Or that void of Space is not infnite?

originally posted by: Phantom423

As the law of physics state, 'a body at rest will tend to decay' but if there's someone to maintain it then the final outcome will not be realized.

a reply to: edmc^2

Not exactly correct. Newton's first law of motion says "a body at rest remains at rest". That means nothing happens to it unless an external force is exerted on it.

In any case, your logic fits in with religious ideology, but has no grounding in science.

I often wonder why some religious people insist on using science to prove their ideology. Why is it necessary? You have a faith and you believe what the Bible tells you - regardless that the book has been rewritten and reinterpreted many times. Why isn't that enough? Neither you nor science can present proof for a creator so why waste time on it?
Logic, however you construct it, is still a mind game. It's only science when you can present evidence. Which you can't.

Sure it's at rest - that's so obvious but leave something at rest without acting upon it - that something, whatever it is will eventually decay. The law of thermodynamics will make it so.

I often wonder why some religious people insist on using science to prove their ideology. Why is it necessary?

I wonder why great scientists like Sir Isaac Newton, Maxwell, Kepler and so on insist in using science to prove their ideology?

Why?

Because it's the reality. The universe is intelligible because it was created that way.

In my case, I use science to find the evidence that what I believe is the truth.

So if the Scripture says, the universe and the earth had a beginning, how can we prove it?

Scientific evidence coupled with logic.

Question is, why do atheist keep on repeating the same experiment over and over expecting a different result?

What created the universe? "nothing" and "we don't know".

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: edmc^2

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

No matter how you argue it. The infinite must exists.

How would science argue that there is no infinite? Or that void of Space is not infnite?

How would science argue that there IS infinity? Or that the void of space IS infinite?

You are doing exactly what your friend above is doing. You are relying on the fact that science hasn't proven the concept of infinite to be false and using it to claim it must be true. That isn't how it works in science.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: edmc^2

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

No matter how you argue it. The infinite must exists.

How would science argue that there is no infinite? Or that void of Space is not infnite?

Exactly Spy, this is the point in which science can't argue.


Infinity - is just is. Even if someone doesn't believe in God or a Creator, they have no real reason to ignore infinity. Otherwise, the alternative is to believe that we exist in a finite universe - which is very illogical and unscientific.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: edmc^2

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

No matter how you argue it. The infinite must exists.

How would science argue that there is no infinite? Or that void of Space is not infnite?

How would science argue that there IS infinity? Or that the void of space IS infinite?

You are doing exactly what your friend above is doing. You are relying on the fact that science hasn't proven the concept of infinite to be false and using it to claim it must be true. That isn't how it works in science.

How would science Counter argue the reasoning?

I am asking you... How would you argue that the infinite does not exist?

If there is a end, how can you scientifically argue it? . How can you argue that there is nothing Beyond it?

originally posted by: edmc^2
they have no real reason to ignore infinity. Otherwise, the alternative is to believe that we exist in a finite universe - which is very illogical and unscientific.

According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.

How would science Counter argue the reasoning?

I am asking you... How would you argue that the infinite does not exist?

If there is a end. How can you argue that there is nothing Beyond it?

Just because it may be difficult to argue against something, does not mean that it is automatically true. Obviously science needs more information to make a determination on that matter. Right now we cannot say for sure whether the universe is finite or infinite. It's just guessing games.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: edmc^2

Either there's such a thing as INFINITY or there's not.

No matter how you argue it. The infinite must exists.

How would science argue that there is no infinite? Or that void of Space is not infnite?

Exactly Spy, this is the point in which science can't argue.


Infinity - is just is. Even if someone doesn't believe in God or a Creator, they have no real reason to ignore infinity. Otherwise, the alternative is to believe that we exist in a finite universe - which is very illogical and unscientific.

I have been Reading Your reasoning for weeks. And i dont see them actually Counter arguing Your reasoning at all.
Its like you have to repeat and repeat to see if they Catch on.

originally posted by: spy66
I have been Reading Your reasoning for weeks. And i dont see them actually Counter arguing Your reasoning at all.
Its like you have to repeat and repeat to see if they Catch on.

Poppycock! I have countered everything he's said with actual logic, not some half baked logic that invokes dozens of logical fallacies and assumptions to justify it. Pay attention. If you think he's using logic, you may want to take a course in logic 101. He has done nothing but invoke assumptions.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
I have been Reading Your reasoning for weeks. And i dont see them actually Counter arguing Your reasoning at all.
Its like you have to repeat and repeat to see if they Catch on.

Poppycock! I have countered everything he's said with actual logic, not some half baked logic that invokes dozens of logical fallacies to justify it. Pay attention. If you think he's using logic, you may want to take a course in logic 101 because he hasn't used any logic whatsoever.

I will repeat:

How would you argue that the infinite does not exist?


Use Logic if you like.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yahweh / Jehovah God is the source of life.

Wrong - you are following a dead god

en.wikipedia.org...

He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters the body of man and gives him a soul, Yaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries to limit man's knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. At the consummation of all things all light will return to the Pleroma. But Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lower depths.
Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, with the body of a serpent. We are told also[24] that the Demiurge is of a fiery nature, the words of Moses being applied to him, “the Lord our God is a burning and consuming fire,” a text which Hippolytus claims was also used by Simon.[25]
In Pistis Sophia Yaldabaoth has already sunk from his high estate and resides in Chaos, where, with his forty-nine demons, he tortures wicked souls in boiling rivers of pitch, and with other punishments (pp. 257, 382). He is an archon with the face of a lion, half flame and half darkness.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yahweh = Satan. They have you worshiping evil.

originally posted by: spy66
I will repeat:

How would you argue that the infinite does not exist?


Use Logic if you like.

Who cares? I'm not asserting that the position is true, logical or factual. There is not enough information to determine such a thing. Very simple actually. To determine something is true, you need evidence positive, not "it hasn't been proven wrong" or "you can't argue against it yet"

I will repeat.

How would you argue that the infinite DOES exist.

You guys are using half baked logic here, nothing at all even comes remotely close. It is the appeal to ignorance fallacy just as Ed used above. You can't claim something is logical and use fallacies at the same time.

If something cannot be proven 100% false, it doesn't magically become true.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
I will repeat:

How would you argue that the infinite does not exist?


Use Logic if you like.

Who cares? I'm not asserting that the position is true, logical or factual. There is not enough information to determine such a thing. Very simple actually. To determine something is true, you need evidence positive, not "it hasn't been proven wrong" or "you can't argue against it yet"

I will repeat.

How would you argue that the infinite DOES exist.

You guys are using half baked logic here, nothing at all even comes remotely close. It is the appeal to ignorance fallacy just as Ed used above. You can't claim something is logical and use fallacies at the same time.

If something cannot be proven 100% false, it doesn't magically become true.

With the terms you claim there is no way Your claim can be right or Ours.

That means if we make a claim, you can claime fallacies based on evidence. But at the same time, Your claim is also based on fallacies do to the fact that you cant disprove Our claims With Your own facts.

originally posted by: spy66
With the terms you claim there is no way Your claim can be right or Ours.

That means if we make a claim, you can claime fallacies based on evidence. But at the same time, Your claim is also based on fallacies do to the fact that you cant disprove Our claims With Your own facts.

But I never made a claim either way about the concept of infinity. You are the one claiming that the infinite "must exist" because we can't argue against it based on present day science and knowledge of the universe. I'm just saying that your claim is illogical, just like Ed's. We don't know the answer to that question so science can't answer the question either way. Maybe one day we will know. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

a reply to: Barcs

According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.

Actually - that would be an infinite space and time where the PHYSICAL universe is finite.

Infinity is the space in which the PHYSICAL / MATERIAL universe is expanding to. But since you have no concept of infinity, it's hard to explain it to you in plain English. Even harder scientifically.

You need to study up more.

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

Yahweh / Jehovah God is the source of life.

Wrong - you are following a dead god

en.wikipedia.org...

He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters the body of man and gives him a soul, Yaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries to limit man's knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. At the consummation of all things all light will return to the Pleroma. But Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lower depths.
Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, with the body of a serpent. We are told also[24] that the Demiurge is of a fiery nature, the words of Moses being applied to him, “the Lord our God is a burning and consuming fire,” a text which Hippolytus claims was also used by Simon.[25]
In Pistis Sophia Yaldabaoth has already sunk from his high estate and resides in Chaos, where, with his forty-nine demons, he tortures wicked souls in boiling rivers of pitch, and with other punishments (pp. 257, 382). He is an archon with the face of a lion, half flame and half darkness.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yahweh = Satan. They have you worshiping evil.

Okay, I'll stick with Jehovah / Yehowah then.