Christianity & Islam Thomas on 10 Aug 2009 12:11 am
Can living things come from non-living matter?
A Christian poses this question in the forum:
So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don’t come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don’t see ‘em.
See this thread for a discussion:
on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am 1.Tommy said …
There is no bright line between living and non-living.
Eventually, scientists will create life. I wonder what Christians will do then?
on 10 Aug 2009 at 5:11 am 2.Anonymous said …
Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.
Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.
What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?
on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:28 pm 3.Chip E said …
“How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?”
Quite simple. God is beyond the natural whereas you are arguing that something came from nothing in the natural realm. It is a problem atheist struggle with. They attempt to minimize the problem with much could, may and possibly.
Man will never create something from nothing in a lab therefore the atheist is backed in a corner with this problem. If man can ever create life from non-living matter in the lab if will just go on to prove intelligence is needed for life to form.
.
on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 4.Kevin said …
Umm, Argument-Fail. Scientists have never observed God either, nor has he ever been reproduced in a laboratory. From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life - or some invisible, as yet unobserved and undefinable power dunnit. Occam’s razor applies (as well as GOTG).
on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 5.Morph said …
Ockham’s razor states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”
We are not creating unnecessarily, in this case one is necessary.
“From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life”
Conveniently Kevin has failed to provide origin of chemicals and energy. Kevin also failed to mention this has never been observed much like the undefinable power he goes on to reference.
Kevin’s fallacy is typical and consequently his argument fails.
on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:37 pm 6.boomer said …
It seems that none you fully understand that scientist will never be able to create a human from a mound of dirt. Better yet do as God did and you create it from something that you made. They can’t use anything that was made by God or from God. Good Luck!! I would go as far to say that they will not be able to create a human from one rib. If for some odd reason they do I bet it will not be completely different in its DNA. My God is a awesome God and one day you will bow and proclaim that!!!! Philippians 2:10-11 The next time you do a video on how repulsive the Bible is please use your scripture in context! Surely you should know that…..
on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:04 am 7.swbts student said …
wow boomer nailed it,
on 16 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm 8.Denis Loubet said …
All of us create living matter out of dead matter every day. It’s called digestion. You eat dead matter, and it becomes part of the living matter that is you. It’s all completely natural.
This is not what abiogenesis is about, but it does establish beyond doubt that dead matter can become living matter through natural processes.
Of course there’s no difference between the atoms of living matter and dead matter, it’s all in the ARRANGEMENT of the atoms that determines what’s alive and what’s not.
So we see atoms in dead arrangements, and atoms in living arrangements, and we even see a chemical process where atoms in dead patterns can be re-arranged into living patterns.
I don’t see that much of a stretch to get to abiogenesis. It’s all just atoms being pushed around. It’s all chemistry.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:51 pm 9.tdhladhla said …
First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything. You cannot tell me that you have an explanation to every single thing that exists. You can doubt the existence of God, but dare not dispute it. And your 10 questions on GodIsNotReal are totally out of context. When reading the Bible, you have to read it in context with a wise mind. eg Sure in the OLD TESTAMENT, God commanded people who worked on the Sabbath to be put to death. But between then and now, a Savior came to bear our iniquity. He died on the cross; a righteous man made to carry our filth so much that the Father he had been in fellowship with from the beginning of time turned His face away from Him. Our sin made God turn His face away from us then…. but now, because we have a person who argues our case with Him, we have a chance to be redeemed.
It is unfair to say we’ve never seen Jesus… He’s in heaven. But he sent Holy Spirit to be with us here on Earth. And to have a personal encounter with God, you need the Spirit.
It could be looking at the sunrise and realising that certainly it couldn’t have ‘just’ happened.
And on your point about suffering… the fall of man caused God to curse man but not so much as to kill man. Suffering is under that curse (Gen 3: 14 -21). But God also promised that there would be a Savior and he hasn’t failed us.
True, there’s always gonna be so much we do not know or comprehend about God. But the fact of the matter is, He gave us enough evidence to make it rational and plausible that He exists but not enough to compel us to believe.
You believe there is no God… that was a conscious choice you made. An example of the freedom God gave you.
I believe in God and if you asked me why… I’d take a whole day,2 or even more telling you about what He has done in my life.
The difference between me and you is that when i do something wrong (sin), i don’t guilty…I am driven to the feet of a Father who is rady and willing to forgive me.
When you do wrong, all you can do is feel bad and guilty about it.
It’s a heart matter…. not a mental/intellectual matter. After all, the mind follows the heart; not the other way round.
Be blessed
on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:16 pm 10.Denis Loubet said …
“First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything.”
Let’s see where this “logic” goes.
“to say there is no Zeus, you must know everything.”
“to say there is no Odin, you must know everything.”
“to say there is no Shiva, you must know everything.”
“to say there is no IPU, you must know everything.”
Since you ascribe to this logic, I must assume you believe in Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and the Invisible purple Unicorn, along with every other unevidenced supernatural nonsense that comes down the pike.
That must keep you very busy.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 4:08 pm 11.tdhladhla said …
I did not say i believe in all those gods that you mentioned. But i will not ridicule a person who does, but simply tell them about my God.My reason to not believe in them: there’s nothing that points to their existence. cartoons, astrology,’myths’ and whatever else they are associated to are not enough reason for me to even consider their existence.
It’s what i’ve felt in my heart and the physical manifestation thereof that has driven me to believe in God.
on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:59 am 12.Denis Loubet said …
You do not believe in Zeus, and Odin, and Shiva, and the IPU for exactly the same reasons I don’t believe in your god. And those that believed in them believed for the same reason you believe in your god.
You are an atheist regarding Zeus and Odin and countless other gods that mankind has believed in at one time or another. Congratulations. You have just one more god to disbelieve in and your atheism will be complete.
Good luck.
on 20 Aug 2009 at 8:56 pm 13.tdhladhla said …
As i said i do not ridicule anyone who has any other belief…. i just strive to explain to people why I believe in God whenever an opportunity arises. It’s never easy… Not everyone is receptive. But i know that once you open up to experience this truth, your whole perspective changes. According to definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia etc, i do not qualify as an atheist. I quote from wikipedia “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.”
“Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.”
If you want to have an intellectual argument on the existence of God, so be it. The very same arguments you use work against you. But as i said, its a heart matter, not a mind matter.
I’ll ask you a question… Why do you say there is no God? Can you rationally prove that there is no God?
on 20 Aug 2009 at 10:17 pm 14.Denis Loubet said …
If you’ll read carefully, I have not said there is no god. That would be a knowledge statement about the state of the universe.
I have only said I do not believe in one. That is a statement describing my subjective status regarding belief in gods, not a statement about whether they exist or not.
I am an atheist because I have not been presented compelling evidence to convince me there is a god. Failing that evidence, I remain unconvinced there is a god.
It would take extraordinary evidence to convince me of a god at this point because so many people are able to believe in mutually exclusive gods that it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right. This is exactly why I brought up Zeus and the rest. People had great faith in them, but since you refuse to believe in Zeus, it must be that you think their belief is wrong. That their faith has led them astray.
This means you absolutely cannot trust faith.
So, I’ll need concrete evidence to change my mind.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 1:31 pm 15.Lou said …
“it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right.”
Atheism?
on 21 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 16.Denis Loubet said …
No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about being right or wrong.
A gross mischaracterization of skepticism might fit the description, but that would be a gross mischaracterization.
There is one human endeavour that elevates faith to a virtue, rather than recognizing it as the synonym for ignorance that it is, and that’s religion.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:48 pm 17.Lou said …
Denis atheism is either right or wrong. BELIEVE ME, atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional.
You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith. This “lack of belief” is just a new spin that doesn’t change the fact or what atheist REALLY claim.
Last argument against you is that SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion. Everyone places faith in something so enjoy the ride and accept you are like everyone else.
on 22 Aug 2009 at 4:49 am 18.Denis Loubet said …
Even if it were true that “atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional”, an argument could be made that that is preferable to “I’m right and I agree with my god that atheists deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire”.
As to me having faith that it’s possible I could be correct in my belief, wow, that’s quite a logical contortion just to move some goalposts. Is that what religious faith is to you, the notion that maybe there’s the possibility that there’s a god? Is that what you would call a man of faith? The people I hear being called men of faith are the ones that claim to harbor absolute certainty in their god, and no doubt whatsoever as to what it wants. The more certainty the better.
Since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing. That’s not even dipping into the “If atheism is a faith, then not playing baseball is a sport” territory.
And as powerful as the SCOTUS may be, they do not dictate reality.
on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:49 pm 19.Lou said …
“since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing.”
Oh yes Denis, this makes you unique! Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally. That is why you see atheist becoming christians, christians becoming atheist and so on!
Now…..if you can prove with certainty that God does not exist, then you have a fact. Until then, it is faith. Look it up.
on 22 Aug 2009 at 7:17 pm 20.VeridicusX said …
Lou, you’re (willfully?) mistaking gullibility and delusion, (read faith), for normal beliefs.
Specifically, faith is believing in contempt of the facts.
[See Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 8:24]
“You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith.” …
… is just another theist lie.
To state that something is possible is simply to say that the statement agrees with itself and with known facts. It doesn’t contradict itself - this is known as coherence - and it doesn’t contradict the facts - this is known as consistency. Facts are verified physical evidence.
When a rational person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are not certain.
“Did John say that the shipment will arrive today?”
“I believe so.”
When a religious person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are sure of or certain of, things that they cannot possibly know, often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” - The Bible. New International Version.
I should just define a lie for you. Theists conveniently don’t seem to be able to remember what one is.
Noun 1. lie - a statement intended to deceive.
Noun 2. lie - a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
Noun 3. lie - an unqualified baseless assertion. An avowal not based on fact.
If I declare something to be true, even though I know that I have no valid evidence to support my statement at the time that I make it, then I am lying. (Even if it subsequently turns out to be true).
If I assert that you are a pedophile without valid evidence, then I am lying. It doesn’t matter how much “faith” I have. It is still an unqualified baseless assertion which leads others to believe that what I say is based on facts.
If I say, “Jesus rose bodily from the dead!”, I’m lying.
I’m not lying if I say, “I gullibly believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, even though I have no valid evidence to support this belief and all the verifiable evidence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to bodily resurrections being essentially impossible”.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:44 am 21.Denis Loubet said …
Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally? That must be why I hear things like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
And since I don’t make the claim that god doesn’t exist, I am exhibiting no faith whatsoever regarding that issue.
I simply lack belief in any gods.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 22.Lou said …
Not only does your ilk “not make the claim” they are also emphatic there is no God.
From Merriam Webster:
Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
Since you like to put out there what you hear let me put out what I hear. I hear atheist who sound more like evangelist attempting to save the multitudes! This website for one. Atheist stating “there is no God” and “Christians/Muslims/etc are delusional”, are making a faith statements….according to Merriam & Webster.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:35 pm 23.VeridicusX said …
#22.Lou
Lou, you are mistaken in thinking that people who are strong atheists concerning the Abrahamic God are making a claim of faith.
The capital-G God is indeed impossible. No faith needed.
I don’t need faith to know that square circles don’t exist. Likewise I don’t need faith to know that a supernatural-omni-creator God doesn’t exist in reality.
Here’s the proof in multiple dimensions so you’ll know that no faith is needed:
a) Spiritual or Supernatural in a religious context means above nature, incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical.
Non-physical means no physical properties.
Physical properties are:
Dimensionality - spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.
Energy - radiation, mass, information, entropy, force, effect.
Therefore, for something to be spiritual or supernatural it must have zero dimensions, no energy, information, force or effect and not exist anywhere in the universe at any time - past, present or future.
b) An omni entity is a self-contradictory concept.
You can easily look up the myriad contradictions that arise from the usual claims of omni-whatever properties ascribed to the conjectured God.
c) The concept of a creator god is incoherent or undefined.
Space and time are physical properties of the Universe.
Whether or not space and time had a beginning, there is no before time where a cause could exist.
There is no time when the Universe did not exist.
Causation is a physical property of the Universe.
So the Creator God conjecture is either meaningful and false or nonsense.
If something contradicts the facts and/or itself it is provably false. No faith needed.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:48 pm 24.Denis Loubet said …
Not many atheists I know claim that there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any.
I think what you’re hearing is atheists calling you delusional because you believe in something for which there is no evidence. They don’t have to make the claim that gods don’t exist for that to be true.
And Mirriam Webster seems to agree with my definition of faith.
Since I have complete trust in nothing, I fail to see how this supports your position.
Some atheists are out there to save the multitudes. They see the damage religion does, and seek to reduce it by trying to convince the theists to free themselves from it’s influence.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 6:55 pm 25.Lou said …
V,
You have proven nothing other than you limited ability to detect and measure. You have faith that your five senses provides all needed detection and measurement. Highly unlikely and therefore you have proven only that you have faith. You have no clue what happens in the darkest regions of the universe.
According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.
Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 26.VeridicusX said …
I’m sorry Lou,
If someone says that God is The Quintessence of Square Circles, I know that it doesn’t exist.
See how that works? I don’t have to perform an exhaustive search of the whole Universe and every possible world.
“According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.”
I think I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t believe in the objective existence of any God.
I certainly don’t believe that a God can have physical properties while at the same time not having them, which is what is taught by the main Abrahamic religions and is what you seem to be suggesting.
How not believing in The Quintessence of Square Circles means that we should not even be here, I don’t know.
It seems that according to your conjecture, an [impossible] invisible, child molesting, mass murdering wizard in the sky wished everything into existence. Now that’s silly.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 27.Denis Loubet said …
I’m not V, but I’ll take a stab.
Yes, our ability to detect and measure is limited, I doubt you’ll get an argument there. And our five senses doubtlessly do not provide all needed detection, that’s why we try to supplement our senses through technology. I also doubt you’ll get an argument about not knowing what happens in the darkest regions of the universe. I sure don’t.
We’re unlikely, but here we are. So what?
Well, according to the bible, the god did conform to the physical universe for a time. Ended badly on a cross thingy. I agree it’s silly.
So, what super-senses do you have that allow you to detect this god-thing? And if you can’t detect it, what made you posit its existence in the first place?
on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:32 pm 28.Lou said …
V you can’t even stay on subject. You bounce from God to Christianity and back. Maybe you are ADD/ADHD but try to focus.
You really should put that in book form and prove this hypothesis to the rest of humanity. Any man that has all knowledge and the unlimited ability to detect, manipulate and solve all possible metaphysical scenarios is one fella who would be in great demand. You should consider, just for a moment, that all theist may have a reason for believing in God rather than just being delusional.
When a very small minority calls the vast majority delusional, the minority might need to take a look in a mirror…..or just maybe this is the greatest hoax in history, huh?
on 23 Aug 2009 at 9:30 pm 29.VeridicusX said …
OK Lou,
You got me there.
Lots of people believe in Square Circles, therefore rational people should too?
If you’ve decided to change the definition of God so that it isn’t the supernatural and/or omni and/or creator version or The Quintessence of Square Circles, then I can say nothing about it. Maybe you’ve decided that your gerbil is “God”?
I have no evidence that you have a gerbil, so I’ll remain agnostic about it.
Traditional theists have presented no valid evidence of any gods, only definitions which I have shown are provably incoherent.
Of course, I’ll suspend judgment or assign a probability to “gods” that we cannot prove or disprove or possible entities for which we have no verifiable evidence.
If you have a non-contradictory definition of God you’d like to share, I’d love to hear about it. Better still, if you can present some valid evidence I’ll make every effort to attend the presentation of your Nobel prize.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 10:45 pm 30.Lou said …
Oh no V, I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate. I don’t even do that for the planet compositions orbiting in the Messier 89 galaxy and they are comparable to your square circles!
But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist? If you have done this, maybe others could be saved? But if you want to attempt this feat, you need to stop with the silly square circles and attempt an honest analysis. Calling most of the world delusional just won’t cut it. Here is where you fall. Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?
I see you as one of those guys who doubts everything you can’t see. The Bah humbug of the world if you will I prefer to see many possibilities and discoveries that man can not yet imagine. I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:25 am 31.VeridicusX said …
“But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist?”
If you have any integrity, rebut my refutation - with reasoned evidence.
Who, what or where is this “he” to which you refer? Oh, that’s right. “God” is no longer the set of contradictory statements we’ve been told about for centuries and that I’ve clearly refuted.
“God” is now suddenly undefined…
“I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate.”
I’m sure you don’t, because you have no evidence of any such thing. You’re making it up.
You talk about honesty. Ethics and personal integrity require that we don’t believe things for which we have no valid evidence. Beliefs have consequences, beliefs determine behaviors.
Do I have to mention 9/11 or the people who have been in court recently for negligent homicide, due to “faith in God“?
“Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?”
I already know why people believe in “God”. And so do you. You keep on bringing it up.
It’s called indoctrinated fear and wishful thinking or “faith”. No magical mass murdering molesters required.
If you believe that you’ve won the lottery you will in all probability feel Really Good™.
It isn’t required that you’ve really won the lottery, only that you believe it.
Remind you of anything?
on 24 Aug 2009 at 6:05 am 32.VeridicusX said …
Lou,
“I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.”
You do realize that if your answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is anything other than “yes”, then you’re an atheist?
Certainly, your position is incompatible with the traditional “omni” God.
This particular God is supposed to be the necessary creator of the capital-U Universe, everything that could possibly not exist. As such is is supposed to be present in the history of every possible world.
If you suggest, as you have done, that there’s any possible world in which it doesn’t exist, then you don’t believe in it. [See Alvin Plantinga's "Maximality", the Ontological Argument, etc.].
on 24 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 33.Burebista said …
What is a traditional OmniGod? This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.
Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness. We may see the results but how can you prove scientifically that the conscious exists? But I would venture a guess you would argue you do.
Can you prove it? The same kind of proof you desire for God?
BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:15 pm 34.VeridicusX said …
Burebista,
If you don’t know what the traditional “descriptions” of God are, then you’re not equipped for this discussion.
“Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness.”
You’d better hope it can should you ever go into hospital for surgery.
“BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.
I don’t believe you.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm 35.VeridicusX said …
Oh, and Burebista,
Present a rebuttal. “I’m an idiot!” is not an argument.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:48 pm 36.VeridicusX said …
Burebista again,
“This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.”
A what?
You seem to be the one who’s confused. It’s impossible to know if any so-called “deity” is supreme. Even said so-called “supreme deity” can’t know. So I’d be interested to see what “the argument of a supreme deity” might be.
See Descartes, The Simulation Hypothesis, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 37.Burebista said …
Great argument. “I don’t believe you” The incredible Vee has the ability to know what everyone believes and feels. No need to go further with that idiocy. I didn’t use the argument you are an idiot, but you now make it fit.
A supreme deity is not a religious argument no more than SETI is since we have members of the scientific community taking up the task. ID offers up many possibilities in the realm of a supreme diety. I doubt you would look into them since I find many of you to be narrow minded and incapable of examining other lines of reasoning.
So, once again, prove the existence of the conscious. You do believe in the “I” don’t you? You attempt was lame and not believable.