Producing life from non living matter

[Jeremiahcp]

Since you claim it doesn't exist, then you have to prove it.

No, I don't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since you claim it doesn't exist, then you have to prove it.

He didn't claim that anything exists or not. He used the conditional form, the one using the word "if." He wrote, "If you wait for something that does not exist to feed you, then you are going to starve."

And he's obviously correct. I learned that truth in a slightly different form:

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Teach a man to pray for fish, and he starves.​

Next, there is no duty to prove anything, unless you want to be believed, and no possibility of proving anything to a person who has a stake in not seeing your argument.

Proving is a cooperative effort. It cannot be done without the cooperation of the one hearing the argument,. He must be willing and able to evaluate evidence and argument impartially, and to be convinced by a compelling argument.

Furthermore, proof is not the standard for belief. It's not mine, and it's not yours.

Your standard for belief regarding gods is faith, not proof.

Mine is compelling evidence and argument that need not reach the level of proof.

We cannot prove that the theory of evolution is correct, and feel no need to. The existing evidence is compelling, and it is considered overwhelmingly likely to be true. Believing it is justified even if unproven.

We cannot prove that the next apple dropped will fall, and feel no need to. Once again, the existing evidence is compelling. Believing that the apple will fall is justified even if unproven.

 

[FearGod]

He didn't claim that anything exists or not. He used the conditional form, the one using the word "if." He wrote, "If you wait for something that does not exist to feed you, then you are going to starve."

And he's obviously correct. I learned that truth in a slightly different form:

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Teach a man to pray for fish, and he starves.​

​

If he prays faithfully then God will guide him to learn fishing.

​

Next, there is no duty to prove anything, unless you want to be believed, and no possibility of proving anything to a person who has a stake in not seeing your argument.

God made a simple challenge which is creating a living creature as simple as the fly, do it and God's
will end forever and you'll win, what prevent us from doing it, God challenged all humans to gather
to create one fly, so it's very easy to prove that God doesn't exist, but the obvious fact that he does
but you hate to hear or to believe it.

Proving is a cooperative effort. It cannot be done without the cooperation of the one hearing the argument,. He must be willing and able to evaluate evidence and argument impartially, and to be convinced by a compelling argument.

If the argument make sense then why not to listen and to agree, as I said to you let's create one fly then
we'll end the story of God and you win.

Furthermore, proof is not the standard for belief. It's not mine, and it's not yours.

No, I need the proof in order to believe, blind belief isn't mine, that's me

Your standard for belief regarding gods is faith, not proof.

Not me, faith alone doesn't work with me.

Mine is compelling evidence and argument that need not reach the level of proof.

You have no evidence, but you have faith that God doesn't exist and I think that you even wish he doesn't.

We cannot prove that the theory of evolution is correct, and feel no need to. The existing evidence is compelling, and it is considered overwhelmingly likely to be true. Believing it is justified even if unproven.

I believe in evolution and I believe that life has been evolved, but you have to bring the evidence of how
mutations occurred that made evolution possible, how the DNA was made flexible and able to mutate,
was it just happen by nature without the need for a future plan, if you believe that then please don't speak
about science.

We cannot prove that the next apple dropped will fall, and feel no need to. Once again, the existing evidence is compelling. Believing that the apple will fall is justified even if unproven.

We don't need only seeing to believe, we can use our thinking abilities and mine doesn't see that
the unconscious nature is the reason behind this life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God made a simple challenge which is creating a living creature as simple as the fly, do it and God's will end forever and you'll win

That's not credible. Faith based thinkers don't reach their positions using evidence, and there is none that will move them from it. When the first life is created, they will tell us that it confirms the existence of their god.

No, I need the proof in order to believe, blind belief isn't mine, that's me

Also not credible.You believe in gods.

You have no evidence, but you have faith that God doesn't exist

That is incorrect. Next time, you might think to ask me what I believe rather than tell me.

you have to bring the evidence of how
mutations occurred that made evolution possible, how the DNA was made flexible and able to mutate,
was it just happen by nature without the need for a future plan

No, and I already explained to you why.

If you care to make an impact on a rational skeptic, it is you that needs to come up with the compelling evidence and supporting argument. So far, you just make the unsupported claim. That which is offered without evidence can be disregarded without rebuttal. No comment or argument that you make that assumes the existence of a god or gods is sound until you demonstrate the validity of your premises.

Those are the rules on this side of the reason/faith divide. They probably aren't your rules, but they are those of the people you are trying to convince, assuming that that is your purpose.

 

[omega2xx]

"why not God feeds us."

If you wait for something that does not exist to feed you, then you are going to starve.

God feeds His children spiritually with the Bread of life that came down from heaven. We have to work to literally feed ourselves and our family.

Man shall not live by bread alone but from ever word that comes from the mouth of God.

 

[Kirran]

God made a simple challenge which is creating a living creature as simple as the fly, do it and God's
will end forever and you'll win, what prevent us from doing it, God challenged all humans to gather
to create one fly, so it's very easy to prove that God doesn't exist, but the obvious fact that he does
but you hate to hear or to believe it.

Humans creating a fly wouldn't impact my faith in God one iota. It strikes me as a pretty fragile relationship with God which is destroyed by scientific advances.

If you experience God, then it's no longer about proofs and arguments.

 

[FearGod]

Humans creating a fly wouldn't impact my faith in God one iota. It strikes me as a pretty fragile relationship with God which is destroyed by scientific advances.

If you experience God, then it's no longer about proofs and arguments.

God is challenging the disbelievers and not the believers.

 

[Kirran]

God is challenging the disbelievers and not the believers.

But you do seem to be saying that God would be in some way "disproved" were scientists to create a fly.

 

[omega2xx]

Why do you think just because they failed before that they won't be able to do it in the future? Why do you think it is "beyond the pay grade of even the most intelligent man"? It can't just be because we haven't done it yet, can it? That seems incredibly short cited.

It is not because they failed, it is not because they are not very intelligent. It is because IMO, only God can create life out of what is lifeless. The fact that they are very intelligent and have all kinds of good equipment, seems to reinforce my opinion. I don't see where they have moved the needle one point in the direction of creating life.

 

[Kirran]

Also, dude - O people, an example is presented, so listen to it. Indeed, those you invoke besides Allah will never create [as much as] a fly, even if they gathered together for that purpose. And if the fly should steal away from them a [tiny] thing, they could not recover it from him. Weak are the pursuer and pursued.(22:73)

Isn't this talking about other deities, rather than about scientists and such? Who invokes scientists?

 

[ChristineM]

If you experience God, then it's no longer about proofs and arguments.

It can only be about faith because evidence for (or of) god is non existent.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not because they failed, it is not because they are not very intelligent. It is because IMO, only God can create life out of what is lifeless. The fact that they are very intelligent and have all kinds of good equipment, seems to reinforce my opinion. I don't see where they have moved the needle one point in the direction of creating life.

One piece of equipment they only have in very limited supply is time.

 

[Kirran]

It can only be about faith because evidence for (or of) god is non existent.

We each come at things from our own perspective.

Faith for me refers rather more to a relationship than to a kind of blind belief, which it is often taken to mean.

 

[ChristineM]

We each come at things from our own perspective.

Faith for me refers rather more to a relationship than to a kind of blind belief, which it is often taken to mean.

First line... Absolutely.

Second... Interesting.

 

[omega2xx]

That is incorrect. Progress has been made at every level from the spontaneous formation of the monomers of large biomolecules to the formation of protocells encasing RNA in lipid bilayers. A great chain is being assembled that, when complete, will connect us from simple molecules like water and methane to living cells capable of biological evolution. Many links are still missing, but new t new ones are found continually.

First of all spontaneous generation was disproved years ago. Second using what already has live, is not creating life from lifeless elements. So far all the links are missing and they will never complete a chain. If new links were being found continually, they would have already created life.

There is no reason to believe that man cannot create life de novo.

Until the do, ther is no reasons the assume the can. We know for sure they can't do it like God did---ex nihilo

Do you recommend that the abiogeneisis researchers quit their work and go find other jobs? I've asked the question before, and the creationists decline to address it.

I recommend quit doing anything that is a waste of time and money. They are intelligent men and women. It would be much better to use that intellect to do something that benefits mankind.

That experiment was not an attempt to create life, and it was a success.

Basically it was. It was an attempt to to create the beginning of life that would later develop into more complex forms of life as the TOE preaches. It was a complete failure, that is why it was abandoned at that time.

That is logically impossible. One cannot affect something that doesn't exist. All one can do is to rearrange what already exists. If the universe came into being, it did so using some prior substance that already existed - a substance capable of generating universes from a piece of itself. And there is no logical necessity for that substance to be conscious.

That is an amusing concept. Where did this prior substance come from? Does matter have the ability to create itself out of nothing?

While gods may exist - we cannot rule out the possibility - they are only one possible source of our universe, meaning that the idea is not needed. It's also not the best candidate hypothesis, it is unnecessarily complicated since it requires a conscious agent, which, in the hands of the Abrahamists, has been given a multitude of other qualities also not necessary to serve as a source for our universe such as omnipotence and omniscience. The multiverse hypothesis requires none of that.

Actually unless you want to claim matter, energy and life were eternal, it is the only viable hypothesis. If my only choice is that matter is eternal or God is eternal IMO, a perfect creation, needs not only an omnipotent Creator, but also an intelligent Designer.

]Proposing a god solves no problems. It's a vestige of a time when we couldn't conceive of any alternate hypothesis. It was alone on the list of candidate hypothesis.

It solves the problem much better than the options you just offered, which in no way points to what you just said, and for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Since then, others have been added that, like the god hypothesis, can neither be ruled in or out. If you've done that, then you've done so without justification.

If you have ruled out God, you have also done so without justification. My justification is that when an idea can't be proved/disproved logic requires that a creation must have a Creator.

 

[ChristineM]

Second using what already has live, is not creating life from lifeless elements. So far all the links are missing and they will never complete a chain. If new links were being found continually, they would have already created life.

I'm not replying to all your post, just this one section

Please note that the constituent s of dna, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine are lifeless chemicals.

 

[omega2xx]

Humans creating a fly wouldn't impact my faith in God one iota. It strikes me as a pretty fragile relationship with God which is destroyed by scientific advances.

If you experience God, then it's no longer about proofs and arguments.

Be specific, what scientific advances have destroyed God?

 

[omega2xx]

One piece of equipment they only have in very limited supply is time.

They need much more than time.

 

[Kirran]

Be specific, what scientific advances have destroyed God?

I was referring to the OPer's assertion that if a fly were to be created by humans it would disprove God. I disagree entirely with that, personally.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not replying to all your post, just this one section

That's fine. I limit my participation also.

Please note that the constituent s of dna, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine are lifeless chemicals.

Even more evidence that God did it.