Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is necessary for life?

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:33:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

It is ridiculous, the probability applies to life, but then when they look at god, they don't apply the same standards, special pleading.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

Yes, even a one celled organism would be defying the laws of physics and biology if it came from non-life. How can God defy such laws? God is outside the universe, that does sound extraordinary but it makes more sense than something defying the laws of science with no other explanation.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact. There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us. Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory. Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:52:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:33:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

It is ridiculous, the probability applies to life, but then when they look at god, they don't apply the same standards, special pleading.

1 question: do you care about any other topic but religion? Really, you are to religion what ants are to sugar.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:02:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:52:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:33:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

It is ridiculous, the probability applies to life, but then when they look at god, they don't apply the same standards, special pleading.

1 question: do you care about any other topic but religion? Really, you are to religion what ants are to sugar.

Ants will mainly eat sugar if it is there, but they will eat most anything else if sugar isn't there and will eat meat and such for protein even if it is there.

Nitpicking ftw.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:04:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:48:10 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

Yes, even a one celled organism would be defying the laws of physics and biology if it came from non-life.

Not true. It's just that currently we haven't shown a good way for life to come from non life.

'We don't know how we fall down, ergo god makes us fall down" or "science doesn't know something! magic did it"

How can God defy such laws? God is outside the universe, that does sound extraordinary but it makes more sense than something defying the laws of science with no other explanation.

It certainly doesn't to me.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:06:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact.There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us.

Bold part=fail.

Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory.

See above.

Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

It shows that life can come from nonlife.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.

Then where did the life come from?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:32:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I think you are doing the question an injustice...

Do primitive life forms come from non-living things?
Do helicopters come from non-helicopter parts?

And on the subject of God... you need only ask...

Should I believe in an entity I cannot hear, see, smell, taste, or touch, and that supposedly exists outside of time and space, but loves me personally, and sent his jewish zombie son (that he magically put in a virgin) to die for some made-up wrongs that I hadn't committed yet?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:06:16 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact.There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us.

Bold part=fail.

Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory.

See above.

Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

It shows that life can come from nonlife.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.

Then where did the life come from?

If you haven't figured it out by now... Life is eternal.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:44:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact. There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us. Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory. Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...

Where did life come from?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 7:58:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:46:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...

Where did life come from?

Where did non-life come from?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:04:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:58:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:46:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...

Where did life come from?

Where did non-life come from?

The classifying of certain things as being either living or non-living.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:10:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

The question still remains: where did the life come from? That seems like circular reasoning...

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

So what. "Science doesn't know something, ergo God is true"

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...

That kind of stuff makes my head spin and I don't exactly see your viewpoint. I think I will just debate you on the forums.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 8:10:40 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:45:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
to seraine: I will debate you on the subject that life is more likely to come from life than non-life.

The question still remains: where did the life come from? That seems like circular reasoning...

You say where did life come from... I say where did non-life come from. It is more logical to conclude that non-life was created by life, as we can see that life creates. There is nothing logical to show that non-life creates.

So what. "Science doesn't know something, ergo God is true"

You think non-life came before life?

Ok then, where did non-life come from...

That kind of stuff makes my head spin and I don't exactly see your viewpoint. I think I will just debate you on the forums.

That "stuff" is all based on the Argument from ignorance fallacy, which in religious circles is referred to as the god of gaps fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:21:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:48:10 PM, BennyW wrote:
Yes, even a one celled organism would be defying the laws of physics and biology if it came from non-life. How can God defy such laws? God is outside the universe, that does sound extraordinary but it makes more sense than something defying the laws of science with no other explanation.

No, there are no laws in physics or biology that are violated when life arises from non-life.

The answer of God, is a cop-out.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:27:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

So because it doesnt make sense to you, therefore it must not be true?

We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact. There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us. Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory. Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.

Fail.

Humans can reproduce, and create artificial waves in water. Does this mean that the waves we see in the ocean must also be produced by life? This answer alone disproves your argument of "If scientists make life from a test-tube, it would still be life creating life!"

Just because we can recreate things in nature, doesnt mean that it cannot exist naturally.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:27:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:49:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
How is it ridiculous? Actuality is an infinite subject. Life may be just as eternal as non-life. There can be no beginning to anything, for the beginning would have had to come from somewhere....and so on and so on...until infinite.

What is your conclusion for thinking that non-life came before life? It would make more sense to me that life created non-life, or that non-life and life have always existed eternally. To think that life came from non-life doesn't really make any sense to me and I don't see any evidence to support the idea.

So because it doesnt make sense to you, therefore it must not be true?

No, just giving my take on the subject.


We can see that life is created from other life, it is a fact. There is not one slice of evidence to support life coming from non-life. If it were true, we would see it happening all around us. Even if we were to create the perfect lab environment and the perfect mixture of chemicals to create life, life would still have been created by life (scientists) and would prove nothing in favor of the theory. Scientists creating life in a lab is still life creating life. There is no getting around this fact.

Life comes from life, not non-life. That is the fact.

Fail.

Go and tell that to the woman who just became pregnant or to the living cells that self replicate.

And your proof for life coming from non-life is where? Oh yeah...there isn't any.

Humans can reproduce, and create artificial waves in water. Does this mean that the waves we see in the ocean must also be produced by life? This answer alone disproves your argument of "If scientists make life from a test-tube, it would still be life creating life!"

Just because we can recreate things in nature, doesnt mean that it cannot exist naturally.

Your example makes absolutely no sense. Fail.

Nobody said waves were produced by life.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:28:26 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:58:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
Where did non-life come from?

Non-life came from the big bang.

Oh really? Ok, then where did the big bang come from smart a$$?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How about we be specific.

What differentiates life from non-life?

Let's say there is a macro-molecule that, due to floating about and bouncing off other atoms, will occasionally clone itself in the same manner RNA can (without external help).

Is it alive?

Let's say that macro-molecule sometimes reproduces with mistakes, and that macro-molecules which more efficiently replicate will outnumber macromolecules that do no replicate efficiently.

Are they alive yet?

Now say the macro-molecules can not only replicate themselves but they can "express" traits like a big barrier enclosing a macro-molecule. These eventually become a lipid-bilayer just like those we see in cells today. Folding of the barrier lead to a special enclosure we call the nucleus.

Alive yet?

The macromolecules gain a metabolism, that is they exact processes meant to sustain replication. This includes harvesting energy from other molecules or even other self-replicating macromolecules (eating).

Alive yet?

Switch up the atoms in the macromolecule so that you nucleotides instead of whatever RNA-like compound was there. It replicates with mistakes.

Alive yet?

Where is the boundary between "life" and "non-life" that you find impossible?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:17:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 10:01:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
How about we be specific.

What differentiates life from non-life?

Let's say there is a macro-molecule that, due to floating about and bouncing off other atoms, will occasionally clone itself in the same manner RNA can (without external help).

Is it alive?

Let's say that macro-molecule sometimes reproduces with mistakes, and that macro-molecules which more efficiently replicate will outnumber macromolecules that do no replicate efficiently.

Are they alive yet?

Now say the macro-molecules can not only replicate themselves but they can "express" traits like a big barrier enclosing a macro-molecule. These eventually become a lipid-bilayer just like those we see in cells today. Folding of the barrier lead to a special enclosure we call the nucleus.

Alive yet?

The macromolecules gain a metabolism, that is they exact processes meant to sustain replication. This includes harvesting energy from other molecules or even other self-replicating macromolecules (eating).

Alive yet?

Switch up the atoms in the macromolecule so that you nucleotides instead of whatever RNA-like compound was there. It replicates with mistakes.

Alive yet?

Where is the boundary between "life" and "non-life" that you find impossible?

Consciousness and reproduction would be my answer.

I don't find anything impossible, not sure who you are talking to.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:46:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:42:17 PM, Tiel wrote:
No, just giving my take on the subject.
Sure, and your take just happens to be wrong.
Go and tell that to the woman who just became pregnant or to the living cells that self replicate.
Read the rest of the comment. I never objected to the fact that life comes from life.
And your proof for life coming from non-life is where? Oh yeah...there isn't any.

And your proof for life existing eternally is where? oh yeah... There isnt any.

And your proof for life coming from non-life is impossible, is where? Oh yeah... There isnt any.

Your example makes absolutely no sense. Fail.

Nobody said waves were produced by life.

Your inability to understand the example, is what fails.

You said, that a scientist who could create life in a test tube, would still be life creating life.

If a scientist uses natural methods, means, and materials, then this is infact something that couldve occurred in nature, without the assistance of a human being, or life. Just like waves in a water tank, and waves in the ocean.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:47:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:43:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:28:26 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:58:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
Where did non-life come from?

Non-life came from the big bang.

Oh really? Ok, then where did the big bang come from smart a$$?

It came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from, we have no idea, it couldve existed for eternity as far as we know.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 10:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 10:17:50 PM, Tiel wrote:
Consciousness and reproduction would be my answer.

I don't find anything impossible, not sure who you are talking to.

Single celled organisms arent conscious. They fail your criteria.

Sterile animals, such as Mules, cannot reproduce. They fail your criteria.

Care to give it another shot?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:30:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:48:10 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:32:38 PM, seraine wrote:
I have seen arguments for God along the lines of "It's impossible for life to come from non life, thus God must have created the first life" such as this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Note: this applies to creationists and theistic evolutionists.

However, that seems kind of stupid to me. What's more likely: a tiny, primitive bacteria with only rudimentary life comes out of non life or a vast, omnipotent, omniscient entity comes out of non life?

I'm thinking I should change to agnostic as I can't justify my belief in God right now...

Yes, even a one celled organism would be defying the laws of physics and biology if it came from non-life. How can God defy such laws? God is outside the universe, that does sound extraordinary but it makes more sense than something defying the laws of science with no other explanation.

A modern one celled organisim would be, because such things are incredibly complex with their own internal organs and systems, however this would not be the first life. Early life is almost indistinguishable from chemical interactions, to invent a God is an overly elaborate excuse.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 11:27:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:43:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:28:26 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 7:58:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
Where did non-life come from?

Non-life came from the big bang.

Oh really? Ok, then where did the big bang come from smart a$$?

Infinite regress... Where did god/life come from?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 11:29:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 10:17:50 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/9/2011 10:01:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
How about we be specific.

What differentiates life from non-life?

Let's say there is a macro-molecule that, due to floating about and bouncing off other atoms, will occasionally clone itself in the same manner RNA can (without external help).

Is it alive?

Let's say that macro-molecule sometimes reproduces with mistakes, and that macro-molecules which more efficiently replicate will outnumber macromolecules that do no replicate efficiently.

Are they alive yet?

Now say the macro-molecules can not only replicate themselves but they can "express" traits like a big barrier enclosing a macro-molecule. These eventually become a lipid-bilayer just like those we see in cells today. Folding of the barrier lead to a special enclosure we call the nucleus.

Alive yet?

The macromolecules gain a metabolism, that is they exact processes meant to sustain replication. This includes harvesting energy from other molecules or even other self-replicating macromolecules (eating).

Alive yet?

Switch up the atoms in the macromolecule so that you nucleotides instead of whatever RNA-like compound was there. It replicates with mistakes.

Alive yet?

Where is the boundary between "life" and "non-life" that you find impossible?

Consciousness and reproduction would be my answer.

I don't find anything impossible, not sure who you are talking to.

Bacteria=nonlife, because I am pretty sure bacteria don't have consciousness.