{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/23/2015 6:31:36 PM
7
Either matter and energy are eternal or there is an eternal God. That can go either way. But, life never has and never will arise from non life. Therefore, it's more plausible that there is an eternal living entity that created everything. Whether or not he used a mechanism like evolution is unknown, but naturalism has no basis in reality.
English
-
Technically speaking, matter and energy [i]are[/i] eternal, as they cannot be created nor destroyed; they merely take different forms.
-
[quote]Either matter and energy are eternal or there is an eternal God.[/quote] Depending on how "God" is defined, there is [u]zero[/u] reason to believe that it is a viable option. [quote]That can go either way. But, life never has and never will arise from non life. [/quote] But yet God is alive right...? Either way that is a bald assertion, which you make for no reason other than ignorance. [quote]Therefore, it's more plausible that there is an eternal living entity that created everything. [/quote] And here is your specially pleading, after stating life cannot arise from non life...How is that not a contradiction? [b][u]In any case what did God create life out of, if not non life?..[/u][/b] [quote]Whether or not he used a mechanism like evolution is unknown, but naturalism has no basis in reality.[/quote] I don't particularly follow naturalism as well. It holds the mindset you have. You both assert one or the other. X is 100% true, Y is 100% false, with little understanding or none at all. All it does is make people biased and cause tunnel vision towards what they want to be true. Rather than what is actually true. Which is better gleamed by evidence, rather than assertions of what is possible because they haven't seen it happen. Just my 2 cents :/
-
Why can't life emerge from non-life? Who ever said that it can't? Because while it is kind of silly to propose that a fully-developed, complex organism arose from amino acids, that's not the case for abiogenesis. Who says that simple, base lifeforms can't develop from amino acids?
-
It's never been observed and there is nothing more than speculation regarding it.
-
So that doesn't mean its not possible...
-
Just because it's never been observed it's not real? Same goes for God then.
-
There is a possible living entity but is it God?
-
Any other possibilities?
-
Well at the time of ancient civilization they would give a God to things they dont understand. I wouldnt be surprised if the term God is an understanding mechanism to describe a sort of intelligent Entity.
-
Yeah but there IS proof of Cristian God, My friend has proof:saw a hand print on someone's chest, as if to save him from falling and dropping a baby down a flight of stairs. I have proof: when I ask him something, I get a reply in my ears. What proof does anyone have of a void just exploding everything perfectly into place?
-
Not a void an intelligence similar to God If i were an atheist i would shrug off all of your proof.
-
If you were an atheist you'd be wrong
-
If you notice, though. The majority of ancient gods were attributed to things in nature: sun, moon, the ocean, the elements. The Christian God is outside of all that and is said to have created it. And he explicitly condemns the worship of nature.
-
But still If there were an entity, Not God but an entity called God would it be of nature?
-
I wouldn't call anything in nature God.
-
Possibly Take every god ever created in any Old Religion Or something we are oblivious to
-
[quote] they should understand what they reject.[/quote]
-
In a universe of infinite proportions mathematically speaking life had to exist from nothing simply because there are infinite possibilities
-
Space is not infinite.
-
As far as we know the universe is infinate
-
[quote]Either matter and energy are eternal or there is an eternal God. That can go either way. But, life never has and never will arise from non life. Therefore, it's more plausible that there is an eternal living entity that created everything. Whether or not he used a mechanism like evolution is unknown, but naturalism has no basis in reality.[/quote] Science disagrees. Where did they go wrong?
-
Cause I'm sure you did all the science for yourself like you experienced the times of The Bible too. You're just putting faith in one person over another.
-
Um.. Exactly what does it disagree with?
-
Edited by Donkey_Hotay: 8/23/2015 6:40:08 PM[quote]Um.. Exactly what does it disagree with?[/quote] That abiogenesis doesn't happen.
-
That's a wild speculation. It has no credibility.
