Life created by God

[Graham4C]

Hi everyone,

I have been thinking about this a LOT lately, looking for arguments for and against, but i think that the existence of God can be proved through deductive reasoning (this disproves Atheistic Evolution). I have posted it here because veiwers of this forum tend to be critical in analyzing arguments.
Please bear in mind that I am not arguing against Evolution, just that life cannot be without God.

Let me explain:


When observing a live body and a dead body, you will notice that both are physically identical. The dead body performs no operations, but both it and the live person have a nervous system, bone structure, and full set of organs. It is essentially comprised of basic proteins forming each of the 3 trillion cells in the body.

Thus, life cannot be physical. If it were, then the correct combination of human parts would render the person living. The dead person would not be dead at all if life were physical since it has a bone structure, nervous system, and organs all perfectly positioned.

Thus, if life is not physical, the humans cannot create it in a lab, or elsewhere, since we are indeed physical beings. As much as we put proteins, etc. together, we cannot make a living cell. We may be able to make a cell, but it won't be alive.

This follows that life cannot create itself either. If the pieces of a cell or body were all in exactly the right places, at exactly the right time, then it still would not be alive. Once more, the dead body can be used as the example here.

The only way, then, that life can be created is by something non-physical. This proves a spiritual God. Not a particular religion, but a higher power nonetheless.

All comments welcome,

Graham.

 

[Mallon]

Hi everyone,

I have been thinking about this a LOT lately, looking for arguments for and against, but i think that the existence of God can be proved through deductive reasoning (this disproves Atheistic Evolution).

This would not just disprove atheistic evolution, but atheism as a whole.

Thus, life cannot be physical. If it were, then the correct combination of human parts would render the person living.

Hmmm... have you been reading Frankenstein?
There's a lot more to being alive than just having body parts in place. You need blood flowing, neurons firing, cross-bridges forming, etc.

The dead person would not be dead at all if life were physical since it has a bone structure, nervous system, and organs all perfectly positioned.

Then why do physical causes (e.g. heart-attack, anurysm, lung cancer, etc.) have an effect on life?

If humans cannot create life, then life cannot create itself either.

Non sequitur.

 

[shernren]

I'm thankful that at least my doctor isn't into vitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism , even if you are.

 

[Graham4C]

I'm thankful that at least my doctor isn't into vitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism , even if you are.

"I'm thankful that at least my doctor isn't into vitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism , even if you are."

Sorry, I don't get what this has to do with Vitalism

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Thus, life cannot be physical.

this is the vital elan argument. the problem is that it is simply not persuasive, because the obvious difference between a dead body and a living one is that one is alive and one is dead. They are not physically identical. For example, in our legal definition of death, being brain death, the dead brain has no electrical activity in crucial areas of the brain. (see http://www.aacn.org/aacn/jrnlccn.nsf/0/5ebf8de743ead0fa8825674e005a8950?OpenDocument)
The fact is that a live brain and a dead brain differ with respect to physical quantities such as membrane polarity, charge and the activity of ion pumps that sustain it.

the immediate response to your argument is that life like consciousness is an epiphenomena, that is a property in emergence as levels of complexity are fashioned from networks and systems. when the underlying systems cease to function so do those levels above, in fact, they cease before the lower ones completely shut down.

but don't let that discourage you from your studies, what you are trying to do is thus far not accomplished by anyone, afaik, so you can be the first.

 

[random_guy]

Hi everyone,

I have been thinking about this a LOT lately, looking for arguments for and against, but i think that the existence of God can be proved through deductive reasoning (this disproves Atheistic Evolution).

Let's just stop right here. God can't be proved or disproved. That's why we must have faith in His existence. If we could prove God exists, then our free will disappears since we must accept that He exists.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let's just stop right here. God can't be proved or disproved. That's why we must have faith in His existence. If we could prove God exists, then our free will disappears since we must accept that He exists.

arminism trumps the existence of God.
persuasive argument from first principles?
only if human will trumps God's.
cute.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I think this one comes down to the crux of the matter in the difference between YECs and theistic evolutionists.

YECs see the process we know as life as being unnatural. God had to work against nature in order for life to work. I wonder where YEC's think the natural/physical universe came from if life needs some outside support to exist in spite of nature.

Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, see life as being perfectly natural. Accordingly, since God created nature, life is arises as a natrual consequence. The physical world was created by God with properties that allow for life to occur naturally.

In the view of the TE, nature is a part of God's will. To the YEC, God must come along and impose His will upon an uncooperative physical reality.

The OP has more to do with abiogenesis then evolution BTW.

 

[Deamiter]

Others have touched on the core issue, but what you seem to be saying is that because Humans cannot currently create reproducing organisms, reproducing organisms could not have arisen by natural means. Of course, in order to prove this (logically anyway) you need to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to create life (never mind defining life -- something that scientists, philosophers, doctors and lawyers STILL can't agree on)!

Since the whole logical argument revolves around the impossibility of creating life, you first have to define life, and then you have to PROVE that it is impossible to create life. The former is doable (though your definition would be rather arbitrary) the latter would be difficult as it is generally considered impossible to prove that something is NOT possible.

Anyway, I'd stay away from logic when it comes to trying to prove or disprove God. Science deals with probabilities and theories which rely on predictive power to gain acceptance, not proof. It's often said that proof is for math and alcohol -- perhaps it should stay there.

 

[shernren]

I think this one comes down to the crux of the matter in the difference between YECs and theistic evolutionists.

YECs see the process we know as life as being unnatural. God had to work against nature in order for life to work. I wonder where YEC's think the natural/physical universe came from if life needs some outside support to exist in spite of nature.

Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, see life as being perfectly natural. Accordingly, since God created nature, life is arises as a natrual consequence. The physical world was created by God with properties that allow for life to occur naturally.

In the view of the TE, nature is a part of God's will. To the YEC, God must come along and impose His will upon an uncooperative physical reality.

The OP has more to do with abiogenesis then evolution BTW.

I've just thought of a cute analogy. Imagine creation is a PC. (Woohoo!)

To the YEC, God is more like Bill Gates (and all the other people who put my PC together, but Bill Gates is the most visible person). Bill Gates writes up the software for Windows, gets someone to put it into my computer, and voila! the computer works. It keeps working and working and working on the same boring old set of instructions from here to kingdom come, and Bill Gates only ever gets involved when He (metaphor for God, hence capitalization) needs to fix something, whereupon He will write up an appropriate patch and install it into my computer so that it can work on its own again. Bill Gates only intervenes when something goes wrong, and He always intervenes through a patch that overrides what the computer used to do - i.e. a miracle.

But to the TE, God is the User. (The analogy breaks down quite badly here, as God clearly did put the universe together, in comparison to the typical user who doesn't put his/her computer together. The DIY enthusiast? Never mind.) Sure, the computer can run all by itself without the user - but that's an immensely boring proposition. The whole point of the computer is to be Used, and although every once in a while the User has to pry open the computer and mess with the innards and do something the computer could never do on its own, this happens rarely - in fact, the User is so good with the computer that it almost never happens at all. On more normal occasions, every time the User interacts with the computer and inputs data, there is no miracle or overriding of the computer's programming - in fact the User uses, instead of overriding, the computer's programming whenever He wants to Use the computer to do His Will. From within the computer it is not clear how the User intervenes, as the User is merely causing the computer to do precisely what it is designed to do and nothing more, but that doesn't mean the User isn't needed for the computer.

 

[notto]

You should read book on biochemistry. You entirely left out what we actually know about 'life'. Life is chemistry. If that chemistry stops - life stops.

If life is not physical, then how can poison kill us. Are you saying that poison effects this non-physical 'life'?

That isn't logical and contradicts actual observation.

You are simply grasping at straws and cherrypicking your terms and defintions.

 

[Graham4C]

"Let's just stop right here. God can't be proved or disproved. That's why we must have faith in His existence. If we could prove God exists, then our free will disappears since we must accept that He exists."

We are supposed to use our minds to determine God.
As for the free will, surely the free will is choosing whether to follow Him or not. If we werent supposed to know for sure He exists, why would He have come down to earth in full flesh?

Isaiah 1:18
18 ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’
Matthew 22:36–38
36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.’
Romans 12:2
2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
1 Corinthians 2:16
16 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[random_guy]

"Let's just stop right here. God can't be proved or disproved. That's why we must have faith in His existence. If we could prove God exists, then our free will disappears since we must accept that He exists."

We are supposed to use our minds to determine God.
As for the free will, surely the free will is choosing whether to follow Him or not. If we werent supposed to know for sure He exists, why would He have come down to earth in full flesh?

Isaiah 1:18
18 ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’
Matthew 22:36–38
36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.’
Romans 12:2
2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
1 Corinthians 2:16
16 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.

But one doesn't have to believe any of this to be true. It's just like we can't prove the Resurrection happened, but instead, we accept it on faith. If we could logically prove (let's not get into your logic) that God exists, then it would be pointless to not believe in Him any more than it would be pointless to not believe in 1+1=2.

 

[Willtor]

But one doesn't have to believe any of this to be true. It's just like we can't prove the Resurrection happened, but instead, we accept it on faith. If we could logically prove (let's not get into your logic) that God exists, then it would be pointless to not believe in Him any more than it would be pointless to not believe in 1+1=2.

I think freedom is in the choice to accept or reject the purpose God offers. Whether God is provable is another matter. Certainly, I think that any god who could be proven would be an idol, but the freedom that I value is not in determining whether God exists, but whether I follow Him. Consider the difference between Peter and Judas. Both believed that God existed, and I think it's likely that both thought Christ was His Son by the time they made their choices towards reconciliation and destruction, respectively. Thus, even if God were provable, this would not have influenced their decisions.

 

[Deamiter]

Oooh, remember that Jesus often would ask if a person had faith BEFORE he performed a miracle for them. He didn't come to prove God's existance -- he didn't come to get people to follow him because he could heal them! Jesus came to save us by his sacrifice!

You claim that Jesus came to show us that God exists. If that were true, wouldn't he try to perform most of his miracles for the unbelievers to change their minds? In fact Jesus reasoned with everyone he came in contact with and REQUIRED faith before he would "prove himself" as God.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

this is like that... "take a human apart, molecule by molecule, and you will never find what makes him alive" paradox... its also a bit like Xeno's paradox... the one about an arrow in flight and one at rest being essentially the same if viewed in an instant in time...

however, the flaw lies in the microscopic diofferences between the living and the dead body... because you simply will not find any dead bodies that don't have a pre-mortem pathology that leads to heart failure

 

[Smidlee]

Let's just stop right here. God can't be proved or disproved. That's why we must have faith in His existence. If we could prove God exists, then our free will disappears since we must accept that He exists.

This isn't supported by scripture since many in both OT and NT saw clearly the evidence of God's existance. God present was clearly shown to the children of Isreal but this didn't stop they from rebelling against God or Moses. Also knowing God exist doesn't have much worth as James pointed out. For even the devils know of God's existance.

 

[Smidlee]

Thus, life cannot be physical. If it were, then the correct combination of human parts would render the person living. The dead person would not be dead at all if life were physical since it has a bone structure, nervous system, and organs all perfectly positioned.

Thus, if life is not physical, the humans cannot create it in a lab, or elsewhere, since we are indeed physical beings. As much as we put proteins, etc. together, we cannot make a living cell. We may be able to make a cell, but it won't be alive.

A computer without any software can have the same physical hardware as a computer with software. It's the software that makes computers come alive in the sense it gives it purpose. It one sense you could say life is more than the physical as the same with information on a CD or DVD but physical life is still physical just as spiritual life is spiritual.

Javor (a creationists) puts it this way

"The key argument emerges from the biochemical understanding of what life and death are. Chapters 13 and 14 describe some of the unique properties of living matter in preparation for the main argument presented in chapter 15, which is that in living matter, all of the hundreds of linked chemical reactions must be in states of nonequilibria. Death occurs when the biochemical reactions of the cell reach their end point, equilibria."

So a dead cell is a cell that reaches equilibria. Thus living cells are in a race againest time and nature. The problem with man trying to make a cell alive is this race of nature to destroy it (equilibria) is a lot faster than our ability to creat it. It's like trying to stack 100 pencils on it's end while gravity is consently trying to bring down the stack while you are building it.

Hopefully this is helpful to you Graham

 

[shernren]

*grabs crisps and a recliner to watch the upcoming theological tussle*

I don't care if this whole God-is-provable business seems to be entirely in the wrong forum, this is the most exciting thing to have happened here since indels.

 

[Deamiter]

So a dead cell is a cell that reaches equilibria. Thus living cells are in a race againest time and nature. The problem with man trying to make a cell alive is this race of nature to destroy it (equilibria) is a lot faster than our ability to creat it. It's like trying to stack 100 pencils on it's end while gravity is consently trying to bring down the stack while you are building it.

Not quite I'd say. Scientists can make replicators that function with only the input of energy (usually heat) and the appropriate medium.

There's nothing (that we know of) that fundementally stops scientists from creating a cell. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that we do not yet understand the chemical processes well enough to be able to design a self-sustaining replicator, and we can't yet put together molecules precisely enough to build the living cells we KNOW would work.

There's simply nothing you can point to that would PREVENT us from creating life from chemicals. As of now, the only thing stopping scientists is a lack of technology.

It's entirely POSSIBLE that there is some basic barrier to our creating life (self-sustaining replicators). However, none has ever been identified.