1 Peter 3:15 Arguments

[heron]

I'm looking for valid arguments for the existence of God. I have yet to hear any. Not trolling, it's just that I can't possibly hope to hear all arguments from all people.

I am not convinced that you are looking for answers at all. What is the satisfaction in trying to refute, without listening? It seems to me a waste of time, or an opportunity to express vengeance for past experiences with Christians. If you want to find something out, then spend some time listening.

Debate is not a problem in Christianity, and counter-arguments will sharpen research skills. But you have resorted to insult, not debate. You are going nowhere in your pursuit of information. Maybe it is a different question that you need.

My comment on argument relates to religious intolerance.

People don't find God by deciding what they want in a God, and then declaring it correct. No amount of debate or argument will draw us closer to the person of God, but it might make us more knowledgeable of the religion. That is what others are trying to say.

Christianity places a strong emphasis on humility. (Even when it is not evidenced in contemporary proponents of the faith, it is still a core value.)

Millions of people have seen the work of God in their lives, including spontaneous healing and miraculous rescues. But telling you stories will not convince you of a reality that you can't see, and are not looking for. So it is not worth our effort to offer you examples, as you will shoot them down. These interventions are precious to us.

We have no need to convince you of anything. You are not looking to be convinced. We do not gain glory points, or get promotions for luring you into the religion.

The motivation for Christians to bring others into the faith is simply empathy. Wishing that others found what we had found. So if a non-believer does not want that, and it holds no appeal, then that is their decision.

I will leave you alone now, as distance from Christians is what you seem to want.

 

[gennaoanothen]

1st Peter 3:15 says:



I'm looking for valid arguments for the existence of God. I have yet to hear any. Not trolling, it's just that I can't possibly hope to hear all arguments from all people.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

 

[Maranatha27]

Hi leafy,

But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Why do I have this hope in me?

There was a fictional story that my favorite author H A Ironside told. A father was leaving home and his little child inqured when the father would return, the child still being very young, the father knew it would be of no use to tell him September, so he told him when the leaves on the trees change colors and fall to the ground, I will return. The child would walk with his nurse day after day ernestly inquiring about his fathers return. As the months passed the little boy didn't notice the leaves changing colors, untill one night there was a great wind storm. When the boy awoke the next morrning and saw all the leaves on the ground, he exclaimed " Daddys coming soon"

lol, thats paraphrased ofcourse.

This acurately describes the hope of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word of God is rapidly coming to completion. As I muse with my father we have a similar experience as that little boy. " Greg " he says "Look at this, Russia and Persia on friendly ground, just as the Word of God said it would be!" Then he quickly shuts of the TV because an almost porographic images bombard us. " Dad, what do you believe is the next event in prophecy is going to occur?" "The signs are all here that our Lord prophesied, the age of grace is nearing completion, God is again going to turn to His ancient people Israel and fulfill the last 7 years of Daniels prophecy." Dad, I asked "what will become of us when God turns again to Israel?" "Thoses that are sealed with the Holy Spirit, will have a front row seat in the balcony"

Leafy, The Word of God, the events in the World, the seal of the Holy Spirit in the midst of my being and the soon appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ is the reason for this burning hope.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I'm looking for valid arguments for the existence of God.

Hello Leafy,

I will try to answer your inquiry as best as I can. One argument comes to mind at the moment.

The Origin of Life. Where does life come from?

Does life come from non-life? How did lifeforms begin? Do you think it's possible that molecules bumped into each other one day and by chance formed the first proteins and cells? If so, why doesn't it happen anymore? How come there aren't any new lifeforms that just pop up out of the blue anymore?

Life does not come from non-life. Only life can bear life. The beginning of life started with Life (which is God Almighty). With that said, no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. One can only point toward evidence of God. After that it is up to faith and reason.


Sincerely,

Daniel

 

[314159]

Life does not come from non-life. Only life can bear life.

Where is the evidence to support this claim? All that is needed for life to begin is for a self-replicating molecule (think a simpler version of an RNA molecule, perhaps) to come into existence through a chemical reaction. After that, faulty replication and further chemical reaction can cause variation in the molecules, and natural selection will essentially only leave the molecules best suited to replicating to exist. This is of course speculative, but I want to show you that it is not impossible for life to come from non-life.

 

[314159]

Millions of people have seen the work of God in their lives, including spontaneous healing and miraculous rescues.

Perhaps even more have experienced a lack of a God in their life - consider the millions left malnourshed, disease ridden etc. Should this count as evidence against a God? It should if you are taking recovery from illness as evidence for him.

In fact, the existence of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God can be conclusively disproved by logic:

1) God is omnipotent.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God is omnibenevolent.
4) Somewhere in the world, a defenceless child is dying a painful death from an incurable disease.

We know for a fact that 4) is true. Now consider this:

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows of the suffering of the child, and has it in his power to stop the suffering, yet he does not, so if God is omniscient and omnipotent, he cannot be omnibenevolent.

If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, he knows of the suffering of the child, and would seek to stop it, yet he does not, so if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, he cannot be omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he has it in his power to stop the child's suffering, and would seek to do so, but he does not, so if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he cannot be omniscient.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Where is the evidence to support this claim? All that is needed for life to begin is for a self-replicating molecule (think a simpler version of an RNA molecule, perhaps) to come into existence through a chemical reaction. After that, faulty replication and further chemical reaction can cause variation in the molecules, and natural selection will essentially only leave the molecules best suited to replicating to exist. This is of course speculative, but I want to show you that it is not impossible for life to come from non-life.

The evidence is everywhere. Life strictly comes from life whether it be a human or an amoeba. Where are these self-replicating molecules? If they really existed how come this doesn't happen anymore?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Where is the evidence to support this claim? All that is needed for life to begin is for a self-replicating molecule (think a simpler version of an RNA molecule, perhaps) to come into existence through a chemical reaction. After that, faulty replication and further chemical reaction can cause variation in the molecules, and natural selection will essentially only leave the molecules best suited to replicating to exist. This is of course speculative, but I want to show you that it is not impossible for life to come from non-life.

How does speculation that something might be possible equate to proof? Has life been created in that process?
And even if science succeeded in creating self-replicating molecules that continued to "breed", in what sense are those molecules "alive". For that matter in what sense are bacteria alive?

I fail to see how it should really be easier to believe that series of events is more probable for explaining all life than a Creator?

 

[314159]

The evidence is everywhere. Life strictly comes from life whether it be a human or an amoeba.

This is not abiogenesis. The fact that life propagates by reproducing does not suggest that the origins of life came from life.

I think the misunderstanding you have here is that you think I am suggesting that the first forms of life were eukaryotic cells, such as the amoeba you have mentioned. Eukaryotic cells themselves are incredibly complex entities, which is why it is much more likely that some sort of simple self-replicating molecules were the origin of life, which then developed into more complex forms of life such as eukaryotic cells.

Where are these self-replicating molecules?

Examples of self-replicating molecules have been created in labs from non-organic material.

If they really existed how come this doesn't happen anymore?

Think about it, they don't have to be a common occurence. In fact, only one such molecule needs to have existed initially - if we start with 1 self-replicating molecule on day one, if the molecules self-replicate every day, by day 30 we would have over 1,000,000,000 molecules if none were destroyed.

 

[314159]

How does speculation that something might be possible equate to proof?

I never said it did.

Has life been created in that process?

Scientists have managed to create self-replicating molecules in the lab, if that's what you're asking.

And even if science succeeded in creating self-replicating molecules that continued to "breed", in what sense are those molecules "alive".

This is more of a philosophical matter than scientific. What constitutes "life" to you will undoubtedly by different to my definition.

I fail to see how it should really be easier to believe that series of events is more probable for explaining all life than a Creator?

On this point we differ.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

This is not abiogenesis. The fact that life propagates by reproducing does not suggest that the origins of life came from life.

Obviously, we see things very differently. We'll just have to respectfully, agree to disagree. Since all of the examples of life that we have around us comes from life (such as by reproduction), that surely suggests my perspective way more than it suggests your perspective. Is it a smoking gun? Of course not. It's evidence.

I think the misunderstanding you have here is that you think I am suggesting that the first forms of life were eukaryotic cells, such as the amoeba you have mentioned. Eukaryotic cells themselves are incredibly complex entities, which is why it is much more likely that some sort of simple self-replicating molecules were the origin of life, which then developed into more complex forms of life such as eukaryotic cells.

No, I understand what you mean. Amoeba was just an easy example to use at the moment. It is one of the simplest forms of life, yet so complex as you have stated.

Examples of self-replicating molecules have been created in labs from non-organic material.

The key word in this sentence is "created".

Think about it, they don't have to be a common occurence. In fact, only one such molecule needs to have existed initially - if we start with 1 self-replicating molecule on day one, if the molecules self-replicate every day, by day 30 we would have over 1,000,000,000 molecules if none were destroyed.

You are right in that these "special molecules" do not have to be a common occurrence to be true. They could at the minimum at least be an extremely rare occurrence. However, unfortunately for your argument, they have never been discovered nor has there been any evidence of any prior or current existence. There is more evidence for black holes and dark matter even though they have not even been definitively discovered. We know a little about these black holes and dark matter because of the surrounding evidence.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I never said it did.

My bad, usually when someone says " but I want to show you that it is not impossible for life to come from non-life." I tend to think they are indicating by using the word "show" that they have proved something or made a point. I was questioning that a point had even been made.

Scientists have managed to create self-replicating molecules in the lab, if that's what you're asking.

Am aware of the experiment being referred to. Am questioning that it shows me anything regarding "life". It perhaps shows me something about natural processes.

This is more of a philosophical matter than scientific. What constitutes "life" to you will undoubtedly by different to my definition.

Obviously, however even the scientists in question were careful to point out this was not life coming from non-life. Yet we have people referring to the report as showing us that "it is not impossible for life to come from non-life"
Apparently we also disagree on what constitutes a proof and maybe what show means.

On this point we differ.

Ok, Is it inconceivable or unimaginable the Creator made it all.

 

[314159]

Obviously, we see things very differently. We'll just have to respectfully, agree to disagree. Since all of the examples of life that we have around us comes from life (such as by reproduction), that surely suggests my perspective way more than it suggests your perspective. Is it a smoking gun? Of course not. It's evidence.

Just one last point I'd like to clarify here. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the fact that humans give birth to humans is evidence that God created humans?

No, I understand what you mean. Amoeba was just an easy example to use at the moment. It is one of the simplest forms of life, yet so complex as you have stated.

It is hardly a simple form of life. Think of the hundreds of organelles inside an ameoba, all doing seperate jobs and working together. A much simpler form of life would be a virus, which consists of some RNA and a protein coat.

The key word in this sentence is "created".

Granted, my argument would be stronger if they found the molecules lurking about in the wild, but it at least shows than the molecules can be formed without the need for a divine creator.

 

[314159]

My bad, usually when someone says " but I want to show you that it is not impossible for life to come from non-life." I tend to think they are indicating by using the word "show" that they have proved something or made a point.

Well, it has been shown that theoretically, life could come from non-life. That isn't proof that it HAS come from non-life, it just shows that it is a possibility.

I was questioning that a point had even been made. Am aware of the experiment being referred to. Am questioning that it shows me anything regarding "life".

Again, this is a question of how we define life. I'd be interested to know how more developed this molecule would have to be for you to consider it alive.

Apparently we also disagree on what constitutes a proof and maybe what show means.

In general, when the word proof is used in experimental science, it means that something has been shown to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. It mathematics, it means that something has been shown to be true.

Ok, Is it inconceivable or unimaginable the Creator made it all.

No, it's not unconceivable at all, I just think that an explanation of abiogenesis through natural process is all together a lot more likely.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, it has been shown that theoretically, life could come from non-life. That isn't proof that it HAS come from non-life, it just shows that it is a possibility.

I think the only thing shown theoritically from the experiments in question (and the article suggests it) is that it demonstrates a process by which it is then theorized the same process could generate life from non-life. Demonstrating a process is possible, and then exptrapolating that process to a completly different scenario (non-life-->non-life then to non-life---> life) does not address possiblity of the latter. It does verify the process is possible.

Again, this is a question of how we define life. I'd be interested to know how more developed this molecule would have to be for you to consider it alive.

Guess it could be a broad definition and depending on whether one was speaking scientifically or philosophically. I suppose a good sstarting point would be when we could speak of this self and that self, like this amoeba or that one. At that point one could differentiate between dead amoeba and live amoeba. While in some sense we could speak of bacteria as “growing” and perhaps alive under some definition, am not sure it makes much sense in that case to speak of individuals being either dead or alive.

In general, when the word proof is used in experimental science, it means that something has been shown to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. It mathematics, it means that something has been shown to be true.

Ok, but my point was addressing whether something had been “shown” to be possible, specifically non-life creating life. The experiment merely demonstrated a process and then the article suggests that process might be how non-life becomes life. It shows me a process is possible, and in this case a process involving non-life to non-life. Whether that same process is possible in the more important point has not been shown.

No, it's not unconceivable at all, I just think that an explanation of abiogenesis through natural process is all together a lot more likely.

Ok. So you can conceive of a Creator, just think a natural process is more likely to explain the life on this planet. Fair enough.
If natural processes could be proven to explain all life on this planet, guess my thoughts would be perhaps the Creator conceived of is not big enough.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Just one last point I'd like to clarify here. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the fact that humans give birth to humans is evidence that God created humans?

Glad you asked for clarification. No, I'm saying there is no evidence at all that life came from some "special molecule." There is no evidence whatsoever of this "special molecule." This is evidence to me that the origin of life is life and not a molecule. Only my perspective. Don't make the jump like you did in your question. Take my statements at face value. If I didn't say it then that is probably not what I'm saying.

It is hardly a simple form of life. Think of the hundreds of organelles inside an ameoba, all doing seperate jobs and working together. A much simpler form of life would be a virus, which consists of some RNA and a protein coat.

An amoeba is simple compared to you and me. Humans are the most complex of all creation. That is why I said, "one of the simplest." Extremely complex indeed. A virus would have been another example that could have been used as well. Yup, a virus is the most simplest form of life we know yet still so complex in molecular makeup that there is nothing non-living that even comes close.

Granted, my argument would be stronger if they found the molecules lurking about in the wild, but it at least shows than the molecules can be formed without the need for a divine creator.

How does it show that? Again, those molecules created in labs cannot and do not even come close to forming into life from scratch.


Just my perspective. I do not expect you to change your mind on this on the fly. But one day maybe you or some one else reading this thread may reconsider the possibilities or even the plausibilities.

 

[314159]

A virus would have been another example that could have been used as well. Yup, a virus is the most simplest form of life we know yet still so complex in molecular makeup that there is nothing non-living that even comes close.

Viruses are thousands of times simpler than amoebas. And I think an important point for me to raise is that the seeming complexity of the RNA found in a virus (or any living thing) can arise from the cumulative process of natural selection, so for me the argument of complexity isn't a convincing one.

How does it show that? Again, those molecules created in labs cannot and do not even come close to forming into life from scratch.

It shows that self-replicating molecules can be created in a lab, and if the same conditions of the lab were found in the wild, then there is no reason to believe they couldn't form in the wild.

Just my perspective. I do not expect you to change your mind on this on the fly. But one day maybe you or some one else reading this thread may reconsider the possibilities or even the plausibilities.

I'd like to say thanks for your patient responses, and also hope that one day you would also reconsider the possiblities.