Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[DogmaHunter]

My premise is that we have endless mountains of events which clearly demonstrate that life comes only from life

That's rich.
If you are going to appeal to all the evidence at our disposal to then assert something else, then you are making a huge argument from ignorance right out the gates.

ie: "we haven't observed X happening, only Y, therefor X is impossible".

and so we are very justified in concluding that life comes only from life

No. Observing X happening is only evidence that X happens. It isn't evidence that Y does NOT happen.

because we have no other example of life coming from what you call abiogenesis.

That's technically not correct.
Fact 1: at one point, there was no life
Fact 2: then there was life

Conclusion: life originated in some way.

The question is "how".
You merely declare it to be impossible that the answer to that question is a natural process, but you cannot back up that assertion.

We disagree on that no one claims that a creator is impossible. The mocking replies whenever an ID is proposed proves otherwise.

The mocking is about people making assertions without evidence.

 

[Freodin]

We disagree on that no one claims that a creator is impossible. The mocking replies whenever an ID is proposed proves otherwise.

BTW

Again, please look up what inductive reasoning is and how it applies to logic and to the scientific method.

If we use your approach to inductive reasoning, we have indeed proven scientifically that a creator is impossible.

1. Life "comming from" life is not equivalent to "life creating life". A better expression would be "life replicating itself", or something along that line.
In that way, there is no observational evidence for "life creating life"... which of course means, using your approach to inductive reasoning, that it didn't happen.
2. "Life comming only from life" - in any variant - means that any "creator", being "life", needs to have come from other "life"... which you inductively conclude to be a "creator". So instead of there being "a creator", we not are faced with an infinite regression of creators.
But an infinite regression of creators isn't only not based on observational evidence, it contradicts observational evidence.
So, based on inductive reasoning, it didn't happen.

See, inductive reasoning as it applies to logic and to the scientific method shows that there isn't "a creator".

Or maybe, just maybe, you might understand that inductive reasoning isn't infallible, something that is known to those who practice logic for centuries.

I said it before, and you chose not to respond to that: "Any form of inductive reasoning that ignores the - observed or logically inferred - existence of contrary arguments is necessarily flawed."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. Life "comming from" life is not equivalent to "life creating life". A better expression would be "life replicating itself", or something along that line.

Yes indeed; 'coming from' and similar terms are commonly equivocated to describe both the creation and the replication of life, falsely equating genesis with reproduction (could it be related to the common ID'er confusion between abiogenesis and evolution, one wonders?)

 

[KCfromNC]

One such example I've given earlier somewhere: We know information always comes from intelligence. We know this from observation. A computer program came from intelligence. It contains millions of bits of information.

A random string of the same length will have even more information. That doesn't mean that the static you hear when you're between radio stations was put there intentionally.

That same line of reasoning can be said of DNA. If life just evolved from random processes, how do you get such sophisticated levels of information such as we see in DNA?

Natural selection, drift, recombination and so on. It's a good example of a non-intelligent process producing information. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[Ken-1122]

There must be an eternal first cause,.

AN eternal first cause? Why can't there be multiple eternal first causes?

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

AN eternal first cause? Why can't there be multiple eternal first causes?

Ken

Because that doesnt align with the story.

 

[Hieronymus]

AN eternal first cause? Why can't there be multiple eternal first causes?

Ken

I think there can be.
The Godhead (YHWH Elohim) is a unity in plurality, kind of..

 

[Ken-1122]

Because that doesnt align with the story.

I think there can be.
The Godhead (YHWH Elohim) is a unity in plurality, kind of..

What about the possibility of multiple non-intelligent matter existing as a first cause?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Because that doesnt align with the story.

Oh yeah that's right; it's his story, and he can tell it any way he wants! Got it.

 

[Freodin]

What about the possibility of multiple non-intelligent matter existing as a first cause?

Ken

Impossible. Doesn't sound good enough.

But "a unity in plurality"... wow, that is a deepism! Must be something to it.

 

[Cearbhall]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it. To explain the opening statement for those who don't understand it, in order for anything to exist it must have come from somewhere, as a void could not produce anything. There must be something that has always been, in order for anything to be, the question is: what is it?

It's a rabbit hole of a question, in my opinion. Even if you say that there's a Creator, how did that Creator get there? And so on and so forth. I have no answer. I'm not satisfied with making something up about a being that didn't need to be created. Seems like a cop out.

 

[Ken-1122]

Impossible. Doesn't sound good enough.

I think it sounds great! Why do you say it doesn't sound good enough?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

It's a rabbit hole of a question, in my opinion. Even if you say that there's a Creator, how did that Creator get there? And so on and so forth. I have no answer. I'm not satisfied with making something up about a being that didn't need to be created. Seems like a cop out.

Good point. If the rule is "in order for something to exist it must have come from somewhere" that will also apply to the creator, first cause, or whatever explanation he comes up with. If he is going to break the rules for HIS explanation; everyone else can break the rules for theirs which makes the original claim void.

Ken

 

[Freodin]

I think it sounds great! Why do you say it doesn't sound good enough?

Ken

It is definitly not deep enough.

Good point. If the rule is "in order for something to exist it must have come from somewhere" that will also apply to the creator, first cause, or whatever explanation he comes up with. If he is going to break the rules for HIS explanation; everyone else can break the rules for theirs which makes the original claim void.

Ken

People try to get around this problem by claiming: "Yes, but we know that things like this must have come from somewhere. Things like this do not come from nothing, or exist eternally. Things different from this - like a deity / creator - is extempt from this rule."

They don't recognize that things like "the universe" or "space-time" is also not quite in the same category as the other "things like this" they use as examples. And that "a creator" is too much like these "things like this".

 

[The Cadet]

I think there can be.
The Godhead (YHWH Elohim) is a unity in plurality, kind of..

How 'bout 5?

 

[Ken-1122]

It is definitly not deep enough.

Not deep enough? Really??? Is that the best explanation you’ve got? Look! If you want your claim to be taken seriously by anybody other than yourself, you need to provide evidence to support your claim other than your own unsupported subjective opinion concerning the likelihood concerning this first cause.

People try to get around this problem by claiming: "Yes, but we know that things like this must have come from somewhere. Things like this do not come from nothing, or exist eternally.

How do you know this? Please explain how you know this.

Ken

 

[2 know him]

It's a rabbit hole of a question, in my opinion. Even if you say that there's a Creator, how did that Creator get there? And so on and so forth. I have no answer. I'm not satisfied with making something up about a being that didn't need to be created. Seems like a cop out.

In the end, the only absolute fact we have is conscious awareness of our existence, everything else may be no more real than our dreams are real. To speculate on the makeup of our beginning, being outside of factual evidence, is the problem being addressed.

I get it, you have a defensive mechanism in you that has the need to protect yourself from the pain that others have caused you who have claimed a belief in God, but that doesn't mean there is no God. Again I assert, that there being a God actually makes sense and it is a theory based upon the factual evidence of consciousness being the only thing we can be sure of and therefore eternal consciousness being the eternal first cause is the wisest assumption/theory one can make.

I have laid a premise down for my statement of claim and I would be more than happy to hear from one of you who has a better claim, based upon reasonable factual grounds, rather than having absolutely no factual premise behind your words. If you are just looking to talk about nothing: why come to a theological forum? Outside of conscious awareness you have absolutely nothing of certain quantifiable substance.

 

[The Cadet]

Again I assert, that there being a God actually makes sense and it is a theory based upon the factual evidence of consciousness being the only thing we can be sure of and therefore eternal consciousness being the eternal first cause is the wisest assumption/theory one can make.

...That seems like a complete non-sequitur. Why would we make that assumption?

 

[2 know him]

...That seems like a complete non-sequitur. Why would we make that assumption?

Fact: all you can prove is the existence of consciousness. Theory: God is the Eternal first cause which is conscious. Why would I not make that assumption?

 

[Freodin]

Fact: all you can prove is the existence of consciousness. Theory: God is the Eternal first cause which is conscious. Why would I not make that assumption?

That is indeed a non-sequitur.

You might be able to make the point that "the existence of consciousness" can be proven... though that would not be completely correct.
You can start from Descartes, and go with the "cogito, ergo sum" line... but that wouldn't be "proof", and, most importantly, it wouldn't "prove" anything but the existence of my consciousness.

To conclude from that to the existence of other consciousnesses, an eternal consciousness, and this eternal consciousness as "first cause" is not given.