Ask Me Help Desk - Before the Big Bang and God

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

May I ask another thing? So far science has not come up with the idea of how the very first cell was created no? So life as the Bible itself says must have been created directly by God

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the beginning it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

I didn't ask a metaphysical question. It was plain and simple physics.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Could you put it to me again please?

Tut

SO califdadof3 you are saying that life didn't require God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the begining it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?

He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis

He is a biblical literalist and believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, in other words, a Christian fundamentalist. And no, his "evidence" is not scientific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

You asked a question as to how science explains it. I had answered it. Then you try to inject words into what I have said. If you want to have a pure discussion then you will need to accept what is said and work with it. Not put other words in its place. I never said nor intimated that god didn't create. I just explained what science said about its own theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

All that website does is spout a opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen at least 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

All that website does is spout a personal opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen atleast 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

There is no proof. That's what faith is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

The proof is in the hearts and minds of the believers. That is enough to make it so. Some answers are beyond us and can not be explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddilla

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?

Well, again it is very difficult to prove the existence of non-physical things. My favourite way of trying to do this is through what has becomes know as knowledge arguments. Knowledge arguments outline a case against physical things being the only type of that that can possibly exist.

As you can appreciate most of my explanations so far have been on the rough side, but I think we have to start somewhere in trying to understand the issues.

Knowledge arguments are a little bit difficult and probably require a pretty good understanding of philosophy. However, if you want to Google: Knowledge Argument. Looking at the wikipedia article you will probably find that it is one of the best at an explanation.

Tut

The is a very basic falacy in what is stated here and that is mind or consciousness is the same as spirit. The human being is a tripartied beast.; body, mind and spirit. Difficult to prove I know but if I can hear my spirit, I do so with my mind