[michealb]

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.

As I said you can make up a new word for how powerful god is if you want but it doesn't make sense to use those two. I don't see what the problem is. I mean if I was going to make up a god I'd at least make his powers make sense.

Of course millions of people fall victum to religion each year and follow men as gods without any proof or sense, so should I really be surprise when follow an unearthly god without logic or reason.

[Tj3]

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.

Sure, he could have taken away free will. But He didn't thorough His choice.

Now, can you address the questions at the start of this thread, or are you taking Cred's line that he knows the answers but won't tell us?

[michealb]

I'm taking the stance that for your particular objective it doesn't matter what answers I give because regardless of what I say your going to say that it is not possible and that god is the only solution. There for the answers to the question become irrelevant and we have to discuss the fallacy of your conclusion instead in order to move the debate along.

[inthebox]

Here are a few questions for you, not my own though.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

Evil was defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the cross! :D
God is all good, anything other than God is not good, or evil.
But we inherit God's righteousness, again, by the blood of Jesus. :)

[Tj3]

I'm taking the stance that for your particular objective it doesn't matter what answers I give because regardless of what I say your going to say that it is not possible and that god is the only solution.

That is not true. Remember, I am a former evolutionist. I defended evolution for years. I will examine whatever you put forward from a scientific perspective as I did earlier in this thread. You were unable or unwilling to respond to the rebuttals.

It is interesting that I am approaching this scientifically, and it is the atheists who chose to bring God into the argument.

[JoeT777]

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

c. 341–270 B.C. Greek philosopher held that good is defined by what feels pleasurable or avoids pain, conversely, what is evil or bad is defined as what feels bad or is painful.


Is God willing to prevent evil: this statement presumes that what we call “evil” is evil in the eyes of God. Christians would hold that sin (evil) is corruption of the human will, not what feels bad. “I directed my attention to discern what I now heard, that free will was the cause of our doing evil, and Your righteous judgment of our suffering it.” Augustine, “The Confessions (Book VII), 3. Thus we see that God’s creation is all good, even that of men who have a concupiscence. Then, where does evil come from, ‘As Augustine says (Contra Julian. i): "The Lord calls an evil will the evil tree, and a good will a good tree." Now, a good will does not produce a morally bad act, since it is from the good will itself that a moral act is judged to be good. Nevertheless the movement itself of an evil will is caused by the rational creature, which is good; and thus good is the cause of evil.’ Summa I, 49, a.1

But not able? : That is, some say, that God is not able to prevent evil. In response, given man’s concupiscent nature, it’s not God’s inability to cooperate with his good; rather it’s man’s error. Thus sin is permitted though our weakness. Even still, God provides his strength to overcome this concupiscent nature though cooperation with His will. To the argument that an omnipotent God can stop all evil pretends that he hasn’t already done so. He gives us his remedy through Jesus Christ who will conquer all evil.

Thus Epicurus’ argument becomes specious, and subjective to the nature of Epicurus: what feels good is virtuous, what feels bad is evil. In fact, since sin is the failure of man’s will we see that the argument can be rephrased:

Is Man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. [A true statement]
Is man able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. [A true statement]
Is man both able and willing? Then evil comes from man. [A true statement]
Is man neither able nor willing? Then he is a sinner. [A true statement]

Normally, we can’t come to know God independent of our experience (a priori knowledge) However St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides with a postpriori knowledge of God’s existence:

• Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
• For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
• The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
• The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e. an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
• The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

SOURCE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God

Consequently, we see once again a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Let's get back to the purpose of this question. Let's deal with the questions one at a time:

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

Answers anyone?

[JoeT777]

All:

Atheists often use evolution as an intellectual excuse for rejection of God. The ideology is that God didn't create man; rather he evolved from some primordial puddle of ooze. Some would extend this further, and say man then evolved to create God.

The Darwinian theory of evolution depends on mankind's ability to axiomatically define our observable surroundings and explain how sustained life can be perceived in nature without the aid of God. To do this, science depends wholly on mankind's ability to identify those things not perceived in nature and how they affect our measure nature. Thus, we can conclude that Darwinian science holds that to know absolute truth, one only need to know math, chemistry, physics, and biology; not to mention a dozen or so other natural sciences. These rationalist clerics of science have turned the supernatural question of “how did God make heaven and earth” into “prove that God made heaven and earth.” The problem with science's approach is best expressed by G. K. Chesterton observation, “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (1905 Heretics )

In 1953 Stanley Miller's experiment for the first time produced the basic building blocks of proteins necessary for all life; a primordial soup of amino acids in a strictly controlled experiment. The problem was that the experiment was conducted in a mixture of methane and ammonia not found in the prebiological environment. In 1983 the experiment was repeated by Miller using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen now thought to be the prebio conditions. The experiment failed to produce the goo of life. In 2007 the experiment was redone by chemist Jeffrey Bada; repeating the experiment again, this time changing the reactive mixture once again. This constrained experiment finally produced primordial soup. Only under strictest of laboratory conditions can the very basic building blocks of life be produced. But, beyond that science using Darwinaianism show how “intelligent” life is then derived. The probabilities of this being repeated in nature are slime to none (Pun was intended).

To date, science has failed to produce a realistic, repeatable, unconstrained theory explaining creation of the simplest of life forms. Furthermore, it cannot produce a plausible theory of how the first proteins evolved in nature. Even doing so, science would be faced with the enormous problem explaining how prebio conditions were stable and sustained for sufficient time for these basic proteins to form an amino acid linked in a group. Science's difficulties get exponentially enormous when explaining how this simplest of these linked chains remained in equilibrium to form genes that, to add more complexity, form chromosomal chains of DNA. Logically, we would expect the most simple of these chains to form first somehow, magically presumably; and then, change to chromosomes of sufficient self-knowledge to reproduce, first to a simple one cell organism, then to a more complex organism, finally through billions of years, billions of self initiated changes (a yet unknown process), morph into the one, and only one, sentient, self-aware being.

The scientist has thus far failed to explain how simple chains of amino acids, through successive changes, evolve into a complex animal or plant, they certainly can't explain how an amino acid chemically reacts with an agent to become self-aware.

As shown, the probabilities of man rising from a pool of primordial goo by chance are infinitely improbable, so much so as to be nonexistent; you would need a firm “faith” in the science to hold these views. In fact they are so improbable that only God could unravel the complexities. Therefore, it would be more intellectually honest to turn science back to measuring God's laws so as to define His creation, as opposed to asking nature to prove man created God.

Considering the inadequacies of science, my question to the atheist is how a sentient, self-aware being came into existence from amino acids, through natural selection, to become what we know as man? When, where, and how, do amino acids become aware enough to know that cell division is necessary to sustain life. It seems to me that cooperating with His supernatural grace provides the best answer; God created heaven, earth, and man; the how is only important in the need to know the details of His natural laws. Comments?

JoeT

[michealb]

I think you two are going a bit advanced for your knowledge of evolution and biochemistry so lets see if we can simplify it can get a few things we agree on.
Let see if you agree with this.

Every cell if we had sufficient technology could be broken down into non living chemical componets and if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

[JoeT777]

if we had sufficient technology could be broken down

Which was exactly one of my points.

if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

Atoms don't contain the chemical knowledge to coalesce to form molecules, which in turn form cells. Nor does DNA have the chemical knowledge to “come alive” or have sufficient awareness to multiply. Nor does chromosomal material have sufficient knowledge to be self aware. Show me in the chemical composition where chemistry ends and life begins. I'm waiting to see this one. Oh yes, pipe dreaming about having sufficient knowledge or technology doesn't cut it. So where does life come from in chemistry if it wasn't created? From the GOO?

JoeT

[Tj3]

I think you two are going a bit advanced for your knowledge of evolution and biochemistry so lets see if we can simplify it can get a few things we agree on.
Let see if you agree with this.

I would suggest that you take the time to deal with the issue rather tyhan making derogatory comments regarding the knwoledge of those about whom you know nothing. You may find that it is the opposite which is true.

Every cell if we had sufficient technology could be broken down into non living chemical componets and if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

Why do you not think that we have the technology?

Why is it that when tghese same checmical are brough together that life does not occur? What is it that gives life?

[Tj3]

Joe,

It looks like we were writing messages at the same time!

Great minds think alike. ;)

[michealb]

Yea... great minds... who both didn't say whether you agree that cells are made of atoms.

That's all I'm asking are cells made of atoms? It's a simple enough question.

I'll answer the other questions but first we need to get on the same playing field because if we can't agree on the basics I'm wasting my time trying to go any deeper than that.

[NeedKarma]

Atheists often use evolution as an intellectual excuse for rejection of God.

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

[JoeT777]

Yea...great minds...who both didn't say whether or not you agree that cells are made of atoms.

Please, spare me.

That's all I'm asking are cells made of atoms? It's a simple enough question.

I realize you have something very insightful to tell us, so let’s get on with it. Yes cells are made up of atoms.

I'll answer the other questions but first we need to get on the same playing field because if we can't agree on the basics I'm wasting my time trying to go any deeper than that.

It’s not likely we’ll be on the same page, but the suspense is killing me. But please don’t waste your time on my behalf.

JoeT

[inthebox]

JoeT777 - excellent posts 108 and 110 - thank you.


Michaelb:
Yes, cell are made of atoms.

Explain to me, how these atoms became a cell that can reproduce and carry information.

[michealb]

I'll assume Tj3 agrees with this as well. So we have something we agree on. Good.

I'll hand out three questions this time.

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

[inthebox]

MichaelB

Using this knowledge, why don't you produce a living cell from atoms and chemical reaction.

By the way... Frankenstein says Happy Halloween :D

[michealb]

Inthebox I'll get to why we aren't doing that later as I said. In order for you to understand the process we have to set up some preconditions first because without a certain level of knowledge, theories of abiogenesis are to complex. So we have to break it down. Which is what I'm doing.

[JoeT777]

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

NeedKarma:

I was relating to my own experiences; and yes atheists do, and have used, the Darwinian theory of evolution as argument that there is no God. Darwin's theories suggest a break in the chain of first efficient cause. Darwin's theories postulate that life was formed by chance - God isn't the cause of existence of life. As expressed here it's my opinion that the chances are so remote any formation of life should be considered an aberrant anomaly. Thus, evolution turns humanity into deviant abnormality; something not found in nature. Malformed life, anomalies, don't survive in nature long engough, or are unable to reproduce.

“Atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not”, is a meaningless analytic proposition; because It's precisely the fact that they don't believe in God is why they are called atheists. This wondrous bit of wisdom doesn't move us one point closer to Credendovidis' question; is there objective supported evidence for “God's” existence? My original post in effect stated that there is no scientific objective truth that proves the existence of God. In fact I found such a concept to be odd because God is spiritual and the only analytical tools available are temporal.

However, St. Thomas does illustrate a postpriori knowledge of God that can be advantageous to our understating of the cosmos. It's actually simple;

1) Everybody in motion was moved by a force from an unmovable being. By extending this we argue that universe was placed in motion by God. Can you provide an alternative?
2) Likewise, everything that can be conceived has an efficient cause. There is a finite order of efficient causes. God is that being for whom there is no efficient cause; which we call the first efficient cause.
3) At some point in time there was nothing in existence; as all things come into existence over time. Without a creator who existed in the beginning this becomes absurd. Therefore, we can conclude that the existence of God is of itself its own necessity and not proceeding from another things necessity.
4) The measured perfections of existence in the universe can only be understood in comparison with a real and absolute being as a standard, i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.
5) The perfect order of our existence in nature evidence of creation by a designer who directs all natural things to their end, of whom we call God.

JoeT