tintingz:


Lol, what if humans can give life to the dead in the future? What if we know how death works? Like I said your arguments are appeal to ignorance!

If intelligent and conscious humans can give life to the dead in the future, then this will ONLY show that INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS is required for the miracle of Abiogenesis to take place. It would NEVER prove that unintelligent and unconscious nature has performed this miracle in the past .See how the hope of the atheists would continue to be shattered even to the end of the world !

Abdulgaffar22:

This is how I prove that universe is not eternal;

Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.
Why; for anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change. But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.
But the universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic ; for example, no part of universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak in the past. But now some part of universe (human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages. Therefore, universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.
From this we are able to deduce that universe (or nature) is not eternal because universe has undergone a drastic change.


Pls which point do you think is wrong from what is written above. Bring out this point and state the reason why it is wrong

Do you know what an infinite regress is?

And how did you arrive at this claim that anything that's eternal cannot have a change?

So by this logic, God is frozen for eternity?

Abdulgaffar22:


This is the reason why nature can never perform the miracle of Abiogenesis;


Abiogenesis is impossible for the "unconscious and unintelligent" nature because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"? Yes or No

You haven't answer my question, provide evidences why it's only supernatural being that can give life, what are your proof of supernatural being that give life?

Sometimes it's just better to say "I don't know" than making some ridiculous nonsensical claims.

Abdulgaffar22:


If intelligent and conscious humans can give life to the dead in the future, then this will ONLY show that INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS is required for the miracle of Abiogenesis to take place. It would NEVER prove that unintelligent and unconscious nature has performed this miracle in the past .See how the hope of the atheists would continue to be shattered even to the end of the world !

Oga, have you been to the past to verify what happened?

Are you making this up or you have proof for your claims?

Abdulgaffar22, again I will ask, if God is not caused then do you believe something can exist without a cause? If yes, does the logic of "something must cause something" still hold?

tintingz:




And how did you arrive at this claim that anything that's eternal cannot have a change?

This is how I arrived that anything that is eternal cannot have a change;

(a) For anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change.

(b) But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity.

(c) Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity.

Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

See how I have assisted you to divide my explanation into three points. Now out of these three points, which one do you think is wrong ?

tintingz:


You haven't answer my question, provide evidences why it's only supernatural being that can give life

There are only two options ; natural being or supernatural being.

But I have given a logical explanation that it is impossible for natural being like nature to give life to the dead. Here again is my explanation;

Abiogenesis is impossible for the "unconscious and unintelligent" nature because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"? Yes or no (answer this question ). Let me know what is wrong in this argument.

Therefore, if natural being cannot perform the miracle and we have only two options, then the only option left (supernatural) must do it.

tintingz:
Abdulgaffar22, again I will ask, if God is not caused then do you believe something can exist without a cause? If yes, does the logic of "something must cause something" still hold?

Yes, the logic of something must cause something still hold. But the series of something must cause something cannot continue indefinitely.
Let me use an illustration to buttress my point. Mr A need some amount of money and he needs to borrow this money from B. Again, Mr B needs to borrow from C. Again, Mr C needs to borrow from Mr D. You will agree with me that if this act of borrowing continue indefinitely, then Mr A would not be able to get the money. So one person along the series must have money of his own which he needs not to borrow from anybody.

So in similar manner, if the series of something must cause something continue indefinitely, then nothing will be caused into existence just like Mr A would not be able to get the money. So something must exist on its own without being caused into existence by anything just like one person along the series of borrowing must have money of his own which he needs not to borrow from anybody.

Hope everything is now clear; the logic of something must cause something still hold but the series cannot continue indefinitely. There must be something along the series which must not be caused into existence. This very something is eternal and infinitely old.
So this very something is either universe or God. But since universe is not eternal because of its changing characteristics ( see the previous post), then the only option left is God.

In conclusion, the logic of something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without a cause so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression).

Abdulgaffar22:


Yes, the logic of something must cause something still hold. But the series of something must cause something cannot continue indefinitely.
Let me use an illustration to buttress my point. Mr A need some amount of money and he needs to borrow this money from B. Again, Mr B needs to borrow from C. Again, Mr C needs to borrow from Mr D. You will agree with me that if this act of borrowing continue indefinitely, then Mr A would not be able to get the money. So one person along the series must have money of his own which he needs not to borrow from anybody.

So in similar manner, if the series of something must cause something continue indefinitely, then nothing will be caused into existence just like Mr A would not be able to get the money. So something must exist on its own without being caused into existence by anything just like one person along the series of borrowing must have money of his own which he needs not borrow from anybody.

Hope everything is now clear; the logic of something must cause something still hold but the series cannot continue indefinitely. There must be something along the series which must not be caused into existence. This very something is eternal and infinitely old.
So this very something is either universe or God. But since universe is not eternal because of its changing characteristics ( see the previous post), then the only option left is God.

In conclusion, the logic of something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without a cause so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression).

Lmao.

You can never cause something from nothing, you have something from prior causes, show me any cause that came from nothing, just one. You cannot have money on your own, you have money from prior causes.

See special pleading fallacy.

"Something must cause something" and at the same time "Something can exist without a cause".

This is just a pleading for your God and I don't argue with that nonsense logic.

Abdulgaffar22:


There are only two options ; natural being or supernatural being.

But I have given a logical explanation that it is impossible for natural being like nature to give life to the dead. Here again is my explanation;

Abiogenesis is impossible for the "unconscious and unintelligent" nature because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"? Yes or no (answer this question ). Let me know what is wrong in this argument.

Therefore, if natural being cannot perform the miracle and we have only two options, then the only option left (supernatural) must do it.

Just give me evidence of a supernatural being that gives life.

You claim something, provide your proof not some chit chat epistle.

Abdulgaffar22:


This is how I arrived that anything that is eternal cannot have a change;

(a) For anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change.

An eternal cause is not necessary for a change of something.

(b) But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity.

How did you know?

Well the universe can be eternal!

(c) Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity.

So this eternal entity does not have any prior experience? It does not think, reason, move?

Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

Such thing must either be frozen or non-existence.

See how I have assisted you to divide my explanation into three points. Now out of these three points, which one do you think is wrong ?

Everything is wrong with your premises.

tintingz:


Lmao.

You can never cause something from nothing, you have something from prior causes, show me any cause that came from nothing, just one. You cannot have money on your own, you have money from prior causes.

When did I wrote that something was caused by nothing ? I never said that. But if you insist I said so, pls quote my words from the previous post.

tintingz:


See Special pleading fallacy

"Something must cause something" and at the same time "Something can exist without a cause".

This is just a pleading for your God and I don't argue with that nonsense logic.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle without justifying the special exception.

But I have justified my special exception. Let me qoute my words again:

"the logic of something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without being caused by something so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)"

This is my justification;

"so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)".

But if you think that my justification is wrong. Here is another similar fact that looks contradictory but definitely true ;

" Professor must be certified by professor and at the same time one professor must exist without being certified by professor so that the series of professor certifying professor will not continue indefinitely(infinite regression)". Is this also a nonsense logic ?

Tell me the difference between this fact and the my words which read thus

" something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without being caused by something so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)"

So it is not a pleading for my God. Rather, it is a logical necessity so as to avoid infinite regression into the past.

tintingz:


Just give me evidence of a supernatural being that gives life.

You claim something, provide your proof not some chit chat epistle.

We have natural source and supernatural source as two options for the origin of life. I have proved that natural source is impossible due to law of entropy. You say nothing about this despite the fact that I asked you to logically refute my argument.

Now the only option left is supernatural.
But if you think it is not supernatural, then it is left for you to provide ANOTHER OPTION apart natural and supernatural source.

tintingz:
An external cause is not necessary for a change of something.

I have explained logically why only external cause can effect a change in something using an illustration of alkali and three drops of indicator ( see previous post).

Now you also explain logically how internal cause can effect a change in something using an illustration.

Abdulgaffar22:


When did I wrote that something was caused by nothing ? I never said that. But if you insist I said so, pls quote my words from the previous post.

When something is said to be caused from nothing, such thing does not have a cause it exist without a cause.

You argument is that something can exist without a cause which conflicts the logic something must cause something.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle without justifying the special exception.

But I have justified my special exception. Let me qoute my words again:

"the logic of something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without being caused by something so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)"

This is my justification;

"so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)".

But if you think that my justification is wrong. Here is another similar fact that looks contradictory but definitely true ;

" Professor must be certified by professor and at the same time one professor must exist without being certified by professor so that the series of professor certifying professor will not continue indefinitely(infinite regression)". Is this also a nonsense logic ?

Tell me the difference between this fact and the my words which read thus

" something must cause something still hold and the same time one something must exist without being caused by something so that the series of something must cause something will not continue indefinitely (infinite regression)"

So it is not a pleading for my God. Rather, it is a logical necessity so as to avoid infinite regression into the past.

You're still using the special pleading fallacy for your God. You just don't want to accept your God was caused therefore he needs to be exempted from the logical argument something must cause something.

A professor cannot cause itself to be professor, forget about infinite regress, nowhere a professor caused itself to be professor!

This argument is to point out the flaws in theists argument when they argue something must cause something and again want us to believe God was not caused.

You have to choose one, either something must cause something (which leads to infinite regress) or not everything has a cause and choosing both is a conflict and a paradox.

Abdulgaffar22:


We have natural source and supernatural source as two options for the origin of life. I have proved that natural source is impossible due to law of entropy. You say nothing about this despite the fact that I asked you to logically refute my argument.

Now the only option left is supernatural.
But if you think it is not supernatural, then it is left for you to provide ANOTHER OPTION apart natural and supernatural source.

I would rather say I don't know how life came to be than making up some mumbo jumbo claims you can't even prove.

Abdulgaffar22:


I have explained logically why only external cause can effect a change in something using an illustration of alkali and three drops of indicator ( see previous post).

Now you also explained logically how internal cause can effect a change in something using an illustration.

Everything that happens in the universe follow natural process, that's the causes we know that happened, the external cause you're talking about is your fairytale you're yet to prove.

tintingz:


Everything that happens in the universe follow natural process, that's the causes we know that happened, the external cause you're talking about is your fairytale you're yet to prove.

Is that your logical explanation of how internal cause can effect a change in something ?

If everything that happens in the universe follow natural process as you claimed, then explain to us how the following miracles follow a natural process;
1. Emergence of the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials.

2. Emergence of the first pair of male and female from asexually reproducing organisms

3. Emergence of a fully grown baby from a fertilized egg

Abdulgaffar22:


Is that your logical explanation of how internal cause can effect a change in something ?

If everything that happens in the universe follow natural process as you claimed, then explain to us how the following miracles follow a natural process;
1. Emergence of the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials.

2. Emergence of the first pair of male and female from asexually reproducing organisms

3. Emergence of a fully grown baby from a fertilized egg

I DON'T KNOW how life came to be and I don't need to fill my Ignorance with God-did-it, I don't make use of argument from Ignorant fallacy.

For all we know natural process is all we can observe, I don't know the external cause you're talking about.

tintingz:


I DON'T KNOW how life came to be and I don't need to fill my Ignorance with God-did-it, I don't make use of argument from Ignorant fallacy.

If you don't know how life came to be, then this
is my final advice for you;

# You must place your bet on either the existence of God or on His non-existence.

# If you place your bet on existence of God, you lose nothing even if it turns out that God does not exist.

# But if you place your bet on non- existence
of God you lose everything if it turns out that
God does exist.

# Therefore it is reasonable and logical to believe that God exists and then fill your ignorance with God did it

Good bye !!!

Abdulgaffar22:


If you don't know how life came to be, then this
is my final advice for you;

# You must place your bet on either the existence of God or on His non-existence.

# If you place your bet on existence of God, you lose nothing even if it turns out that God does not exist.

# But if you place your bet on non- existence
of God you lose everything if it turns out that
God does exist.

# Therefore it is reasonable and logical to believe that God exists and then fill your ignorance with God did it

Good bye !!!

So now believing in God should be place on bet?, if this is how desperate you're to believe in God, I'm sorry I don't follow that road.

I can't waste all my life believing in God and later found out there's no God up there, that will be some regret of my life. So yes I will loose something if my bet found out God doesn't exist, it's wasting of my Ghad damn time.

Filling my Ignorance with God is like saying another word for God is ignorance!

tintingz:


I can't waste all my life believing in God and later found out there's no God up there, that will be some regret of my life. So yes I will loose something if my bet found out God doesn't exist, it's wasting of my Ghad damn time.

If there's no God up there, there would be no resurrection. And If there is no resurrection, you would still remain as dust in the grave. As a dust in the grave, you have NOTHING TO REGRET about your life if you choose to believe in God.

But if God actually exist, there would be resurrection. And if there is resurrection, then you have EVERYTHING TO REGRET about your life if you choose to disbelieve in God.

So my brother think very well, your argument is not logical and reasonable! It is still better to believe in God than to disbelieve in Him

Abdulgaffar22:


If there's no God up there, there would be no resurrection. And If there is no resurrection, you would still remain as dust in the grave. As a dust in the grave, you have NOTHING TO REGRET about your life if you choose to believe in God.

But if God actually exist, there would be resurrection. And if there is resurrection, then you have EVERYTHING TO REGRET about your life if you choose to disbelieve in God.

So my brother think very well, your argument is not logical and reasonable! It is still better to believe in God than to disbelieve in Him

Lol, so if there's no afterlife when we die, then why wasting your time believing in God?

If there is afterlife, God may not be there to meet, we might be in another dimension and you will be regretting.

If there is afterlife and there's God, it won't be Allah, it will be FSM and he's going to punish you for eternity for being religious and believing in his creation Allah.

Think my brother, think.