Abdulgaffar22:


Yes it would sound foolish because we KNOW quite right that all living things (like elephant) began to exist and will cease to exist. But it would not sound foolish if it is something whose nature is UNKNOWN to us.

What is explained below is another way to see that it is more logical to assume that "something is eternal" than to assume that "something pop into existence from absolutely nothing"

1. For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.
2. Popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".
3. But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.
4. Therefore, there is no cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something. Hence popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

5.But when something is eternal, no "change" has occur. Therefore, no cause is required. Hence there is no way we can FALSIFY the existence of something that is eternal as we have done with the case of something popping into existence from absolutely nothing.

Hence assuming that something is eternal is more logical than assuming that something pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Going by your logic, an eternal something will not be able to exert any change since it does not experience change, therefore, your eternal something functions effectively as nothing.

Gggg102:


Going by your logic, an eternal something will not be able to exert any change since it does not experience change, therefore, your eternal something functions effectively as nothing.

Yes anything eternal would not exhibit any changing characteristics in its "essence" because there is no any external cause that can trigger such a change.

If such an eternal entity is impersonal being that lacks "free will" it would not be able to exert any change in anything all by itself just like any impersonal substance that lacks free will cannot trigger any change in anything all by itself.

But if such an eternal entity is a personal being that possess "free will" and "power", then such being can act as an external cause that will trigger the creation of another something (universe) from absolutely nothing. It is this very personal being with freewill and power that we call God.

Abdulgaffar22:
It is this very personal being with freewill and power that we call God.

That you call "God", Abdulgaffar22!

Or does your freewill and logic dictate your "personal" is what we all must call God""?

Abdulgaffar22:


Yes anything eternal would not exhibit any changing characteristics in its "essence" because there is no any external cause that can trigger such a change.

If such an eternal entity is impersonal being that lacks "free will" it would not be able to exert any change in anything all by itself just like any impersonal substance that lacks free will cannot trigger any change in anything all by itself.

But if such an eternal entity is a personal being that possess "free will" and "power", then such being can act as an external cause that will trigger the creation of another something (universe) from absolutely nothing. It is this very personal being with freewill and power that we call God.

Possessing freewill is exerting change, which will be impossible without a cause, using your logic. So an eternal entity can not have freewill.

As have been pointed out, your argument consists only of baseless assumptions that you mask as facts.

Gggg102:


Possessing freewill is exerting change, which will be impossible without a cause, using your logic. So an eternal entity can not have freewill.

As have been pointed out, your argument consists only of baseless assumptions that you mask as facts.

.

Since you have already accepted that it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing due to absence of cause to effect such a change, SOMETHING eternal must exist.

This very SOMETHING must posses some features. One of these features is "free will". He did not later acquire this feature. This feature is an intrinsic part of his nature. If the feature was later acquired by him, then we may be talking about the cause. But this is not the case.

Do you know that there are three major ways through which we can explain the existence of anything; 1. By necessity 2. By chance 3. By intelligent design. Pls do you agree ?

Here is another proof for God's existence;


Abiogenesis is the creation of the first living cell from non living materials through a natural process.


Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


As we can see from above, there is no way we can divorce the theory of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution because without abiogenesis, evolution cannot take place.


But abiogenesis is impossible because of the natural law of entropy.


Natural law of entropy simply says things tend to become disorder when left to themselves. For example, dead cells tend 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 are no way different from dead cells because both are "dead" already.

In fact, dead cells are 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 cells.

Now this is where I am going;

If natural law of entropy tends to cause the
DEAD CELLS 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 jumping to the level of
"living and self replicating cell" ?


Of course, a prevailing condition in one community (i:e natural law of entropy) which always prevent all secondary school student (i:e all dead cells) from furthering their education to a University ( i:e living and self replicating cell) would NEVER allow a student from the same community to now jump from primary school level (i:e non living materials) to the same University.


This is not the issue of the gaps in scientific knowledge being used as evidence for God. Honestly, it is a matter of logical reasoning if you really understand the simple English I wrote up there.


Even 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.


Therefore, if abiogenesis is impossible in a natural world (as we have just proved), then natural evolution has NOTHING to start with. This is how the theory of natural evolution collapses right from its foundation!



Hence, if evolution is really true as the evolutionary scientists want to us believe, then it must be orchestrated by a supernatural being.

The only reasonable candidate to occupy the sit of this supernatural being is God. Therefore, God must exist.