6 ms·

The existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of God. It is laughable that people think it is irrational to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus C

The existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of God. It is laughable that people think it is irrational to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ but then blithely believe that life itself was birthed from nothing for no reason. Natural Selection cannot even begin until life exists, which is like saying that you can't even start counting to one million until you're already at nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine. The existence of life is the only interesting question in the Universe because without life no other question can even arise.

Jedd 3y ago
I suspect everyone acknowledges the existence of life, but only a small subset of people think it's because of any particular god, so I'd argue your claim that the former definitely proves the latter. Objectively, a virgin birth is implausible, and consider that the first claim of this was made some 70 years after the alleged event, by an unknown author writing about people they had never met, nor so far we can tell, had ever talked to anyone who'd met any of the people involved. Then you have the contention around translations - virgin vs young woman, etc. So, we've got a distinct lack of evidence for any of that -- in comparison to some increasingly gap-reduced hypotheses around how life started on Earth. Someone else mentioned Nick Lane, and I'd recommend his work if you're genuinely curious. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/22/the-vital-question-nick-lane-review-secret-life https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/22/the-vital-ques...
- jononomo 3y ago
  Who said anything about any particular god?
  - Jedd 3y ago
    You did - you used the capital-g version of god, which suggests you had a particular one in mind, and you mentioned the unproven virgin birth of Jesus, who according to that particular mythology was the son of / the actual christian deity. Thanks for the suggestion on the book - looks like it was written by a couple of christians, is that right? I'll see if I can find a copy at the local library. Hopefully you get a chance to read some deep-science, non-partisan, non-orthodox books on the subject, like the one I cited.
    - jononomo 3y ago
      oh, get over it and face the science!
      - Jedd 3y ago
        What have I said that suggests I'm denying science? What have you said that suggests you're facing the science? I note you came in with 'life proves the supernatural'. This is not a unique claim, and repetition does not imbue it credibility.
        jononomo 3y ago
        By "science" I just mean clear, rational thinking that is based on empiricism and does not have a prior commitment to a particular metaphysics or worldview.
        Jedd 3y ago
        Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?
        jononomo 3y ago
        It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
- jononomo 3y ago
  I'd recommend the book The Stairway to Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check, if you're genuinely curious. https://amazon.com/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705/ https://amazon.com/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734...

Jedd 3y ago

I suspect everyone acknowledges the existence of life, but only a small subset of people think it's because of any particular god, so I'd argue your claim that the former definitely proves the latter. Objectively, a virgin birth is implausible, and consider that the first claim of this was made some 70 years after the alleged event, by an unknown author writing about people they had never met, nor so far we can tell, had ever talked to anyone who'd met any of the people involved. Then you have the contention around translations - virgin vs young woman, etc. So, we've got a distinct lack of evidence for any of that -- in comparison to some increasingly gap-reduced hypotheses around how life started on Earth. Someone else mentioned Nick Lane, and I'd recommend his work if you're genuinely curious. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/22/the-vital-question-nick-lane-review-secret-life https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/22/the-vital-ques...

jononomo 3y ago
Who said anything about any particular god?
- Jedd 3y ago
  You did - you used the capital-g version of god, which suggests you had a particular one in mind, and you mentioned the unproven virgin birth of Jesus, who according to that particular mythology was the son of / the actual christian deity. Thanks for the suggestion on the book - looks like it was written by a couple of christians, is that right? I'll see if I can find a copy at the local library. Hopefully you get a chance to read some deep-science, non-partisan, non-orthodox books on the subject, like the one I cited.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    oh, get over it and face the science!
    - Jedd 3y ago
      What have I said that suggests I'm denying science? What have you said that suggests you're facing the science? I note you came in with 'life proves the supernatural'. This is not a unique claim, and repetition does not imbue it credibility.
      - jononomo 3y ago
        By "science" I just mean clear, rational thinking that is based on empiricism and does not have a prior commitment to a particular metaphysics or worldview.
        Jedd 3y ago
        Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?
        jononomo 3y ago
        It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
jononomo 3y ago
I'd recommend the book The Stairway to Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check, if you're genuinely curious. https://amazon.com/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705/ https://amazon.com/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734...