Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Kenny]

No.

How is it different?

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

[RickD]

How is it different?

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

[Kenny]

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

[RickD]

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

[Kenny]

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

[RickD]

I've never claimed cells aka biological life has always existed, so I am not required to show that it has.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

[PaulSacramento]

You aren't going to answer my question are you. Again; is there anything of the material world that God didn't create? (a yes or no answer would be just fine)

God is directly AND indirectly responsible for all creation AND CHANGE in the universe.
If you understood the "first cause" and "Unmoved mover" arguments, you would understand that.

That ANYTHING exists, it exits because of God.
That anything comes into being OR changes from what it is to something else, it does because of God.

[Kenny]

Isn't that what you were arguing here?


You said that your view is scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical.

In other words, your view is that x, or cells, or life, has always existed.

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

[Kenny]

You aren't going to answer my question are you. Again; is there anything of the material world that God didn't create? (a yes or no answer would be just fine)

God is directly AND indirectly responsible for all creation AND CHANGE in the universe.

That is the point I was trying to make with the person I was discussing with. Thanks for making my point.

[RickD]

Just because If find #1 more practical than #2 does not mean I have proof that any of them are true.
BTW had I found #2 more practical, would you had called it faulty logic unless I had evidence that God exists and created cells?

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

[PaulSacramento]

Quite appropriate:
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what- ... tification

[RickD]

Quite appropriate:
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what- ... tification

That article may be more nebulous than Kenny's posts!

[PaulSacramento]

Quite appropriate:
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what- ... tification

That article may be more nebulous than Kenny's posts!

I won't say that.
It was clear on the clearness of the things it was clear on.

[Philip]

That article may be more nebulous than Kenny's posts!

Impossible, as such a thing is impossible to exist!

Course, Ken would say, "Well, just because we don't know something exists doesn't prove it doesn't!"

More nebelous than his posts? Nah!

[Kenny]

It doesn't mean that you have proof that any of them are true?

Didn't you say, "There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X"?

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?