Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was browsing through Youtube recently and came across this video that I found very interesting. I wanted to share it here because I feel it is a very compelling argument when it comes to the debate of the origin of life.
No. They actually destroyed the caller, but he didn't listen, but just (par for the course in these discussions ) steamed on with his argument and conclusions, even when they had been shown unsound and invalid.
The whole argument depends on
(1) IF Jesus rose from the dead (and in fact, there is good reason to say it didn't happen):
(2) If it happened, it might or might not be due to a supernatural cause or to a natural cause that was unknown or because of not really being dead, as in the case of apparently miraculous recoveries where it has been possible to check out the story.
While particular quotes are repeated again and again (1) with a Wow! They admitted...!" The explanation seems to have been ignored and the views of the caller pushed into their mouths as though they had conceded that Jesus' resurrection being miraculous, Life itself has to be miraculous.
Even if we cannot investigate Jesus' death now or provide a scientific explanation for what we cannot now investigate (and I repeat, there is no good reason to suppose it ever happened or that Jesus was actually dead) that in no way related to the case of abiogenesis, where again we don't don't know how it occurred, but there are scientifcally feasible models for it. Thus the caller's claim that it is impossible is bunk, and the claim that he talked to scientists and they couldn't give an answer is overdone.
If you think that somehow destroyed the atheists, you haven't listened or made an attempt to understand any more that caller Micah did.
IF Jesus was supernaturally resurrected from death then one could argue that the supernatural capability is there to cause supernatural origin of life.
That is actually the argument, but there is no evidence, reason or need to adduce the supernatural in either event and in fact I can give you chapter and verse to suppose that the supernatural is not needed, feasible or required for either abiogenesis or the claimed resurrection of Jesus.
(1) this is the old business of quotemining out of context. And the apologists for religion so often leap on this need to say frankly that there is a lot that can't be explained rationally or scientifically. That does NOT mean that some miraculous cause has to be the answer, only that the answer (which might be scientific), isn't known, yet), or the one about not being able to make a scientific evaluation of the resurrection claim. It is a historical claim.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-22-2013 at 05:58 AM..
I equate the caller with having a discussion with my 3 year old.
But for discussion purposes can you please give something more specific than "I found it to be a compelling argument"? What exactly did you find compelling? What points from that conversation are you talking about? Why do you agree with those points?
I equate the caller with having a discussion with my 3 year old.
Be fair, this was actually more on the level of a discussion with a 12 to 13 year old. I found it all akin to a debate such as "Would America have won the Vietnam War if we had sent Superman over there to fight the enemy?" The specifics of how Superman would have done are brilliantly dissected, the fact that there is no Superman conveniently and necessarily, ignored.
I was browsing through Youtube recently and came across this video that I found very interesting. I wanted to share it here because I feel it is a very compelling argument when it comes to the debate of the origin of life.
What are your thoughts on this?
Just another religious nut trying to plug god into what he thinks is a gap in human knowledge, the origin of life....Not compelling at all...By the way I watched it without all the biased overlaid text..
I equate the caller with having a discussion with my 3 year old.
But for discussion purposes can you please give something more specific than "I found it to be a compelling argument"? What exactly did you find compelling? What points from that conversation are you talking about? Why do you agree with those points?
Well, they both agreed that, as far as humans know, a person cannot come back alive after being dead for 3 days on their own without divine help. This leads to the logical conclusion that life cannot begin from nothing without divine help. So for life to begin its only logical to conclude that before it began, it was dead right? But if you don't agree it was dead before it began, then how do you explain life coming from nothing without divine help?
I think there are more arguments to gather from the video. I'll have to watch it again later when I get the chance.
Well, they both agreed that, as far as humans know, a person cannot come back alive after being dead for 3 days on their own without divine help. This leads to the logical conclusion that life cannot begin from nothing without divine help.
No, it does not lead to that conclusion at all.
Quote:
So for life to begin its only logical to conclude that before it began, it was dead right? But if you don't agree it was dead before it began, then how do you explain life coming from nothing without divine help?
The video I posted explains it...
Quote:
I think there are more arguments to gather from the video. I'll have to watch it again later when I get the chance.
You should watch the video I posted for you instead.... It explains how life did not start from nothing...It was a series of chemical reactions.
No, it does not lead to that conclusion at all. The video I posted explains it...
You should watch the video I posted for you instead.... It explains how life did not start from nothing...It was a series of chemical reactions.
Who created the chemicals for those chemical reactions? I watched the video you posted. The question still remains, how did life begin?
By the way, has anyone on this forum ever listened to this presentation by Hugh Ross? You can read it or listen to it at the link below.
Well, they both agreed that, as far as humans know, a person cannot come back alive after being dead for 3 days on their own without divine help. This leads to the logical conclusion that life cannot begin from nothing without divine help. So for life to begin its only logical to conclude that before it began, it was dead right? But if you don't agree it was dead before it began, then how do you explain life coming from nothing without divine help?
I think there are more arguments to gather from the video. I'll have to watch it again later when I get the chance.
You're making quite a leap with your conclusion. Because we currently have no explanation as to how someone can be rejuvenated after being dead for 3 days, it does not follow that the only explanation is a supernatural cause. There may indeed be a natural cause that science has yet to find that would explain such an occurrence. Still, there is no evidence that the resurrection of Jesus occurred, and much to suggest that it never did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) steamed on with his argument and conclusions, even when they had been shown unsound and invalid.
