Attributes of the Abrihamic God - further disproof

[Godschild]

Ah,I never said that God had no free will but that it was limited so that He would honor our choices,He has at many different times blessed me when I did not merit such. I am and will always be grateful to God for His grace.Because of His grace I do not have to merit anything to be blessed,if I had to earn my blessings then they would be nothing more than a payment and personally I like surprizes.God will act in our lives for many reasons some we understand some we do not and it is to glorify Him which I accept for my life because I believe there is a greater good than my desires.

Now,I have a question for you and remember I'm not a scientist so keep the language to the level of a layman:You asked someone on another post how humans arrived on this planet my question to you is this how did life first come into being on this planet?

[PipeBox]

Ah, that's an answer that would require a great deal of explanation, though.  See, if I give you a really simple answer, it will sound incredible to you.  You will poke and prod it and call me out on a weakness only present because I'm simplifying it so greatly.  And then I answer, and you'll reply, and we'll eventually end up deep in scientific terminology, and a rather complex final answer.  Nonetheless, I'll try to give you a simple answer.

Life is, when you get right down to it, a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions.  We're not made out of aether, as it were, but the same elements that make everything else.  Life arose out of the barest, smallest self-sustaining chemical reactions possible.  A 32-amino acid chain is capable of self-replication, and there may be even smaller.  So all you need is that sequence out of all the reacting molecules of the prebiotic era.  Given the size of the planet, that's a lot of chemistry all going on at the same time.  Clearly it worked.  It's likely we'd be able to watch it happen again and again if it weren't for the fact that modern, well-evolved bacteria suck up all the useful bits, "eating" anything they can.  Free amino acids and brand new primitive life wouldn't stand a chance on Earth now.

If you want the really simple, utter bastardization, all the worlds oceans and muds were the "Primordial Soup," and really, really, really simple single cell life developed somewhere under the governing forces of chemistry and then started spreading out to wherever the components needed to replicate could be found, the oceans being ideal.

[Man-ofGod]

I've been talking with a friend of mine about the three apparently 'Perfect aspects' of the abrihamic god, Omnipotence, Omnicience and omnibinevolence.

The first of them, omnipotence can be removed with the 'Immovible Object' argument

Wikipedia - Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.

This shows that Gods power isnt infinite, just very high

This also disproves Omnicience as for god to be all knowing, he would have to know everything that is going to happen in the universe. For this to happen, God would have to have infinite capacity for knowlege. The only way to do this would be to have infinite power. I think you can work out the rest.

Or in algebreic terms:
Gods power = x
All time = a
all knowlege = k

a*k = infinity
x =/= infinity (as shown in the 'immovible object' argument)
.'. x =/= ak

As for Onmibenevolence, if God created an immovible object, it would have to have infinite mass, creating a dip in the space time continuum so steep that the whole universe would be destroyed
now thats what i call love  :brick:

Ryy  

A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

[joeactor]

A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

god does not fit in a box, or for that matter a book

there are many levels to infinity

--- end transmission ---

[SSY]

[
A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

[Godschild]

Nonetheless, I'll try to give you a simple answer.

Life is, when you get right down to it, a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. We're not made out of aether, as it were, but the same elements that make everything else. Life arose out of the barest, smallest self-sustaining chemical reactions possible. A 32-amino acid chain is capable of self-replication, and there may be even smaller. So all you need is that sequence out of all the reacting molecules of the prebiotic era. Given the size of the planet, that's a lot of chemistry all going on at the same time. Clearly it worked. It's likely we'd be able to watch it happen again and again if it weren't for the fact that modern, well-evolved bacteria suck up all the useful bits, "eating" anything they can. Free amino acids and brand new primitive life wouldn't stand a chance on Earth now.

If you want the really simple, utter bastardization, all the worlds oceans and muds were the "Primordial Soup," and really, really, really simple single cell life developed somewhere under the governing forces of chemistry and then started spreading out to wherever the components needed to replicate could be found, the oceans being ideal.

OK you made your point about simplfing the answer,I believe I can handle a bit more of the scientific wording,isn't it true that the atmosphere on earth at the moment that life supposedly began was not conducive to allowing amino acids to form?

I would send a Love to all in Christ Jesus but it seems that is not proper why I don't know it never was meant to be offensive.I have always ended my e-mails and ect. this way even to my nonchristian friends.Hope this will be more acceptible.

[Phillysoul11]

So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

Most Christians believe that they can understand god only as much as he reveals himself to them, either through special or general revelation. An example of general revalation would include nature and the universe ect. An example of special revelation would be the bible. You can only understand as much as he wants  you to understand ect.

[PipeBox]

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Godschild.  We've found complex organic molecules, namely amino acids, form under a very wide range possible prebiotic atmospheres.  I can't find any source other than creationist websites purporting the idea that the atmosphere was unfit.  Namely, they accuse that it was too caustic; that there was too much oxygen, and it would destroy any biotic precursors.  They have no experimental data to back this up (demonstrating how unlikely organic molecules are under their choice atmosphere, even, rather than a likely one), and we know for a fact there was far, far less oxygen in the atmosphere then.  It was primarily carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with trace amounts of oxygen and noble gases.  So if you were asking a more specific question about the atmosphere at the time, I'd ask you to be a bit more specific.

The best part is that is likely as anywhere else (arguably quite a bit more likely, Dr. Jack Stozak's model is well regarded) that the first life formed deep under the oceans around hydrothermal vents.  If life did form in the deep waters, then the atmosphere had no bearing, though it still was suitable by all indications.

Oh, and I don't have any problem being wished love in Jesus's name, but it's a statement that is so whored out I have trouble believing there's anything of substance there, similar to when people end conversations with "God bless," it seems more a way to end a statement than to express an actual sentiment.  Well, that, and it's a little weird wishing someone love by proxy.  If you wish us well, don't be afraid to wish us well on your own.  It doesn't bear less weight to us, it just makes us more inclined to believe it is authentic, and it also doesn't hurt knowing that you're doing it as a person who would/might still do it without a belief in God.  After all, saying "God's making me wish you well," just doesn't have a good ring to it.  Hope that makes sense.  But we're not gonna chase you off the board for a sentiment or a turn of phrase.  

[SSY]

So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

Most Christians believe that they can understand god only as much as he reveals himself to them, either through special or general revelation. An example of general revalation would include nature and the universe ect. An example of special revelation would be the bible. You can only understand as much as he wants  you to understand ect.

Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

[bowmore]

If you want some logical inconsistencies, I recommend the Epicurean Paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able, whence cometh evil?
If he is neither willing nor able, why call him God?

The problem this one runs into is that it's up to you to define evil.  That may not sound like a problem, but there's no all-encompassing objective definition (hmmm, isn't that strange, theists?).  God may not allow any true evil in the universe, or it may be an absolute minimum of evil.  Still, the paradox raises good questions, even if it isn't a true paradox while evil is undefined.

That's not really a problem. Most religions admit evil exists (i.e. that what their god regards to be evil). For christianity it is sin.
Christians will readily agree that sins are evil, and that sins exist.

[Godschild]

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Godschild. We've found complex organic molecules, namely amino acids, form under a very wide range possible prebiotic atmospheres. I can't find any source other than creationist websites purporting the idea that the atmosphere was unfit. Namely, they accuse that it was too caustic; that there was too much oxygen, and it would destroy any biotic precursors. They have no experimental data to back this up (demonstrating how unlikely organic molecules are under their choice atmosphere, even, rather than a likely one), and we know for a fact there was far, far less oxygen in the atmosphere then. It was primarily carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with trace amounts of oxygen and noble gases.

My source is Walter L. Bradley,PH.D. Bradley was speaking about Stanley Millers experiment that was based on a theory by Alexander Oparin.I'm sure you are familiar with it so no need to give any details except for the atmosphere he used which was ammonia,methane and hydrogen.Bradley said this type of atmosphere would be conducive to forming ammino acids and it was as far as the experiment went.However Bradley said that NASA scientist have shown that the primitive earths atmosphere was carbon dioxide,nitrogen and water.He stated that these inert gases will not react in a way to form ammino acids and that recent experiments have shown this to be true.I'm not a chemist but from my use of CO2 and N2 these gases would not be considered caustic.

I'm not one who uses Christ's name flipantly the ending to my replies is to show that I care about others no matter what they choose to believe God has respect for everyone and I'm a child of God so I do the same most of the time,human,not perfect.

About the deep ocean vents I've read that the heat coming from them would destroy complex organic compounds.I need to follow up on Jack Stozak's model.

To me all the other endings sound,well you know not right,not right for me anyhow so... to all here's lookin at ya!

[PipeBox]

Actually, I wasn't terribly familiar with Walter Bradly before now, I'd just seen his research sourced several times.  He's a scientist to be sure, and carries a degree in engineering science and a doctorate in materials science, both from the University of Texas in Austin, which makes me wonder why I don't see the non-reducing atmosphere argument (that the atmosphere wasn't caustic enough; that it lacked catalytic gases and instead was far too inert) more often, especially since it was only recently upset.

Walter Bradly is right about the difficulty in catalyzing biotic materials in the environment of his choice, but he does little in consideration of exposed catalytic metals on Earth's surface (nickel and iron, namely), where even nitrogen may catalyze hydrogen [1].  But the early Earth's atmosphere no longer meets his predictions, the most recent research being completed in 2005, where we found both that there was far less hydrogen escaping from the atmosphere than previously thought [2], and that there was a great deal of outgassing from chondrites [3], meteorites still falling in massive quantities in the wind-down from planetary accretion.  Nevermind that even in a perfectly nonreducing atmosphere, large quantities of local atmosphere would still reduce, such as in the vicinity of volcanoes.

Finally, hydrothermal vents are great for starting life off (possibly)!  Not only do they spew chemicals ranging from sulfur to iron, the heat helps get things mixing, and provides energy for endothermic chemical reactions to take place (not that they necessarily needed to, early on).  Intense heat could serve as a mutagen for early RNA, but since it isn't very advanced, it has little to "fear" from random mutation.  Even modern RNA may remain functional with 30% of its bits switched out, which is why you'll never see creationists arguing it is irreducibly complex (that is to say, the wildcard aspect of much of its amino acid chain still serves a purpose no matter how much you mess with it, within reason).  If you were implying that it was simply too hot around the hydrothermal vents, primitive archaea dwell around the vent mouths even now, feeding off them (chemosynthesis) and providing an ecological base much akin to what photosynthesis is for us light-dwellers, and even fatty acid vesicles are stable in almost boiling conditions.  But convection currents would repel RNA from the worst of the heat (try getting a hot air balloon to hit its burner after it's already running full blast), not that it needs the protection, and help early "strains" to spread around.  Eventually convection would bring them back near the vents, too, as this super-primitive life would not have any other means of locomotion.    So again, the atmosphere may not even be a necessary component for early life, but it being possible for life to develop on the surface remains a possibility and a boon to abiogenesis hypotheses.

By the way, I found this to be a wonderful video based on Jack Szostak's (sorry, I was spelling by memory before) model:

[youtube:172luuix]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:172luuix]

Sorry if it got too complicated, every one of those sources is an eyeful (they always are!), but I'd rather give you links to the relevant sources than just claim plainly that Walter Bradley's science no longer applies to prebiotic Earth.  Again, ask anything and I'll try to help your understanding, though we're fast approaching the current limits of mine.

[SSY]

Pipebox has become my favorite poster on anything regarding evolution or abiogenesis.

Do you have any formal training in this?

[Phillysoul11]

Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

Not sure where you got the first part from, or for that matter the second. Maybe you were responding to someone else.

[PipeBox]

Pipebox has become my favorite poster on anything regarding evolution or abiogenesis.

Do you have any formal training in this?

Thank you, and I do not have any formal training in biology, just a lot of interest.  I try to keep up with biology and cosmology, though cosmology feels like a lost cause trying to keep up with, lately.  There are so many models, and so many things yet left wanting of experimental verification, and so much that makes my head hurt just trying to gain some slight glimmer of understanding.  I'm starting to prefer biology where the facts are far more concrete, and where the math is easier, but I'd still rather read and contemplate on the cosmos.  I prefer interstellar hydrogen to zebrafish, what can I say?  I'll read on pretty much any topic you put in front of me, though.

But all of this is off topic, and I wonder of the science post didn't kill another thread.  
So many of these have been left unanswered.  I hope the creationists are at least reading.