For sake of good reasoning and common sense logic in order to produce LIFE from NON-LIFE and SOMETHING from NOTHING it requires more than the work of natural law therefore the NEED for SUPERNATURAL agent is the best explanation.
I was just wondering…why do we need a supernatural agent to create life which is a natural phenomenon?
There’s really a thin line between life and non-life. Nowadays, when we talk about life vs. non-life we are not talking about spontaneous generation…Gosh…that was in the olden days. We are not talking about frogs arising from damp earth, mice from petrified matter, insects from dew, maggots from decaying meat and humans from clay. No siree…we are talking about Alexander Oparin and J.B.S Haldene’s “Abiogenic Molecular Evolution”. Remember, there is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis that was backed up by the Miller-Urey experiment shows that life can emerge with non-life, and that is not impossible. Living systems are composed mainly on nonliving constituents: proteins, amino acids, pigments, water molecules, nucleic acids, and many others. Also some properties of living things are most likely shared by non-living forms: Example: Polymer and crystalline structures can replicate itself – just like DNA molecules. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
There’s really a thin line between life and non-life. Nowadays, when we talk about life vs. non-life we are not talking about spontaneous generation…Gosh…that was in the olden days. We are not talking about frogs arising from damp earth, mice from petrified matter, insects from dew, maggots from decaying meat and humans from clay. No siree…we are talking about Alexander Oparin and J.B.S Haldene’s “Abiogenic Molecular Evolution”. Remember, there is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis that was backed up by the Miller-Urey experiment shows that life can emerge with non-life, and that is not impossible. Living systems are composed mainly on nonliving constituents: proteins, amino acids, pigments, water molecules, nucleic acids, and many others. Also some properties of living things are most likely shared by non-living forms: Example: Polymer and crystalline structures can replicate itself – just like DNA molecules. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
Now what is supernatural anyway?
Supernatural is defined as being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Hmmmm is there a positive definition of it? Basic ontology tells us that to exist is to exist as something, to have identity, to have positive attributes. It is these positive attributes that give something a character.
Ok, ok...supernatural means something beyond normal. Eh...what is exactly beyond normal? Do we have any knowledge of something beyond normal? Hey if you can explain it, then that is still in the boundaries on normalcy. Supernatural in its context means “above” or “beyond” the natural so in its…er…weird sense when a person is talking about the supernatural, he is talking about something beyond the sphere or the scope of his knowledge (naturally, he is in the natural universe, isn’t he?).
Supernatural tell us nothing positive. To state the supernatural is to NOT provide us any answer. It is well…always shrouded in the unexplainable. To say that life needs a supernatural cause is to answer unintelligently about life. You cannot explain the source of life with reference to the unknowable… (My papaya naman! How can you explain the unexplainable anyway?)
Supernatural also commits the “stolen concept” fallacy. To define the "supernatural" it must steal a natural concept which, by its own admission, it is in contradistinction with. The “stolen concept” fallacy is the fallacy consists of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. So to say that something beyond nature, has a nature, is to steal the concept of naturalism...it doesn't make sense.
Supernatural tell us nothing positive. To state the supernatural is to NOT provide us any answer. It is well…always shrouded in the unexplainable. To say that life needs a supernatural cause is to answer unintelligently about life. You cannot explain the source of life with reference to the unknowable… (My papaya naman! How can you explain the unexplainable anyway?)
Supernatural also commits the “stolen concept” fallacy. To define the "supernatural" it must steal a natural concept which, by its own admission, it is in contradistinction with. The “stolen concept” fallacy is the fallacy consists of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. So to say that something beyond nature, has a nature, is to steal the concept of naturalism...it doesn't make sense.
So again...How can you explain to me the...er...supernatural? And I don't need Dean and Sam Winchester to prove it to me hehehe!
