(January 3, 2019 at 5:42 am)Jehanne Wrote:Yup and there is simply the fact their is no reason to think everything needed a cause(January 3, 2019 at 12:22 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none. If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me. I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter. I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it. The cause determines the effect, not the other way around. As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands? Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God" Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism. Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead. Might save me a headache.
It wasn't Pasteur's idea. He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments. The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it. So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.
The Universe does not need a cause any more than the spontaneous decay of a C14 atom needs a cause. Ergo, our physical reality is indudated with events for which there is no cause; this is why smoke detectors work for 10 or more years before having to be replaced.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb