The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Hypothetically, just a question...what happens to animals after death in your biblical view?

First, what does this have to do with the topics at hand?

Second, I don't know, as the Bible doesn't say much on it to my knowledge. Romans 8 speaks of the "creation itself" being liberated from bondage to decay in the end. Because of this I lean toward animals from this era being there, but it's not much to go on.

I just wondered how this animal, Immortal Jellyfish (wiki link), fits in God's bigger picture and if the animal relies on God's omnipotence.

Biological immortality

Most jellyfish species have a relatively fixed life span, which varies by species from hours to many months (long-lived mature jellyfish spawn every day or night; the time is also fairly fixed and species-specific).[12] The medusa of Turritopsis nutricula is the only form known to have developed the ability to return to a polyp state, by a specific transformation process that requires the presence of certain cell types (tissue from both the jellyfish bell surface and the circulatory canal system). Careful laboratory experiments have revealed that all stages of the medusae, from newly released to fully mature individuals, can transform back into polyps.[3] The transforming medusa is characterized first by deterioration of the bell and tentacles, with subsequent growth of a perisarc sheet and stolons, and finally feeding polyps. Polyps further multiply by growing additional stolons, branches and then polyps, to form colonial hydroids. This ability to reverse the life cycle (in response to adverse conditions) is probably unique in the animal kingdom, and allows the jellyfish to bypass death, rendering Turritopsis nutricula potentially biologically immortal. Studies in the laboratory showed that 100% of specimens could revert to the polyp stage, but so far the process has not been observed in nature, in part because the process is quite rapid and field observations at the right moment in time are unlikely.[3] In spite of this remarkable ability, most Turritopsis medusae are likely to fall victim to the general hazards of life as plankton, including being eaten by other animals, or succumbing to disease

Theoretically, this is animal is immortal. Is that the result of god's omnipotence?

[Esquilax]

Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real.

I agree with you. However, I've seen many atheists argue the opposite in context of evolution.

I think you might be misunderstanding: generally when arguing evolution our position isn't "what have you got that's better?" It's "your position isn't as strong as you think it is, and furthermore, disproving our position doesn't lend any additional credibility to your own." It's in answer to this false dichotomy that we atheists often see in theist evolution-deniers, where disproving evolution somehow equates, in their minds, to proving creation. When all it really would do is disprove evolution.

But then again, I haven't ever been in the same kinds of debates or arguments with you, so I don't really know, do I? Just trying to provide a bit of flavor

[John V]

I agree with you. However, I've seen many atheists argue the opposite in context of evolution.

I think you might be misunderstanding: generally when arguing evolution our position isn't "what have you got that's better?" It's "your position isn't as strong as you think it is, and furthermore, disproving our position doesn't lend any additional credibility to your own." It's in answer to this false dichotomy that we atheists often see in theist evolution-deniers, where disproving evolution somehow equates, in their minds, to proving creation. When all it really would do is disprove evolution.

But then again, I haven't ever been in the same kinds of debates or arguments with you, so I don't really know, do I? Just trying to provide a bit of flavor

There are those who say that a theory stands until a better theory takes its place, at least with regard to evolution. It's not a universal position - you're evidence of that - but it's not uncommon.

---

First, what does this have to do with the topics at hand?

Second, I don't know, as the Bible doesn't say much on it to my knowledge. Romans 8 speaks of the "creation itself" being liberated from bondage to decay in the end. Because of this I lean toward animals from this era being there, but it's not much to go on.

I just wondered how this animal, Immortal Jellyfish (wiki link), fits in God's bigger picture and if the animal relies on God's omnipotence.

Biological immortality

Most jellyfish species have a relatively fixed life span, which varies by species from hours to many months (long-lived mature jellyfish spawn every day or night; the time is also fairly fixed and species-specific).[12] The medusa of Turritopsis nutricula is the only form known to have developed the ability to return to a polyp state, by a specific transformation process that requires the presence of certain cell types (tissue from both the jellyfish bell surface and the circulatory canal system). Careful laboratory experiments have revealed that all stages of the medusae, from newly released to fully mature individuals, can transform back into polyps.[3] The transforming medusa is characterized first by deterioration of the bell and tentacles, with subsequent growth of a perisarc sheet and stolons, and finally feeding polyps. Polyps further multiply by growing additional stolons, branches and then polyps, to form colonial hydroids. This ability to reverse the life cycle (in response to adverse conditions) is probably unique in the animal kingdom, and allows the jellyfish to bypass death, rendering Turritopsis nutricula potentially biologically immortal. Studies in the laboratory showed that 100% of specimens could revert to the polyp stage, but so far the process has not been observed in nature, in part because the process is quite rapid and field observations at the right moment in time are unlikely.[3] In spite of this remarkable ability, most Turritopsis medusae are likely to fall victim to the general hazards of life as plankton, including being eaten by other animals, or succumbing to disease

Theoretically, this is animal is immortal. Is that the result of god's omnipotence?

I have no clue what you mean by "relies on god's omnipotence" or "result of god's omnipotence" with regard to this species.

You can say that any single-celled creature is immortal. What's that got to do with omnipotence?

[Esquilax]

There are those who say that a theory stands until a better theory takes its place, at least with regard to evolution. It's not a universal position - you're evidence of that - but it's not uncommon.

Oh, don't get me wrong, my position isn't tied to evolution or anything. If someone came along tomorrow with a paradigm altering scientific breakthrough that disproves evolution entirely, then I'll follow that theory, assuming the science checks out. My beliefs follow the facts, it's just that right now, the facts bear out evolution, and are so far a testament to how elegant and forward thinking the initial theory was.

I'll admit, sometimes it's hard to disengage from evolution and debate the facts rather than the theory, but that's more a human tendency to entrench oneself into a position, rather than any form of dogma.

[The Grand Nudger]

A theory of evolution does stand until a better theory is discovered or concocted. The brute fact of evolution stands regardless of whether or not any new theory comes along. In the absence of this fact there would be no need for a theory. To draw an elaborative and explanatory counter point, this is why creation hypothesis are DOA. There is no fact of creation to explain, and therefore no need for any theory. Revisions and refinements to the hypothesis could be made into perpetuity, and they will remain equally as worthless as the original.

[fr0d0]

I thought my position was quite concise. Let me try to rephrase... Anyone can make up rubbish: an unworkable hypothesis. But until you can come up with a workable model, you can't claim to have bettered anything. So I can't see what there is to defend here.

Your aeroplanes suck because my aeroplane doesn't crash. < problem with this hypothesis: non substantiated claim.

Oh, I'm sorry, was my alternate hypothesis not clear by the fact that my religious leanings are 'atheist' and that that is displayed right under my username? Well, I'll state it here: my alternate hypothesis is a universe without a god in it.

Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real. Taking your aeroplane example, I don't need to know anything about aviation to know that a plane with a wing broken off won't fly. Sure, providing an alternative is good and all, but when my entire position is simply that god is an imaginary frippery people add onto a very real world... what alternative could I provide that wasn't implicit in my argument? I'm saying your add-on makes no sense, and that no add-on is necessary. Yes, anyone can make up rubbish: why does my pointing out your made up rubbish require me to commit to the same level of dishonesty?

You don't have to buy what I'm selling, because I'm not selling anything at all. I'm just pointing out that what the church is selling kind of stinks.

I see you squirming. And so you should.

Don't make preposterous claims without some means to back them up. Burden of proof n all that.

It's been fun

[Ryantology]

I thought my position was quite concise. Let me try to rephrase... Anyone can make up rubbish: an unworkable hypothesis. But until you can come up with a workable model, you can't claim to have bettered anything. So I can't see what there is to defend here.

In four short sentences, you have explained precisely why every single argument in support of your faith is completely invalid.

Irony can be hilarious sometimes.

[Surtr]

I see you squirming. And so you should.

You haven't proved anything and yet you're prancing around pretending that you won.

Burden of proof n all that.

He explained his argument. I would (1) like to see the proof against it and (2) would like to know why you think your pointless whining creates a burden of proof against him.

Don't make preposterous claims without some means to back them up.

(this coming from a theist?)
You claimed that his argument was invalid, yet you did not explain how it was invalid.

[fr0d0]

Atheists... They look in the Mirror and they see perfection.

*sigh *

[Surtr]

Atheists... They look in the Mirror and they see perfection.

*sigh *

Talk about arrogant. If you seriously have nothing useful to say, you can fuck off.