Originally posted by josephwThere you go again with the Evolution saying life originated by X, Y or Z.
Try to use reason FMF. Fundamentally, reduced to the LCD, there are two opposing world views concerning the origin of life.
The one, evolution, is based in conjecture, speculation and unproven theories. The assertion is that life appeared by chance from matter composed of energy, of which no explanation for its existence is known, only that it has always ...[text shortened]... is unreasonable for one to claim something isn't true when he himself doesn't know what is true.
When will you get it through your thick skull evolution has NOTHING to say about origin of life issues.
Evolution. Analyze that word. Evolve. Evolution studies how life changes, NOT how it managed to show up on Earth.
Repeat: Evolution studies how life changes not how it got to be here. But you religious types INSIST on conflating the two separate scientific studies into one science. It is not, most DEFINITELY not.
Life origins is a science discipline and they pretty much care less about what evolved from what. They want to know how life arrived and that is all.
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you do not know the origin of life, why is a 'creator' not an option?
There you go again with the Evolution saying life originated by X, Y or Z.
When will you get it through your thick skull evolution has NOTHING to say about origin of life issues.
Evolution. Analyze that word. Evolve. Evolution studies how life changes, NOT how it managed to show up on Earth.
Repeat: Evolution studies how life changes not how it go ...[text shortened]... much care less about what evolved from what. They want to know how life arrived and that is all.
Probably because you are biased so firmly against the 'Bible God' and man made religion, as you often say.
Originally posted by chaney3I do not know the origin of life. By your reasoning, must I also therefore consider a giant omnipotent octopus as a possible option?
If you do not know the origin of life, why is a 'creator' not an option?
Probably because you are biased so firmly against the 'Bible God' and man made religion, as you often say.
Why does not knowing the answer to something mean you have to entertain the irrational or ridiculous?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeConsidering that nobody knows the origin of life, I don't see why believing a 'creator' was responsible is irrational or ridiculous.
I do not know the origin of life. By your reasoning, must I also therefore consider a giant omnipotent octopus as a possible option?
Why does not knowing the answer to something mean you have to entertain the irrational or ridiculous?
For 'some' atheists, like sonhouse, maybe the Bible God and man made religions, have spoiled his being open minded to that possibility.
You Ghost, if I am correct, have said that you are open to the possibility of 'a God'. So, a creator option should be reasonable to you? Minus a creator, you are left with nothing really, in terms of origin of life.
Originally posted by chaney3Not the first time sir you have misquoted me on this.
Considering that nobody knows the origin of life, I don't see why believing a 'creator' was responsible is irrational or ridiculous.
For 'some' atheists, like sonhouse, maybe the Bible God and man made religions, have spoiled his being open minded to that possibility.
You Ghost, if I am correct, have said that you are open to the possibility of 'a God' ...[text shortened]... asonable to you? Minus a creator, you are left with nothing really, in terms of origin of life.
I have said clearly that I would rather like to believe in God and would think it great if sufficient evidence was provided to convince me of such. - This however is a million miles away from saying I am open to the possibility of God. Although open to any new information or evidence, I currently do not believe in the existence of a God, creator or otherwise. Period.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt's not my intention to misquote your position, but your post above is rather confusing....to me.
Not the first time sir you have misquoted me on this.
I have said clearly that I would rather like to believe in God and would think it great if sufficient evidence was provided to convince me of such. - This however is a million miles away from saying I am open to the possibility of God. Although open to any new information or evidence, I currently do not believe in the existence of a God, creator or otherwise. Period.
You would like to believe in God? But that is a million miles away from the possibility of God?
Sorry, I don't understand.
Originally posted by chaney3🙂
It's not my intention to misquote your position, but your post above is rather confusing....to me.
You would like to believe in God? But that is a million miles away from the possibility of God?
Sorry, I don't understand.
I do not believe the existence of God is possible. I am 100% atheist.
That said, I would love to be proved wrong and for it to turn out God exists after all. - Apologies for the poor comparison, but I would also like to believe Superman existed, but this in no way means I think the possibility of superman existing is viable.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke#1. I think it would be really cool if there was a Superman 🙂
🙂
I do not believe the existence of God is possible. I am 100% atheist.
That said, I would love to be proved wrong and for it to turn out God exists after all. - Apologies for the poor comparison, but I would also like to believe Superman existed, but this in no way means I think the possibility of superman existing is viable.
#2. If you do not believe the existence of God is possible...then how can you be proven wrong?
Edit: I am not asking you what evidence of God would be sufficient. I am saying that you have boxed yourself into a corner, because any credible evidence would conflict with your stance that God is not possible.
Originally posted by chaney3'I' do not believe the existence of God is possible. - Please note the importance of 'I' in that sentence.
#1. I think it would be really cool if there was a Superman 🙂
#2. If you do not believe the existence of God is possible...then how can you be proven wrong?
Edit: I am not asking you what evidence of God would be sufficient. I am saying that you have boxed yourself into a corner, because any credible evidence would conflict with your stance that God is not possible.
There are a great many things that 'I' as an individual would think impossible, but could conceivably be wrong about. For example, before today 'I' thought it impossible that I would ever eat a pringle. (I ate at least 37). - In my current thinking however, and in the absence of credible evidence, there is no part of my brain that sees the existence of God as a rational possibility.
And it would be a brave man who tried to box up the Ghost. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeGhost, your statement contradicts itself.
'I' do not believe the existence of God is possible. - Please note the importance of 'I' in that sentence.
There are a great many things that 'I' as an individual would think impossible, but could conceivably be wrong about. For example, before today 'I' thought it impossible that I would ever eat a pringle. (I ate at least 37). - In my current t ...[text shortened]... God as a rational possibility.
And it would be a brave man who tried to box up the Ghost. ðŸ˜
You are saying that you could be wrong about 'a great many things'........well, then you could be wrong about the 'possibility' of God existing.
You are conceding that if evidence surfaced, your mind could be changed. That means God is possible!!
Why can't you say it? Is it an 'atheist code' that prevents those words from being uttered? Will you be kicked out of the club?
You were wrong about the possibility of consuming pringles, so you could also be wrong about the possibility of God.
Originally posted by chaney3Sigh.
Ghost, your statement contradicts itself.
You are saying that you could be wrong about 'a great many things'........well, then you could be wrong about the 'possibility' of God existing.
You are conceding that if evidence surfaced, your mind could be changed. That means God is possible!!
Why can't you say it? Is it an 'atheist code' that prevents ...[text shortened]... the possibility of consuming pringles, so you could also be wrong about the possibility of God.
Ask me if God exists. I examine available evidence and deploy rational thought. I answer 'no,.impossible.'
Of course i am open to correction (about anything!) if brand new evidence came to light. I don't however anticipate such evidence coming to light,.....as I believe the existence of God to be impossible!!!
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat is available evidence that you are looking at? With me as I see the universe, life,
Sigh.
Ask me if God exists. I examine available evidence and deploy rational thought. I answer 'no,.impossible.'
Of course i am open to correction (about anything!) if brand new evidence came to light. I don't however anticipate such evidence coming to light,.....as I believe the existence of God to be impossible!!!
and experience love I see there is no denying a God who is love is real. I see evil and
realize it is but a broken piece of the universe as it now stands, and is not required for
anything, and with scripture realize it's time is short.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhere in all of that is the evidence?
What is available evidence that you are looking at? With me as I see the universe, life,
and experience love I see there is no denying a God who is love is real. I see evil and
realize it is but a broken piece of the universe as it now stands, and is not required for
anything, and with scripture realize it's time is short.
I don't deny the existence of the universe or concepts such as love. Where is your evidence to attribute such things to God?