God does exist.
- Thread starter Daiel Hegarty
- Start date
Originally posted by Raithere
Life comes from non-living chemical precursors (amino acids, proteins, self-replicating molecule(s) etc.) and is simply the natural result of the natural laws of physics and chemistry.
So you “know” where life comes from, do you?
If “life” comes from chemicals, as you confidently assert, why, with science and technology at such a high, can’t you re-combine chemicals and create brand new life?
If this has been achieved, then please accept my apologies, and show me the evidence.
Given that at any point in history theists have believed that they had the correct interpretation of the correct religious documents that were revealed to them by the true God(s)
When you say history, are you refering to the last couple of thousand years?
Is it history as told by the west?
What about history from remote tribes and peoples who never got to make the american dream, do these not count as history?
I have yet to see anything that I could identify as a 'supreme being' or even the creation or affect of a 'supreme being'. I do not take anthropomorphization literally.
That is quite obvious.
Love
Jan Ardena.
I see no reason to assume that life is comprised or was created from anything other than its constituent components and natural forces.
If you wish to demonstrate such a hypothesis please feel free to do so.
Because our technology is not refined enough for it. Life is a system of interdependent processes that begins to break down if the process is halted... for us to create this from scratch we would have to have the ability to hold such a system together while we were building it. That or we would have to develop the process from simple chemical processes. Seeing as it took nature a few billion (or more?) years to evolve life given an entire world and the trillions upon trillions (a gross underestimate) of interacting molecules it is not surprising that we have not been able to reproduce such an event.
I don't ever recall limiting my definition of history to that of western society... nor would I ever make such a bigoted presumption. Why would you suggest it? I assume your trying to make a wry comment referring to those few religions (primarily eastern) that address the futility of trying to define God yet even those religions assert certain presumptions.
~Raithere
Who or what formed this so-called "natural forces"? How did it exist to begin with? by CHANCE?
This are all your GUESSES, SPECULATION...YOU DONT KNOW HOW LIFE EXIST..This are your "wishfull thinking" and "imagination" THIS CANNOT BE PROVEN, you dont know, otherwise if you CLAIM TO KNOW HOW LIFE EXIST, THEN FEEL FREE TO DEMONSTRATE IT KID...
EXISTING life forms may have evolve upon millions of years, no doubt, but HOWW DID IT EXIST TO BEGIN WITH? Explain....
Are you proposing that The mitochoondria "accidentally" was formed by "earthquake" millions of years then ribosome was "accidentally" formed by lightning and tornado in 20 million yrs, then endoplasmic reticulum billions of years later then...CHING CHING! LIFE EXIST! WOW! SUPER ACCIDENT!
Before making "GUESSES" and "speculation". Provide evidence of your "WISHFULL THINKING", Indeed there is no doubt you have a good IMAGINATION. but I dont find it logical at all... I like that JamesR, since you cant beat my posts, COPY IT! and use it against theists!Listen James or all atheists children...We are not the one claiming that "simple laws of physics" are responsible for life forms, if you made this claim, the burden of proof lies on you..We are not the one who made the claim that "It takes millions of years for mitochondria and ribosome and thousands of other parts to make up a cell to live, and exist by super luck"...We are not the one who made those claim...BECAUSE ATHEISTS MADE THAT CLAIM, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THEM...PERIOD..AND FACT REMAINS, NOT ONE SCIENTIST IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS....PERIOD..Fact is I am not interested in your WISHFULL THINKING AND IMAGINATION, provide proof of claim, or shut up....
We made the claim of "intelligent designer (God)" and yes the burden of proof lies on us...AND THERE IS TONS OF PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE YOU REJECT BECAUSE YOU ARE NATURALLY BORN to be STUPID, and u know what, I cant help you out with that, that aint my fault (and dont blaim God either)....Peace out...
If some one refuses to accept god exists then you can never prove him wrong. If some one refuses to accept god does not exist you can never prove him wrong?
Can't we all just get along
Can't we all just get along
Who here thinks rocks have souls!!????
(whatsupall does... I convinced him, hahahaha)
(whatsupall does... I convinced him, hahahaha)
Truthseeker etc.:
"certainly not the love you know... (from TV...?)"
What the fuck are you talking about? From TV? What the hell.... Yes I learn all I know from TV :bugeye:
"Take note that these properties describe ways of acting and doing, these aren't feelings that can be explained away as chemical reactions. This is God's kind of love."
Well, that is debatable. But I do agree that those quotes describe acting and doing, NOT feeling. It describes love as if it was sinonymous with "goodness". Most of those quotes have to do with OPINIONS. You theists seem not to know that opinions cannot be used as facts. Goodenss, evil, bad, helpful, advancement: Those are all opinions and cannot be used in an argument. God is not "good", because what is "good" for one can be bad for another.
"BUT I am not ruled by them, and I don't think you mean to say that you are. I have as much free will as anybody"
Why aren't you ruled by them? What makes you think that some awsome power is giving you freewill? I, for one, don't believe in freewill, so yes I think I am just a big blob of chemicals. This doesn't make me any less human either, i can just accept that we are not the chosen ones. I'm still going to act as if I have free will, it is in the nature of, let us say, my chemicals for me to believe that i am making choices.
"certainly not the love you know... (from TV...?)"
What the fuck are you talking about? From TV? What the hell.... Yes I learn all I know from TV :bugeye:
"Take note that these properties describe ways of acting and doing, these aren't feelings that can be explained away as chemical reactions. This is God's kind of love."
Well, that is debatable. But I do agree that those quotes describe acting and doing, NOT feeling. It describes love as if it was sinonymous with "goodness". Most of those quotes have to do with OPINIONS. You theists seem not to know that opinions cannot be used as facts. Goodenss, evil, bad, helpful, advancement: Those are all opinions and cannot be used in an argument. God is not "good", because what is "good" for one can be bad for another.
"BUT I am not ruled by them, and I don't think you mean to say that you are. I have as much free will as anybody"
Why aren't you ruled by them? What makes you think that some awsome power is giving you freewill? I, for one, don't believe in freewill, so yes I think I am just a big blob of chemicals. This doesn't make me any less human either, i can just accept that we are not the chosen ones. I'm still going to act as if I have free will, it is in the nature of, let us say, my chemicals for me to believe that i am making choices.
Frencheneesz,
Most people are somewhat influenced by TV since the childhood. Some more than others. The love that the TV talks about is not the Love written in the Bible.
Most people are somewhat influenced by TV since the childhood. Some more than others. The love that the TV talks about is not the Love written in the Bible.
jan Ardena:
"If “life” comes from chemicals, as you confidently assert, why, with science and technology at such a high, can’t you re-combine chemicals and create brand new life?"
Do you think that we are at the pinical of discovery, that we won't discover any more than what we have now? We have only scratched the surface of what is to be discovered. Why couldn't we do this 100 years ago? You think that we have recently obtained the ability to speed up time by a billion times? Life took around a billion years or more to finnally work. We still do not have that amount of time to create life from simple particles. At present, we can only match nature, not speed it up. Why can't we travel to other solarsystems or galaxies? It is the same thing.
"What about history from remote tribes and peoples who never got to make the american dream, do these not count as history? "
Most of them believed in polytheism, doesn't exactly help your side of the argument much. And most every religion thinks it is the correct one. Why does christianities "good" and commanding god HAVE to be the one that exists? You can't accept that you could be wrong.
Maybe you theists can't accept that god MIGHT not exist, but you should be able to accpet that god MIGHT not be what you expected.....
"If “life” comes from chemicals, as you confidently assert, why, with science and technology at such a high, can’t you re-combine chemicals and create brand new life?"
Do you think that we are at the pinical of discovery, that we won't discover any more than what we have now? We have only scratched the surface of what is to be discovered. Why couldn't we do this 100 years ago? You think that we have recently obtained the ability to speed up time by a billion times? Life took around a billion years or more to finnally work. We still do not have that amount of time to create life from simple particles. At present, we can only match nature, not speed it up. Why can't we travel to other solarsystems or galaxies? It is the same thing.
"What about history from remote tribes and peoples who never got to make the american dream, do these not count as history? "
Most of them believed in polytheism, doesn't exactly help your side of the argument much. And most every religion thinks it is the correct one. Why does christianities "good" and commanding god HAVE to be the one that exists? You can't accept that you could be wrong.
Maybe you theists can't accept that god MIGHT not exist, but you should be able to accpet that god MIGHT not be what you expected.....
Truthseeker:
I don't know if you realize this, but TV is not the only alternative to the bible. Get a life...
I don't know if you realize this, but TV is not the only alternative to the bible. Get a life...
I don't know. No one does. I've read dozens of various hypotheses religious, philosophical, and scientific... and that is all they are, hypotheses. Now, personally, I believe that some of the philosophical and scientific hypotheses make the most sense and that there are other hypotheses, religious and otherwise, that are simply illogical... but we have no proof for any of them.
Please, you need to work on your grammar, this statement doesn't even make sense. I do understand much of how life works; there really aren't too many mysteries there, just details. What I do not know is how it originated. Nor can it be duplicated at this point in our technological development. I also know how a star works but we cannot create a controlled fusion reaction either... that does not mean we're wrong. You keep proffering our technological inability to create life as if it's a coup de grace to abiogenesis when, fact is, it proves absolutely nothing. Even less is it some sort of evidence towards ID. Your argument is weak and full of holes whatsup.
You're certainly not shy about making profoundly inane comments are you? How is it that you know conclusively what can or cannot be proven? Just because something has not been proven does not mean that it cannot be proven.
Are you asking what life is or how it originated? Your grammar is so poor I cannot tell what it is you are asking.
I don't know for sure. No one does. Once again there are dozens of hypotheses... only in this case there is some evidence for Abiogenesis just not conclusive evidence.
Look, you obviously haven't the vaguest conception of what it is you're attempting to discredit. Here's a clue for you (because you're in desperate need of one): It helps if you actually understand something before you attempt to refute it. As it stands all you accomplish with this endlessly repeating, nonsensical diatribe is to make an ass out of yourself.
No one is suggesting that lightning or earthquakes formed life by pure chance. Chemicals interact with each other and given an energy source they will naturally form more and more complex chemical compositions over time. This is PROVEN. Given the right conditions and chemicals the precursors to life (amino acids, self-replicating molecules, etc) will form. This has also been PROVEN. What has been hypothesized is that given enough time the same conditions may eventually develop into what we call life, which is essentially a very complex set of self-replicating chemical reactions.
~Raithere
whatsupyall:
<i>I like that JamesR, since you cant beat my posts, COPY IT! and use it against theists!</i>
Sorry. I didn't realise it was a contest.
<i>Listen James or all atheists children...We are not the one claiming that "simple laws of physics" are responsible for life forms, if you made this claim, the burden of proof lies on you..</i>
You claim that God is responsible for life forms. If you make that claim, don't you have a burden of proof too? First, you might like to try to prove there is a God.
On the other hand, I'm not as strict as you. I don't require proof - just good evidence. Absolute proof of anything, as far as I am concerned, is impossible, except in maths.
<i>We are not the one who made the claim that "It takes millions of years for mitochondria and ribosome and thousands of other parts to make up a cell to live, and exist by super luck"</i>
No scientist makes that claim either. There is much more to it than "super luck".
<i>AND FACT REMAINS, NOT ONE SCIENTIST IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS....PERIOD</i>
That's true. But that doesn't mean God created life. That argument is what is known as a <b>false dichotomy</b>. Look it up.
<i>AND THERE IS TONS OF PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE YOU REJECT BECAUSE YOU ARE NATURALLY BORN to be STUPID</i>
Who says I reject it? You're making assumptions about me, aren't you?
<i>I like that JamesR, since you cant beat my posts, COPY IT! and use it against theists!</i>
Sorry. I didn't realise it was a contest.
<i>Listen James or all atheists children...We are not the one claiming that "simple laws of physics" are responsible for life forms, if you made this claim, the burden of proof lies on you..</i>
You claim that God is responsible for life forms. If you make that claim, don't you have a burden of proof too? First, you might like to try to prove there is a God.
On the other hand, I'm not as strict as you. I don't require proof - just good evidence. Absolute proof of anything, as far as I am concerned, is impossible, except in maths.
<i>We are not the one who made the claim that "It takes millions of years for mitochondria and ribosome and thousands of other parts to make up a cell to live, and exist by super luck"</i>
No scientist makes that claim either. There is much more to it than "super luck".
<i>AND FACT REMAINS, NOT ONE SCIENTIST IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS....PERIOD</i>
That's true. But that doesn't mean God created life. That argument is what is known as a <b>false dichotomy</b>. Look it up.
<i>AND THERE IS TONS OF PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE YOU REJECT BECAUSE YOU ARE NATURALLY BORN to be STUPID</i>
Who says I reject it? You're making assumptions about me, aren't you?
I'd say forget it James, it's like argueing with a brick wall. I usually enjoy debating with people, especially if they flat out disagree with me. Remember tony1? I enjoyed debating with him as well (although sometimes I was tempted to just ignore him). But this whatsupyall is different, there is just no way to get through to him. For instance, he made the claim that souls exist, I don't believe him. I've just finished spending a good 5 or 6 posts trying to get him to understand that the burdon of proof lies on him, as he is the one making the claim, yet after 6 posts I ended up having to ignore him again.
All I'm saying is, when you're debating with whatsup, remember to wear a helmet so you won't hurt yourself too badly when you feel the need to slam your head against the wall a few times.
Also, if I may interject here, from what I've gathered whatsup's proof for God consists of this logical premise:
1) We are intelligent.
2) All our technology was created intelligently by us.
3) Therefore anything complex must be created intelligently.
4) Therefore we must have been created by intelligence.
5) Therefore God exists.
Of course, when you try to explain to him that this premise is based on faulty logic, he shuts down and goes into denial until finally changing the subject to something like "why don't you atheist prove we exist by super duper luck??!!?!??!"
BTW, is 'therefore' spelled 'therefor' or 'therefore'? I've always been sketchy on that word :bugeye:
All I'm saying is, when you're debating with whatsup, remember to wear a helmet so you won't hurt yourself too badly when you feel the need to slam your head against the wall a few times.
Also, if I may interject here, from what I've gathered whatsup's proof for God consists of this logical premise:
1) We are intelligent.
2) All our technology was created intelligently by us.
3) Therefore anything complex must be created intelligently.
4) Therefore we must have been created by intelligence.
5) Therefore God exists.
Of course, when you try to explain to him that this premise is based on faulty logic, he shuts down and goes into denial until finally changing the subject to something like "why don't you atheist prove we exist by super duper luck??!!?!??!"
BTW, is 'therefore' spelled 'therefor' or 'therefore'? I've always been sketchy on that word :bugeye:
So you admit that you have no proof of them..I see...you have a good imagination indeed, and a BELIEF...
The only difference between your argument and mine is that you replace the words that I put with "MR. CHEMICAL X", thats it....Except my debate is BETTER because an "intelligent effect" CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, that things exist because of intelligent cause...A FACT, while your argument is PURE HYPOTHESIS...Yes it is through human intelligence that things are demonstrated, WHAT ARE THE OTHER WAYS? You and I are humans right? and we are the one seeking for the answers...
We are created in the image of God, A CLAIM YOU CANNOT REFUTE, you want to refute this? Then prove to me that we are not created in the image of God, in fact, prove to me God dont exist, and Im not asking you to prove the giant purple squidmonkey false IN WHICH CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL....Period...Through your "WISHFULL THINKING" you HOPE that maybe one day we can prove that it is through "sunlight or earthquake and other earth natural PHYSICS" THAT LIFE EXIST by "chance"...NOW, that is your "imagination", YOUR PROPHESY AND PREDICTION WHICH I DONT CARE...YOU CAN RAMBLE ALL YOU WANT ABOUT "FUTURE" EVENTS, but good luck with your psychic prediction.
Once again you admit that your hypothesis CONTAIN NO PROOF, but JUST ANOTHER BELIEF...Thanks for admitting...
In denial? LOL, Im not surprised, your an atheist, you can lie whenever you want...
You dont call "lightning" part of physics? YOU DUMB SACK OF SHEEP, what then is it? Thats how scientist form amino acids, by gathering methane, hydrogen, amonia, then struck by a lightning amino acids are formed, but THATS AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO, because to bring that to life is a whole new story...Thats the hypothesis...
Chemicals form over time? SO WHAT? you are out of topic, my car runs too plus EXISTING bacterias form more and more complex chemical composition (stained) over time as well! what does that have to do with existing life forms?
Yes it is PROVEN that my car engine STAINS over periods of time and naturally form more and more complex chemical compositions over time. this is PROVEN AS WELL!! LOL...Yes amino acids can be formed, dead creatures are also composed of amino acids, but how did it came to life? LOL.....stupid...
Now this is where you JUMP INTO CONCLUSION...this is the same claim as...
"the metals and steels in my shop was moved, configured, and change its appearance by earthquake and tornado, given enough time the same conditions may eventually develop into what we call "airplane computer guided factory", which is esentially a very complex set of self replicating chemical reactions."
Explain in detail...how did amino acids came to life? Explain...It came from earth, gathered from earth, but how did it came to life? How did it happen?
Once again did lightning and earthquake "mysteriously" "SHAPED" in what appears to be "mitochondria" in millions of years and it "magicly" came to life by accident? Then it waited millions of years until "mr. ribosome" appeared then attached to it? and the same happened to thousands of other parts? explain...
WHY DO YOU JUMP INTO CONCLUSION WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW IT HAPPENED? Must I explain it for you? IF YOU CANT EXPLAIN IT, THEN SHUT UP AND STOP JUMPING INTO CONCLUSION, OK KID...Stop saying "there was once rocks and metals, then in millions of years "AIRPLANE" appeared! Before making this claim, explain the process of HOW the airplane exist AND DEMONSTRATE IT, ok? if you cant then shut up...BY YOUR ADMITTANCE, YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS NOTHING BUT A BELIEF AS WELL...thank you for admitting it...
CASE CLOSED.........
Faith is Implicit
Originally posted by Raithere... why? I don't know
Originally posted by French who was seemingly drunk when this was posted
Originally posted by Raithere... why? I don't know
Thank you for your input Raithere. Xelios appreciates it.
Originally posted by French who was seemingly drunk when this was posted
That's not too hard to picture you know French. Please, you seem to possess cognitive ability, use it. It's just like saying you can drive a car at 200 km/hr but you stick to 50. Isn't that simple? Who told you that something being in two places at once was impossible - only from four dimensions - which your mind is apparently ahered to
There is no rock God can create which he cannot lift. This one is defunct. Try something else. Think, you might come up with something.
In other words you don't know what love is - no surprise. I don't fully know the nature of God (it is impossible in this state), but as I mature in my Christian faith I learn more. All God does He does out of love. If you don't realise the value of love - well again - that wouldn't be a surprise.
If you think love is caused by chemical imbalances you truly do not know what love is. As the Seeker of Truth, virtuously illustrated, true love comes from God.
He gave us 'CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE' signs long ago, yet we still turned from him, He does it now, yet you just refuse to acknowledge [you put your faith in something else - say science?]. We all have faith, it is where you place that faith that is the problem. I think Hell is basically an existence without God [and all Devil] [I know your memory is devoted to other things, but remeber what I told you about how hell could be you coming back as a cat? - if no go look it up].
You have more faith than you realise my friend. It is implicit - it governs all your thoughts and actions and assumptions [no matter how much deductive reasoning you do it all comes down to pure, simple, faith]. Science is built on senses and reasoning. When you put your faith in God and experience Him your life changes and you know what truth really is - noone can fully explain it to you - you have to experience it for yourself.
For me anything is possible, as it relates to God and His sovereignty. God allows His creation to follow a specific pattern and still we are dumbfounded - but trying none-the-less. Physicist assume now, that there may be other universes which have completely different laws from ours, thus, even science is embracing the concept that anything is possible.
As I stated before - faith is implicit, however you look at it.
Not really. Science correctly assumes that anything is has disproven is false. Only atheist-science would make your stated assumption.
Your statement that in the past many things were 'impossible', Look it up.
You do do you? You have obviously seen what happens when you attempt to reason such things. It's really pointless. You are just stating your implicit faith.
You demonstrate faith in your 'understanding' of science. You cannot escape it so stop trying. It's like trying to escape yourself.
If you say you got this fallacious information from an atheist website then I'll understand. The rest of your post reflected very naiive thinking (also filled with catharsis) - if any at all - no offense - I'm just stating fact.
Last edited:
naive thinking and some science
maybe it is not good to use naive thinking as an argument, since this often backfires or it can used by both sides equally well (plus it often indicates a degree of arrogance).
example:
party 1: that is naive thinking
party 2: that thought indicates severe naive thinking
party1: that is naive thinking to think that
party2: that is very naively thought
party1: I've never seen a more naive statement
party2: i can't really consider that argument, because that is just naive
party1: I'm not sure we should consider that naive thought
etc.
good luck with your discussion
edit:
noticed this remark in above post that served as some kind of argument:
'only from four dimensions' - and this was apparently not reasonable.
lets do some nitpicking.
it must be reasonable for him to think in 'our' dimensions, because 'our' implies that those dimensions are the ones WE have. Why would he bother to think in dimensions WE don't have?
edit2:
quote:
Obviously then, not everything is possible with god.[refer to my former statement above] Science assumes that everything it has not proven is false (especially now that we have gained such broad understanding).
Not really. Science correctly assumes that anything is has disproven is false. Only atheist-science would make your stated assumption.
Science assumes that the world is a logical and natural place and places priority on explanations of the world that fit these criteria. The logic of an idea can be reinforced by reasoning, experiments, observations.
in a sense it is therefore true that science assumes an idea is false if there is no proof for it. If it lacks proper reasoning, experiments or observations, one must assume that the idea is not a valid scientific explanation of the world.
maybe it is not good to use naive thinking as an argument, since this often backfires or it can used by both sides equally well (plus it often indicates a degree of arrogance).
example:
party 1: that is naive thinking
party 2: that thought indicates severe naive thinking
party1: that is naive thinking to think that
party2: that is very naively thought
party1: I've never seen a more naive statement
party2: i can't really consider that argument, because that is just naive
party1: I'm not sure we should consider that naive thought
etc.
good luck with your discussion
edit:
noticed this remark in above post that served as some kind of argument:
'only from four dimensions' - and this was apparently not reasonable.
lets do some nitpicking.
it must be reasonable for him to think in 'our' dimensions, because 'our' implies that those dimensions are the ones WE have. Why would he bother to think in dimensions WE don't have?
edit2:
quote:
Obviously then, not everything is possible with god.[refer to my former statement above] Science assumes that everything it has not proven is false (especially now that we have gained such broad understanding).
Not really. Science correctly assumes that anything is has disproven is false. Only atheist-science would make your stated assumption.
Science assumes that the world is a logical and natural place and places priority on explanations of the world that fit these criteria. The logic of an idea can be reinforced by reasoning, experiments, observations.
in a sense it is therefore true that science assumes an idea is false if there is no proof for it. If it lacks proper reasoning, experiments or observations, one must assume that the idea is not a valid scientific explanation of the world.
Last edited: