God does exist.

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
So you admit that you have no proof of them...

Neither do you. No one does.

Except my debate is BETTER because an "intelligent effect" CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, that things exist because of intelligent cause...A FACT

Really? Then why don't you show me a single example where intelligence created something out of nothing.

We are created in the image of God, A CLAIM YOU CANNOT REFUTE, you want to refute this?

I do not need to refute something which has not been proven. It is first up to you to prove the assertion.

prove to me God dont exist

First you need to show me your argument as to why you think God does exist. Please note that refutation of one hypothesis does not prove an alternate hypothesis... so refrain from your usual nonsense.

Through your "WISHFULL THINKING" you HOPE that maybe one day we can prove

Hardly. I simply refrain from declaring I have knowledge that I do not have. You are the one claiming knowledge of the future when you assert that it can never be done.

Once again you admit that your hypothesis CONTAIN NO PROOF, but JUST ANOTHER BELIEF...

No... abiogenesis has supporting evidence, just not conclusive evidence. Creation has no supporting evidence what-so-ever. Unless you'd like to show me an example of intelligence creating something out of nothing. Please understand that even if you did refute abiogenesis this would not prove ID.

In denial? LOL, Im not surprised, your an atheist, you can lie whenever you want...

No whatsup, I don't lie. You simply do not understand.

Chemicals form over time? SO WHAT? you are out of topic

Not at all. That you think that I'm off topic only shows that you do not understand that which you are trying to refute.

this is the same claim as...

No, it's not at all the same. The facts of chemistry are well known and proven. The analogy that you are attempting to use as a refutation is a false one. Once again, all you have done is demonstrate you own ignorance.

Must I explain it for you?

Whatsup, I'm not the one who doesn't understand.

YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS NOTHING BUT A BELIEF AS WELL...thank you for admitting it...

No problem. Now if you would only understand that your belief is nothing but an unsupported hypotheses we could get beyond these repetitive, silly, arguments.

CASE CLOSED.........

Hardly.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
I see no reason to assume that life is comprised or was created from anything other than its constituent components and natural forces.

The chemicals are also present when the body is dead, so how can chemicals be a constituent component of "life?"

Because our technology is not refined enough for it.

Was the technology refined enough at the time when life was being created?

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.

It is clear from your above statement that you don’t know what "actual life" is, so what credibility does this explanation have?

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.

That is, if the “theory of evolution” is correct, but I seriously doubt it.

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?

You haven’t, that is true, but your explanations of God and religion bare the hallmarks of modern western thoughts and ideals so much so, that I can almost predict your answers.

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.

No, just history, wherever it may spring from, for example there is a tribe of people who live in Africa called the “Dogon”, there history includes contact with people from another star system……

http://www.mm2000.nu/sphinxv.html

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Raithere
Neither do you. No one does.

Like I was saying from the beggining, you dont know, BUT I KNOW..Why? Not because i got bachelors degree in science, that is not how I find God, but I found God through prayers, I experienced Him. I heard him spoke to me twice in my life...I have answered prayers, my dad's incurable liver cancer was healed...THATS HOW I KNOW, AND DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND ACCUSE MY STUPID BRAIN "MR. CHEMICAL X" TO HAVE DONE IT...THATS YOUR BELIEF BECAUSE YOUR AN ATHEIST, BUT I PRAYED TO GOD AND THAT PRAYER WAS ANSWERED, AND YOU ARE FREE TO SAY THAT IT WAS BY "CHANCE" AND "SUPER LUCK" THAT HIS CANCER WAS HEALED, WITH MR. BRAIN CHEMICAL X, THATS YOUR STUPID BELIEF BACKED BY NO EVIDENCE, while the evidence of God's healing Him was I prayed days before for it, and it happened, and to you it is by "CHANCE" that it took place ..... If you accuse me of being "SCHIZOPHRENIC", thats your "belief"..I WILL ALSO SAY THE SAME THING TO ATHEISTS WHO THINKS THE EXISTENCE OF EARTH IS "CHANCE/LUCK" AND "ALL KNOWING" MEANS "ALL CONTROLLING"...

Originally posted by Raithere

Really? Then why don't you show me a single example where intelligence created something out of nothing..

The bible didn't say God created the earth out of nothing..
Book of genesis said "In the beggining the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while the mighty wind swept overr the waters"- Genesis ch.1 v. 1...
In fact, adam and eve was formed from the earth...
Nobody ever mentioned things exist from nothing....besides, what do you refer to as "nothing"? define and explain...Nothing as in "non-phyiscal"? WHAT IS NON-PHYISCAL? NON TANGIBLE? NON VISUAL? If non tangible, therefore its a myth? Explain...
Intelligence design can create another intelligence, proven fact...Intelligence design can form complex, detail, and functioning forms...We are created in the image of God, BUT WE CANNOT BE GOD, BUT BE ONLY "LIKE GOD" SO YES WE CREATE FUNCTIONING, COMPLEX, COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, MOTIONED MACHINES...but we cannot create life forms (CURRENTLY SPEAKING, AND I DONOT SPEAK FOR THE FUTURE EVENTS..) for that is God's place; as it is the claim you cannot refute, YOU WANT TO REFUTE THIS? THEN PROVE TO ME GOD DIDNT CREATE THE WORLD, Im waiting. Prove to me that earth and life exist by other means, what physics?......
Noone can create life forms (again currently speaking)..But intelligent design can create computer intelligence, motioned, functioning, existing machine life forms, just "LIKE US"...As God also create human beings "LIKE HIM"....

Originally posted by Raithere

I do not need to refute something which has not been proven. It is first up to you to prove the assertion...

Yes, like shakespeare and King henry which also contains no proof...

Originally posted by Raithere

First you need to show me your argument as to why you think God does exist. Please note that refutation of one hypothesis does not prove an alternate hypothesis... so refrain from your usual nonsense....

Yes the alternate hypothesis must be demonstrated and pproven, like the I.D thank you....

Originally posted by Raithere

Hardly. I simply refrain from declaring I have knowledge that I do not have. You are the one claiming knowledge of the future when you assert that it can never be done.....

STUPID SACK OF SHEEP, IT CANNOT BE DONE CURRENTLY SPEAKING..I dont speak for 100 yrs from now like some of you do, ok....

Originally posted by Raithere

No... abiogenesis has supporting evidence, just not conclusive evidence. Creation has no supporting evidence what-so-ever. Unless you'd like to show me an example of intelligence creating something out of nothing. Please understand that even if you did refute abiogenesis this would not prove ID......

Stupid liar, creationism have as much evidence as evolution and abiogenesis, A FACT...Your a liar (or ignorant)...

Originally posted by Raithere

No whatsup, I don't lie. You simply do not understand. ......

You already lied by saying "I dont lie". Thus proving my post that you are a liar, thank you for claryfying it, and yes I do understand your post you just like to put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Raithere

Not at all. That you think that I'm off topic only shows that you do not understand that which you are trying to refute.......

Yes I do understand, you Liar...(a claim with supported evidence )...

Originally posted by Raithere

No, it's not at all the same. The facts of chemistry are well known and proven. The analogy that you are attempting to use as a refutation is a false one. Once again, all you have done is demonstrate you own ignorance.

Chemistry is proven? But what does that have to do with "existing life forms"? LOL....You Liar...(again a claim with evidence)...

Originally posted by Raithere

No problem. Now if you would only understand that your belief is nothing but an unsupported hypotheses we could get beyond these repetitive, silly, arguments.

Hardly.

~Raithere

My belief is a FACT to me and millions of others, a faith of "facts"..But to you it is presented with evidence in which requires faith, the same faith required for evoolution and abiogenesis, but your far too stupid to accept God, and thats not my fault your raised like that, sorry kid..

 

[(Q)]

Whatshappennin'

Yes, like shakespeare and King henry which also contains no proof...

Ridiculous argument, to say the least.

Shakespeares boyhood home:

http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/main/0/191?image_id=5

Shakespeares remains are buried at the chancel of Holy Trinity Church in his hometown of Stratford, Warwickshire.

There were several King Henry's - which one do you refer ? How about Henry VIII ? He did form the Church of England, right ?

 

[EvilPoet]

PSA

Warning: debating with wazsup can evoke this reaction:

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The chemicals are also present when the body is dead, so how can chemicals be a constituent component of "life?"

You'll note that I indicated a system of processes. When these processes are interrupted for any length of time this interdependent system breaks down. The constituent components remain, simply not in process.

Was the technology refined enough at the time when life was being created?

What a silly question. Technology is a human tool. Nature produces many things that we cannot duplicate at this point in our understanding and technology. This does not mean that there is anything supernatural occuring.

It is clear from your above statement that you don’t know what "actual life" is, so what credibility does this explanation have?

Gee, I don't know... maybe the entire history of life sciences. What is it that you think life is? Any proof to support your hypothesis?

That is, if the “theory of evolution” is correct, but I seriously doubt it.

What is it that you would propose instead, what evidence do you have, and how do you explain the biological evidence that exists? I would never refuse to consider alternate explanations but you have to provide support for it. Simply stating that you do not believe in evolution does not make that your position is correct simply because it is an alternative.

You haven’t, that is true, but your explanations of God and religion bare the hallmarks of modern western thoughts and ideals so much so, that I can almost predict your answers.

I can say the same of yours but I really don't see that this has any relevance to the discussion. I'm fairly well versed in eastern philosophy and religion... personally I find Taoism and Zen Buddhism fascinating.

No, just history, wherever it may spring from, for example there is a tribe of people who live in Africa called the “Dogon”, there history includes contact with people from another star system.

Yes, I've heard of them and it is rather intriguing. Of course there is nothing to disclude a perfectly mundane explanation. It seems to me you're very quick to leap to conclusions, particularly ones of a supernatural nature, rather than giving the situation proper consideration.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
BUT I KNOW..Why? ... I experienced Him.

How do I know what you've experienced? How do I know you're not lying or delusional? How is it that you expect me to believe you when you don't believe me?

I PRAYED TO GOD AND THAT PRAYER WAS ANSWERED

Are you sure? Are you absolutely positive that your father's cancer would not have gone into remission regardless of your prayers? If so, why is it that God answers your prayers and not the prayers of so many other people? And how do you explain that people claim the same types of miracles when they pray to different Gods than yours? How do you explain that cancer sometimes goes into remission when no prayers have been made?

AND YOU ARE FREE TO SAY THAT IT WAS BY "CHANCE" AND "SUPER LUCK" THAT HIS CANCER WAS HEALED

Yes, it's called spontaneous remission and it's been known to happen with atheists too... no prayers required.

THATS YOUR STUPID BELIEF BACKED BY NO EVIDENCE

Even if you are correct in that God heard your prayer and healed your father that does not invalidate the evidence that science has discovered. Sorry Charlie, you've yet to disprove anything. All you've presented so far is a single case of remission and the claim that God talks to you... that may be enough to convince you but it is an entirely subjective experience. How can you expect other people to believe based purely upon your claims?

BTW despite our disagreement, I am happy for you that your dad is better. Honestly.

The bible didn't say God created the earth out of nothing..

Then who created the waters, how did they get there if God didn't create them?

Intelligence design can create another intelligence, proven fact.

Really? Care to show an example of intelligence creating intelligence. No AI expert has yet to make that claim... yet you do. You'll shatter the field.

COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE

Sorry, computers are not intelligent.

YOU WANT TO REFUTE THIS? THEN PROVE TO ME GOD DIDNT CREATE THE WORLD

First I need to hear a valid argument as to why you think he did. You've given me no argument to refute just a bald assumption.

But intelligent design can create computer intelligence, motioned, functioning, existing machine life forms, just "LIKE US"

No, they are not intelligent or alive.

Yes, like shakespeare and King henry which also contains no proof...

Huh?

Yes the alternate hypothesis must be demonstrated and pproven, like the I.D

So go ahead and prove it... claiming that humans cannot create life does not constitute proof of ID. I'm still waiting.

Stupid liar, creationism have as much evidence as evolution and abiogenesis

Show me.

Yes I do understand

No. You really don't.

But what does that have to do with "existing life forms"?

Perhaps you should take a biology class and find out just what chemistry has to do with biology. If you don't know then you're really not equipped to refute the argument. Come back when you know and we can talk some more.

My belief is a FACT to me and millions of others, a faith of "facts"

That millions of people believe something does not make it a fact. Millions of people can and have been wrong before. You'll need something more substantial than that.

But to you it is presented with evidence in which requires faith, the same faith required for evoolution

No faith is required for evolution only understanding. Now you may decide that there is not enough evidence to convince you but no faith is required to be convinced.

your far too stupid to accept God, and thats not my fault your raised like that

Actually, you're quite wrong (once again). I was raised in both the RCC and Independent Evangelical Church... but I had too many questions that they could not answer to my satisfaction so I sought explanations elsewhere... in other religions, philosophy, and science. And, truth be told, I do accept the possibility of God, I just see no proof of God as defined by the Christian Churches.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Raithere
You'll note that I indicated a system of processes. When these processes are interrupted for any length of time this interdependent system breaks down. The constituent components remain, simply not in process.

Like I was saying from time to time again, you ALWAYS jump into conclusion without expplaining HOW it exist to begin with...Stupid, thats common sense, of course when the function of the body as whole are interrupted it will break down, thats why we die you dumb sack of sheep, THATS COMMON SENSE..
I can say the same saying about a computer guided car factory...
"When the process of building cars are interrupted for any length of time (either by gunshots or your mama farting) this independent system breaks down (though it is not independent like human and life forms, but your a compulsive liar). The constituent components remain, simply not in process of building itself anymore...."

Originally posted by Raithere

What a silly question. Technology is a human tool. Nature produces many things that we cannot duplicate at this point in our understanding and technology. This does not mean that there is anything supernatural occuring.

Since you said "supernatural have nothing to do with it", you are basically claiming that "all things can be explained"...then later on you also said that "nobody can explain life", so your self contradictory and a liar....
What is supernatural? Things that are outside of the laws of nature? What are these so-called "laws of nature" that we labeled? Is what we labeled all there is to it? If so, then you should have no problem demonstrating how life exist right? After all you claim that we exist by "natural means", if this is the case, THEN DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE FORMS...OH YOU CANT? THEN SHUT YOUR HOLE...AIGHT? Your claims are ILLOGICAL, stupid, jumping into conclusion, and definitely contains no proof indeed...
You dont know what is natural, and what is supernatural...What is supernatural once again? Things in WHICH WE CANT EXPLAIN? Who should be able to explain it in which makes it "supernatural"? If you cant explain, does it mean it is "supernatural"? If so is it a myth?

Originally posted by Raithere

It seems to me you're very quick to leap to conclusions, particularly ones of a supernatural nature, rather than giving the situation proper consideration.

~Raithere

Quick jumping into conclusion? SPEAK FOR YOUR SELF LIAR....

 

[MarcAC]

Did you read the post?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey

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).

Who was using naiive thinking as an argument? You obviously did not read French's post or you read it and didn't understand it? You should, it might help correct your assumption, or was it a joke?

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?

Well you really 'nitpicked'. We are discussing God. His existence vs non-existence. It is wise to try to think beyond four dimensions when discussing God. Because God transcends our four dimensions. See it now, or is it too hard for you to think beyond four dimensions?

from FrenchObviously then, not everything is possible with god.from MarcAC[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).
from MarcACNot really. Science correctly assumes that anything is has disproven is false. Only atheist-science would make your stated assumption.
from the spurious monkeyScience 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.

The tendency now is to state 'we don't know' or 'it has not been proven': not it is false (wrong, incorrect, impossible). History has made scientists become humbly cautious. Well let's not speak steryotypically - some scientists.

 

[Xelios]

Jan Ardena:

The chemicals are also present when the body is dead, so how can chemicals be a constituent component of "life?"

This is simple chemistry. Cell respiration uses spontaneous chemical reactions (meaning they produce electricity). The chemical reactions in our brain are mostly non-spontaneous, meaning they require electricity input to happen. If cell respiration stops, then electricity is no longer produced, which means these reactions can no longer occur. The chemicals are still present, but they lack the electric charge needed to do anything. This also explains why brain death does not occur until a significant time after physical death occurs, residual electricity in the body continues to drive chemical reactions, however another required component (oxygen) is missing, and so these reactions are simply random and chaotic.

Was the technology refined enough at the time when life was being created?

No, but technology is not necessarily a requirement of the abiogenesis of life.

No, just history, wherever it may spring from, for example there is a tribe of people who live in Africa called the “Dogon”, there history includes contact with people from another star system……

Just out of curiosity, do you believe this actually happened?

 

[James R]

whatsupyall:

I am following this discussion closely. What I see is unfailing politeness from Raithere. From you, I see repeated personal attacks. You continually refer to anybody who disagrees with you a "sheep", "stupid" or "liar".

I am only tolerating this behaviour because, so far, Raithere does not seen to be disturbed by it. But if at any time he or anybody else requests that your posts be removed due to personal abuse, it is unlikely that I will hesitate to do that.

Tone it down. Stick to the topic and don't attack the person. Don't give the moderators reason to remove your posts.

 

[Lady]

Belief in God does give us hope

 

[TruthSeeker]

Frencheneesz,

But most people do follow the TV as it were a good guide for life...
But anyways... this is highly off-topic...

 

[Frencheneesz]

Whatsupall:

"Like I was saying from time to time again, you ALWAYS jump into conclusion without expplaining HOW it exist to begin with...Stupid, thats common sense, of course when the function of the body as whole are interrupted it will break down, thats why we die you dumb sack of sheep"

May I remind you that you are the stupidest person I have ever read anything from. Raithere's little shpeil about non-function was a QUESTION FROM A PERSON. He was answering it, idiot. The question had NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Obviosly the person who asked the question did not know how a person dies.....

Jumping to conclusions are you? Hypocrit :m:

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios
Jan Ardena:


This is simple chemistry. Cell respiration uses spontaneous chemical reactions (meaning they produce electricity). The chemical reactions in our brain are mostly non-spontaneous, meaning they require electricity input to happen. If cell respiration stops, then electricity is no longer produced, which means these reactions can no longer occur. The chemicals are still present, but they lack the electric charge needed to do anything. This also explains why brain death does not occur until a significant time after physical death occurs, residual electricity in the body continues to drive chemical reactions, however another required component (oxygen) is missing, and so these reactions are simply random and chaotic.

You know what, your describing what already exist but donot give reasons "how" it exist and always jump into conclusions...Its like saying, first there were rocks and metals, then millions of years later airplanes appeared! Without describing the process and demonstration...
I can do the same, watch this...

"When the bronze and magnet continually move in motion through forces of nature, it procduces electricity, and when connected to a chemical combined irons and metals, it makes noises, and when this process is interrupted, the machine stops reacting, otherwise it contnues to drive chemical reactions, and thats how stereo and television came to existence"...

Xelios, you are describing that for life to exist, it requires "electric (which appeared by "super luck")" and "oxygen"...This is your claim, now can you demonstrate and prove it? If so then create life forms then, Oh you cant? Then shut your hole Wang Chung....

 

[Frencheneesz]

"That's not too hard to picture you know French. Please, you seem to possess cognitive ability"

Something being in two places at once? That is called TWO things... Give me an example where one thing is in two places at one time...

"It's just like saying you can drive a car at 200 km/hr but you stick to 50. Isn't that simple?"

That is much different from what I am describing. You are saying god can ONLY drive a car 50 km/hr but can also go 200. It is impossible because it is a paradox. Paradoxes = bad.

"There is no rock God can create which he cannot lift. This one is defunct. Try something else."

Shluffing it away doesn't fix the problem. God simply can NOT do everything, because it creates paradoxes. If you would simply agree to my previous proposal (god can do everything exept not be able to do something) then it would work very well with both our perspectives.

"In other words you don't know what love is - no surprise."

Love has many definitions. Whats your point? Why don't you definie love instead of insulting me and trying to drag it out of me? Instead of implying that I am an idiot, why can't you just tell me what you think I don't know?

"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."

You seem to be perpetually forgetting that I don't believe in god. "Chemical imbalances" is a stupid term. Your entire brain utilizes chemicals to "think". Love involves part of the brain. Why exactly do you think that love cannot be just another part of your brain?

You spout this stuff like it is ultimate truth. Just accept the fact that you don't know everything.

"He gave us 'CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE' signs long ago, yet we still turned from him"

Who is "we". I certainly wasn't there. If had given me any unmistakable signs, I would believe. Whats so hard about that? I don't believe simply because I don't have proof, and god isn't trying all that hard to give me that proof...

"I think Hell is basically an existence without God "

Does that mean i'm in hell?

"You have more faith than you realise my friend. It is implicit - it governs all your thoughts and actions and assumptions "

And I suppose you have "faith" in this? I have, simply, no reason to believe you. I am not going to take your word for it. You do not posses truth. I'm respectfully sorry, but you do not carry "the answers". Don't tell me absolutes, give me reasons.

"For me anything is possible"

Anything? I doubt it. Of course we already know that not everything is possible. You refuse to aknowlege that god might not exist. I don't really think you believe that it is possible that YOU don't exist. You have also told me that you won't refute what science "prooves", again giving me evidence that not anything is possible.

"even science is embracing the concept that anything is possible."

Except of course, that which it has disprooven....

"faith is implicit, however you look at it."

Good job, you have mastered the skills of telling people this. Now stop that and tell me why I should believe you.

"Only atheist-science would make your stated assumption."

Your insults are a bit annoying. Science assumes it is false, but realizes the small possibiliy. How bout this, to science all things without evidence have less than .0000001 % probabilty, meaning they HIGLY doubt it. The more evidence something gets, the higher its probability is. But then again, you don't understand probabilities.

"Your statement that in the past many things were 'impossible', Look it up."

You once again failed to understand me. Things SEEMED impossible, just the possibility that we will create life SEEMS impossible to you. I did not say that they were impossible just because our state of science was not up to the task.

"You have obviously seen what happens when you attempt to reason such things. It's really pointless. You are just stating your implicit faith."

Yes I have faith in my reasoning. You do too. Everyone does. My reasoning tells me that I could not think If I didn't exist. THEREFORE I EXIST! How fucking hard is this to understand.

"You demonstrate faith in your 'understanding' of science. "

The only thing I have faith in is my reasoning and my senses, I have repeated that a couple times, anything else you have to show me evidence for.

"If you say you got this fallacious information from an atheist website then I'll understand."

Really. Some idiotic atheists. Have you no respect? You are prejudice against athiests arent you? All atheists are bad. All atheists are stupid. All atheists are liers. AND YOU SAY YOU DON'T INSULT ME!! What a riot.

"The rest of your post reflected very naiive thinking - if any at all - no offense - I'm just stating fact."

NO! NO NO! Its NOT a fact. You idiot. It is your god damned opinion. What part of opinion don't you understand!? A fact is something which can either be proven true or false. Your opinion cannot be proven. Naive indeed, I'm not the one claiming to possess ultimite truth.....

 

[Voodoo Child]

Xelios, you are describing that for life to exist, it requires "electric (which appeared by "super luck")" and "oxygen"...This is your claim, now can you demonstrate and prove it?

Would you like to volunteer?

However, a functionalist could make a very good argument that oxygen and "electric" may not be needed to create life. But that would be taking his words grossly out of context, as you have done.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
I can say the same saying about a computer guided car factory...

I find this to be a rather poor analogy but yes, that is correct except for the fact that a factory is built by humans and I have been speaking about natural processes.

Since you said "supernatural have nothing to do with it", you are basically claiming that "all things can be explained"

No that is not what I'm trying to indicate. What I am saying is that I have seen no argument or evidence that indicates that anything we observe within the Universe arose from anything beyond natural forces.

then later on you also said that "nobody can explain life", so your self contradictory and a liar

That's not what I said, what I said is that no one knows for a fact exactly how life originated.

What is supernatural? Things that are outside of the laws of nature?

Yes.

su•per•nat•u•ral adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Is what we labeled all there is to it?

Not even close.

If so, then you should have no problem demonstrating how life exist right?

Knowing how something works and being able to reproduce it or its like is not the same thing. I understand how Michelangelo carved the statue of David... but I could not reproduce it. I understand how microchips are designed and function but I cannot make one. I understand how a volcano is formed, yet I cannot build one. I understand nuclear fusion, yet I cannot create a star. My inability to reproduce these things does not mean I do not correctly understand how they work. Your argument is ridiculous and lame (literally).

Your claims are ILLOGICAL, stupid, jumping into conclusion, and definitely contains no proof indeed...

I'm not the one jumping to conclusions.

You dont know what is natural, and what is supernatural...What is supernatural once again? Things in WHICH WE CANT EXPLAIN?

No, that would not be a correct definition. For a correct definition check my usage and the definition I quoted above.

If you cant explain, does it mean it is "supernatural"? If so is it a myth?

No and no.

~Raithere

 

[Xelios]

I really hate to submit myself to the intellectual torture that is whatsup, but sometimes I just can't resist.

Xelios, you are describing that for life to exist, it requires "electric (which appeared by "super luck")" and "oxygen"...This is your claim, now can you demonstrate and prove it?

No, actually that's not what I said at all. I said that for our brains to function they require electricity, more specifically the flow of electrons that is generated in many chemical reactions (such as batteries). I also didn't say this electricity appeared by 'super duper luck'. Not only are you taking my words out of context, but you're also twisting them around and even failing to spell them correctly (which is sad considering you have the correct spelling right in front of you).

What do you claim is essential for life to exist? The soul? Then this is your claim, now can you demonstrate and prove this? I can prove the brain requires electricity simply by replicating the reactions inside the brain, then shutting off the electric current to them. How do you propose to prove life cannot exist without a soul?

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Raithere
I find this to be a rather poor analogy but yes, that is correct except for the fact that a factory is built by humans and I have been speaking about natural processes.

How is a computer guided factory supernatural? Such factory is natural process, unless you will simply say that human "intelligence" is NOT natural but supernatural..
Life already exist before it began to process...Intelligence were within the cell already before it began the process, in summary, it already exist before you observe its functions. And I copied your observation of biological life form to technological life form...same thing, bottom line is your claim is illogical...

Originally posted by Raithere

No that is not what I'm trying to indicate. What I am saying is that I have seen no argument or evidence that indicates that anything we observe within the Universe arose from anything beyond natural forces.

You are so self contradictory kid..You are saying that anything within the universe couldnt arose anything beyond the natural forces...And when I asked you what are those so-called "natural forces", then you said...read below...

Originally posted by Raithere

"Is what we label as natural laws all there is to it?"

Not even close.

So you are saying there are many "natural forces" that are UNLISTED AND UNKNOWN, WELL WHY THE HECK DO YOU THEN SAY THAT NOTHING COULD HAVE AROSE BEYOND THE NATURAL FORCES WHEN YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT ARE THE NATURAL FORCES! Its like a person who dont know what "pounds" are then saying "No humans can eat meat over 2 lbs." God, please, please help yourself out!

Originally posted by Raithere

That's not what I said, what I said is that no one knows for a fact exactly how life originated.

Originally posted by Raithere



Knowing how something works and being able to reproduce it or its like is not the same thing. I understand how Michelangelo carved the statue of David... but I could not reproduce it. I understand how microchips are designed and function but I cannot make one. I understand how a volcano is formed, yet I cannot build one. I understand nuclear fusion, yet I cannot create a star. My inability to reproduce these things does not mean I do not correctly understand how they work. Your argument is ridiculous and lame (literally)..

Didnt you read my previous post? That is what I tried to point to you earlier about "intelligent design" YOU ***** *****! i WAS THE ONE TRYING TO POOINT THAT OUT TO YOU, AND YOU MADE THIS COMMENT AS IF I DIDNT SAY THIS TO YOU MUCH EARLIER...YOU ARE A **** PIECE OF ****...indeed...

Originally posted by Raithere

I'm not the one jumping to conclusions.

~Raithere

Earlier you said "chemical process and reaction, THEN LIFE FORM EXIST!!"..
If you dont call that jumping into conclusion, then I dont know what is.....


hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!! ATHEIST MAKING ME INSANE!!!! DO YOU HAVE COMMON SENSE????????!!!!!!!!!!! hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Frustrating me that some one this **** exist!!!!