24 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhodey, I think I probably misinterpreted what you meant here by "matter sprang to life".
No, it does not follow that matter "must be eternal in some way" from that matter was not created.
And, no, that there is no God does not commit one to the idea that matter sprang to life on its own.
And, even if you thought that, how would you reconcile "matter must be eternal" and "matter spring to life".
Your logic certainly leaves something to be desired.
Regardless, your analysis is flawed.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI still do not understand what you mean by "proof", but what you have said is fair enough. I think you should be true to your own honest reading of the evidence as you understand it.
I only came to true belief in God after obtaining enough proof that satisfied me.
I do not see the same level of proof in abiogenesis or evolution. I see a strong
relationship between these two theories, so for me, I must also accept both in
order to accept either. At this point, I can't see this happening.
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI do not mean absolute proof that would satisfy any person's doubts. I only mean
I still do not understand what you mean by "proof", but what you have said is fair enough. I think you should be true to your own honest reading of the evidence as you understand it.
enough evidence or proof that sways my belief from unbelief to belief. I guess
googlefudge does not have enough to believe in God, but enough that sways
him to believe in Atheism. When I was a child I believed about everything
grownups told me at first. That included that Jesus loved me. Then as time
went on I discovered the lie and that changed my view on many things and
raised doubts in my mine to the point that I denied Jesus. It was a long road
for me to come back to belief and faith, but now it is so much stronger because
of those doubts. I no longer accept what the mainstream Christian churches
teach on every subject because I have searched for the truth and found enough
of it for me to believe again.
P.S. I believe Jesus does love me after all this.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloSerious arugments are not given here?
Here's my advice to you, since you do not seem to get it at all.
If you are intersted in reasons given against the existence of God, then go read serious arguments given in that capacity. Go do your research.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloDon't just tell me I'm wrong without giving examples as to why. That gets old after a while. :'(
No, it does not follow that matter "must be eternal in some way" from that matter was not created.
And, no, that there is no God does not commit one to the idea that matter sprang to life on its own.
And, even if you thought that, how would you reconcile "matter must be eternal" and "matter spring to life".
Your logic certainly leaves something to be desired.
24 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Eternal. Never ending with no beginning and no end. I realize my error in using terms like "eternal matter". My thinking was that both matter and life must have an origin. I suppose one might believe that matter came outside the material universe by some thoughtless and lifeless power just like life. In fact, I think that makes the most sense to me verses eternal matter.
Just for clarity, can you first give a definition for these terms (as you intended them):
1. eternal
2. created
3. life
2. Created. Intelligent oversight using its power to create.
3. Life. Growing up I was always told that the smallest life form was the living cell. Every living entity has a metabolism and can reproduce.
As for the bit about Darwins son, what say you? Have you given up on the debate?
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloOther options include:
No, it does not follow that matter "must be eternal in some way" from that matter was not created.
1. finite time.
2. the universe came from something external to the universe (without intelligent oversight).
I am assuming here that by 'matter' you mean 'energy in any form'. If you mean the dictionary definition the matter came from energy in the big bang.
And, no, that there is no God does not commit one to the idea that matter sprang to life on its own.
I think here that LemonJello admits to misunderstanding you (jaywill) and thought that you were referring to the universe (not abiogenesis).
But even if you are referring to abiogenesis one could of course suggest other origins for life - such as aliens, spirits (intelligent entities external to the universe but not God) or even 'unknown causes'.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyMy problem with any claims made regarding what is essentially a man made classification system with grey edges also suffers from having grey edges. This is the error that creationists usually make when announcing a universal rule including the word 'species'.
3. Life. Growing up I was always told that the smallest life form was the living cell. Every living entity has a metabolism and can reproduce.
Is a virus alive? What about a computer virus? When does a cell die and change from 'life' to 'non-life'?
Although there are times when we can definitively say 'this is alive' or 'that is not alive' there are times when we cannot.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyThanks for the reminder, I had missed your response.
As for the bit about Darwins son, what say you? Have you given up on the debate?
It has nothing to do with science or athiesm? Why have you come to that conclusion?
That eugenics could be used to control the evolution of humans is a scientific fact and undeniable. Whether or not we should, and what means we should use, and what direction we should take, is decidedly not science. Certainly calling it 'a substitute for religion' or 'a paramount duty' is not a conclusion drawn from science or atheism. It was you that came to the conclusion that it was - so it is up to you to substantiate.
Basically, we have the son of Charles Darwin who is arguing that mankind should pursue genetic engineering much like is done with livestock. How is that not science? We all know the benefits of breeding certain animals together to achieve certain desired results, so why not human beings?
Again, I say, that eugenics would work is undoubtedly science - that we should pursue it, is a moral question - and not science.
I personally would be a supporter of eugenics if it wasn't for the following concerns:
1. the human right to procreate.
2. the problem of agreeing on what characteristics are desirable.
3. the fact that it would be misused.
He then goes on to say that he hopes that this road will help replace religion as such genetic engineering may someday erradicate all the stupid folk who cling to their Bibles. How does this not have anything to do with atheism?
He clearly wanted to use it to promote atheism. Stalin chose to use a gun. But are guns or genocide 'the consequences of an atheistic worldview put into play'?
From my vantage point, this is a reoccuring theme with atheists. First is the worship of higher intelligence, as if a lack thereof is what hinders the human race.
You would prefer to be dumb? Do you seriously believe that only atheists wish for humans to be more intelligent? Do you also support the scraping of education systems so that we can all be uneducated too? Is this to promote your religion, or because you feel lonely?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88they did, the sky was the heavens, the moon and sun were gods, stars were gods and demons. many pagans based their whole religions around the sky.
if religion was made up don't you think that one of them would of just pointed to the moon and said that's heaven that's where god is.
using the logic you used in your post does this mean you now think all religion is made up.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyYou have to be careful with the definition of Life. By your definition, mules aren't alive.
1. Eternal. Never ending with no beginning and no end. I realize my error in using terms like "eternal matter". My thinking was that both matter and life must have an origin. I suppose one might believe that matter came outside the material universe by some thoughtless and lifeless power just like life. In fact, I think that makes the most sense to me ve ...[text shortened]... eproduce.
As for the bit about Darwins son, what say you? Have you given up on the debate?
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by stellspalfiedid the Catholic say that?
they did, the sky was the heavens, the moon and sun were gods, stars were gods and demons. many pagans based their whole religions around the sky.
using the logic you used in your post does this mean you now think all religion is made up.