Conquer Club

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

But I'm sure you've seen tons of logic against God's existence.







At this point, you are just an annoyance.

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

But I'm sure you've seen tons of logic against God's existence.

Yes, there's been some of that on these forums I recall.

Yes, us bumpkins need to be spoon fed with direct, active sentences.

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

Look, I know that Americans and the internet aren't conducive to sarcasm, but I rather think it was fairly obvious that that was exactly my point.

Yes, us colonial bumpkins need simple, direct, active sentences. Sarcasm and satire is too much for us. Wait, wait, there is Mark Twain, the Colbert Report, the Daily Show, and George Carlin (may he rest in peace). Maybe we can get it if you type slowly.

mpjh wrote:Yes, us bumpkins need to be spoon fed with direct, active sentences.

See? ya can do sarcasm. Or was it irony?

btw you forget two of my favourites, James Branch Cabell and James Thurber. And yes, I'm a fan of all those you mentioned - except that I don't know Carlin. My brother sent me some CD's and DVD's a while ago, and I mean to listen to & watch 'em soon.

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

That's because jay's view of logic was very very wrong

Iliad wrote:

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

That's because jay's view of logic was very very wrong

Actually, it's more that many (here) have a problem following logic. It's "Logic dictates" not "Simple laid out proof".

Given the scientifically proven, not to mention common sense, fact that life can not come from something that is not living. And also can not just pop up out of nothing. How can we know the origin of life? Logic and common sense leads us to the idea that something has always had to have existed that is living in order for life to exist at all. "Always have existed", something that had no beginning. If the universe was an empty black space with nothing in it at some point, nothing would ever be in it, apart from a creator. This is logical. Against your belief system be as it may, its logical.


The only other option is that "stuff" appeared from nothing. I think this horse is dead now.

jay_a2j wrote:

Iliad wrote:

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

That's because jay's view of logic was very very wrong

Actually, it's more that many (here) have a problem following logic. It's "Logic dictates" not "Simple laid out proof".

Given the scientifically proven, not to mention common sense, fact that life can not come from something that is not living. And also can not just pop up out of nothing. How can we know the origin of life? Logic and common sense leads us to the idea that something has always had to have existed that is living in order for life to exist at all. "Always have existed", something that had no beginning. If the universe was an empty black space with nothing in it at some point, nothing would ever be in it, apart from a creator. This is logical. Against your belief system be as it may, its logical.


The only other option is that "stuff" appeared from nothing. I think this horse is dead now.

But you can't claim logic if there is science that disproves your claim that nothing living can come from non-living things.

Jay the point of science is to find out. The point of science is find answers. "God did it" should never be accepted as an answer. EVER. The human race must never stop and feel that it knows everything. It is the person who thinks he knows the most, that knows so little and it is the culture which thinks it has completely understood the world that will stagnate and will be subject to a complete overhaul(whether external or internal).

This is one of my biggest ires against religion. It teaches people to be content with the knowledge it teaches you, and that is the complete unerring truth. "I don't know" is a better response than "God did it" because in the former you speaker understands that he has work to do, things to work on and to find out.

Do not presume that because not every reason for everything is right here in front of you, you should take that as an argument for religion. There will ALWAYS be not completely answerable questions, always there will be room for improvements. You will never have all the answers and anything that claims to have all the answers is just lying.

your brain is dead

Hey is that necrocism? Just because I'm a zombie does not give you a right to make deriding remarks. What did Martin Luther King rise from the grave for?

If you argue against the possibility of a beginning, which you do, because it makes no sense to you, then logic "dictates" that there was no beginning.
Accepting your version of logic, the simplest two conclusions from that would be:
(1) We don't exist, or
(2) The universe has always existed, has no beginning, world without end.

"Logic" does not require the introduction of a God into either of those possibilities.

jay_a2j wrote:

Iliad wrote:

mpjh wrote:How is that? I haven't seen any logic in support of god's existence throughout this entire thread.

That's because jay's view of logic was very very wrong

Actually, it's more that many (here) have a problem following logic. It's "Logic dictates" not "Simple laid out proof".

Given the scientifically proven, not to mention common sense, fact that life can not come from something that is not living. And also can not just pop up out of nothing. How can we know the origin of life? Logic and common sense leads us to the idea that something has always had to have existed that is living in order for life to exist at all. "Always have existed", something that had no beginning. If the universe was an empty black space with nothing in it at some point, nothing would ever be in it, apart from a creator. This is logical. Against your belief system be as it may, its logical.


The only other option is that "stuff" appeared from nothing. I think this horse is dead now.

It is not scientifically proven that life can not come from something that is not living. In fact there is active scientific investigation of the thesis that life came from rock and chemicals.

mpjh wrote:It is not scientifically proven that life can not come from something that is not living. In fact there is active scientific investigation of the thesis that life came from rock and chemicals.

I will believe it, when I see it. The whole premise of life coming from something that is not alive is absurd. It doesn't make a bit of sense. But if it helps you sleep at night.....(and we already covered this, remember? The physicist who demonstrated that it is not possible.)

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote:It is not scientifically proven that life can not come from something that is not living. In fact there is active scientific investigation of the thesis that life came from rock and chemicals.

I will believe it, when I see it. The whole premise of life coming from something that is not alive is absurd. It doesn't make a bit of sense. But if it helps you sleep at night.....(and we already covered this, remember? The physicist who demonstrated that it is not possible.)

No, you established that several hundred years ago someone proved that maggots don't spontaneously generate themselves.
Huge scientific advance.

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote:It is not scientifically proven that life can not come from something that is not living. In fact there is active scientific investigation of the thesis that life came from rock and chemicals.

I will believe it, when I see it. The whole premise of life coming from something that is not alive is absurd. It doesn't make a bit of sense. But if it helps you sleep at night.....(and we already covered this, remember? The physicist who demonstrated that it is not possible.)

No, you established that several hundred years ago someone proved that maggots don't spontaneously generate themselves.
Huge scientific advance.

but................... other life does?


(this is the whole point! If life doesn't spontaneously generate, how did it start?) Don't tell me it came from a rock and then call me crazy because I believe God created it.

You are not crazy, just purposefully uninformed. Science is in the business of answering questions about the real world. One question is where did life come from. Scientists are exploring hypothesis concerning the question and one area of exploration is whether DNA and subsequently life derived from chemicals trapped in the layers of mica. The difference between a scientist and you is that the scientist tries to find the truth, and you simply deny the possibility because your mind can't grasp it.

jay_a2j wrote:

comic boy wrote:
This makes sense to me but people like Jay will simply say you are damned, in his tiny World there is only one religion ( his ), no other position can be considered. The consequence of this is millions of people believing that millions of other people serve a false god and are therefore unworthy, it always results in conflict and often this leads to deaths. All of this because narrow minded and emotionaly weak people are desperate to be on 'the right side', to belong to 'the winning club' to support the ' only true maker ' , is it any wonder so many of us despise what occurs in the name of religion.

Hmmm, I don't have a "religion". Religion is man made. We are called to have a relationship with our creator. Some will choose to not have a relationship with Him. Or won't be able to because of sin. It is the place of God and God alone to decide who is "damned" and who is not. And as Christians we will be judged on the relationship we have with Him. I don't makes the rules, God does. So if you have a problem with His "tiny world", take it up with Him.

Just another pile of physcho babble, the fact is that you have decided to believe in a God, decided to follow the Christian faith and furthermore chosen to follow a very narrow interpretation of that particular religion. You have talked yourself into believing all sorts of things but your 'truth' is highly subjective to say the least , yes religion is man made and so is the strife it has caused, you cant act in the name of God and then deny responsibility for what happens.

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote:It is not scientifically proven that life can not come from something that is not living. In fact there is active scientific investigation of the thesis that life came from rock and chemicals.

I will believe it, when I see it. The whole premise of life coming from something that is not alive is absurd. It doesn't make a bit of sense. But if it helps you sleep at night.....(and we already covered this, remember? The physicist who demonstrated that it is not possible.)

But you dont need to see God to believe in him,why the double standards ?

comic boy wrote: you cant act in the name of God and then deny responsibility for what happens.

Why sure you can. Just as I could go rob a bank in the name of "comic boy", would you then be required to claim responsibility?

comic boy wrote:But you dont need to see God to believe in him,why the double standards ?

It's called "faith". Just as you have faith in life springing forth from rocks, I have faith in God.

I have no "faith" in life springing from rocks. I want to know the truth through scientific exploration of the question. I also have no problem with "faith" but the topic of this thread is that "logic dictates" that there is a god. That is not faith. So try and stay on topic.

Self-replicating molecules at first, mpjh, then RNA, then DNA.

jay_a2j wrote:

comic boy wrote: you cant act in the name of God and then deny responsibility for what happens.

Why sure you can. Just as I could go rob a bank in the name of "comic boy", would you then be required to claim responsibility?

comic boy wrote:But you dont need to see God to believe in him,why the double standards ?

It's called "faith". Just as you have faith in life springing forth from rocks, I have faith in God.

Your Analogy is ridiculous and is simply a case of avoiding the question, science is not faith because it stands or falls on the basis of evidence alone.Thats why Creationism ( which is based only on faith ) is not comparable to Evolution ( that is universaly accepted because of the huge weight of proof in its favour ) You and your ilk deliberately choose to attempt to discredit evolution because you fear the overwhelming weight of evidence that supports it. If creationism had any credible substance you would instead actively promote that, you dont because there isnt any so you are forced to rubbish evolution and all the science that goes alongside it. The criminal aspect, of this refusal to acknowledge anything that contradicts your 3000 year old dogma, is that it impedes progress, in the case of medical understanding it costs lives and causes uneccessary suffering , all to safeguard your precious fairy tales.

comic boy wrote:Your Analogy is ridiculous and is simply a case of avoiding the question, science is not faith because it stands or falls on the basis of evidence alone.Thats why Creationism ( which is based only on faith ) is not comparable to Evolution ( that is universaly accepted because of the huge weight of proof in its favour ) You and your ilk deliberately choose to attempt to discredit evolution because you fear the overwhelming weight of evidence that supports it. If creationism had any credible substance you would instead actively promote that, you dont because there isnt any so you are forced to rubbish evolution and all the science that goes alongside it. The criminal aspect, of this refusal to acknowledge anything that contradicts your 3000 year old dogma, is that it impedes progress, in the case of medical understanding it costs lives and causes uneccessary suffering , all to safeguard your precious fairy tales.

Ditto.

Which is why Packrat is finally an Athiest.

comic boy wrote:You and your ilk deliberately choose to attempt to discredit evolution because you fear the overwhelming weight of evidence that supports it. If creationism had any credible substance you would instead actively promote that, you dont because there isnt any so you are forced to rubbish evolution and all the science that goes alongside it. The criminal aspect, of this refusal to acknowledge anything that contradicts your 3000 year old dogma, is that it impedes progress, in the case of medical understanding it costs lives and causes uneccessary suffering , all to safeguard your precious fairy tales.

There's also that little pesky issue that evolution, please say it with me now, is not a theory on how life began, simply a theory on how life developed past that point.

You (and by you I mean Jay and the like) can rant on and on about how "it's just a theory" and how it "requires just as much faith as Christianity" or even how "it keeps changing to fit new facts." This doesn't change the basic fact that you've missed the whole point and are arguing something that everyone knows as if it makes your argument any more bulletproof. Creationism and Evolution are not competing theories.

EDIT: Good to be back America!

Oh wow. Now there's a man I'm happy to see the return of.