Conquer Club

It may be going no where, but is amusing to read from a spectator's eye. This thread is one of the few fixtures in the Off Topics.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:It may be going no where, but is amusing to read from a spectator's eye. This thread is one of the few fixtures in the Off Topics.


--Andy

A certain zookeeper should lock it.. because its not like its going anywhere anyways.

What proves that God does not exist?

(fights the urge to post)

here's why people like, or don't like this thread. Correct me if i'm wrong:



there's no "real" way to prove God's exsistence, or to disprove it.....



personally, i like this thread, even i think it's pointless to prove a religious point on the internet

Jargo The Axe wrote:What proves that God does not exist?

Nothing conclusively proves that god doesn't exist. Just as nothing conclusively proves that he does exist. Nowhere in this 122+ page thread has logic been used to prove or disprove god's existence. What a pathetic excuse for a thread...the title should at least reflect the discussion within, or perhaps the other way around.

Hey! The Title grabs your attention! And all the logic needed is in the first post.

Jay isnt a fighter he's a lover.

The very first post

jay_a2j wrote:First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living. A lie

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from? Illogical and Irrelevant

The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce). A lie

There must be a God. A lie

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened A lie(but lets save that for a later thread).

That post proved that you are an accomplished liar/fantasist and nothing else.

mightyal wrote:That post proved that you are an accomplished liar/fantasist and nothing else.

I don't think that he lied about rock reproduction...

vtmarik wrote:

mightyal wrote:That post proved that you are an accomplished liar/fantasist and nothing else.

I don't think that he lied about rock reproduction...

It was more the 'science has said, Life cannot come from non-life' guff that I was referring to.

But science has said that they suspect life was created in a big pool of acids and chemicals, over millions of years... they use other science, and evindence, and speculation to say this... kind of like the evidance for God... some circumstance, unexplained healings, the fact that so many people believe in God, and others.

Paulicus wrote:But science has said that they suspect life was created in a big pool of acids and chemicals, over millions of years... they use other science, and evindence, and speculation to say this... kind of like the evidance for God... some circumstance, unexplained healings, the fact that so many people believe in God, and others.

Thats the evidence that makes me laugh. The "So many people are duped so it must be true" angle.

I don't remember the scientists name but I recall my 7th grade science teacher writting "Life can not come from non-life" on the blackboard, followed by the name of the person who said it. This was in the mid 80's, so it is possible that science has gotten life from a rock since then.

i will write my argument over the week and post it as it is fairly long and i don't have it written on the computer currently.

GandalftheWhite wrote:i will write my argument over the week and post it as it is fairly long and i don't have it written on the computer currently.

Good luck trying to Logically prove god's existence.

pikmin wrote:thats a period not a decmil point and Show me the logic that god exists and ill prove you long.


Also what happened to jay?

you'll prove us long?

here's a tip (cause i'm nice like that,) put spaces between your full stops and your numbers.

and jay has been constantly showing us the logic, but logic means nothing.

jay_a2j wrote:I don't remember the scientists name but I recall my 7th grade science teacher writting "Life can not come from non-life" on the blackboard, followed by the name of the person who said it. This was in the mid 80's, so it is possible that science has gotten life from a rock since then.

I HAVE heard something like the term "Life cannot come from non-life" in a scientific, non-creationist context before...Though God knows, when you Google this most of the results are bleedin' creationist sites, so it was hard to find anything relevant...but I think I have now:

There was a classical Greek theory of "Spontaneous generation" where it was thought that complex life forms could spontaneously generate from rotting matter - eg, maggots spontaneously generated on rotting meat - and this was very widely believed right up to the nineteenth century.

I think the expression you're looking for is "omne vivum ex ovo" - "All life is from an egg", which isn't quite the same thing as "life cannot come from non-life". It was a statement against spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis full stop.

And while "All life is from an egg" would still seem to contradict any abiogenesis whatsoever, I think we can rest assured that you'd be taking its meaning too far in that instance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omne_vivum_ex_ovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... Generation

mr. incrediball wrote:and jay has been constantly showing us the logic, but logic means nothing.

Please quote something logical Jay has said...

id like to see that as well, o ya THIS THREAD SHOULD DIIIEEEE even if i did bring it back from death after a long absence from the fourm...

this debate is useless. Every time someone proves god does or doesn't exist someone will prove him/her wrong.

Its like trying to figure out witch came first the egg or the chicken.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW

pikmin wrote:this debate is useless. Every time someone proves god does or doesn't exist someone will prove him/her wrong.

Its like trying to figure out witch came first the egg or the chicken.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW

Well, if Darwin's right two animals who had genetic similarities to the chicken mated and their DNA combined into the first chicken.

So the answer is the Egg!

Source: Broken Saints.

vtmarik wrote:

pikmin wrote:this debate is useless. Every time someone proves god does or doesn't exist someone will prove him/her wrong.

Its like trying to figure out witch came first the egg or the chicken.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW

Well, if Darwin's right two animals who had genetic similarities to the chicken mated and their DNA combined into the first chicken.

So the answer is the Egg!

Source: Broken Saints.

Even if Darwin is incorrect the egg answer still works.

A little research does you good! I found this....

The great scientist Louis Pasteur realized the futility of spontaneous generation. Francesco Redi had demonstrated long before that flies didn't 'arise' from decaying meat but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat! Pasteur definitively showed that microbes did not arise in a sterile meat broth until and unless other microbes had access to it. He and the great pathologist Rudolf Virchow formulated what later became known as the biogenetic law: Life comes only from life. The implication of this research was that life does not create itself, it required God to create it originally. Both of these Christian men of science were creationists.

Pasteur and Virchow came up with the law "life comes only from life" or "Life cannot come from non-life".


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... onist.html

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Doing a bit more research on the same site, I found the above. Pasteur may have stated "Life does not come from non-life" but he never intended that to mean life could never arise from non-life!