On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT), panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On Apr 24, 2:41 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:07:34 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >On Apr 21, 9:19 pm, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:56:31 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >On Apr 21, 1:32 pm, jesucris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(marques de sade)
wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:02:01 +0900, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> >> >snippy
>>
>> >> >> so why do you act like you engage atheists in debate from a
>> >> >> scientific perspective when all is settled religiously for you...
>>
>> >> >They never seem to understand how absurd it looks to someone who's
not
>> >> >a member of their own religion.
>>
>> >> >God believers, it really is this simple:
>>
>> >> >I don't believe your gods exist.
>>
>> >> Are you willing to admit your faith in that, or are you ashamed
>> >> to as the vast majority of strong atheists appear to be?
>>
>> >It would appear the thought experiment has failed. You speak of the
>> >existence of gods as if it is im****tant. Since there is no evidence
>> >for such creatures, it is not.
>>
>> How do you think you could you tell if you yourself were evidence?
>
>Don't even try that one, homeboy...nobody "created" me but my momma
>and papa.
They didn't create you, so you have it wrong from the ground up.
Not only did they not create you, they didn't even know if you would
be a boy or a girl at the time your zygote came into being, or even if
a living zygote would occur from their activities.
>Seriously, our first fledgling steps into abiogenesis research gives
>indications that given such volitile chemicals in such proximity over
>that amount of time, we should be surprised if life did *not* arise
>from lifelessness.
Even if so, we have no way of knowing whether or not it could
have developed to this extent, and even if so again whether or
not humans could have developed to the extent we have, etc...
There's no way of knowing, so I consider both possibilities.
The last I heard humans still have not been able to create
living organizms from lifeless matter. If not, then as yet we have
no reason to believe it just happened to occur without any help,
since we still can't make it happen with lots of help. Taking it
beyond that we could ask how the creator came to be then,
if it can't. So even if life on Earth could not have begun without
help, we still are left to wonder how the creator could have come
to be without help... That being the case it seems we must
assume that some life must have begun without the help of a
creator, even if a creator did have influence on the development
of our Universe, and/or life on Earth...whatever...etc...
>I suspect our inability to find life elswhere is
>due to the primitive nature of the tools we're using to search for it.
Well since we can't even go look, yeah we are primitive.
How abundant life is or is not is an entirely different topic.
>Of course, from here you'll suggest a "supernatural" origin for the
>chemicals...
If a creator does exist, I have no doubt he had whatever influence
he needed to in order to do the creating.
>> >> >Just try to use your imagination for
>> >> >a moment, and I'll attempt to explain to you how it sounds to us.
>>
>> >> I don't have to use my imagination because I do consider
>> >> the possibility that God does not exist, as well as the possibility
>> >> that he does.
>>
>> >Which is an indicator of the deeper problem. You are still pondering
>> >about whether or not gods exist.
>>
>> As yet I have no reason to put faith in either possibility.
>
>But yet, you still ponder it. Do you spend this much time worrying
>about the existence of bicycle-riding unicorns on Neptune?
I have faith that there isn't even one on the whole planet.
>After all,
>there is just as much evidence for *that* as there is for gods..
Not to me. To me that's a very ignorant way to allow yourself
to think, in fact.
|
