Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Therefore, a mover/creator is the only logical conclusion, at this point.
Good grief If the only conclusion you drew from Arach's Sciencey - jargon wordsalad is the above, it seems clear that you are going to claim goddunnit as 'the only logical conclusion' even if he had posted a calamari risotto recipe. You are just shouting "God!God! God!" to whatever anyone says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
How is a possible creator illogical?
That's why you are not only illogical but intellectually dishonest ( don't believe that you are not smarter than this). You know by now (or should) that a possible creator, a possible panspermia, a possible natural evolution and possible alien scientists doing primeval genetics are oll logical entities when we don't know.
To invent Faith in any one possibility and claim it as true is what is not logical. And don't say that's what abiogenesis - fanciers do. The materialist default alone would make that the favourite claim without any evidence. But there is a fair bit of indirect mechanism, some suggestive experiments and a plausible mechanism. All that your claim has is an old book full of holes.
This has already been explained, but you aren't listening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Seriously? It makes no difference in the way we perceive thngs, if there is/is not a creator?
No. Why should it? Did it make any practical difference when we found out that atoms were not solid, or that we are all made of star -stuff or that the universe might be a hologram? We still live the same way and argue about whether we can be moral without a god. All this stuff is interesting and certainly makes a difference to the way we perceive the world beyond how we daily interact with it. But it makes - as i say - no practical difference.
I ask you again, why should it? or more of a pertinent point (because you are equivocating here) what difference would it make to the way we live?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2018 at 02:12 PM..
If logic requires a creator, then the same logic requires a creator for the creator. The religious of course tend to insist that the creator has existed eternally and requires no creator. Apparently then, logic only requires a creator when it suits religious assumptions.
Science does tell us how life began. You just don't really want to know.
He isn't reading anything, anymore. He is fingers in ears, eyes screwed shut screaming "Nothing can happen without somebody doing it!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
And you’re not willing to speculate or consider? That’s mentally lazy.
A debate between you, Arach and Shirina would be Fascinating, truly fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Why? *bolded above
Because logic requires that anything that exists being claimed to need a creator means that a god that exists requires a creator. If there is something that exists that does not requite a creator, then the claim that everything requires a creator fails. If you say that this is not logic, you are wrong. If you say that logic is a mere human invention, do so, but don't ever claim to argue logically. If you claim that a postulated creator is excempt from the logical premise, we ask your question -"Why?"
If you answer is "Because it's God" then you are appealing to magic without either logic or evidence and as is blindingly obvious to all we Nihilistic Pondslime, it is appealing to magical explanations in order to make a faith Claim work when in all other respects, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
That not even close to what I asked you. What difference does knowing how life began have on your ability to life a good and moral life?
It wouldn't be close to what you asked. Evasion and wriggling is now the name of the game.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2018 at 02:26 PM..
Because I'm addressing your method of arguing. The evidence was in previous posts -which you apparently see fit to ignore. And religion or irreligion is irrelevant when the claim of a creator god is being posited. You are clearly wriggling, here.
You can't bear being called on irrational faith -claims and finding that you have nothing. So you are doing the good old Flounce -off with some old hat accusation of bias and saying that we've been at it a long time Well, I've been doing it since "Who moved the stone" threw down the gauntlet to doubters, but religious (particularly Christian) propaganda has been going long before that.
It still sounds ad though you are trying to find a way of escaping while telling yourself you got the last word. I'd be happy to have a discussion, but you are avoiding it and preferring accusations about my motives. Of course I'd like to persuade people I was on the right lines. don't you?
So be it, indeed. You wouldn't be the first one who finds their usual apologetics don't work to run away crying 'foul' or 'bias'. And 'you shouldn't have to?' What then? You expect us to accept whatever faith -claims you plonk down without anyone calling you on them? The days when theism could expect to get away with that are long gone.
For my part, I am happy to put my case (or ours) and let the browsers see who has the best one. It's why we baby -baking Satanspawn rule in R/S as well as A/A.
What irrational faith claims have I made? Who have I tried to recruit to anything?
If I bring up a notion or reference it's deemed as suspicious. I referenced the ancient megaliths and even that somehow brought out anger.
You guys are on some type of take no prisoners social warriors trip and I'm just looking for answers about life.
You rule with your own kind, back slapping each other every thread.
I just watched that. Neat vid (and not too long for my decrepitated attention -span) The question I ask is 'about replication. RNA does, but can transfer an electron in the presence of Iron ( I want a bit more than that) and is at least the action trigger for activating the genetic code of DNA. But it has to replicate or it either 'randomly' recreates or goes extinct.
But these are questions about abiogenesis, not OF Abiogenesis. And this is not the Biology forum
Good grief If the only conclusion you drew from Arach's Sciencey - jargon wordsalad is the above, it seems clear that you are going to claim goddunnit as 'the only logical conclusion' even if he had posted a calamari risotto recipe. You are just shouting "God!God! God!" to whatever anyone says.
I never said God.
That's why you are not only illogical but intellectually dishonest ( don't believe that you are not smarter than this). You know by now (or should) that a possible creator, a possible panspermia, a possible natural evolution and possible alien scientists doing primeval genetics are oll logical entities when we don't know.
To invent Faith in any one possibility and claim it as true is what is not logical. And don't say that's what abiogenesis - fanciers do. The materialist default alone would make that the favourite claim without any evidence. But there is a fair bit of indirect mechanism, some suggestive experiments and a plausible mechanism. All that your claim has is an old book full of holes.
I never mentioned Christianity or the Bible.
This has already been explained, but you aren't listening.
No. Why should it? Did it make any practical difference when we found out that atoms were not solid, or that we are all made of star -stuff or that the universe might be a hologram? We still live the same way and argue about whether we can be moral without a god. All this stuff is interesting and certainly makes a difference to the way we perceive the world beyond how we daily interact with it. But it makes - as i say - no practical difference.
I ask you again, why should it? or more of a pertinent point (because you are equivocating here) what difference would it make to the way we live?
Answers in blue
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the only conclusion you drew from Arach's Sciencey - jargon wordsalad is the above, it seems clear that you are going to claim goddunnit as 'the only logical conclusion' even if he had posted a calamari risotto recipe. You are just shouting "God!God! God!" to whatever anyone says.
you guys are Leapfrogging me.
Well, I've been doing it since "Who moved the stone" threw down the gauntlet to doubters, but religious (particularly Christian) propaganda has been going long before that. 
What then? You expect us to accept whatever faith -claims you plonk down without anyone calling you on them? The days when theism could expect to get away with that are long gone.
I want a bit more than that) and is at least the action trigger for activating the genetic code of DNA. But it has to replicate or it either 'randomly' recreates or goes extinct.
A creator/mover is the only logical conclusion, at this point. Science cannot tell us how life began.
