I can’t speak for Satan … personally, I have no problem with someone attemprting to demonstrate the existence of God. And I can conceive of demonstrations that are outside the realm of logic. I haven’t seen* such demonstrations, mind you … {grin}
Your attempt at a logical demonstration is flawed. That’s all I have said, and all that many others have said. I also grant that many others have used invective and irrelevancies.
The fact that your argument is flawed does not disprove the existence of God. The fact that others have found the flaws in your argument is not evidence that they are trying to disprove the existence of God (although I suspect that some in this thread woudl love to do so).
But you have made no attempt to modify your argument or support it. You’ve just restated it over and over and over and over again.
Your argument is flawed. The manner of its flaws have been stated many times in many ways. Please either give it up or modify it.
Yowza! Well worth a thread or two of its own. But I’ll leave it to more knowledgeable others to start such a thread.
There is evidence that a few of the steps required for abiogenesis do indeed occur under conditions similar to the early Earth. There are proposed pathways for abiogenesis. How plausible you find these pathways to be is a matter of individual opinion. I find them to be pretty plausible.
The only evidence of which I am aware for Divine Creation is various ancient writings and some testimony of people (many of whom have potential conflict of interest) who claim to have talked to God or received signs from God. Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable (I can provide references if you wish, most of them related to the legal system). How much weight you put on the ancient writings is also a matter of personal opinion.
I believe that the ancient writings contain much that is good, much that is true, much that is allegorical, and much that is flat-out contrary to the world as we perceive it (a trivial example being the diameter and circumfrence of the pool in the Temple, in which one could interpret the Bible as claiming the pi is three). I think the Genesis story falls in the allegorical category with a dash of untruth. That’s an opinion.
I believe that the abiogenesis scenario is possible. I do not know how to calculate the a priori probability, although I’ve seen a lot of calculations that were obviously flawed. Improbable things happen constantly.
I see no way to calculate the probability of Divine Creation. So I have a minor problem with your “why is the former more probable than the latter?”. It’s not really a matter for probability. I would have substituted “plausible” or “beleivable” for “probability”.
So, my conclusion is that abiogenesis is likely and Divine Creation is unlikley. THat’s my personal conclusion.
I have asked for proof of your claim that people on this board present our existence as proof for abiogenesis. Do you contend that you have provided such proof?
I have twice explicitly acknowledged that I accept your contention that people on this board present abiogenesis as fact. Now I’ve done it three times. *Nobody cares that you claimed that people on this board presented abiogenesis as fact!{/i]
This is now the second time I have asked my question in amended form:
Who has claimed that the fact that we exist proves abiogenesis, and when?
If people have not done that, you have insulted them in a particulary agregious manner and you should apologize and acknowledge your error. If they have done that, I’d love to argue against them.
I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with anything, but what the hay…
**
I have been doing quite a bit of spiritual searching lately. This has led me to a local Uniterian Universalist congregation. I do not consider myself a “member” yet, and I may decide that this particular church is not for me, but I am trying.
**
Because I enjoy playing devil’s advocate, it allows for some really funny jokes (I like humor), and most importantly, shock value, which I find amusing.
**
That is quite a loaded question. I will try and give it a complete answer:
First of all, there is no empirical evidence of God, and any attempt at logical philosophy to come up with a similar conclusion is also guaranteed to not work.
So, in the terms that you attempt to “prove” a God, I have a problem with it on a purely rational level because you can’t do it.
On a spiritual plane, however, I have a problem with it because you cheapen God when you need to lie or believe in lies for Him. The whole purpose of faith is that you do not need evidence.
You attempting to show (in various threads here) that Jesus Christ is the way by ways of a) illogical logic, b) creationists lies and c) lies about American history do nothing to glorify God, only cheapen Him. And also, this turns away a lot more people than it turns on. And since you are supposed to be a good witness, and you are supposed to turn people to God an not away, your methodology for “proving” God only results in going against what He preached.
The proof for God I have is in my heart and soul. It’s the love I feel for people and things around me. It is the conversations I have with Him. This is my evidence.
And as an experiment to show you that even the most anti-theistic person here, I will submit this qustion to David B:
I say I believe in God because I have faith that He is there. I personally feel His presence. I know this with every fiber of my being. Can you prove me wrong, David?
I am willing to bet Dave’s response will be something along the lines of, Fine.
Because I am not asking him (and others) to believe because the moondust is not the correct depth. I am not asking him (and others) to believe because our founding fathers were this way. And I am not asking him (and others) to believe because of some convoluted philosophy.
I am simply saying that I believe, and no argument can take that away from me.
And I also submit that if you were truly confident and secure in your faith, you would have no need to talk of moondust, founding fathers and logic problems. You would simply show that there is a God by - pay attenion here, this is important - BEING A GOOD WITNESS!
Be a good person. Help people. Do some good in your community. You don’t like abortion? Adopt a child. You want to show how Christian you are? Quit screaming it on a fucking message board. Get out there and DO something positive!
The Bible says that you should always aspire to act like Christ, and He did a lot of good, was not quick to anger, showed compassion, and frankly, I see more of that from my agnostic father than I see in most Christians I meet.
**
Read your first response when I asked the question. I simply treated you exactly as you deserved to be treated, exactly as you treated me.
You treat me with kindness, you get the same. You treat me like shit and I’ll shit right back at you. Argue with logic and fairness an I will do my best to reciprocate.
**
When you come in here and say you’re a Christian, then show anything BUT Christian behavior, I am going to call you on it. If it just so happens that I do this by showing that even I, a non-Christian am not acting in the manner you are, I do this not to lift myself above you, but simply to show you that you are not doing what God expects of you, by he standards you claim to follow.
**
You really don’t know anything about me. Well, you can start by clicking this link, which tells a little bit about the way I feel.
**
As I said, I never said I was a Christian. But I do believe in God. I have already explained why I took thi name. If that is not enough to please you, I am sorry, but pleaing you is not something I feel I need to do. If I do, that’s great! But I won’t lose any sleep over not pleasing someone who doesn’t even know me.
I have stood up for God when appropriate. I have not done his with lies, plageurism and anger. I have done this by living my life in a way that I don’t think displeases Him.
Notice, I said Him. Not you.
If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to take it to e-mail. This is painfully off-topic as it is, and I am sorry to anyone here who is upset because fo this hijacking.
THANK you. This is what I’ve been saying all along. I am not attacking God, or trying to disprove the existence of God. In fact, I believe that God exists, as do quite a few other people who have debated with pashley in this thread. I am attacking the logic of this particular “proof,” and nothing more. Pashley is getting way too defensive, considering that’s all we’re doing. This is not some sort of atheist conspiracy–we’re only showing errors in logic.
Frankly, I disagree with people who feel the need to PROVE that God exists. God is not an issue of logic, because the entire concept of God is beyond our paltry human comprehension. No human logic or reasoning can apply to God, because God is beyond the physical laws of the universe as we know them. The acceptance or refusal of the existence of God is an issue of faith and faith alone. I have no problem with people who trumpet their faith from the rooftops. But the moment you feel the need to apply man’s restrictions to God, you will only set yourself up for failure. God is beyond puny attempts at logical proofs of his existence. I’m sure God is up there somewhere reading this thread and chuckling. Keep the faith, pashley, but if you feel the need to prove it, don’t listen. In proving that God exists, the only thing you can listen to is your own heart.
The notion that everything created itself out of nothing holds no appeal for me because it does not make sense. Everything that exists in the physical world around us has a precursor, a creator. Things simply do not come into being on their own without some outside influence. The implications of such a view are that the universe and all it contains proceed nowhere and have no value. I simply cannot accept this premise.
To assert abiogenesis as probable fact indicates a philosophy rather than a scientifically supportable point of view. Pointing to the plausibility of a ‘few of the steps’ toward abiogenesis, then leaping to the conclusion of fact is more of a leap of faith than supportable science. Were abiogenesis true, we should be able to replicate it at will. We cannot, and IMO, never will.
There is the possibility that some things are simply unknoweable. This should not stop us from searching and questioning, but while so doing, remaining honest in our motives. It occurs to me that the belief that everything created itself out of nothing is not different than the belief that there is a creator. In the absence of demonstrable evidence, both require leaps of faith. Sure, we may be able to link increasing observed phenomena together on a cause and effect basis, but we remain nonetheless at the same impasse-where did it all come from?
My conclusion is that it all came from a creator, who I call God.
Well, I might agree with precursor, but not creator. Virtual particles again …
Yet every step in the proposed abiogenesis pathway has a precursor, so I don’t see how you can reject it on those grounds.
And, of course, maybe life came from someplace that neither of us has considered or can imagine.
Oh, by the way, who claims that our existence is proof of abiogenesis?
I agree that belief in abiogenesis requires some faith, but I see it as hardly a leap. Beleiving in Divine Creation, now {i]there’s* a brad-jump of faith! (At least for me.) {grin}
Fine. We have a difference of opinion and have come to different conclusions based on our own logic and personal belief systems. You maintain your belief system is more valid than mine. I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a big problem with is the childish arrogance displayed by the David B’s of the world who assert than any belief system other than their own is nothing more than stupidity and ought to be held to ridicule. That particular opinion indicates a complete lack of objectivity and only serves to promote ignorance and intolerance.
But I can’t resist another poke: you posted an insulting claim, saying that people have claimes that abiogenesis is proved by our existence. You have ignored all challenges to that claim. DavidB at least responds …
Actually, you and I, I believe, have some common ground. First, thanks for the post that comes across as discussive, not caustic.
I too, KNOW that I cannot prove that God exists. Did everyone hear that? I cannot prove that God exists. He is above our reality. However, I do believe we can provide logical arguments that either mildly suggest (the argument from the Origin of the Idea of God, Descartes),or strongly suggest (the argument from Efficent Causality)that God, in fact exists. I am discussing the latter with Nen in the “Goliath” thread.
If you think I am getting defensive, well, yeah, when several people assail me unprovoked. I want to discuss topics, not argue like drunk Marines. See, I’m not some wimpy christian that just lies down and takes a beating from some of these cowards. I don’t have a problem defending my faith.
Regarding the last paragraph, why do you have a problem with someone discussing evidence for, or discussing arguments for the existence of God?
I agree, that HE is beyond or comprehension, but not beyond our ability to detect HE is there; His nature may be unknowable, but I believe the dectection of his presence is not unknowable. If you disagree, that’s fine, I respect that. Yes, faith is the true bridge to HIM.
Happy Easter, man.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
I’m going to go ahead and guess Occam. Let me know if I’m right, will you?
By the way, I am STILL waiting for your positive evidence in favor of special creation, since you agreed that negation of abiogenisis does not in any way strengthen your position.
Responding to Satan’s reference to the Universalist Unitarian Church, Pashley said
This is the most supremely hilarious post on this entire thread. Problem is, I don’t know if it’s supposed to a joke or an insult. Know why? NO SMILIES!! :mad:
Pashley, use the smilies! That’s why God made them! (See, now that was a joke.)
Ah, I see. So earlier in the thread when you agreed that special creation was the “outsider theory”, and thereby the burden of proof rests on it’s supporters. . . .that was all just a put-on.
Dumb Ox was right when he said you guys really need to learn when to use smileys
(See, now that was a joke.)