It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe

originally posted by: TzarChasm

None of those labels appear on my state ID or my birth certificate so I can reasonably conclude that your hostile adjectives are factually juvenile and ignorant. Appealing to emotion is also a logical fallacy so provoking me into altering my analysis is transparently ludicrous.

So if my rhetorical analysis was wrong, that means you think we're meaningful people that are derived from a logical source?

a reply to: cooperton

I've already said what I think. I can clarify my comments if you want, but you can't put your own words in place of what I have already shared.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Even if you take humans out of the equation i struggle to see how order can arise from chaos naturally. Surely you're not going to argue with Einstein on the nature of reality and the physics underpinning our universe?

"I no longer believed in the known God of the Bible, but rather in the mysterious God expressed in nature."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Albert Einstein

a reply to: Grenade

"God" seems to be a more or less universally agreed upon (and by universally of course I mean within the confines of our earthly society) label for the spiritual effects of serendipity which can be roughly translated as beautiful coincidence. Both of these concepts, beauty and coincidence, are translations of a larger idea which is that something superficial can be interpreted more profoundly than mere chemistry and physics would suggest. This is how the phenomenon of pareidolia happens.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, to hold a firm belief one way or the other is nothing but arrogance.

Nobody knows and that's a fact.

“Science has found that nothing can disappear without a trace. Nature does not know extinction. All it knows is transformation.

“Now, if God applies this fundamental principle to the most minute and insignificant parts of His universe, doesn't it make sense to assume that He applies it also to the masterpiece of His creation – the human soul?

“I think it does. And everything science has taught me – and continues to teach me – strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death. Nothing disappears without a trace."

Wernher von Braun

a reply to: Grenade

What we DO know is that before the human species was born, there was no word for god or the soul and no need for it. You trace theology back to a certain point and it stops. As in, there was a beginning and not like what scriptures describe, it's a beginning of the idea that there is "spirit". Before that, it didn't exist in any form for 4 billion years of the Earth's existence. There's no record or evidence that this premise was delivered to us apart from scriptures which haven't been corroborated aside from very circumstantial historical record that have failed to produce extraterrestrial life or communications from outside our world or any form of life after death. The logical conclusion is we invented it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

We've been down this path before, i respectfully agree to disagree.

I simply can't fathom such intricate and complex systems arising randomly, i believe in intelligent design solely for this reason and no amount of nihilism will change that opinion.

As i said i'm far from religious so i agree with you on that aspect.

You should ask if there was no words, soul or consciousness then why did life manifest? Delusions or not we are part of the universe which means intelligence is part of the universe.

Seems we are the eyes of the universe reflecting upon itself, without our observations it would all be for nothing.

a reply to: Grenade

You're probably familiar with the whole "incredulity isn't an argument against the facts" response and how that tangent of dialogue goes, and your nihilism comment is irrelevant to my remarks. With that said, I accept your disagreement.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Indeed, i said early in the thread it's a waste of time, these views and beliefs are deeply entrenched in people and objectivity rarely rears its head in these threads. I've always considered you somewhat of a nihilist but that could well be an unfair characterisation. I could also be confusing you with someone else, have you changed your avatar recently?

Take care everyone, at the end of the day we're all in it together on the edge of the unknown.

I'm actually bowing out now, going over old ground.

Despite our differences i respect your opinion, let's leave it at that.

Well its illogical to imply that finite always existed. Because finite is not infinite.

Finite is the opposite of infinite.

Since finite is not a real source to our exitance. We know that the infinite is......

But since the infinite is a constant. We kow that a constant can not change unless it wants to.

A constant:

Constant (mathematics), a non-varying value

Any people who argue that there is no God are just #ingg dumb. And they sure as hell dont understand science.

People just dont understand what they read bacuase they are as dumb as #

If you don't know what science state about finite how can you argue any of this..... Your just damn lame.

originally posted by: spy66
...garbage snipped...
Any people who argue that there is no God are just #ingg dumb. ...more garbage snipped...

Kindly provide proof of the biblical "god" you mention... Once that is established, we can have a conversation.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Erno86

Provide examples of this in a lab environment. Otherwise pure fiction and conjecture.

@ 18:54

originally posted by: Erno86

@ 18:54

He only formed about 5 different amino acids. But the thing is, that's not even the hard part of forming early prototypical life. Even if amino acids are a given in the environment, it is energetically unfavorable for them to self-polymerize. So much so that any presence of water will spontaneously degrade any amino acid chains. So if amino acid polymerization is unfavorable in water, it is not possible for these theorized amino acid chains to be formed in a water environment. Not to mention you would need nucleotide sequences as well to code for the amino acid sequences, as well as cell membranes to maintain these polymers. The proteins also need chaperone proteins to be folded properly into a functional quaternary structure. These sequences also need modulators to know when to express the various genes or not. From memory, even the most simple prokaryote still has over 500 genes.

It's just not plausible given the fact that water degrades amino acid and nucleotide sequences

Although I did find it ironic they referred to the mere formation of a simple amino acid monomer as "a stroke of genius". This is a Freudian slip admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence.

originally posted by: cooperton
Although I did find it ironic they referred to the mere formation of a simple amino acid monomer as "a stroke of genius". This is a Freudian slip admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence.

I'd say they were referring to the intelligence needed for a human to figure it out.

You are pretzeling that to fit your biased theory.

originally posted by: daskakik

I'd say they were referring to the intelligence needed for a human to figure it out.

You are pretzeling that to fit your biased theory.

Apparently you can't argue the points I made.

Unintelligence cannot create even the most basic prokaryote

a reply to: cooperton
The points you made show they are not there yet. Nothing to argue.

What I pointed out is how you, in your zealotry, take something off the cuff and actually of no significance, since it is just the opinion of whoever said this was "a stroke of genius", and try to turn it into "proof" of something.

originally posted by: daskakik

What I pointed out is how you, in your zealotry, take something off the cuff and actually of no significance, since it is just the opinion of whoever said this was "a stroke of genius", and try to turn it into "proof" of something.

Nah I never said it was evidence, I just said it was a Freudian slip.

How would amino acids polymerize in water if water spontaneously decays amino acid polymers?

a reply to: cooperton

Freudian slip admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence

Even if it was a Freudian slip, who was it from and what weight does that carry?

And what exactly is "admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence" if not trying to say it is evidence of something.

Of course it isn't, so why did you bother pointing it out?

It is illogical to think that a GOD does exist. The simplest answer may not always be the correct one, but if we’re going to demand that God be part of the equation, we should at least have a very good reason for doing so. God not only adds to the complexity of the equation, but also requires us to assume supernatural entities can and do exist, and that they are capable of extraordinary things, such as eternally existing outside of time and space, and able to call forth matter and energy out of nothing… and these are no small assumptions. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, does not require any such fanciful thinking.

If we’re willing to accept that some things can naturally exist and start out simple, and become more complex over time, why not simply say this is what happened with us?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
Although I did find it ironic they referred to the mere formation of a simple amino acid monomer as "a stroke of genius". This is a Freudian slip admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence.

I'd say they were referring to the intelligence needed for a human to figure it out.

You are pretzeling that to fit your biased theory.

Considering it took thousands of years for society to figure out that microbiology exists. We can thank god for not telling us about e coli and salmonella. What a douche.