Oh yes I have deary...you still cling to the slave master that was invented for you.

You still fail.

(February 23, 2012 at 9:14 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Oh yes I have deary...you still cling to the slave master that was invented for you.

You still fail.

And you stick to following nothing. You fail.

(February 23, 2012 at 9:04 am)chipan Wrote:

---

(February 23, 2012 at 8:51 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(February 23, 2012 at 8:33 am)chipan Wrote: Well we believe the same thing in respect that organic matter came from inorganic matter. I have a process for how it happened and you don't. Yet you say believing in your nonexistent process requires no faith. Well by that logic neither does mine.

You do not have a process. You have a hypothesis with no evidence.

LastPoet linked to a natural process which can cause Abiogenesis, but we have no evidence as yet, that is the process used in primordial soups.

If you wish to state that you have a process, you must accept the process "Genie of the Lamp" did it is equiprobable to your own.

Do I believe in a process? We can prove a process exists, which you have agreed to the logic of. You are being disingenuous by attaching the word nonexistent when clearly, even if it was "God did Magic" as a process.

However, you are making the illogical leap that "God Did Magic" in the absence of evidence of a natural process (the fact evidence does exist for natural processes is irrelevant atm).
If we can find no alternative process to the one shown by Miller-Urey, then by rights of Occams Razor, this is more likely than "no process, was magic".

---

I do believe in a process. I believe in the design process, that it was put together by a highly intelligent being. You fault me for no evidence when you don't have evidence either? Wow...And as for primordial soups, only produced amino acids... And only 2 out of 20 that are required. It's a long way off. And I dont think God used magic, I think he used highly advanced science though it may seem like magic to you because you don't understand it. No blame, neither do I or anyone else for that matter.

Wow, this is back to basics God discussion today.
You believe in the design process? So what designed God?

If God is eternal and requires no designer, then he is proof design is not required for complex things. Design is therefore not required for the universe, and God is made irrelevant.

It's a glorified First Cause argument, which has been torn apart a billion times. The only defence offered is, and always has been "He just DOES alright!".

Believing in the highly intelligent being (you do mean the Genie of the Lamp right? ) is a hypothesis, I fully accept that. Declaring it as a fact beyond even partial evidence of alternatives.. obviously problematic.

Quote:And I dont think God used magic, I think he used highly advanced science

In which case it disproves omnipotence. Omnipotence has no requirement for "highly advanced science". He would be able to simply create.
Are you arguing for God or Aliens?

I dare you to use the excuse "God is mysterious and we cannot know his reasons" apology.

(February 23, 2012 at 9:21 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(February 23, 2012 at 9:04 am)chipan Wrote:

---

(February 23, 2012 at 8:51 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(February 23, 2012 at 8:33 am)chipan Wrote: Well we believe the same thing in respect that organic matter came from inorganic matter. I have a process for how it happened and you don't. Yet you say believing in your nonexistent process requires no faith. Well by that logic neither does mine.

You do not have a process. You have a hypothesis with no evidence.

LastPoet linked to a natural process which can cause Abiogenesis, but we have no evidence as yet, that is the process used in primordial soups.

If you wish to state that you have a process, you must accept the process "Genie of the Lamp" did it is equiprobable to your own.

Do I believe in a process? We can prove a process exists, which you have agreed to the logic of. You are being disingenuous by attaching the word nonexistent when clearly, even if it was "God did Magic" as a process.

However, you are making the illogical leap that "God Did Magic" in the absence of evidence of a natural process (the fact evidence does exist for natural processes is irrelevant atm).
If we can find no alternative process to the one shown by Miller-Urey, then by rights of Occams Razor, this is more likely than "no process, was magic".

---

I do believe in a process. I believe in the design process, that it was put together by a highly intelligent being. You fault me for no evidence when you don't have evidence either? Wow...And as for primordial soups, only produced amino acids... And only 2 out of 20 that are required. It's a long way off. And I dont think God used magic, I think he used highly advanced science though it may seem like magic to you because you don't understand it. No blame, neither do I or anyone else for that matter.

Wow, this is back to basics God discussion today.
You believe in the design process? So what designed God?

If God is eternal and requires no designer, then he is proof design is not required for complex things. Design is therefore not required for the universe, and God is made irrelevant.

It's a glorified First Cause argument, which has been torn apart a billion times. The only defence offered is, and always has been "He just DOES alright!".

Believing in the highly intelligent being (you do mean the Genie of the Lamp right? ) is a hypothesis, I fully accept that. Declaring it as a fact beyond even partial evidence of alternatives.. obviously problematic.

Quote:And I dont think God used magic, I think he used highly advanced science

In which case it disproves omnipotence. Omnipotence has no requirement for "highly advanced science". He would be able to simply create.
Are you arguing for God or Aliens?

I dare you to use the excuse "God is mysterious and we cannot know his reasons" apology.

God does not need a designer because he exists outside this universe and is unaffected by time. Everything in this universe is and therefore requires origin.

Holy special pleading Batman!

Thanks for my new background for my PC's wallpaper Kichigai

(February 23, 2012 at 9:25 am)chipan Wrote: God does not need a designer because he exists outside this universe and is unaffected by time. Everything in this universe is and therefore requires origin.

I refer to earlier posts.

(February 23, 2012 at 9:21 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The only defence offered is, and always has been "He just DOES alright!".

You still want to claim you are being rational?

God exists outside of existence, therefore he does not exist. I rest my case.

(February 23, 2012 at 9:25 am)chipan Wrote: God does not need a designer because he exists outside this universe and is unaffected by time. Everything in this universe is and therefore requires origin.

Who said so? You? Philosophy only works so far..

If you fell over and missed the ground you would be flying...

Chipan says

Quote:but what you don't have evidence for you must assume to be true.

Well there's no evidence for unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies, so you must assume those are all true and real too.