(November 3, 2014 at 12:45 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: In my opinion, Christianity is more reasonable than any scientific hypothesis that can be used to explain the origins of life, the universe, and consciousness.

That doesn't say much about the Universe, but it speaks volumes about your ability to analyze and synthesize information.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:45 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: In my opinion, Christianity is more reasonable than any scientific hypothesis that can be used to explain the origins of life, the universe, and consciousness.

Your opinion doesn't hold any more weight than the Scientologist's opinion an intergalactic warlord named Xenu trapped billions of beings in volcanoes on Earth, blew them up with atomic bombs, captured their souls with "soul catchers" and now these beings are on the loose causing all the problems of humanity.

Just like you, they have their opinion and you have yours.

What neither of you have is a shred of evidence to back up your ludicrous claims. Everyone can make up a bullshit story.

Religious beliefs explain exactly nothing. "God did it" is not an explanation for anything.

It's a hand wave.

(November 3, 2014 at 11:33 am)JesusHChrist Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

And I have a not suffered the intellectual lobotomy required to be a theist.

Lobotomy sir?

No thanks. I'm good.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Thackerie Wrote: I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Burp!

@Maj:

Kalam cannot get you any closer to your or any god than "the Universe must have had a cause", even if we grant an extremely generous tract of leeway to the assumptions in the premises. Everything else you need to tip you over that final edge has to be nailed on to the end without any justification whatsoever.

In fine, Kalam isn't merely a horse that can't run - it's a horse that's practically begging to be put out of its misery.

@His Majesty

The Kalaam argument is nonsense from the start. That you present it here as one of the possible proofs of God does not bode well for the rest

(November 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Thackerie Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 11:33 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: And I have a not suffered the intellectual lobotomy required to be a theist.

Lobotomy sir?

No thanks. I'm good.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE.

(bold mine)


19 pages in, most surely all is covered. Just picked this to post this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Finally, someone has shown up to inform us of what a Christian believes...no longer do we have to wonder.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: That is basically my belief in a nut shell. Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine, Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).

So even Jesus knew he was asking people to swallow something bigger than their heads.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

So, you don't believe in magic? I thought you said you were a Christian.

Rule of thumb: If you have to so over-simplify a claim to make it sound absurd...it isn't absurd.

But an atheist doesn't have to believe that, a naturalist has to believe that, an atheist could believe any cause for the beginning of life except that a god did it.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE.

I don't think you grasp what the word 'suddenly' means.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried.

I couldn't get myself to believe in that utterly stupid strawman of the abiogenesis scenario if I tried, either.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

Atheism isn't necessarily more reasonable. Methodological naturalism is shot to pieces the moment you can show there's something that's not natural. Got anything like that?

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

Yep. That you find it hard to believe has not the slightest bearing on whether or not it happened.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

So you don't consider faith to be a virtue either, eh? At least we have that in common.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 1:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Why the heck do I have to believe such nonsense?

Are you an atheist? If you are, according to the wiki passage of "atheism", which cited its source...

"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

Now, this has been the traditional definition of atheism...even though the definition has been revised over the years because its advocates knew just how absurd the position is.

So what part of that definition requires an atheist to agree with your nonsensical version of abiogenesis, or ANY version of abiogenesis?

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, the forum member "Brian" had just made a post where he was implying that "we" shouldn't believe anything unless it can be scientifically proven, which is naturalism.

So in other words, some people DO believe that.

And some don't. Atheist is not a synonym for naturalist. Try hanging out with the Raellians if you want to hear some non-naturalistic nuttery from atheists.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Apparently, you do.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You can theorize all you like...until you can demonstrate it...until it is demonstrated by tests/repeated experiment, then it is just a theory.

Nonsense. Theories need not have repeated experiments in order to be validated. Don't take my word for it; look up theories like stellar formation.

Also, the construct "just a theory" in your post leads me to believe that you don't understand the importance of a theory in the scientific hierarchy of understanding. In other words, you're equivocating two different connotations of the word "theory".

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your high-school science classes.

Grade school, more like.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 2:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: He was attempting to explain the origin of consciousness, and you can't logically explain the origin of consciousness by positing a preexisting brain first.

Yes, brains existed before consciousness did. You can at least be right by accident sometimes, I've seen worse.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 2:56 pm)dimaniac Wrote: [quote='His_Majesty' pid='788158' dateline='1414954299']
Ok, so let me just ask you directly...can you give me your best empirical evidence which supports abiogenesis?? If you can't, then you can spare me all the bio-babble.

Scientists will find such evidence(probably in next 50 years) just like they found evidence that technologically advanced civilizations don't last long(Fermi paradox)
There is no hope in atheism

There is no hope in theism, either. They're neither the kind of things you can have hope in. They're just differing opinions on the same topic, and everything else is up for grabs. Baby-sacrificing Moloch worshipers were theists, too. People find hope or not in the things they believe in addition to their atheism or theism.

And you don't understand that the Fermi paradox as easily implies simply that technological civilizations are very rare, that they don't last long is just one possible explanation.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Beccs Wrote: There's more hope in atheism that there is in 2000 year old fairy tales.

There are trillions of planets where abiogenesis happened, millions of planets where sentient life arose. Where are all aliens?

That assertion you just made? It's an assertion. We have no idea how many more planets than this one abiogenesis occurred on, and we have no idea what percentage of those resulted in a technological civilization, and even if there were a thousand technological civilizations in our galaxy, they could all be too far away to detect. You're appealing to a conclusion that isn't warranted by the evidence. We don't know the odds that life will arise on a planet and we don't know the odds that life will develop into a species capable of making advanced technology. It could be one civilization per galaxy, or even one per universe...or a thousand civilizations per galaxy and they'd still be too far apart on average for us to have a good chance of detecting them yet.