Abiogenesis is impossible

[Sejanus]

Says whom?

Says who. 'Whom' is the object of the sentence, having something done to it. 'Who' is the subject; the thing doing the something.

Thanks.

[Esquilax]

we know that the random universe generator or whatever your ilk believes in didn't do it because beings have the potential capability to reflect back upon it, but it has no capability to reflect on us. the mind has an infinite order of magnitude greater than matter. matter cannot generate mind.

You just keep asserting, over and over, that effects cannot be greater than causes. But I've never seen you even attempt to demonstrate or justify that. I've seen you play games with definitions to try and fit everything into your baseless assertion, and I've also seen you ignore every example given that you couldn't do that for (avalanches have been brought up several times, and you've just acted like they haven't) but aside from dishonest wordplay and outright fingers-in-your-ears ignorance, you haven't justified the foundational premise of your claim to knowledge, here.

Why the fuck should any of us take it seriously, if you can't even approach a demonstration of accuracy?

has it ever been explained that science didn't exist before the creation? now we find out how God did it, and we call that process science.

Given that you don't understand extremely basic scientific ideas, like what a fucking scientific theory is, I don't think I'll be coming to you for information on what science is, thanks.

[snowtracks]

we know that the random universe generator or whatever your ilk believes in didn't do it because beings have the potential capability to reflect back upon it, but it has no capability to reflect on us. the mind has an infinite order of magnitude greater than matter. matter cannot generate mind.

You just keep asserting, over and over, that effects cannot be greater than causes. But I've never seen you even attempt to demonstrate or justify that. I've seen you play games with definitions to try and fit everything into your baseless assertion, and I've also seen you ignore every example given that you couldn't do that for (avalanches have been brought up several times, and you've just acted like they haven't) but aside from dishonest wordplay and outright fingers-in-your-ears ignorance, you haven't justified the foundational premise of your claim to knowledge, here.

Why the fuck should any of us take it seriously, if you can't even approach a demonstration of accuracy?

has it ever been explained that science didn't exist before the creation? now we find out how God did it, and we call that process science.

Given that you don't understand extremely basic scientific ideas, like what a fucking scientific theory is, I don't think I'll be coming to you for information on what science is, thanks.

"avalanches have been brought up several times, and you've just acted like they haven't" ---- i remember you asking about landsides, but have no remembrances of avalanches. but that aside this is what i posted aug 18:
landslides - a popsicle stick slanted at a 45 degree angle in a sandbox would slide sand particle from the top to the bottom. even if 2 popsicle sticks were rigged together with sand sliding down, the cause would still be greater than the effect.

---

'magic' connotes deception, 'then' that's the wrong word. we know that the random universe generator or whatever your ilk believes in didn't do it because beings have the potential capability to reflect back upon it, but it has no capability to reflect on us. the mind has an infinite order of magnitude greater than matter. matter cannot generate mind.

"your ilk"

Charming . . .

who knew that atheists are an especially sensitive group?

[The Grand Nudger]

This thread is greater than it's cause....by a wide margin.
/debate

[The Valkyrie]

This thread is greater than it's cause....by a wide margin.
/debate

I blame the French.

[Chas]

So magic, then?

'magic' connotes deception, 'then' that's the wrong word. we know that the random universe generator or whatever your ilk believes in didn't do it because beings have the potential capability to reflect back upon it, but it has no capability to reflect on us. the mind has an infinite order of magnitude greater than matter. matter cannot generate mind.

Except the evidence indicates that not only can mind come from matter, but does and has.

[Cyberman]

I blame the French.

That's what they're for.

[Anomalocaris]

Nothing can be greater than its cause. Since god has zero cause, god is at most zero, nothing. Therefore god, being less than anything and everything that is anything, can be the cause of nothing.

Next.

[snowtracks]

Nothing can be greater than its cause. Since god has zero cause, god is at most zero, nothing. Therefore god, being less than anything and everything that is anything, can be the cause of nothing.

Next.

then he agrees that God is uncaused since cause and effect transactions only apply to the cosmic timeline.

[Esquilax]

Nothing can be greater than its cause. Since god has zero cause, god is at most zero, nothing. Therefore god, being less than anything and everything that is anything, can be the cause of nothing.

Next.

then he agrees that God is uncaused since cause and effect transactions only apply to the cosmic timeline.

And we circle all the way back around to dumb, baseless special pleading.

"Everything needs causes that are greater than them, but not this one thing that I really really want to not follow those rules, because I say so!"

Do you have anything real to talk about?