(October 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:(October 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: See, this is an example of what I mean. You are passing the burden of proof.
Your opinion requires an entity that is not in evidence. Your opinion adds unexplainable things that are not necessary to explain existence or biology. And they have no explanatory power.
All our opinion really needs, is for you not to be able to provide demonstrable evidence to support yours. You are the one making the claim. You are the one that has the burden of proof.
But the thing is, we do have facts that point to the universe and biology arising from purely natural means. It is not just opinion.
All you have is, "I don't understand how the universe could have come into being via natural means, so there must be a god".
Your opinion is based on what you are unable to explain, 'therefore god' . Our opinion is based on the lack of evidence for yours, and evidence for ours.
You continue to provide logically flawed arguments, and no demonstrable evidence.
We continue to point out your logical flaws, and you fail to learn from them. The fact that your arguments are logically flawed is not an opinion, it is provable fact.
i have not seen any kind of evidence that an intelligent being could not have put into motion evolution on the earth all youve provided is your opinion that it doesnt need it . you dont have any proof there is not an intelligent creator that is responsible for the evolution of life . reproduction and life even single celled organisms develop . they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ? thats your opinion you do not know
So, you believe things until they are proven false? How do you know when to stop?
The following things have never been prove false: alien abductions, bigfoot, Chupacabra, tarot card readings, ancient aliens and many more. Do you believe them?
Once again, I'm sure not for the last time, we do not have to provide evidence for the nonexistence of the entity that you are claiming exists. You have the burden of proof.
We are not claiming to know that the entity you believe does not exist. Only that there is no justification to believe it does exist.
Quote: they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ?
That is not even close to being in the same ballpark of what evolution actually states. If this is your understanding of evolution, no wonder you think it needs an intelligent being.
Seriously, your understanding of evolution is laughable.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
