Best Theistic Arguments

[Angrboda]

Yours are just dreams, guesses, fantasies and a lot of BS.

I can do things with my head that you cannot.  Any questions?

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.  
NDEs are evidence.  

NDEs are evidence that vibrations are alive, or that life only comes from life?  You're obviously on crack.

That life come from previous life is also evidence.

If you mean that in some cases, life comes from life, then that won't get you the justification you need for concluding that vibrations are alive.  That can only be justified by claiming that life only comes from life.  If you had evidence for that claim, you might have a point.  Unfortunately you don't, and despite your repeated claim that science is on your side, science doesn't support your claim.  It's just dogma you believe.

That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

Since I haven't disputed you on this point, I can only assume that you are once again confusing Einstein's supposed quote that, "Everything is vibration," with your claim that vibrations are alive.  If everything is made of vibrations that doesn't help you any in your claim that vibrations are alive, but apparently you don't realize that.  So your point here is apparently just you being stupid again.

You see the difference yog?  

Oh, I see a difference alright.

---

---

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely


Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

---

...Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

The claim that I am avoiding your question is simply yet another one of your stupid lies.  I introduced the question by noting that there were three apparently indistinguishable positions, here, on April 8th.  On April 18th when you asked me the same basic question, "Where the non life suppose to be yog?" I told you explicitly that, "I haven't made a claim in the matter."  What exactly am I supposed to be providing evidence for?  For a position I do not hold?  No, as I also stated on the question of whether life can come from non-life, I again stated quite explicitly that, "As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other."  Apparently you feel that this is a new audience, so you can lie through your teeth and get away with it.  I'm here to tell you you're wrong, you lying sack of shit.  The only reason you're asking such questions is because you want to get off the hot seat you put yourself on, and you think changing the subject and making this about me will have that effect.  And despite your lies, you haven't managed to distance yourself from the scenario in which the Christian God is responsible for making nature and vibrations behave the way they do, so you have nothing upon which to base your conclusion that the vibrations are alive.  

But as long as you're asking questions about non-life, let's take a moment to ask to what the term 'life' refers.  The dictionary says the following:

life, n.

1.    the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

If you're claiming that you know that vibrations grow, reproduce, and change over time, then I'd like to see some evidence of this.  You've said previously that life in so-called inanimate matter is hidden or obscured from view (here).  If you're defining life to mean simply the capability to cause motion, then you're effectively just redefining the word.  If by 'alive' you simply mean that vibrations move, you've essentially gutted your claim of any meaning.  But you claim more than that.  You claim that vibrations are conscious, and that this quantity within inanimate matter is capable of migrating, say, from a rock, into the nascent form of a blade of grass, and from there into an animal, and, hopefully, ultimately into the consciousness of a human being.  So I have to ask, what properties of human consciousness are you claiming exist in inanimate matter?  If you're saying that it's both "like human consciousness" but that it is also "not like human consciousness," then you're just speaking incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

So tell us what exactly you mean when you use the terms 'life', 'non-life', and 'consciousness'.  

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence you seem to claim to have but are forever being unable to actually produce. As I've said before, put up or shut up.