The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

In some instances yes, like water going from ice, to water to steam, in either case its still water in different forms. In the case of the universe the current theory is it came forth from a phenomena called a singularity. The singularity can't be described by any of the physics we are familiar with, it isn't anything like the space time we exist in, the phenonmon of time may not have existed. The thinking is the 4 major forces of nature are one. It would be a stretch to say the singularity is the universe in a different form since they share nothing in common, matter as we know it doesn't even exist. Even a rabbit turning into an orange would be a stretch to say the orange is a rabbit in a different form but it can be said both share atoms and molecules in common. I would say this is something only atheists could buy into. Actually you probably don't actually buy into it either but that doesn't stop you from raising it as an objection. I should label this kind of argument the argumus from bullshitish fallacy. Thats when a person raises an alternative they themselves don't actually subscribe to.

I've seen some pretty pathetic arguments from ignorance from you, but this one takes the cake. Space, time, the laws of physics, etc are properties of this universe. You would not expect them to be found in the singularity. Which is why it is considered a different form. If the properties were the same, why would we need to differentiate between the forms of the universe.

In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.

This is why I asked you to read up on it. All you are doing here is showing your own ignorance.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. Study up.

There are many potential processes we have figured out by which life can come from non-life. That we don't know which, if any, actually occurred doe snot make it an empty hypothesis.

Truth is...you don't believe life always existed do you? Is there ever going to come to a point where you argue what you really think is true? There is a difference between a fact cited in support of a case and the argument made from the fact. When a jury retires they are admonished that the lawyers arguments are not themselves facts. Its fine for you to suggest something you don't actually believe, that life always existed in rebuttal but since even you don't believe in that line of BS its hard to imagine anyone else is. Its hard to be persausive when as you say something your nose grows.

Truth is? That's ironic. You are the one arguing from facts not in evidence. I'm simply holding you to them. You are the one insisting that you never claimed that life began and when shown otherwise, you go to the old tu qoque fallacy. Try and focus on the arguments themselves than what the beliefs of the person making them might be.

And who determines that?

Anyone who can make rational decisions can determine that.

Right and that is a judgment call. How can you say if they decide for themselves it makes them wrong? Didn't you decide for yourself which arguments best explain the facts?

And if you can show that an alternate theory explains the facts better, then I'd be wrong. That is not a judgment call. Recognizing what a theory can and cannot explain is an important part of the scientific process. And with the known limitations to to the theory, it is not a judgment call as to which one has less limitations.

Well good news I don't think you have lost any of your fellow atheists on this board. You mistakenly use the word refute because it makes it sound like you have disproven the case I am making when in fact all your offering is alternative theories many of which you yourself don't believe.

I use the word refute because your position is so weak that even the presentation of alternate theories is sufficient to demolish it. Your arguments are refuted because they've been shown to be invalid and/or it has been shown that alternatives with greater evidence to them are available. Neither science nor law can "disprove" anything in any absolute sense, but showing the multiple logical fallacies present in your arguments and the absence of any actual evidence is sufficient to disprove it as far as any disproof is possible.