First off, I see this all stems from a Watchtower?
Yeah.... been there, done that.
Second, any time an argument starts with the whole either god exists & created life as is..... or no god exists & life must have formed spontaneously, it's already starting on shaky ground.
You could believe:
A- a god exists and created all life as we see it today. (I assume that's your position)
B- a god exists and created generic "life" which then evolved into everything we see today (This is actually not all that uncommon)
C- no god exists and life formed and evolved through purely natural processes (This is probably what you think of when you think atheist)
D- no god exists and life did not evolve (This is a very bizarre and rare position, but there's nothing inherently "against the rules" for this either)
Does that clarify?
You need to stop talking about belief in god/origin of life/evolution of life as though they're all super-glued together in single positions, because they're not.
Yeah.... been there, done that.
Second, any time an argument starts with the whole either god exists & created life as is..... or no god exists & life must have formed spontaneously, it's already starting on shaky ground.
You could believe:
A- a god exists and created all life as we see it today. (I assume that's your position)
B- a god exists and created generic "life" which then evolved into everything we see today (This is actually not all that uncommon)
C- no god exists and life formed and evolved through purely natural processes (This is probably what you think of when you think atheist)
D- no god exists and life did not evolve (This is a very bizarre and rare position, but there's nothing inherently "against the rules" for this either)
Does that clarify?
You need to stop talking about belief in god/origin of life/evolution of life as though they're all super-glued together in single positions, because they're not.
