(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, but I don't see any definition of extraordinary that resolves to just "some guy who was never involved in the event in question said something that some other guys, who he never sees fit to identify, might have believed about it."
Then apparently it isn't extraordinary to you.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: I notice also that you've chosen to cover for your baseless dismissal with vague deflection; did you really think that would work? That I wouldn't remind you, and everyone else, of your total failure to address the point I made?
Point? What you said was like a broken pencil, it had no point.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: We know that life exists, and that things that are not alive also exist. We do not have any indication, despite the best efforts of chumps like you, of the existence of magical designers of life.
We dont have any indication as to how inanimate matter can begin to live, and how inanimate matter can begin to think, despite the wishful thinking of chumps like you
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: We also have never observed life being created from nothing with magic, which means that no matter your objections, both naturalistic and supernatural means of life-creation have the same level of direct observation.
Well I will put it to you this way, pimp: We appeal to what we think is the best explanation to explain the effect...and I believe that intelligent design is the best explanation to explain the origin of life, consciousness, and species.
Now, you feel differently...but that is your illogical problem, not mines.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: However, since we can readily determine that the things required for natural life exist
Ok, so what are the "things" required for consciousness? You can't say the brain, because there are plenty dead people out there with a brain with no consciousness. So how do you get consciousness?
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: and we cannot do the same for supernatural things of any kind, probabilistically it is more likely that natural things were involved, than supernatural.
I want demonstrable evidence, not bs theories. We can theorize anything, I theorize that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". That is my theory, and you obviously don't buy it, and neither do I buy yours. The fact of the matter is, abiogenesis has never been observed, so there are no good reasons to think that it happened, unless you need an alternative besides intelligent design, which is obviously the case here.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: That was easy.
Think so? It would have been even more easy to just say "Naturedidit".
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, you believe exactly the same shit that you keep making fun of us for believing in. Thank you, you hypocritical ass.
SMH. I was talking about LIFE THAT BEGAN, dummy..obviously Christians don't believe that our God began!!!
Whewwww weeeee.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Do I really have to go this simple? If you believe god didn't come from anything alive, then you believe that nothing living was involved in his existence, which is another way of saying you believe god came from non-life. You might be tempted to respond by saying god is eternal, that he always existed, but that's just a semantic trick to avoid the issue. If he didn't come from anything living, then he violates the rules you're trying to mock us for not following.
Yet, I've spent my entire time in the other thread arguing for the existence of a first cause??
Dude, just stop talking to me lol. The more I talk to you, the dumber I get. I am the kind of Christian that you are used to running hurdles around...I can make a case for my faith, defend it, and also attack yours. I can point out logical fallacies, too, which you definitely are aware of.
So please, just stop. You aren't going to get away with that nonsensical crap that you may have ran on someone else.