Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Drew_2013]

Do you even read the arguments? Apo has refuted your notion quite a few times. That you still believe it to stand is a testament to your own ignorance.

Objections to a fact are not a refutation. Again its a foregone conclusion that my adversaries in this debate will always claim my facts and arguments are 'refuted'.

Good I have reduced you to incoherent babbling and proposing a situation that can't be articulated or for which there is no example you can present. Oh an for which you can't submit any facts that support your far flung hypothesis. But please do try.

Try what? Argue against your nonsensical ideas or acknowledge your idiotic dichotomy?

Its the notion that a series of events or a phenomena could be neither the result of plan or happenstance that is nonsensical. If we were debating before an impartial audience your belief would get a laugh. But of course none of your fellow atheists will call you out on such a absurd claim.

Exactly, its your contention that mindless, lifeless forces without plan, design or knowledge or desire caused something to exist totally unlike itself, life and mind.

That much is known to be true.

No, its assumed to be true. Moreover you just contradicted your contention that our existence and that of the universe was neither by happenstance or plan.

Okay, I'm about to blow your tiny fucking mind: your proposed claim is a hypothetical too, by your own model. You are making an assumption- that life can only exist within a narrow band- as the hinge of your argument, yet you've been unable to prove the exclusivity of this. Which would be fine, if you then accepted the possibility that other conditions could lead to other forms of life. But you're dismissing those, which means one of two things: either you have some evidence to show that your position is the only correct one and ours cannot be, or you're an arrogant dick who thinks dismissing a claim counts as refuting it.

No more arrogant than the rather small dicks I'm arguing against. My argument is based on the facts known to be true. You can claim all you want that I need to prove that life can't exist under some other conditions but your mistaken. Until there is evidence life does in fact exist under other conditions it doesn't need to be considered.

I'm done with this thread. When I have time I will start a new thread.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30LswdjI1I
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/03/0...-on-earth/

Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in space are capable of creating complex dipeptides – linked pairs of amino acids – that are essential building blocks shared by all living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins (polypeptides), enzymes and even more complex molecules, such as sugars, that are necessary for life.

[Esquilax]

No more arrogant than the rather small dicks I'm arguing against. My argument is based on the facts known to be true. You can claim all you want that I need to prove that life can't exist under some other conditions but your mistaken. Until there is evidence life does in fact exist under other conditions it doesn't need to be considered.

I'm done with this thread. When I have time I will start a new thread.

You're a dishonest coward who knows nothing about argumentation, so it's no surprise that you're backing off when you can't think of anything intelligent to say.

You know what I've got for evidence, soft cock? How about fucking this: the idea that life develops to suit its surrounding environment is a core goddamn concept of evolution, and that we don't yet know even a small percentage of the inner workings of life. So since actual scientists don't know, an uppity little braggart like you sure as fuck doesn't, so all your assertions come down to are the pathetic insistences of an intellectual midget.

The only difference here is that I'm allowing for the possibility, and you're proclaiming that you are right, with the only evidence you're willing to share being that you believe it. Well, I and any rational person doesn't give a fuck what you believe.

Come back if you ever decide you want to devote some time to honest debate. Otherwise, feel free to just spew your drivel where I don't have to see it, tool.

[Drew_2013]

I love it when an atheist resorts to this tactic. Its the same pleasure I get when playing chess and my opponent realizes he is in dire straights and upends the chessboard.

No more arrogant than the rather small dicks I'm arguing against. My argument is based on the facts known to be true. You can claim all you want that I need to prove that life can't exist under some other conditions but your mistaken. Until there is evidence life does in fact exist under other conditions it doesn't need to be considered.

I'm done with this thread. When I have time I will start a new thread.

You're a dishonest coward who knows nothing about argumentation, so it's no surprise that you're backing off when you can't think of anything intelligent to say.

You know what I've got for evidence, soft cock? How about fucking this: the idea that life develops to suit its surrounding environment is a core goddamn concept of evolution, and that we don't yet know even a small percentage of the inner workings of life. So since actual scientists don't know, an uppity little braggart like you sure as fuck doesn't, so all your assertions come down to are the pathetic insistences of an intellectual midget.

The only difference here is that I'm allowing for the possibility, and you're proclaiming that you are right, with the only evidence you're willing to share being that you believe it. Well, I and any rational person doesn't give a fuck what you believe.

Come back if you ever decide you want to devote some time to honest debate. Otherwise, feel free to just spew your drivel where I don't have to see it, tool.

[genkaus]

Objections to a fact are not a refutation.

Shows your incapability to differentiate between objections and refutations.

Again its a foregone conclusion that my adversaries in this debate will always claim my facts and arguments are 'refuted'.

Not unless they have actually been refuted - which, as a matter of fact - they have.

Its the notion that a series of events or a phenomena could be neither the result of plan or happenstance that is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is you incapacity to comprehend that that would be the default position.

If we were debating before an impartial audience your belief would get a laugh. But of course none of your fellow atheists will call you out on such a absurd claim.

The only one being laughed at is you. And the only place you won't be laughed at for your moronic beliefs is in the company of similarly deluded theists. So much for impartial audience.

No, its assumed to be true.

Are you now trying to suggest that the forces of nature are sentient?

Moreover you just contradicted your contention that our existence and that of the universe was neither by happenstance or plan.

No, I haven't.

[Cyberman]

I love it when an atheist resorts to this tactic. Its the same pleasure I get when playing chess and my opponent realizes he is in dire straights and upends the chessboard.

Actually, to an observer it looks more like this:

[archangle]

I love when two religions fight each other. Kinda makes them both look silly.

[iameatingjam]

I never argued against the fact that there COULD be a god (although there probably isn't), I've just fought organized religions, holy books and the fairy tales, because if there is a god he has nothing to do with them. If today I found out that there is higher being I still would be opposed to worshiping that cold hearted asshole.