Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Chas]

We evolved.

From what?

Of course you cease to exist!

I understand you think that it is obvious that when people die they cease to exist. I am just asking these very basic questions so that I am not accused of assuming anything.

If you desire to answer the above question I will be grateful. I also have another one to ask if you do decide to answer it.

Just lay out your thesis. This is tedious.

[discipulus]

I've already answered this. I told you that I had no evidence to assert any plain of afterlife, but that because I have a subjective sense of a state in which I did not live, that is, what it was like before I was born, I am inclined to lean toward death being similar. That combined with zero evidence to support the idea of an afterlife, is enough to hold my belief without penalty. In short, I don't know what happens after we die, I can only imagine a similar state, and that strikes me as similar enough to be satisfying.

Ok.

So you hold the view that when a homo sapien dies, they cease to exist.

Ok.

Moving on...

Do you think life first began on earth because it was put here by an intelligent life form that existed already or do you think life originated as a result of certain chemical reactions interacting with matter? If your view falls under neither of the above, then what is your view?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Do you think life first began on earth because it was put here by an intelligent life form that existed already or do you think life originated as a result of certain chemical reactions interacting with matter? If your view falls under neither of the above, then what is your view?

First, I'm not sure that the two options you've described are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Secondly, I have already told you, that given the evidence in favor of abiogenesis producing amino acids which are the building blocks of life, and the lack of evidence in favor of a magical appearance from dust, I find the former to be much more believable. That being said, I don't have enough knowledge to say that one or the other are absolutely true.

You understand that people can hold things as true in any number of varying degrees of certainty, right?

---

...and I believe we all identify ourselves with a certain channel of information that presents itself in consciousness. I believe that consciousness exists in the mind. I believe the mind to be material because there is no evidence for an alternative. In the light of all of this...When the physical material body dies (brain included), the identity we prescribe to the consciousness it contains dies too. This seems believable given the evidence.

[downbeatplumb]

We evolved.

From what?

If you go far enough back we evolved initially from the first life forms which were most likely very simple and almost indistinguishable from just chemical reactions.
I imagine there was not a moment when you could say "there's non-life and now there is life" because the changes would probably have been subtle.
We have a good candidate for where and how it started, black smokers in the ocean depths, they have the right mix of chemicals, proteins, acids, energy imbalance and sheltered areas that are thought to be the perfect starting point.

And remember in billions of years it may only have happened once, but that was enough.
Anyhoo.
Abiogenesis is a much better explanation than the old "magic man done it" idea that was the standard non-explanation put forward by inbred goat herders millenia ago.
It explains nothing and I am surprised that the idea still finds traction, even in some of the less educated areas of the world.

[Bad Writer]

It wasn't random or something.

So it was intentionally planned with a purpose in mind? We're on the same page here then.

That's not what he said, and you know it. The laws of physics directed it, so it wasn't exactly random now, was it?

Physics works in a predictable manner.

Because that's the way God engineered it to be to begin with! Good grief , argh!

You have to presuppose god to come to that conclusion. Not knowing the answer is actually the correct response.

[Silver]

Now tell me, do any of your views pertain to how we as homo sapiens originated? If so, how did we originate?

Homo sapiens originated from a common ancestor we share with other primates.

---

Where did "physics" come from? It just exists for no reason is what you're saying. I'm saying God.

You cannot have it both ways, illogical numbskull. You cannot state there must be a creator for the creation, because something can't come from nothing, and then ignore the logical fact that there must also be a creator for the Creator. If you cannot accept that the universe just is, then you also cannot accept that God just is without reasonably stating that there must be a reason behind His creation.

Who or what created your god and for what purpose? Answer below:

---

Your god was created by man to fill in the gaps of knowledge surrounding his origin.

---

[Sword of Christ]

You cannot have it both ways, illogical numbskull. You cannot state there must be a creator for the creation, because something can't come from nothing, and then ignore the logical fact that there must also be a creator for the Creator.

If the Creator was created by something then he would not be the Creator but part of the creation itself!

If you cannot accept that the universe just is, then you also cannot accept that God just is without reasonably stating that there must be a reason behind His creation.

1) The universe exists and has an explanation for it's existence and the explanation for it's existence is an eternal non-physical source outside of time and space which is Creator of time and space.

2) Universe is...well it just exists without any explanation at all.

Any explanation for something makes far far far more sense than literally no explanation at all.

Who or what created your god and for what purpose? Answer below:

Christians don't believe in a created God this is irrelevant. You could use this argument on a Mormon perhaps but they would just say "More Gods".

Your god was created by man to fill in the gaps of knowledge surrounding his origin.

The Pagan gods may have filled in some gaps but the Biblical God explains all the things we do know about.

That's not what he said, and you know it. The laws of physics directed it, so it wasn't exactly random now, was it?

Either the universe (and associated laws of physics) is purposefully made the way it is or it's the way it is just because it is the way it is.

You have to presuppose god to come to that conclusion. Not knowing the answer is actually the correct response.

I don't claim to know whether God exists either but I have faith that God exists based on good evidence and philosophical reasons. I think it's good evidence but we can disagree. You don't know if hard scientific naturalism is true or not either but it seems to be what you have faith in for whatever reason.

[Silver]

If the Creator was created by something then he would not be the Creator but part of the creation itself!

Illogical.

1) The universe exists and has an explanation for it's existence and the explanation for it's existence is an eternal non-physical source outside of time and space which is Creator of time and space.

Illogical.

Any explanation for something makes far far far more sense than literally no explanation at all.

Illogical.

The Pagan gods may have filled in some gaps but the Biblical God explains all the things we do know about.

Illogical.

[StuW]

The Pagan gods may have filled in some gaps but the Biblical God explains all the things we do know about.

Until we can explain it and then *poof*

[Silver]

I don't claim to know whether God exists either but I have faith that God exists based on good evidence and philosophical reasons. I think it's good evidence but we can disagree. You don't know if hard scientific naturalism is true or not either but it seems to be what you have faith in for whatever reason.