Abiogenesis is impossible

[RobbyPants]

Wait. We're circling back to the cosmological argument, again? That was already refuted 20-40 pages ago. No circling back to refuted arguments just because you think we've forgotten.

you haven't refuted crap; on your best day, not even close. dream on puddles.

The puddles argument wasn't talking about the cosmological argument. It was addressing your fine tuning argument (which was refuted with iterative probability). You can't even keep your own arguments straight. No wonder you don't see that they've been refuted.

Try to keep up.

[snowtracks]

then he agrees that God is uncaused since cause and effect transactions only apply to the cosmic timeline.

Of course I agree god is uncaused, that's why is nonexistent.

Since nothing can be greater than its cause, as you so elegantly mumbled while chewing your own foot, a god whose set of causes is empty must itself be no more than nothing, possibly less.

"a god whose set of causes" - the premise is faulty so the argument ends there. Aristotle argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused.

[Lucanus]

And we're so sure of that why..? Because Aristotle said it? Wouldn't the question better be left to physics than philosophy?

[Esquilax]

"a god whose set of causes" - the premise is faulty so the argument ends there. Aristotle argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused.

"There's this rule that nothing can exist without a cause! Therefore, there must be something that breaks that rule, duh!"

Seriously, if you're going to undercut your own premises right away, you might be better off just abandoning that premise.

[RobbyPants]

And we're so sure of that why..? Because Aristotle said it? Wouldn't the question better be left to physics than philosophy?

Because it happens to agree with Snowy's world view quite nicely.

Of course, he can't actually defend his assertion, and it's been refuted more than once in this thread. His counter to the numerous refutations is to:

• Say "nuh uh!",
  
• change the subject or simply not reply for a while,
  
• wait for everyone to forget, and
  
• assert it all over again!
  

Once it's refuted, repeat.

"There's this rule that nothing can exist without a cause! Therefore, there must be something that breaks that rule, duh!"

Seriously, if you're going to undercut your own premises right away, you might be better off just abandoning that premise.

Yes, I do find it amusing that at least now he's saving us the time of refuting his arguments and doing it himself. It's like express troll-mode, or something.

[snowtracks]

And we're so sure of that why..? Because Aristotle said it? Wouldn't the question better be left to physics than philosophy?

Because it happens to agree with Snowy's world view quite nicely.

Of course, he can't actually defend his assertion, and it's been refuted more than once in this thread. His counter to the numerous refutations is to:

• Say "nuh uh!",
  
• change the subject or simply not reply for a while,
  
• wait for everyone to forget, and
  
• assert it all over again!
  

Once it's refuted, repeat.

"There's this rule that nothing can exist without a cause! Therefore, there must be something that breaks that rule, duh!"

Seriously, if you're going to undercut your own premises right away, you might be better off just abandoning that premise.

Yes, I do find it amusing that at least now he's saving us the time of refuting his arguments and doing it himself. It's like express troll-mode, or something.

wrong again. "no effect without a cause, and the effect is never greater than cause". now, go in the corner and repeat 100 times or till you understand. puddles is confused also.

[DramaQueen]

Nnam xer ommuk hikki?!

[Losty]

What actually is abiogenesis? Sorry I don't science much.

[Esquilax]

wrong again. "no effect without a cause, and the effect is never greater than cause". now, go in the corner and repeat 100 times or till you understand. puddles is confused also.

So now you're just reasserting the same refuted point? Did you get brain damage at some point, probably before you started posting here at all?

What's really weird is that, if I wanted to refute this crap, all I'd need to do is quote the posts that you yourself quoted. The refutations to this bland, banal proclamation is contained within your own post. I don't need to do anything, except maybe point out again that you're breaking your own premises in your conclusion.

What actually is abiogenesis? Sorry I don't science much.

The science of life arising from non-life.

[Losty]

But what if life arised from something? And maybe because we are just only humans we can't see what that something is. That doesn't mean it's a god, just because we don't understand. Right?