Best Theistic Arguments

[Edwardo Piet]

The best argument for God is the pantheistic one which says that God is the Universe

The best theistic arguments are literally any valid argument that labels stuff that we already know to exist as 'God', regardless of how utterly pointless that indeed is.

P1. By 'God' I mean 'the universe'.
P2. The universe exists.
C. Therefore God exists.

^*

If labeling the universe as 'God' and then believing in the universe would make me a pantheist, then I am a pantheist in every way besides the label, which basically means pantheism in that sense has absolutely no content, and yet I hold the same actual belief as the pantheist, and are therefore a pantheist, and therefore a theist, but I don't label myself that, because this specific form of 'theism' is identical to atheism in all actual content and therefore meaningless. It would mean that the only reason that that wasn't a logical contradiction is because both labels would then become equally meaningless. X and not X would become BLAH AND BLAH. And not blah would not be not blah if it is actual identical in content, and since blah exists, I am a blaher, but so what? It's all blah. Contradictory labels that refer to the same thing are so meaningless as for it to be completely meaningless that those labels are contradictory... because they are ontologically non-distinct.

Still, even an argument that is arguing for something completely devoid of any actual content is better than all the fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs and contradictions that other theistic positions have . That's how much theism sucks. Achieving nothing without making a logical error is still logically superior to achieving nothing whilst also making a logical error.

* So, that is an example of a completely trivially true and meaningless but nevertheless entirely logically valid argument for 'God'. There are no sound arguments for God.

[surreptitious57]

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely

If there is no creator then life must come from non life

Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

[*Deidre*]

I think from identifying as an atheist and debating with theists, and now returning to belief, having been on either ''side,'' my advice would be to just simply accept that you both will be coming at the argument, in entirely different ways. You will be seeking material evidence, or some type of objective evidence, whereas the theist/believer will be coming at the argument from the approach, that much of what they believe comes from faith. From believing in things unseen, and unproven. Unproven in a secular way. To many Christians for example, the Bible is a type of proof of their beliefs, but that will never be the case for an atheist...so these debates can be trying for the atheist and theist alike, since they both approach their arguments from different angles.

There are historical accounts of philosophers and scientists who have believed in the existence of a god, but their opinions still wouldn't serve as objective proof. So, the challenge that you both have is to establish what will be considered valid points of reference to debate with, not necessarily what you're debating about.

[Little Rik]

You are not answering the question.

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR right?
If there is no creator then life must come from non life, right?  

Where is the non life yog?  

CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION ONCE AND FOR ALL?

So what you're saying is that you believe that both your worldview and mine are based on dogma and therefore they are both wrong.  Is that correct?

INCORRECT yog.


Yours are just dreams, guesses, fantasies and a lot of BS.




You have no evidence of whatsoever.

NONE AT ALL, so obviously only yours ideas are dogmas.

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.
NDEs are evidence.
That life come from previous life is also evidence.
That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

You see the difference yog?  

---

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely

If there is no creator then life must come from non life

Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

You fail very badly mate.  

By saying.............The transition from non life to life...........you already pretend that a non life exist, right?

Where on earth is the non life Surr?

Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

Can't you see that atheism is based only on guesses and dreams?  

[Edwardo Piet]

Where is the evidence that a non life exist?

Would you call a rock 'life'?

If you're gonna say "Where is the evidence for the non-experiential?" then you actually have a point.

If by the non-life you mean the non-biological then there's actually plenty of evidence for it.

[Angrboda]

Yours are just dreams, guesses, fantasies and a lot of BS.

I can do things with my head that you cannot.  Any questions?

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.  
NDEs are evidence.  

NDEs are evidence that vibrations are alive, or that life only comes from life?  You're obviously on crack.

That life come from previous life is also evidence.

If you mean that in some cases, life comes from life, then that won't get you the justification you need for concluding that vibrations are alive.  That can only be justified by claiming that life only comes from life.  If you had evidence for that claim, you might have a point.  Unfortunately you don't, and despite your repeated claim that science is on your side, science doesn't support your claim.  It's just dogma you believe.

That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

Since I haven't disputed you on this point, I can only assume that you are once again confusing Einstein's supposed quote that, "Everything is vibration," with your claim that vibrations are alive.  If everything is made of vibrations that doesn't help you any in your claim that vibrations are alive, but apparently you don't realize that.  So your point here is apparently just you being stupid again.

You see the difference yog?  

Oh, I see a difference alright.

---

---

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely


Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

---

...Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

The claim that I am avoiding your question is simply yet another one of your stupid lies.  I introduced the question by noting that there were three apparently indistinguishable positions, here, on April 8th.  On April 18th when you asked me the same basic question, "Where the non life suppose to be yog?" I told you explicitly that, "I haven't made a claim in the matter."  What exactly am I supposed to be providing evidence for?  For a position I do not hold?  No, as I also stated on the question of whether life can come from non-life, I again stated quite explicitly that, "As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other."  Apparently you feel that this is a new audience, so you can lie through your teeth and get away with it.  I'm here to tell you you're wrong, you lying sack of shit.  The only reason you're asking such questions is because you want to get off the hot seat you put yourself on, and you think changing the subject and making this about me will have that effect.  And despite your lies, you haven't managed to distance yourself from the scenario in which the Christian God is responsible for making nature and vibrations behave the way they do, so you have nothing upon which to base your conclusion that the vibrations are alive.  

But as long as you're asking questions about non-life, let's take a moment to ask to what the term 'life' refers.  The dictionary says the following:

life, n.

1.    the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

If you're claiming that you know that vibrations grow, reproduce, and change over time, then I'd like to see some evidence of this.  You've said previously that life in so-called inanimate matter is hidden or obscured from view (here).  If you're defining life to mean simply the capability to cause motion, then you're effectively just redefining the word.  If by 'alive' you simply mean that vibrations move, you've essentially gutted your claim of any meaning.  But you claim more than that.  You claim that vibrations are conscious, and that this quantity within inanimate matter is capable of migrating, say, from a rock, into the nascent form of a blade of grass, and from there into an animal, and, hopefully, ultimately into the consciousness of a human being.  So I have to ask, what properties of human consciousness are you claiming exist in inanimate matter?  If you're saying that it's both "like human consciousness" but that it is also "not like human consciousness," then you're just speaking incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

So tell us what exactly you mean when you use the terms 'life', 'non-life', and 'consciousness'.  

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence you seem to claim to have but are forever being unable to actually produce. As I've said before, put up or shut up.

[Cecelia]

The best Theistic arguments are the ones that use a total misunderstanding of science against people who aren't experts in the field who can rebut it and explain properly how they're misusing the science.

[Little Rik]

Yours are just dreams, guesses, fantasies and a lot of BS.

I can do things with my head that you cannot.  Any questions?

No question yog and the reason is that I quite agree with you in this case.
I always knew that your head is capable of banging on the wall or any hard surface with little damage.
All those who have a thick head can do that.
Unfortunately for you a head full of brains is much much better than a thick head.
I guess you never though of that yog, did you?    

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.  
NDEs are evidence.  

NDEs are evidence that vibrations are alive, or that life only comes from life?  You're obviously on crack.

Obviously you haven't read much of NDEs experiences or you do not believe them in any case.
If you would have you would have noticed that almost all of them talk about vibrations and how all is connected to each other.  

That life come from previous life is also evidence.

If you mean that in some cases, life comes from life, then that won't get you the justification you need for concluding that vibrations are alive.  That can only be justified by claiming that life only comes from life.  If you had evidence for that claim, you might have a point.  Unfortunately you don't, and despite your repeated claim that science is on your side, science doesn't support your claim.  It's just dogma you believe.

WRONG ONCE AGAIN YOG.



So far there is no evidence that life can come from non life.
NONE OF WHATSOEVER.

In fact all the evidence that we have so far point to.......LIFE COME FROM LIFE.  
In the past and even now many people thought that matter equal to no life.
Fortunately not all people are so stupid to believe that matter is void of life.
Matter is energy-vibration as yoga say and as Einstein and other smart scientists found out.  

That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

Since I haven't disputed you on this point, I can only assume that you are once again confusing Einstein's supposed quote that, "Everything is vibration," with your claim that vibrations are alive.  If everything is made of vibrations that doesn't help you any in your claim that vibrations are alive, but apparently you don't realize that.  So your point here is apparently just you being stupid again.

I come to that point below.

You see the difference yog?

Oh, I see a difference alright.

Of course you see the difference yog.

...Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

The claim that I am avoiding your question is simply yet another one of your stupid lies.  I introduced the question by noting that there were three apparently indistinguishable positions, here, on April 8th.  On April 18th when you asked me the same basic question, "Where the non life suppose to be yog?" I told you explicitly that, "I haven't made a claim in the matter."  What exactly am I supposed to be providing evidence for?  For a position I do not hold?  No, as I also stated on the question of whether life can come from non-life, I again stated quite explicitly that, "As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other."

Wrong again yog.

You can not say.........I AM AN ATHEIST........and at the same time say....... haven't made a claim in the matter.
Of course you do made a claim.
By saying I AM AN ATHEIST you imply that life does not come from a creator therefore it must pop up from non life.
Well if you do not know where this non life is or exist at all then don't you find extremely foolish to speculate that there is no creator?
That is highly stupid view.  

Apparently you feel that this is a new audience, so you can lie through your teeth and get away with it.

Not at all yog.
I was quite happy with the EVOLUTION thread but because you gave up on that I am here now.
If you think I ever lie then show me where these lies are.  

I'm here to tell you you're wrong, you lying sack of shit.  The only reason you're asking such questions is because you want to get off the hot seat you put yourself on, and you think changing the subject and making this about me will have that effect.  And despite your lies, you haven't managed to distance yourself from the scenario in which the Christian God is responsible for making nature and vibrations behave the way they do, so you have nothing upon which to base your conclusion that the vibrations are alive.

Christian or not Christian religions put together so many dogmas and false truth that now it has become a mountain of nonsensical and absurd thing to waste one's time and energy to go through all of them beside in several occasions I already explained how the system according to yoga works.
Low form of life are driven by instinct while in human life the instinct is checked by free will so God in this case does not usually intervene and the karma law at the end will sort out the unbalance which has been created by humans.    

But as long as you're asking questions about non-life, let's take a moment to ask to what the term 'life' refers.  The dictionary says the following:

life, n.

1.    the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Inorganic matter has life too.
The thing is that life in matter lie in a latent, inactive or dormant stage.
That dictionary unfortunately doesn't consider this point.
So wrong again yog.

If you're claiming that you know that vibrations grow, reproduce, and change over time, then I'd like to see some evidence of this.  You've said previously that life in so-called inanimate matter is hidden or obscured from view (here).  If you're defining life to mean simply the capability to cause motion, then you're effectively just redefining the word.  If by 'alive' you simply mean that vibrations move, you've essentially gutted your claim of any meaning.  But you claim more than that.  You claim that vibrations are conscious, and that this quantity within inanimate matter is capable of migrating, say, from a rock, into the nascent form of a blade of grass, and from there into an animal, and, hopefully, ultimately into the consciousness of a human being.  So I have to ask, what properties of human consciousness are you claiming exist in inanimate matter?  If you're saying that it's both "like human consciousness" but that it is also "not like human consciousness," then you're just speaking incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

So tell us what exactly you mean when you use the terms 'life', 'non-life', and 'consciousness'.  

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence you seem to claim to have but are forever being unable to actually produce.  As I've said before, put up or shut up.

Thought is vibration.
Emotion is vibration.
Feeling is vibration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqM3TE5TDw8

Check at 13.15 if you don't want to see all 24.29.


So if we express thoughts, emotions and feeling they of course must be alive.
How can be dead?  
If one is dead also the other is dead but because we know that feelings, emotions and thoughts are alive we also conclude that vibrations are alive.      

[Angrboda]

I can do things with my head that you cannot.  Any questions?

No question yog and the reason is that I quite agree with you in this case.
I always knew that your head is capable of banging on the wall or any hard surface with little damage.
All those who have a thick head can do that.
Unfortunately for you a head full of brains is much much better than a thick head.
I guess you never though of that yog, did you?    

Unfortunately for you, I have brains, too. Something you critically lack.

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.  
NDEs are evidence.  

NDEs are evidence that vibrations are alive, or that life only comes from life?  You're obviously on crack.

Obviously you haven't read much of NDEs experiences or you do not believe them in any case.
If you would have you would have noticed that almost all of them talk about vibrations and how all is connected to each other.

You tried similar nonsense in the evolution thread and despite my patiently listening to you for two weeks, you failed to justify your belief that the content of NDEs reflect reality. You want to believe that because [maybe] there is some evidence for the truth of the OBE part of an NDE, that therefore the rest of an NDE is also real. Besides the fact that you've been presented with evidence that the OBE portion itself does not correspond with reality, you failed to provide justification for believing that the rest of it is true, for reasons running the gamut from irreconcilable NDE claims and testimony, the lack of independent verification, the cultural dependence of NDE content, the inability to distinguish from NDE content reflective of prior belief versus that reflective of reality, and your inability to justify your belief that consciousness leaves the body during an NDE. You want to believe that because the OBE portion of an NDE may reflect reality, therefore the rest of an NDE is therefore necessarily true. That's something you may want to believe, but not something you are justified in believing. Wanting to believe is not justification for believing.

In addition, I'd have to see the evidence, but if all that people are doing in these NDEs is talking about everything being vibrations and everything being connected is not evidence that vibrations are alive. That would be a case of ignoratio elenchi, nothing more.

So, yeah, failing you overcoming all these hurdles, you're on crack.

That life come from previous life is also evidence.

If you mean that in some cases, life comes from life, then that won't get you the justification you need for concluding that vibrations are alive.  That can only be justified by claiming that life only comes from life.  If you had evidence for that claim, you might have a point.  Unfortunately you don't, and despite your repeated claim that science is on your side, science doesn't support your claim.  It's just dogma you believe.

WRONG ONCE AGAIN YOG.


So far there is no evidence that life can come from non life.
NONE OF WHATSOEVER.

Pointing to a lack of evidence of life coming from non-life is an argument from ignorance, and so your conclusion is not justified. If all the evidence you have that life only comes from life is that no one has managed to produce life from non-life, then you have failed. An argument from ignorance is neither evidence for, nor reason to believe, that life only comes from life. In addition, there is evidence in favor of the proposition that life may come from non-life. So this is you once again simply not understanding what it would take to demonstrate your claims, and, presenting evidence that, even if true, wouldn't demonstrate your claim. That's ignoratio elenchi yet again.

In fact all the evidence that we have so far point to.......LIFE COME FROM LIFE.

That life in some cases comes from life is not evidence for the proposition that life only comes from life. The former does not necessarily entail the latter.
 

In the past and even now many people thought that matter equal to no life.
Fortunately not all people are so stupid to believe that matter is void of life.
Matter is energy-vibration as yoga say and as Einstein and other smart scientists found out.  

As I just pointed out to you, matter and energy being vibration is not support for the belief that vibrations and energy are alive. You keep conflating that everything is vibrations with the proposition that vibrations are alive, despite my continually pointing it out to you. Motherfucking Christ you are dense!

That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

Since I haven't disputed you on this point, I can only assume that you are once again confusing Einstein's supposed quote that, "Everything is vibration," with your claim that vibrations are alive.  If everything is made of vibrations that doesn't help you any in your claim that vibrations are alive, but apparently you don't realize that.  So your point here is apparently just you being stupid again.

I come to that point below.

Looking forward to it. </sarcasm>

...Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

The claim that I am avoiding your question is simply yet another one of your stupid lies.  I introduced the question by noting that there were three apparently indistinguishable positions, here, on April 8th.  On April 18th when you asked me the same basic question, "Where the non life suppose to be yog?" I told you explicitly that, "I haven't made a claim in the matter."  What exactly am I supposed to be providing evidence for?  For a position I do not hold?  No, as I also stated on the question of whether life can come from non-life, I again stated quite explicitly that, "As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other."

Wrong again yog.

You can not say.........I AM AN ATHEIST........and at the same time say....... haven't made a claim in the matter.
Of course you do made a claim.
By saying I AM AN ATHEIST you imply that life does not come from a creator therefore it must pop up from non life.
Well if you do not know where this non life is or exist at all then don't you find extremely foolish to speculate that there is no creator?
That is highly stupid view.   

Last I checked, "I don't know," is still a valid answer. It disturbs you that I am skeptical of the claims of believers. That however is not in itself the expression of a claim. Given that there are a billion threads on this site explaining the range of options available to an atheist, I suggest you read some of them as you are woefully ill informed as to what atheism does entail. As I stated, I make no claim that life came from non-life, and remain agnostic on that question. Feel free to consult a dictionary for the meaning of 'agnostic' if you must. Moreover, even if I did have some inclinations toward one conclusion or another, those conclusions are based on reasons and evidence, and so are not merely dogma, but justified conclusions. Regardless, I'm also willing to accept that there might be a certain amount of faith undergirding some of my beliefs. I'm okay with that. You on the other hand have repeatedly emphasized that you believe that all your beliefs are justified with good reasons and evidence, and that you have no beliefs that are based simply on dogma or merely "wanting to believe something is true." It is these latter beliefs of yours which I am challenging. Since I do not have a corresponding belief that all the things I believe are well justified, I have nothing to defend in the matter. Thus ends any further consideration of what I believe about the four propositions listed earlier, and we return to you being the focus of this discussion.

Apparently you feel that this is a new audience, so you can lie through your teeth and get away with it.

Not at all yog.
I was quite happy with the EVOLUTION thread but because you gave up on that I am here now.
If you think I ever lie then show me where these lies are.

Here, here, and here, along with my demonstration and explanation why these are lies, here, here, and here, respectively. 

I'm here to tell you you're wrong, you lying sack of shit.  The only reason you're asking such questions is because you want to get off the hot seat you put yourself on, and you think changing the subject and making this about me will have that effect.  And despite your lies, you haven't managed to distance yourself from the scenario in which the Christian God is responsible for making nature and vibrations behave the way they do, so you have nothing upon which to base your conclusion that the vibrations are alive.

Christian or not Christian religions put together so many dogmas and false truth that now it has become a mountain of nonsensical and absurd thing to waste one's time and energy to go through all of them beside in several occasions I already explained how the system according to yoga works.
Low form of life are driven by instinct while in human life the instinct is checked by free will so God in this case does not usually intervene and the karma law at the end will sort out the unbalance which has been created by humans.

I don't give a flying fuck what you think about Christianity, your beliefs about Christianity are irrelevant to the question. It wouldn't matter if the view in question were Zippy the Pinhead's view of the cause of vibration, until you refute the possibility that the vibrations' motion is caused by an external God, then you are not justified in concluding that vibrations are necessarily alive. This is yet another case of ignoratio elenchi where, not only is your argument wrong, even if it were right and correct, it wouldn't prove what you're trying to prove! Not only can you not put together a successful argument, you appear to have no fucking clue what a successful argument would be. You gave the same essential response in the evolution thread, when, after a month of flailing and failing to produce anything of substance, you concluded, "I don't like Christianity, therefore the Christian God doesn't exist. Hurr durr!" Can you be anymore stupid? I didn't give up on that thread. You failed. And the level of stupidity in your responses was getting so high that even I with my stern constitution could no longer stomach it.

How the system works "according to yoga" is irrelevant if those beliefs are based on dogma. You don't demonstrate one unproven thing by appealing to an equally unproven thing. (Dumbass.)    

But as long as you're asking questions about non-life, let's take a moment to ask to what the term 'life' refers.  The dictionary says the following:

life, n.

1.    the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Inorganic matter has life too.
The thing is that life in matter lie in a latent, inactive or dormant stage.
That dictionary unfortunately doesn't consider this point.
So wrong again yog.

Mrmph. Well, that's what you're here to demonstrate. Simply repeating dogma that you believe isn't justifying it.

And again, if you're appealing to a concept of non-life which doesn't exist in the system you are trying to prove, you are once again guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept, your argument is thus self-contradictory and therefore self-refuting, and therefore your conclusions aren't justified.

If you're claiming that you know that vibrations grow, reproduce, and change over time, then I'd like to see some evidence of this.  You've said previously that life in so-called inanimate matter is hidden or obscured from view (here).  If you're defining life to mean simply the capability to cause motion, then you're effectively just redefining the word.  If by 'alive' you simply mean that vibrations move, you've essentially gutted your claim of any meaning.  But you claim more than that.  You claim that vibrations are conscious, and that this quantity within inanimate matter is capable of migrating, say, from a rock, into the nascent form of a blade of grass, and from there into an animal, and, hopefully, ultimately into the consciousness of a human being.  So I have to ask, what properties of human consciousness are you claiming exist in inanimate matter?  If you're saying that it's both "like human consciousness" but that it is also "not like human consciousness," then you're just speaking incoherent and contradictory nonsense.

So tell us what exactly you mean when you use the terms 'life', 'non-life', and 'consciousness'.  

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence you seem to claim to have but are forever being unable to actually produce.  As I've said before, put up or shut up.

Thought is vibration.
Emotion is vibration.
Feeling is vibration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqM3TE5TDw8

Check at 13.15 if you don't want to see all 24.29.

I did watch the whole video, and not a single bit of it supported your claim that vibrations are alive. The bulk of the video claimed two things, a) everything is vibration, and b) thoughts, feelings, and emotions are vibrations. Even if I accepted the latter proposition (I don't), that would not provide support for your belief that vibrations are alive. It's possible that in the case of humans and animals, that their thoughts and feelings are vibrations, and that those vibrations can affect inanimate matter, it doesn't follow that the inanimate matter that is neither human nor animal is also alive. Yet another case of ignoratio elenchi.

So if we express thoughts, emotions and feeling they of course must be alive.
How can be dead?

Nobody is here disputing that we ourselves are alive.

 

If one is dead also the other is dead but because we know that feelings, emotions and thoughts are alive we also conclude that vibrations are alive.  

That simply doesn't follow, though if you believe it does, I think we may have pinpointed the reason you believe what you do. You lack brain. Do you have any evidence that you possess a brain?

---

I notice that you didn't bother to attempt to define life, non-life, or consciousness. That's probably for the best, since it's obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you use these words. Any inchoate attempt on your part to make sense of your use of these words would probably only confuse things more.

You also neglected to provide any scientific evidence supporting these four beliefs of yours. Congratulations. You fail again.

(ETA: Technically, your claim that if one is dead, the other is also dead is an unsound premise, not a non sequitur.)

[Edwardo Piet]

 

Little Rik/LR



I am doing this to get your attention

I replied to you as well but you only responded to Jor

That's jaw-drop, not Jor-drop, by the way, (by the way why do you call her "Yog"? That always confuses me!)

I responded to you in a post already. Why will you not get back to me?

I also have a question for you. What do you mean by "life"? Do you mean anything biological or made or DNA? Or do you mean anything that is conscious regardless of whether it is biological or made of DNA?

Thank you for your time

---

The best Theistic arguments are the ones that use a total misunderstanding of science against people who aren't experts in the field who can rebut it and explain properly how they're misusing the science.

Sure if by "best" we mean "most sophistic"