Atheism is impossible, I don't see how life can be created naturalistically.

[Diamond-Deist]

you love your spell check ;P

Yeah I know...'grammar nazi' and Spell check queen. Had to work for a MOST Pedantic individual i have EVER met. Talk about crossing your T's and dotting your I's!! Anyways left me with a severe intolerance for the misuse of the English language..especially over the Internet when "Spell Check" is so readily available...

Why is it that most people don't use it?? Nor that the majority of people don't proof read their posts??

Some people have lives to get on with and showing you the beauty of the english language isn't the highlight of their day?

Come on let's just stick to the thread subject, your objection to my spelling is duly noted.

[Ace Otana]

Spell check annoys me. It is very Americanised. Putting "z" where it doesn't belong... And cutting out "u"s.

Yeah, but thankfully my spell check is British. So I don't have that problem.

[KichigaiNeko]

Spell check annoys me. It is very Americanised. Putting "z" where it doesn't belong... And cutting out "u"s.

Ehhhy?? I get the Australian version and opt for ENG (UK) Works a treat and I proof read so the z'ds don't get too much of a chance to get through.

[frankiej]

Diamond, You don't have to be so condescending.

---

Yeah, I was too lazy to alter the settings of my spell check.

[Ace Otana]

I should start spelling the way that I speak, like libry or militry.

[Diamond-Deist]

Diamond, You don't have to be so condescending.

---

Yeah, I was too lazy to alter the settings of my spell check.

Chill Winston ..... I'm just messing.

I just don't like it when I feel people are using put downs as a way of trying to win a factual argument, maybe he wasn't doing that ..... so let's just continue with the topic.

[frankiej]

[theVOID]

[Diamond-Deist]

I have to be brief I'm at work.

For starters, cell's aren't inanimate. An inanimate object is essentially one that displays no sign of life since since cells are living they aren't inanimate. Technical difference I know but it pays to be precise.

Cells were inanimate fact, and yes they did originally not have life, unless that guy from NASA was lying on that programme I watched.
If you can explain how it went from inanimate to life you will be doing one better than him, according to him they still cannot work that bit out.

Thirdly, you seem to be presuming that there is some 'goal' to all of this, to "conquer the world", that is not the case. If you try and approach any field of naturalistic enquiry looking for intent, as you presume to be a feature of the world from a deistic/theistic perspective, you are never going to fully grasp what it is we believe to be true about reality.

I would have thought it was obvious, life is by definition is a struggle to survive, you've heard of the arms race phenomena? basically drove the variety of life we have .... Cambrian explosion (if I've spelt it right)?

All that aside there is a more fundamental issue here, that is the argument from incredulity that you are on the verge of committing. Presuming we could give you no explanation of either, or if you found our explanations lacking, you would invariably use this to conclude that there must be or this increases the probability of a deity, correct? If so you would be committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity - As you should already know the conclusions of fallacious arguments, while not necessarily false, are indefensible with any consideration for intellectual honesty, thus if you want to consider yourself a rational person basing your beliefs on fallacious arguments is counter productive.

Not so much ..... I am certainly not inserting the God element here at all, maybe Nicholas would but I am just playing devils advocate on his behalf.

[KichigaiNeko]

Oh deary me hock: