The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

Can life be destroyed?
59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
He needs to PROVE that!

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."

I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god. Dude, you just made that up.
 
Can life be destroyed?
59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
He needs to PROVE that!

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."

I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god. Dude, you just made that up.

Apparently, you didn't read what I quoted.
 
What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.

The universe. Your existence.
"The universe. Your existence."

not evidence, as it can be explained other ways.
59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.
He needs to PROVE that!

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.
"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves."

I have never seen a single person demand anyone prove the existence of god. Dude, you just made that up.

Apparently, you didn't read what I quoted.
Apparently you didn't... "non-corporeal anima exists" was the claim.
 
But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.
We do not deny the existence of the pure evil of CON$ervoFascism. Nor do we deny that if evil exists then God is the creator of evil.
 
Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.
Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.
 
I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.

It's not accurate. Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements. This has been recreated many times under laboratory conditions using multiple different techniques, all simulating that which occurs randomly in nature.
I think you are mistaken. It is not just organic compounds that have to arise, but life itself to be abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Abiogenesis (British English: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs, -ˌbaɪə-/, /-ˌbiːoʊ-, -ˌbiːə-/[3][4][5][6]), biopoiesis,[7] or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[8][9][11][12] Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, chemistry, and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.​

Organic compounds have been found in places that do not have life such as Venus and Titan that have methane in their atmospheres. So organic compounds, in and of themselves, do not prove life or even the next step from generating life.

Methane - Wikipedia
 
What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.
The universe. Your existence.
Since we don't know how the universe began a creator is possible but nothing points to a God of the Bible. Certainly not me.
We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.

And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.
 
The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
That's why Darwin is taught as fact.

It's not political, it's simplistic. At the Junior High and HIgh School level, it's true that teachers often quote textbook facts as if they were reading from scripture. Not out of political indoctrination, but out of sheer laziness.

However, at the University level, where teachers are better paid, have more time on their hands, and arguably more interested students, I've engaged in many a spirited debate over how life evolved on this planet. There is at least some evidence that life evolved off this planet and could have been introduced here by impact from comets or meteors.

As a religious Jew, I'm in no doubt of the existence of G-d. I also don't believe it's beyond G-d capabilities to use the tools available to him, such as natural selection, to create an infinitely diverse selection of lifeforms in the Universe.

I ask my Creationist friends whether it is more impressive for God to shoot a billion billiard balls into their pockets one at a time or to do it with the break.

At the Big Bang God did everything He needed to do to bring the universe to the material state He wanted it to be in for mankind to flourish.

There is no need for angels to push the stars and planets around.

But some things defy materialism, IMO, and the soul is likely one of them.
 
We do know how the universe began, the BigBang.

Was that the beginning or just the start of the most recent cycle?

I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.

We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.

And your ability to shift your mental focus from one sensation to another is proof of your ability to choose which is proof of the soul.
Soul-less machines can do a much better job but thanks for saying I'm God-like.

Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.

Well, most of us anyway.
 
2.17Omnipotence
Even God cannot change the past.

- Agathon
He has no need to.
It had no need to create man either!!!
So God is STILL impotent when it comes to changing the past.

Of course God had a 'need' to create man. God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!
 
Of course God had a 'need' to create man. God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!
God is not 'needy' in the human sense of the word, but He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

God will not lose some attribute or suffer if He cannot create. He does not choose to create.

He constantly Creates.
 
Of course God had a 'need' to create man. God does not change. He is a Creator and so He creates, constantly.
Wow, a NEEDY God! Who'd a thunk it!
God is not 'needy' in the human sense of the word, but He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

God will not lose some attribute or suffer if He cannot create. He does not choose to create.

He constantly Creates.
So your God is a SLAVE to your perception of his NEED to create. It is helpless to stop creating or as the bible says resting on the seventh day.

 
So your God is a SLAVE to your perception of his NEED to create. It is helpless to stop creating or as the bible says resting on the seventh day.



No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus He CANNOT change.
 
No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus He CANNOT change.
Thank you for admitting that your God is not omnipotent.
That has nothing to do with omnipotence.

There is no amount of power that can make God unholy, thus omnipotence is irrelevant, and my observation affecting nothing in the regard to His omnipotence.
 

Forum List

Back
Top