Logic dictates that there is a God!

[heavycola]

EDIT: why do atheists always sound more intelligent than bleevers?

Are you kidding me? The Rev. was far more articulate, his points put together well. The atheist seemed to be "winging it". Not addressing the points raised by the Rev. Making up acronyms for "Atheist"??? I mean come on.

The rev's 'point' was that because logic exists god exists. It is a fairly ridiculous argument; all the "atheist??!!!" had to do was point out that logic, like language or arithmetic, is a human construct. Which is the more intelligent way to look at it, whether you believe in a god or not.
The rev lost smart points too for all the strawmen at the end of his first speech. And for being a reverend. And for trying, disingenuously, to suggest that xianity is compatible with logic while non-belief isnt - when in fact all he was doing was suggesting there must have been a creator. From creator -> war god of the hebrews -> NT-type god is a huuuuuge leap that he never explained. Like Bush and Rummy mentioning 9/11 and saddam in the same sentences when there was never any link.

[aristotea]

Of course there is no way I can read 290 pages on this forum so I guess someone has already pointed out this maybe, but
I just want to note that the whole discussion started, right from the start in message 1, with a non-so-true assumption:

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Since has not said that *AT ALL*, and common sense does not match science many many times, and in fact in the well-known book "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life" Cairns-Smith states that life could indeed have come from non-life inorganic material. As I am lazy, I post here some part of a review that can be found in the web where that point is made more clear:

In "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life", A. G. Cairns-Smith, a molecular biologist and so on at the University of Glasgow, lays out in an amusing and chatty way (including numerous Sherlock Holmes quotations) his argument that yes the first replicator really couldn't have been any of the replicators that we have today, or even anything very much like them. And he presents his own theory as to what they in fact were: inorganic clay crystals of a certain type that seem to have (or seem capable of having) both the requisite ability to do a kind of very low-tech replication, and the potential to have eventually provided the platform on which our current much higher-tech replicators (DNA and all that) got their start.


So, regardless of whether God exists, it is quite a bad, though usual, technique to support an argument based on possibly false assumptions (that's exactly what science doesn't do!).

[Iliad]

It has awoke again.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes I and many others throughout the 290+ pages have pointed out that life can come from non-life. The thread ended up revolving more so on "logic dictates that the Christian God is/isn't real" and "no evidence exists to suggest the Christian God is any more practical than ..." etc. Focuses mostly on the Christian God's, with some retardedly stupid comments by both sides (namely jay for the Christian side). Oh yeah, the new earth vs old earth and evolution managed to work its way in for a little bit (prob 30 or so pages).

[Neoteny]

God, this thread is so win...

[jonesthecurl]

Well, if this thread can come back from the dead, maybe Jesus could too.

[Frigidus]

We need to advertise this thread or something, get some new blood in here. Jay did his part, but he isn't an intellectual Rambo. We need more people on the other side of the argument! Same goes for the evolution thread.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think this was my first ever debate thread... like, two and half years ago

[OnlyAmbrose]

lol, there it is, my first words on the god debate from October 2006

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&p=127326#p127326

It's thread resurrections like this which make me realize just how long I've been here and how much time I've wasted... erm... I mean spent on these forums.

[Napoleon Ier]

Perhaps Dostoevsky had it right when he tried to reduce the whole idea of putting God's existence on trial to the absurd...a Kierkegaardian absurd.

[Snorri1234]

We need to advertise this thread or something, get some new blood in here. Jay did his part, but he isn't an intellectual Rambo. We need more people on the other side of the argument! Same goes for the evolution thread.

Where are you going to find intellectual people on the creationism side?

[Napoleon Ier]

I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

[mpjh]

I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

I know of one of the largest organized religions in the world whose dogma and teachings says the evolution was the likely process for the origin life. It has millions of members.

[God Emperor Q]

OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD... ITS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Napoleon Ier]

I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

I know of one of the largest organized religions in the world whose dogma and teachings says the evolution was the likely process for the origin life. It has millions of members.

What's your point?

[mpjh]

Read the post.

[Napoleon Ier]

Read the post.

There didn't seem to be much point to it.

[Snorri1234]

I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

Idiot too.

[Napoleon Ier]

Snorri, snorri... where's that famous open mind of yours, eh? Why the intellectual fascism?

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, snorri... where's that famous open mind of yours, eh? Why the intellectual fascism?

What on earth would any atheist believe in if it wasn't evolution?

[Napoleon Ier]

Snorri, snorri... where's that famous open mind of yours, eh? Why the intellectual fascism?

What on earth would any atheist believe in if it wasn't evolution?

That we're still waiting for a biological Galileo, just like Dawkins still thinks we need to wait for a cosmological Darwin.

[mpjh]

I don't see any need to wait to take up the fact that evolution is how live on earth originated and developed.

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't see any need to wait to take up the fact that evolution is how live on earth originated and developed.

That's not to say all intelligent people mustn't see this need either.

[mpjh]

Double negative -- good way to be ambiguous and foggy.

[Frigidus]

Snorri, snorri... where's that famous open mind of yours, eh? Why the intellectual fascism?

What on earth would any atheist believe in if it wasn't evolution?

That we're still waiting for a biological Galileo, just like Dawkins still thinks we need to wait for a cosmological Darwin.

Seems to me that there's a very limited number of possibilities when it comes to the origins of life. Given that life exists on this planet and you are unsure of its origin, the only possible explanations are that

A: something put us on this planet. This accounts for Creationism and Scientology. It's really only a dodge though, as that doesn't explain the origins of life, it just says that life didn't originate on this planet.

B: life came from something that wasn't living on this planet. This would go along with the Theory of Evolution.

C: life always existed on this planet. This isn't even logically coherent. If life has always existed, it would have been here since either the "start" of the universe or an infinite amount of time. But, if it has existed for an infinite amount of time then how has that much time passed? The concept of "infinite time" doesn't really mix well with the mechanics of time.

The start of the universe bit is the only option aside that seems to not be entirely outrageous, and it still seems very odd.