Logic dictates that there is a God!

[AAFitz]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

No.
You missed the most vital part of what he had said.
"[...]living God[...]"

Page 347 - A little bit above half way down.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

No, you missed the point. God who is living created all living things. Life cannot come from non- life. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No, sir.
What I miss is how you fail to understand how you say that life cannot come from non-life and that life must come from somewhere.
Where then does a living god come from, jay_a2j?

No one knows where god came from, therefore, God must have made him, logically speaking...

Granted, when life is found on other planets, it wont matter, jay will be long gone and will have never had to seriously consider the true origin of the universe.

[jrl332005]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

Because those are two main points of evolution, along with mutations caused by a genetic mess-up during conception. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution you have to disagree with one or both of these points.

Um wrong.

wrong. You are the thickest person I have ever had the misfortune to meet! That is what evolution is build off of, and we see this everyday, you twit!

I will repeat, during conception there may be a genetic screw-up causing a mutation, and we see mutations alot like deformed limbs, conjoined twins, etc. If that mutation is beneficial to the organism that organism will probably live longer than most of the others, allowing it to reproduce more and possibly passing on its beneficial gene. Otherwise, the organism will die off faster and reproduce less than the others of its species. Over millions of years these mutations will cause the original group into a seperate species.

Please, before you post next do at least some research so you know what the hell you are talking about.

[nietzsche]

Shit. Jay got me.

Ok, I have to come through. I'm God. I've been trying to test you all by posting devilish things but jay has succeded and his faith shall be awarded with a 2,000 virgins or with eternal happiness in paradise, according to whichever form of praising he practiced.

To those who willingly posted that absurd idea of "evolution" .. tell me, who was the monkey in your family? your grandmother or your grandfather?? Shame on you.

To think that I gave you logic, and that a single logic argument could prove my existence and you didn't pay attention to it.

Of course my second coming had to be according to the times, I've adopted the form of a cyber-being.

[jay_a2j]

Where then does a living god come from, jay_a2j?

He is eternal. Yeah I know, big word, but most dictionaries have it.


"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end"

[jay_a2j]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

Because those are two main points of evolution, along with mutations caused by a genetic mess-up during conception. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution you have to disagree with one or both of these points.

Um wrong.

wrong. You are the thickest person I have ever had the misfortune to meet! That is what evolution is build off of, and we see this everyday, you twit!

I will repeat, during conception there may be a genetic screw-up causing a mutation, and we see mutations alot like deformed limbs, conjoined twins, etc. If that mutation is beneficial to the organism that organism will probably live longer than most of the others, allowing it to reproduce more and possibly passing on its beneficial gene. Otherwise, the organism will die off faster and reproduce less than the others of its species. Over millions of years these mutations will cause the original group into a seperate species.

Please, before you post next do at least some research so you know what the hell you are talking about.

First, get your knickers out of a wad. Then do your best to explain to me how me not believing in evolution FORCES me to choose one or the other?


Oh, and I HIGHLY doubt that:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Are the MAIN points of evolution. If so, it's more laughable then first thought!

[stuart133]

ARE YOU A FUCKING MUTATED, BRAIN DEFICIENT, LUMP OF OOZE JAY??!!!

Sorry about that, but those two things are two of the main points. The other one is random mutations causing new characterisitcs, but he also went into that as well. Also you can't "believe" in evolution, it does not require faith or bullcrap like that. You decide if it seems to fit the facts best, OR if you have a better theory that also fits the facts. Magic man in the sky doesn't cut it by the way.

So basically if you don't think evolution is true, then you might to go and tell all the leading geneticists that they are wasting their life on something that doesn't happen ...

EDIT: Thank you blame for this epic link, this should help fuel the fires: http://ownedirl.com/misc/epicurius_god.jpg

[daddy1gringo]

EDIT: Thank you blame for this epic link, this should help fuel the fires: http://ownedirl.com/misc/epicurius_god.jpg

Oh please. I love it when some easily-dazzled noob brings BACK up this little sophomoric piece of sophistry as if it were oh so very wise... AGAIN. I could take it apart, but that would waste time and space. What's the recent thread where two agnostics, woodruff and mandalorean, very ably showed it for the nonsense it is? I'll edit in a link.

[jonesthecurl]

First, get your knickers out of a wad. Then do your best to explain to me how me not believing in evolution FORCES me to choose one or the other?


Oh, and I HIGHLY doubt that:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Are the MAIN points of evolution. If so, it's more laughable then first thought!

Tell you what, Jay, you know enough about evolution to know that it's untrue.

Please explain to us what this evolution stuff is all about then.

[stuart133]

EDIT: Thank you blame for this epic link, this should help fuel the fires: http://ownedirl.com/misc/epicurius_god.jpg

Oh please. I love it when some easily-dazzled noob brings BACK up this little sophomoric piece of sophistry as if it were oh so very wise... AGAIN. I could take it apart, but that would waste time and space. What's the recent thread where two agnostics, woodruff and mandalorean, very ably showed it for the nonsense it is? I'll edit in a link.

So what you mean by this is that you personally can't disprove it, but you have seen others who can. Congratulations to you.

And yeah, I know it is a philosophy soundbite, but it is fun to watch those who can't work around it get all angry over it.

[john9blue]

EDIT: Thank you blame for this epic link, this should help fuel the fires: http://ownedirl.com/misc/epicurius_god.jpg

Oh please. I love it when some easily-dazzled noob brings BACK up this little sophomoric piece of sophistry as if it were oh so very wise... AGAIN. I could take it apart, but that would waste time and space. What's the recent thread where two agnostics, woodruff and mandalorean, very ably showed it for the nonsense it is? I'll edit in a link.

So what you mean by this is that you personally can't disprove it, but you have seen others who can. Congratulations to you.

And yeah, I know it is a philosophy soundbite, but it is fun to watch those who can't work around it get all angry over it.

We already disproved that quote without fanfare a while ago by having a discussion about free will. Now you're backpedaling by saying "it's not true, I just put it there for fun and lulz". No, you just can't admit that you're wrong. If you'd like to post more quotes (appeal to authority fallacy ) then stand behind them and watch as the more intelligent theists deconstruct them. This is why I almost never side with atheists in debates, I just hate this kind of hypocrisy.

[AAFitz]

ARE YOU A FUCKING MUTATED, BRAIN DEFICIENT, LUMP OF OOZE JAY??!!!

Sorry about that, but those two things are two of the main points. The other one is random mutations causing new characterisitcs, but he also went into that as well. Also you can't "believe" in evolution, it does not require faith or bullcrap like that. You decide if it seems to fit the facts best, OR if you have a better theory that also fits the facts. Magic man in the sky doesn't cut it by the way.

So basically if you don't think evolution is true, then you might to go and tell all the leading geneticists that they are wasting their life on something that doesn't happen ...

EDIT: Thank you blame for this epic link, this should help fuel the fires: http://ownedirl.com/misc/epicurius_god.jpg

there is natural selection in CC too...those who cant argue without flaming will be weeded out as many have. And there is a God in CC so Id be a little more careful.

[stuart133]

Yeah, see the problem is, I always dive into threads like this, and they always fill me with flame.

Oh and also, while I know you can, I would like to see you disprove that statement without fanfare. Maybe have a shot at your proof. Just a thought.

[PLAYER57832]

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

No, you missed the point. God who is living created all living things. Life cannot come from non- life. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No, sir.
What I miss is how you fail to understand how you say that life cannot come from non-life and that life must come from somewhere.
Where then does a living god come from, jay_a2j?

Sorry for the double post.


In the Christian Bible, it says that God has always existed. Christians accept this as part of the mystery of God, they say that you can not understand him.[/quote]

Yes, which is why, however, it cannot be used as a "logical reason" why God has to have created the universe.

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

The truth is that whatever happened is likely something plain outside our understanding. We cannot really percieve of absolutely nothing. (even no God). As Christians, we are taught, as you say, that God has always been. Yet, how can that be? How can anything, even God have no beginning or end?

I suspect that there are one of two answers. The first is that, despite all logical appearances to the contrary, God and therefore something of the universe always existed, exactly as we understand the Bible to say. The other possibility is that there is that saying "God has always been" is just as close as we can get to understanding what really happened. That, some day, we might understand another process, but God was limited in giving us the Bible to that which we can possibly understand (he goes beyond our understanding in many ways, but even so, there is a limit to our abilities, though not his).

In either case, the result is the same. The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here. This actually seems to be what sicence indicates.

At any rate, it does nothing to either prove or disprove God. However, I am always comforted when science, again, confirms what I know to be true from the Bible.

[john9blue]

Yeah, see the problem is, I always dive into threads like this, and they always fill me with flame.

Oh and also, while I know you can, I would like to see you disprove that statement without fanfare. Maybe have a shot at your proof. Just a thought.

Like I said earlier, the answer (or at least the most common response) involves free will. If God chooses to give humans free will, then evil can exist (otherwise there would be no such thing as a choice). So in that scenario, God can stop it, but is not willing to, but not because He is malevolent.

Here's the thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=115562

[jay_a2j]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

[daddy1gringo]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

Wait, wait. I think this is just a misunderstanding. Players, are you just making the semantic point that "ALL" would have to include God, or are you actually saying that you believe that God did not always exist?

[stuart133]

Ahhh yes, the free will answer, forgot about that, good point. I mean, there is not a lot I can say about that. Once I get home to a proper computer I am gonna just leave a final post about why God cannot, at the moment, be considered with any scientific merit, but until then, have fun arguing

[jonesthecurl]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

Wait, wait. I think this is just a misunderstanding. Players, are you just making the semantic point that "ALL" would have to include God, or are you actually saying that you believe that God did not always exist?

I think Player's position is clear enough, and that she has stated it repeatedly.

A belief in God (according to her) is not supported by logic, but is not irrational. It is not that she does not believe that God created the universe (she has pereatedly said that she does believe that) - what she is saying that you cannot arrive at that conclusion through the spurious logic which is being attempted - and that it is no more logical to say "we can't explain the origin of God" than it is to say "we can't explain the origin of the Universe".

Sorry to jump in there, Player, I thought that might save you some typing...

[jrl332005]

First, get your knickers out of a wad. Then do your best to explain to me how me not believing in evolution FORCES me to choose one or the other?


Oh, and I HIGHLY doubt that:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Are the MAIN points of evolution. If so, it's more laughable then first thought!

Wow......just wow. I know this has already been pointed out but, jay, you really don't have ANY freaking idea what you are talking about, do you? I said you should put some actual knowledge inside your fat head before you spurt random non-sense like that.

Now, yes those two points and the random genetic mess-ups are the three main points of evolution, which has been stated multiple times but somehow can't penetrate that iron-clad fortress that is your head. And just the fact that you find those statements laughable shows just how little you actually know.

Scientific theories are based off of mountains of research and test results that confirm the original hypothesis, unlike your religion that teaches that a big, flying man in the sky used 'magic' to make everything in the Universe around us.

These points have been stated to you over and over again and yet you still can't seem to grasp them. This, to me, points to the possiblility that you have an extreme learning disablility that you obviously don't know about. I suggest you talk to a specialist in the field of mental retardation.

[Lionz]

Gang?,

Evolution can be defined many ways and people speak past eachother in conversations having to do with it maybe.

I'm not convinced there's ever been a genetic mutation that's ever made it more likely for someone to pass on genes perhaps. Someone got something that they feel is a clear cut example? Even if there have been thousands of them, has there not likely been thousands of times more mutations that would make it harder to? Maybe you will imagine a scenario with a school containing one hunk type guy with genes and a thousand geek type guys with genes and a thousand women with genes and then ask yourself how much sense it would make for genes from the one hunk type guy to be more likely to pass on than genes from the thousand geek type guys.

Natural selection is like a quality control thing maybe. What suggests humans and lions and turtles and butterflies and dolphins and apple trees share common ancestry if famous evolutionists have suggested the fossil record did not back that up?

Jones,

Who can know anything for sure? But how can we get information about what happened in the past if not from witnesses and physical evidence?

AAFitz,

You claim someone dying for Islam as a result of reading the Koran would be the absolute same thing as someone dying for Him after seeing Him risen from the dead and after seeing Him walk on water and after seeing Him give sight to the blind? What would any follower of Him have to gain by becoming a martyr for Him if they were part of a plan to fabricate lies in order to help support Him? Maybe you will ask yourself how logical it would be for anyone to willingly and knowlingly die for lies in order to support a religion that's against lying. And what would a church killing someone because they believed something other than what the church told them to believe have to do with followers of Him becoming martyrs after seeing Him risen from the dead and after seeing Him walk on water and after seeing Him give sight to the blind?

[jay_a2j]

Children inherit traits from their parents


This is called genetics. And in no way can be called "proof of evolution".



Certain traits are better suited for survival than others


Duh? Again, not proof of evolution.


So indeed a person can buy both statements without accepting evolution. Now go away before mommy catches you on her computer!

[Maugena]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

What are you getting at jay_a2j?
Is questioning your own faith folly?

But seriously.
This is what she was saying, I'll just rephrase it for you so you can understand it.
Yes, "God" could have created the universe.
No, "God" could not have created everything because "God" cannot create "himself".
And the rationality behind "God" always existing is completely equal to the rationality behind something in the universe always existing.

[Maugena]

Children inherit traits from their parents
This is called genetics. And in no way can be called "proof of evolution".
Certain traits are better suited for survival than others
Duh? Again, not proof of evolution.
So indeed a person can buy both statements without accepting evolution. Now go away before mommy catches you on her computer!

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

[jrl332005]

Children inherit traits from their parents


This is called genetics. And in no way can be called "proof of evolution".



Certain traits are better suited for survival than others


Duh? Again, not proof of evolution.


So indeed a person can buy both statements without accepting evolution. Now go away before mommy catches you on her computer!

Those traits that allow an organism to be better suited to survive are more likely to be passed down through the generations. Over the millions of years the traits that appear in a certain group of organisms build on each other to the point where the group is so different from its original species that its becomes its own species.

I am only 14-years-old but yet I can grasp these concepts with ease, while you sit in front of your computer struggling with them, and it shows in your posts when you deny the piles of evidence that is being placed before you. It is easier for you to deny everything than to research the topics and put forth some constructive comments to the conversation.

All these things point to my statement before that you have a severe mental disorder. Also, how tight are the straps on your helmet, because that could have some adverse effects on your already minimal brain activity.

[Snowden]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

What are you getting at jay_a2j?
Is questioning your own faith folly?


But seriously.
This is what she was saying, I'll just rephrase it for you so you can understand it.
Yes, "God" could have created the universe.
No, "God" could not have created everything because "God" cannot create "himself".
And the rationality behind "God" always existing is completely equal to the rationality behind something in the universe always existing.

@Maugena
Jay actually completely understood what Player said, and then said that Player was not acting like a true Christian.
A true Christian says God always was and always will be. Humans cant explain it. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, The beginning and the End" (Revalations 22:13)

So please stop attack people when you are uneducated about the topic of discussion. I would say something to Jay, but as of yet he has not said anything that isn't true of his faith.