Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
1. Observe what happens

Your inference doesn't get past step 1. You haven't observed anything in regards to the creation of life. You have never observed god creating life. You have never observed life emerging via natural processes. Nobody's arguing that a rock could give birth to an animal. They are saying that you are wrong in guessing about whether life can ONLY come from life or not. A statement such as that requires absolute knowledge of the universe, something that you do not have.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

Where are the tests and experiments you have done in regards to the origin of life?

The problem with your statement Barcs is that you have "nothing" to back up your faith. It's science fiction to say, infer, assume, pretend that non-living matter will produce life.

And although we're on the same boat as to when life began (since no human was around to observe the creation of the first life or the spontaneous generation of life from the very beginning), you have nothing to based your belief on while I have logic and facts backing me up.

Observe and experiment to your hearts desire but the result will be the same in both cases.

In my case - life will always propagate life while the atheist view, non-living matter will not produce life.

There's just no way around it Barcs because these are the honest to goodness facts.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: edmc^2

Life can ONLY come from pre-existimg life apart from that one time your imaginary friend apparently sprang into existence.

This is why people laugh at Creationists...

This is why atheist and evolutionist lack common sense and logic.

You're incapable of contemplating the concept of infinity. Incapable of ascertaining the implication of the concept of INFINITY.

But just for kicks - do you believe that there's such thing as INFINITY?

Let's see where your mind is (if it even exist).

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: edmc^2

Life can ONLY come from pre-existimg life apart from that one time your imaginary friend apparently sprang into existence.

This is why people laugh at Creationists...

This is why atheist and evolutionist lack common sense and logic.

You're incapable of contemplating the concept of infinity. Incapable of ascertaining the implication of the concept of INFINITY.

But just for kicks - do you believe that there's such thing as INFINITY?

Let's see where your mind is (if it even exist).

Infinity is a concept, nothing more, since even you can't behold infinity or even wrap your mind around it. You have a vague gist.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: edmc^2

Life can ONLY come from pre-existimg life apart from that one time your imaginary friend apparently sprang into existence.

This is why people laugh at Creationists...

This is why atheist and evolutionist lack common sense and logic.

You're incapable of contemplating the concept of infinity. Incapable of ascertaining the implication of the concept of INFINITY.

But just for kicks - do you believe that there's such thing as INFINITY?

Let's see where your mind is (if it even exist).

Infinity is a concept, nothing more, since even you can't behold infinity or even wrap your mind around it. You have a vague gist.

Hah! I guess you didn't get the 'gist' of what I'm saying. Too bad.

a reply to: edmc^2

great thread. I love what you have to say and I enjoy your debating! Your view is very good. Considering you are a Christian ...it's a joke hehe

But I think that first you would have to address the myth that real god is a creation. Because most atheist think of a god in such a way. They are to limited by their imagination to view god as something other than a being or an old man with a magic wand...haah!
That is the issue and when you think like that you get into the circle of who created him then.
But what you are saying is that TRUE GOD is not a creation, it is not an entity it is like the sky or air only much much more micro and everywhere AND intelligent. But outside on any bounds and limitations we impose on it.

It is hard to grasp that and understand it with imagination but it is the truth. Or all the old mystics where wrong....and you know what is the best part?
We can experience it with meditation or other tools with which we can expand our conciousness outside our body and mind. This is not just a story. This is an ultimate goal in spirituality!
YOGA = UNION this is the real meaning of the word!

originally posted by: edmc^2
Isn't you're the one who is playing semantics here?

Nope. I am not equating 2 meanings of the same word or concept as equal despite being different.

Origin and birth imply a beginning. But what you're describing or alluding to is biology, a process. In other words, you're stuck on the ground level while I'm referring to an all-encompassing BEGINNING.

I am not stuck on any ground level. You are the one who is comparing the beginning of LIFE as we know it, with a creature replicating. I don't care if both imply a beginning. They are not the same. One is the beginning of ALL life.

And based on OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, since you can't get life from non-living matter but you can from a pre-existing life, then the latter MUST true. Either by replication or by creation, life MUST and always will come from pre-existing life.

Replication OR creation? How can you say this when creation of life has NEVER been observed. It keeps boiling down to the same word misunderstandings. Creation of life is not the same as replication of life. By your logic, if creation of life has never been observed, then creation of life cannot happen. This is the exact logic you use to determine that life can never come from non life, so the exact same thing is true for your claim.

Sorry you can't have it both ways and claim you are making a logical scientific argument. You are not. You are referring to what science DOES NOT KNOW and riding off into the sunset with it.

But I think this is not the problem. Your problem is with the Creator of Life. You're assuming that because God is life, therefore he must have come from a pre-existing life.

Only based on your faulty logic. If you say life cannot come from non life, and god is life, then he must have come from other life.

And since it's an infinite regress to assume or say that God has a creator, therefore, any answer that supposedly answer the question is nonsense and unscientific.

Exactly. That's why most of us say we do not know the answer. You claim you have factually and logically proved it, but you haven't.

That, I agree IF we assume that God is a creature, a creation. But He is NOT a creation as he is the prime source of raw material for the creation of the universe. Hence, He always possessed life. He always existed. It's the ONLY logical and scientific answer to the "puzzle" because the alternative is to accept the illogical, the unscientific blind faith on nothing. That everything including God was created from nothing by nothing.

Pure assumptions.

To assume or to say that we don't know notwithstanding the obvious is a cop out, laziness, blind faith in the unknown.

That is where you stand.

To say we don't know the answer is honest, because we actually don't. You have strong faith, but that isn't the same thing as KNOWING. You don't know. You guess based on ancient texts. Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown. Faith in GOD is blind faith in the unknown. How do you not see this?

Again Barcs, you're thinking at ground level. You need to expand your horizon.

Again, you are using the fallacy of equivocation. It's not about ground level, it's about using improper terminology and equating various definitions of "law" as if they are equal. They are not equal. Traffic laws are not measurements of forces in the universe. They are man made rules to ensure traffic flows properly and safely. Stop the fallacies already!!

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

I said to prove it WITHOUT equivocation. You just did it again, assuming that universal laws are the same as traffic laws in origin. They are not. If you can't keep the fallacies out of your argument, you do not have an argument, just a preaching pulpit.

Of course, you will say either "nothing" or "we don't know" which in both cases is irrational and highly illogical and a cop out.

Again, how is it illogical to say you don't know the answer, when you actually don't know the answer? You have NO IDEA what logic is.

originally posted by: edmc^2
The problem with your statement Barcs is that you have "nothing" to back up your faith. It's science fiction to say, infer, assume, pretend that non-living matter will produce life.

It's science fiction to say, infer, assume, or pretend that god created life. You have nothing to back up your faith. Maybe you don't understand. I am not claiming any of my beliefs are facts. YOU ARE. Therefor you require evidence and to back your claims up, which you clearly have not done.

And although we're on the same boat as to when life began (since no human was around to observe the creation of the first life or the spontaneous generation of life from the very beginning), you have nothing to based your belief on while I have logic and facts backing me up.

There's just no way around it Barcs because these are the honest to goodness facts.

Nope. You have nothing but fallacies to back up your belief. Fallacy = not logical. Why is it so hard to admit that your faith is faith based? You have not provided a single fact in this entire thread.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: edmc^2

Life can ONLY come from pre-existimg life apart from that one time your imaginary friend apparently sprang into existence.

This is why people laugh at Creationists...

This is why atheist and evolutionist lack common sense and logic.

You're incapable of contemplating the concept of infinity. Incapable of ascertaining the implication of the concept of INFINITY.

But just for kicks - do you believe that there's such thing as INFINITY?

Let's see where your mind is (if it even exist).

Infinity is a concept, nothing more, since even you can't behold infinity or even wrap your mind around it. You have a vague gist.

Hah! I guess you didn't get the 'gist' of what I'm saying. Too bad.

You are fond of false dichotomies. What's to get?

a reply to: Barcs

To say we don't know the answer is honest, because we actually don't. You have strong faith, but that isn't the same thing as KNOWING. You don't know. You guess based on ancient texts. Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown. Faith in GOD is blind faith in the unknown. How do you not see this?

Sorry Barcs but you make me smile. "Faith in GOD is blind faith in the unknown". Really?

For someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God and never experienced the love, power and wisdom of God in one's own life then say "Faith in GOD is blind faith in the unknown" is quite amusing.

It's like a 7 years old child telling an experienced adult driver how to drive a car. It's quite amusing if not ridiculous.

But what's even more amusing and ridiculous is "Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown".

"Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown"

How could this NOT be blind faith? Is it not believing on something you don't know - the unknown - in itself the very definition of Blind Faith?

Surely you're aware of this. If not then you need to double check your faith because from this vantage point it is blind faith on the unknown.

a reply to: Barcs

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

I said to prove it WITHOUT equivocation. You just did it again, assuming that universal laws are the same as traffic laws in origin. They are not. If you can't keep the fallacies out of your argument, you do not have an argument, just a preaching pulpit.

Equivocation? Now in what manner, way or form is stating a fact an equivocation?

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

Given that they are not the same law in some aspect as one governs the flow of traffic while the other governs the movements of galaxies and planets, why is this equivocation?

Why is this an equivocation if I'm merely asking a question? A question that you didn't even bother to answer but brushed aside as an equivocation.

But if that's is your final answer - equivocation then, sorry, it's fundamentally weak.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Barcs

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

Because traffic laws aren't the same thing as laws of the universe, and making that comparison is rather silly.

Equivocation? Now in what manner, way or form is stating a fact an equivocation?

You didn't state a "fact" here. You asked a leading question intended to appeal to someone's common sense in lieu of evidence of it being true existing.

If traffic laws require a body of lawmakers (verifiable evidence), why would it not follow that the laws that govern the universe require a lawmaker?

Given that they are not the same law in some aspect as one governs the flow of traffic while the other governs the movements of galaxies and planets, why is this equivocation?

Because "law" in the phrase "traffic law" has a different definition than law in "scientific law". You are basically attempting to do the same thing that people do when they mix up the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory.

Why is this an equivocation if I'm merely asking a question? A question that you didn't even bother to answer but brushed aside as an equivocation.

But if that's is your final answer - equivocation then, sorry, it's fundamentally weak.

Like I said, you are trying to mix and match a word with two different definitions. Barcs is 100% correct here. Your reasoning is flawed. What you are doing is like trying to replace a variable (x) in an algebraic equation with a new variable (y) and saying that it is perfectly ok to do so because they are both variables. Never mind that they may (and very likely) have two different values, the fact that they are both variables makes it ok. Of course, we know that isn't really the case. I hope that cleared things up for you.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sorry Barcs but you make me smile. "Faith in GOD is blind faith in the unknown". Really?

Yes really. Since we can't verify one way or another that god exists, it is unknown. Your problem is that you start the entire premise based on something that is unknown. Maybe you outta look up the definition of "unknown".

But what's even more amusing and ridiculous is "Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown".

"Admitting we don't know for sure, is NOT blind faith in the unknown"

How could this NOT be blind faith? Is it not believing on something you don't know - the unknown - in itself the very definition of Blind Faith?

You can't be serious. Is your grasp of the English language THAT bad?

Maybe you should look up the definition of faith. Faith is about believing in something that cannot be proven. Saying that I don't know isn't a statement of faith. It's a statement of honesty, something you need to use more often in your conversations. I don't know, therefor I can't make a statement of faith toward either side. Saying "I don't know" is a statement VOID of faith.

Equivocation? Now in what manner, way or form is stating a fact an equivocation?

You have stated no facts.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Examples
Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Semantic shift

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.
"Man"

In English language, one equivocation is with the word "man", which can mean both "member of the species, Homo sapiens" and "male member of the species, Homo sapiens". The following sentence is a well-known equivocation:

"Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?", in which "man-eating" is construed to mean a shark that devours only male human beings.

Switch-referencing

This occurs where the referent of a word or expression in a second sentence is different from that in the immediately preceding sentence, especially where a change in referent has not been clearly identified.
Metaphor

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.
"Nothing is better than"

Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore, margarine is better than butter.

Your use of the word "law" is fallacious and illogical, because it equates traffic laws, legal laws and universal laws. This is textbook equivocation.

law
noun
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

2.
a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

3.
the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.

Universal law is definition #2 but you are using definition #1 to claim laws need lawmakers. Like I said, TEXTBOOK equivocation. The 2 definitions are not the same but you are treating them as equal just like the fallacy states that I quoted above. Sorry you can't weasel your way out of this one no matter how many fallacies and non-sequiturs you post. Where is your evidence that #2 requires a law maker? Please justify this without falling back on definition #1 as you have done several times already.

So for the 4th time, please justify your stance WITHOUT equivocation. If you fail to do this AGAIN, it will be the equivalent of you conceding the argument. Best of luck to ye.

a reply to: Barcs

Let me just address this since it's quite interesting. So you say...

You can't be serious. Is your grasp of the English language THAT bad?

Maybe you should look up the definition of faith. Faith is about believing in something that cannot be proven. Saying that I don't know isn't a statement of faith. It's a statement of honesty, something you need to use more often in your conversations. I don't know, therefor I can't make a statement of faith toward either side. Saying "I don't know" is a statement VOID of faith.

You can't be serious Barcs. Is your grasp of the English language THAT limited?

You must be kidding me if the ONLY definition you know about "FAITH" is (the mistaken definition) "believing in something that cannot be proven".

Seriously Barcs. Do you even have an idea where the English word FAITH come from? It came from the Latin word - FIDES. Which literally means FIDELITY or FAITHFULNESS. It is also related to Latin word VERITAS - which mean in English - TRUST or TRUSTWORTHINESS.

I bet you din't know this huh?

You see Barcs, when you TRUST something it means that you have EVIDENCE. You have EVIDENCE to trust them and it goes the same with FAITH. For example Barcs, if you say I have FAITH in the banking system, so I opened a Bank account with them. Now, why would you do this if you don't have FAITH or TRUST in the system? Surely, you wouldn't do that. Would you? But the reason why you did it is because you have EVIDENCE that you can TRUST them. You have FIDES in them because of their VERITAS.

Now, if you do it without evidence, then that Barcs is what I call "BLIND TRUST" or more appropriately "BLIND FAITH".

Is that clear enough?

a reply to: edmc^2

You see Barcs, when you TRUST something it means that you have EVIDENCE.

haha...no. ever heard of "conning" someone? thats convincing someone believe something purely by virtue of "con"...fidence. and even without confidence artists, there are rumors, assumptions, and gambles. we make all kinds of decisions without considering every angle of the question, and we trust in the outcome until either we are successful or we are mentally kicking ourselves for just trusting.

unless, of course, you dont go outside from the day you are born. cant help you there.

You have EVIDENCE to trust them and it goes the same with FAITH.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

nothing about evidence in that definition. perhaps you have a better one.

also, this tangent of discussion adds nothing to the argument you have assembled thus far. its a trivial detail and fails to address the vast majority of the gaping holes in your hypothesis.

perhaps thats the point? pick the hair most easily split and ignore the rats nest waiting to be untangled?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

You see Barcs, when you TRUST something it means that you have EVIDENCE.

haha...no. every heard of "conning" someone? thats convincing someone believe something purely by virtue of "con"...fidence.

You have EVIDENCE to trust them and it goes the same with FAITH.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

nothing about evidence in that definition. perhaps you have a better one.

also, this tangent of discussion adds nothing to the argument you have assembled thus far. its a trivial detail and fails to address the vast majority of the gaping holes in your hypothesis.

Now, you just made it trivial. Ha!

a reply to: edmc^2

if i wanted my own comeback...

but no, i wont sink to that level. there is no changing your mind and that was the whole point of this 26 page display. your responses are bright neon indicators telling me this threads last breath is well on its way.

if nothing else, thanks for the target practice.

a reply to: Barcs

Universal law is definition #2 but you are using definition #1 to claim laws need lawmakers. Like I said, TEXTBOOK equivocation. The 2 definitions are not the same but you are treating them as equal just like the fallacy states that I quoted above. Sorry you can't weasel your way out of this one no matter how many fallacies and non-sequiturs you post. Where is your evidence that #2 requires a law maker? Please justify this without falling back on definition #1 as you have done several times already.

So for the 4th time, please justify your stance WITHOUT equivocation. If you fail to do this AGAIN, it will be the equivalent of you conceding the argument. Best of luck to ye.

Sure, according to YOUR TEXTBOOK. Which judging from your limited understanding of the English word "FAITH" leaves much to desire.

If you even paid attention to what I said then you'll have an idea. I said 'in principle' a law, any law can not exist apart from a lawmaker. It can't be done! This is a universal truth that is unassailable that hold onto. To which I would add, your "equivocation" definitions at every category don't hold true.

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

And since you can't refute it logically nor scientifically, then to use you own words:

it will be the equivalent of you conceding the argument. Best of luck to ye.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

if i wanted my own comeback...

but no, i wont sink to that level. there is no changing your mind and that was the whole point of this 26 page display. your responses are bright neon indicators telling me this threads last breath is well on its way.

if nothing else, thanks for the target practice.

Missed your target TzarChasm.

BTW - what does TzarChasm exactly mean if not to insult?

a reply to: edmc^2

its got two meanings - sarcasm and "tzar chasm" or abyssal king. its a veiled reference intended, fittingly enough, to be sarcastic. my own little joke.

are you finished?

a reply to: edmc^2

LMAO! Now you are equivocating 2 definitions for the word faith. I'm well aware that it can also mean trust. I wasn't referring to that meaning, however. You simply don't seem to understand that words can have multiple meanings, yet you call my understanding limited?

FAITH
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Obviously I was referring to definition #2. If you wish to claim you are talking about definition #1, then you need to show the evidence. You can't trust something you don't even know exists.

a reply to: Barcs

"You can't trust something you don't even know exists" sure you can, it's just not very smart.