God's not dead

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
The rabbi was quite certain he'd get all the money. For good reason.
 
I have a friend on facebook that is beyond a fundamentalist - and this came out of nowhere. I have some screenshots of his rants about the lake of fire. He's the epitome of what turns people off/away from religion.
 
magnifier661 said:
Ah okay... So since we can't see the first self replicating molecule, it must have not existed. Your logic is flawed
Click to expand...

There is physical evidence. There's not a shred of evidence of any god.
 
Look at one of your hairs under the microscope.

Self replicating molecules everywhere. There didn't have to be a first "one" though. If you start two aquaponic systems at the same time, they both might produce (whatever) at the same time.
 
Denny Crane said:
Look at one of your hairs under the microscope.

Self replicating molecules everywhere. There didn't have to be a first "one" though. If you start two aquaponic systems at the same time, they both might produce (whatever) at the same time.
Click to expand...

Ah way to dodge. I requested the "first" self replicating molecule. I knew you would try and use novice attempts with what we see today.

The first self replicating molecule is the special one. It's the true "missing link". Without it, the entire theory is as real as the spaghetti monster spewing all over your face to form little Dennys.
 
I'm long past trying to understand how you get it so wrong, consistently.

If there were a billion primordial puddles of goo where the first self-replicating molecules formed, there wouldn't be just one of them.

The thing is, we can't go back in time and see it happen. Those puddles of goo may have sat there for a hundred thousand years for the processes that formed the first self-replicating molecules to form. This means you can't produce it in a lab because the scientist who started the experiment would be dead for a hundred thousand years before it completed.

There's no dodge to it.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm long past trying to understand how you get it so wrong, consistently.

If there were a billion primordial puddles of goo where the first self-replicating molecules formed, there wouldn't be just one of them.

The thing is, we can't go back in time and see it happen. Those puddles of goo may have sat there for a hundred thousand years for the processes that formed the first self-replicating molecules to form. This means you can't produce it in a lab because the scientist who started the experiment would be dead for a hundred thousand years before it completed.

There's no dodge to it.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding!!!

Thank you Denny for proving how idiotic your concept that God didn't grab the money because he doesn't exist. It's neat how easily I can lure you using your ego against you.

Thanks for playing
 
Mags, given that we have naturally self-replicating molecules now which would you say is a simpler explanation?

That a "first" one arose naturally from circumstances that we don't yet understand (but may at some point)?

Or that an all-mighty designer for which there is no scientific evidence of existence magically put it together?

You should be able to forgive scientists if they take the former as their base assumption.
 
magnifier661 said:
Ding ding ding!!!

Thank you Denny for proving how idiotic your concept that God didn't grab the money because he doesn't exist. It's neat how easily I can lure you using your ego against you.

Thanks for playing
Click to expand...

icon7.png
 
crowTrobot said:
Mags, given that we have naturally self-replicating molecules now which would you say is a simpler explanation?

That a "first" one arose naturally from circumstances that we don't yet understand (but may at some point)?

Or that an all-mighty designer for which there is no scientific evidence of existence magically put it together?

You should be able to forgive scientists if they take the former as their base assumption.
Click to expand...

The logic is still "assumptions". It's easy for an existing "self replicating molecule" to reproduce, mutate, etc. it's quite another feat to have one naturally manifest from non-genetic coded material.

Both cannot be observed easily. But one "Denny" can be content because they see other self replicating molecules as proof, while the other is content with God, because they feel his presence everyday.

And we may, at some point, observe God himself!
 
magnifier661 said:
The logic is still "assumptions". It's easy for an existing "self replicating molecule" to reproduce, mutate, etc. it's quite another feat to have one naturally manifest from non-genetic coded material.

Both cannot be observed easily. But one "Denny" can be content because they see other self replicating molecules as proof, while the other is content with God, because they feel his presence everyday.

And we may, at some point, observe God himself!
Click to expand...


Well now that brings up another question. When we can see God himself, will those that say he does not exist, be able to see him when he is there? They do not see him now and men wiser than I, have seen his work everywhere.
 
magnifier661 said:
Ding ding ding!!!

Thank you Denny for proving how idiotic your concept that God didn't grab the money because he doesn't exist. It's neat how easily I can lure you using your ego against you.

Thanks for playing
Click to expand...

ding ding ding - evidence of self replicating molecules that you admit exist vs. not a shred of evidence of god or leprechauns.
 
Denny Crane said:
ding ding ding - evidence of self replicating molecules that you admit exist vs. not a shred of evidence of god or leprechauns.
Click to expand...

Lmao! Have you heard the term "can't see the forest through the trees?" Your ego is getting the best of you.

The point is, you can't prove that the first self replicating molecule could somehow miraculously manifest from non genetic encoded material. Even with all the primordial soup in the universe, not a single one has been observed.

Let me repeat it again. Show me empirical evidence that you can create a "self replicating molecule from non genetic material". I will give you all the primordial soup you need.

So the point is this... Your bold claim that God wouldn't grab the money because he does not exist, is exactly the same as one claiming that "non genetic material can materialize into genetic material without using genetic material" has not been observed so it must not exist.

Your tuition has expired. Class is over....
 
MarAzul said:
Well now that brings up another question. When we can see God himself, will those that say he does not exist, be able to see him when he is there? They do not see him now and men wiser than I, have seen his work everywhere.
Click to expand...

I believe that everyone in this entire universe will one day be in front of God. They may still deny him, or maybe they will try and blame him for not being so open with his presence.
 
magnifier661 said:
Lmao! Have you heard the term "can't see the forest through the trees?" Your ego is getting the best of you.

The point is, you can't prove that the first self replicating molecule could somehow miraculously manifest from non genetic encoded material. Even with all the primordial soup in the universe, not a single one has been observed.

Let me repeat it again. Show me empirical evidence that you can create a "self replicating molecule from non genetic material". I will give you all the primordial soup you need.

So the point is this... Your bold claim that God wouldn't grab the money because he does not exist, is exactly the same as one claiming that "non genetic material can materialize into genetic material without using genetic material" has not been observed so it must not exist.

Your tuition has expired. Class is over....
Click to expand...

I can't prove you were born, yet here you are posting.

I'd call that evidence you were born.

For the same reason, we are sure that self replicating molecules evolved.

There is not a shred of evidence of any god. Never has been.
 
Denny Crane said:
I can't prove you were born, yet here you are posting.

I'd call that evidence you were born.

For the same reason, we are sure that self replicating molecules evolved.

There is not a shred of evidence of any god. Never has been.
Click to expand...

You are clearing the trees. You believe that something that has never been observed happened. Pretty simple.

As for your argument... It's even more laughable. I am here because I think God put me here. I post because God created me.

Both of us believe in something that requires faith. You may think your idea is more logical, but it still is just the same as what I believe.
 
magnifier661 said:
You are clearing the trees. You believe that something that has never been observed happened. Pretty simple.

As for your argument... It's even more laughable. I am here because I think God put me here. I post because God created me.

Both of us believe in something that requires faith. You may think your idea is more logical, but it still is just the same as what I believe.
Click to expand...

I think I'd like a $million, but God isn't doing shit for me on that score.

So much for thinking God does anything.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think I'd like a $million, but God isn't doing shit for me on that score.

So much for thinking God does anything.
Click to expand...

Ah but you use greed and the concept that God owes u something. That is absolutely backwards thinking. But it does explain why you don't want to believe in God.

For me, creating me, this universe or even life itself is more than enough to give him praise. Shit, I'm sure you go goo goo when you see the accomplishments of man. The accomplishments of the creator of this universe trumps all.
 
And here is the funny thing about your debate. You are attacking my faith without defending yours. Not being able to defend that your idea doesn't require faith. Pay attention! All you need to do is show the empirical evidence and this debate is over. I'm still waiting.

The moment you realize that you put faith in something you can't see or observe, the sooner you can free yourself from those chains you bind yourself with.

The funny thing is atheist believe they will set us free, yet they just bind you with chains that are camouflaged. You are still bound by beliefs that you cannot prove. What you choose to do the moment you realize this will actually free you.
 
magnifier661 said:
Ah but you use greed and the concept that God owes u something. That is absolutely backwards thinking. But it does explain why you don't want to believe in God.

For me, creating me, this universe or even life itself is more than enough to give him praise. Shit, I'm sure you go goo goo when you see the accomplishments of man. The accomplishments of the creator of this universe trumps all.
Click to expand...

He doesn't owe you existence, yet here you are.

LOL.
 
And you won't accept empirical evidence, no matter how it's presented.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

I observe self replicating molecules. I don't observe anything at all that suggests there is a god or mountain with family of gods on it.
 
Denny Crane said:
He doesn't owe you existence, yet here you are.

LOL.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Thank you! God didn't need to make us but he did. He created us because he loves us. He gave us this amazing universe, free will, ability to make great things and the gift of eternity. They are gifts not because he owes us, it's because he loves us.

Get the bulldozer out, Denny's clearing out the forest!
 
Denny Crane said:
And you won't accept empirical evidence, no matter how it's presented.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

I observe self replicating molecules. I don't observe anything at all that suggests there is a god or mountain with family of gods on it.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha and you laugh at a Christian that uses their personal experience as proof!

Do you even see how we are cut from the same cloth? You believe in something that requires faith, using tools that cannot be seen. You claim they are logical because 1.) they are backed by scientists 2.) that you've observed living organisms.

Here's your problem. You can have a billion people, animals, plants or even life in other parts of this universe and if you can't find the source "smoking gun", it is all just a guess. It's no better than thinking a magical unicorn took a shit on this planet and created life.

And your definition about empirical evidence definition. "Sense of experience". Amazing!!! So all those Christians that experience God everyday is empirical! Thanks man, Christians are using science!
 
I know we can see self replicating molecules with differing complexities.

Your personal experience is not observation, but a delusion.

You are here because a leprechaun made it so. Prove me wrong.
 
Denny Crane said:
I know we can see self replicating molecules with differing complexities.

Your personal experience is not observation, but a delusion.

You are here because a leprechaun made it so. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Amazing Denny, you opened the flood gates! "Sense of experience" even the observation of this experience.

Millions of Christians everyday can give testimony they feel God presences. Their sense of experience is not only empirical, but has more peer reviewed documentation than any other philosophy!

Not only is this scientific, it is now empirical.

You asked for proof that God exists. Well here you are! Now move on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top