promise10:

My question in this regard is, how did live exist in a non living matter?

And I am yet to see any laboratory experiment that physically prove that life comes from non-living matter.

Just like, life coming from a plastic rubber. Yuck!

Life always existed. It is eternal. Life exists even in what we call nothing. Read the articles.

Like I said, ask me why I think ordinary particles are alive.

promise10:

According to you, how true do you consider this your so-called modern science to be?

A helluva lot truer than the bibeli.

A lot more modest too. It doesn't claim to know things that it doesn't know. It is always open to reassessment in the light of newly discovered facts.

It doesn't make people into unevolved, spiritually stunted, baselessly arrogant, socially useless individuals.

taurus25:
lol you guys are funny. . who is atheism and when did it say all those crap....dont just create a thread because you can abeg

He did not even create any thread. He just copied and pasted without thinking.

Weah96:


Life always existed. It is eternal. Life exists even in what we call nothing. Read the articles.

Like I said, ask me why I think ordinary particles are alive.

You are going to redefine what 'Life' means in order to infer this...

What do you mean when you say things are alive here?

johnydon22:


You are going to redefine what 'Life' means in order to infer this...

What do you mean when you say things are alive here?

There needs to be a definition before there can be a REdefinition.

one by one. Let's hear the definition first.

Weah96:


Eternal beings EXIST now, whether or not they were conceived doesn't affect their existence. Let's not get lost in semantics.

According to the enlarged, there are certain beings which do not come from anything. That was all I needed to know.

Thanks. The articles I provided speak about a class of subatomic particles that behaves this way. They seem to suggest that empty space (nothing), is a cauldron of life, transient living particles that interact with other transient particles.

You still messing things up!

Remember that another words for eternal are TIMELESS, AGELESS.

For you to say that an eternal being can be conceived simply means that it is NOT OUT OF AGE. It is simply not ageless, because eternity doesn't run with age or time.

So, it is evident that an eternal/timeless/ageless being CAN NEVER BE CONCEIVED. Hence, it is NO MORE ageless!

Please, how does your last paragraph explain the faith that life comes from non-living matter?

I am all ears.

promise10:

You are still missing it! When talking about an eternal being, you don't use the word "exist". Because an eternal being didn't COME INTO EXISTENCE. It is eternal.

I just clocked this. On the surface it seems that this is not too dissimilar from my standpoint. But let me question further before I conclude that you may be saying similar to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.


Are you saying that it would be wrong to say 'God Exists'?

Are you saying that everything that exists is in a state of flux, constantly being subject to change, coming into existence and slipping out of existence?

And since God is not subject to any flux then we cannot say he exists?

It would be equally wrong to say that 'God does not exist'?

In fact existence and nonexistence are categories of human thinking and God would be beyond existence and nonexistence?

What does our OP think of the Buddhist concept of Nibbana?

Nibbana

This process of birth and death continues ad infinitum until this flux is transmuted, so to say, to nibbanadhatu, the ultimate goal of Buddhists.

The Pali word Nibbana is formed of Ni and Vana. Ni is a negative particle and vana means lusting or craving. "It is called Nibbana, in that it is a departure from the craving which is called vana, lusting." Literally, Nibbana means non-attachment.


Nibbana of the Buddhists is neither a mere nothingness nor a state of annihilation, but what it is no words can adequately express. Nibbana is a Dhamma which is "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed." Hence, it is eternal (dhuva), desirable (subha), and happy (sukha).

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell10.htm

promise10:

You still messing things up!

Remember that another words for eternal are TIMELESS, AGELESS.

For you to say that an eternal being can be conceived simply means that it is NOT OUT OF AGE. It is simply not ageless, because eternity doesn't run with age or time.

So, it is evident that an eternal/timeless/ageless being CAN NEVER BE CONCEIVED. Hence, it is NO MORE ageless!

Please, how does your last paragraph explain the faith that life comes from non-living matter?

I am all ears.

What he is saying is that is that on the quantum level particles can and will seemingly pop into existence. It is an observable phenomenon that gives credence to theories that can be disproved but haven't yet been, probably because they are accurate.

All you've done is build up an unproven theory of a God that exists outside space and time. An theory that is really lame because of its lack of evidence. I might as well just say that there is giant teapot that exists outside space and time and it would be as credible as what you are saying.

CoolUsername:


What he is saying is that is that on the quantum level particles can and will seemingly pop into existence. It is an observable phenomenon that gives credence to theories that can be disproved but haven't yet been, probably because they are accurate.

All you've done is build up an unproven theory of a God that exists outside space and time. An theory that is really lame because of its lack of evidence. I might as well just say that there is giant teapot that exists outside space and time and it would be as credible as what you are saying.

How did u arrive at your supposed conclusion: "lack of evidence that God exists"?

If I may ask.

CoolUsername:


What he is saying is that is that on the quantum level particles can and will seemingly pop into existence. It is an observable phenomenon that gives credence to theories that can be disproved but haven't yet been, probably because they are accurate.

All you've done is build up an unproven theory of a God that exists outside space and time. An theory that is really lame because of its lack of evidence. I might as well just say that there is giant teapot that exists outside space and time and it would be as credible as what you are saying.

I was going to go into the denizens of eternity. Is God the only eternal being? Or is eternity populated with other beings? How can the human mind distinguish between one eternal being and another?

what if along with God, as the op terms him, we also have kettles and teapots etc in eternity? Would the eternal teapot have similar powers as 'God'? etc etc etc

felixomor:


How did u arrive at your supposed conclusion: "lack of evidence that God exists"?

If I may ask.

One generally arrives at a conclusion of 'lack of evidence' when they do not see any evidence. I would have thought that was obvious.

In fact one starts off from the position of lack of evidence and then proceeds to change as various evidences presents themselves.

PastorAIO:


One generally arrives at a conclusion of 'lack of evidence' when they do not see any evidence. I would have thought that was obvious.

In fact one starts off from the position of lack of evidence and then proceeds to change as various evidences presents themselves.

Even logically speaking, I hope u realize the folly in that statement highlighted above?

Let me give u the opportunity to rephrase ur answer.

So rephrase ur answer please.

felixomor:


Even logically speaking, I hope u realize the folly in that statement highlighted above?

Let me give u the opportunity to rephrase ur answer.

So rephrase ur answer please.

Okay, let me rephrase it like this:

How do YOU think he arrived at the conclusion of 'lack of evidence'? Is it by viewing various evidences?

PastorAIO:


One generally arrives at a conclusion of 'lack of evidence' when they do not see any evidence. I would have thought that was obvious.

In fact one starts off from the position of lack of evidence and then proceeds to change as various evidences presents themselves.

What type of evidences would you need to believe in the existence of God?

PastorAIO:


Okay, let me rephrase it like this:

How do YOU think he arrived at the conclusion of 'lack of evidence'? Is it by viewing various evidences?

Good, so according to u, your sense of sight/vision is the only validator of existence, right?

Ranchhoddas:
He did not even create any thread. He just copied and pasted without thinking.

I copied and paste because I found it to be my exact view on atheism. So, what else?

Oh, I copied without thinking?

But, the last time I told my 4 year old kid that something came from nothing, he laughed SHIT OUTTA ME!!!

But, bro I can imagine how you needed to DEVALUE your sense of thinking to the essence of believing such miserable opinion.

My problem with you guys is not about your unbelief, but the fact that when you think like a so much deranged animal you still masquerade like unchained spirits claiming common sense and intelligent, mocking people all over NL to your own detriments.

Atheism is an ABUSE to human thinking!!!

felixomor:


Good, so according to u, your sense of sight/vision is the only validator of existence, right?

I asked you a question. you're failing to answer.

I don't know where you saw me say sight is the only validator of existence. Please just stick to what I say. And I'll try to do the same for you.

I asked you a question. I'm hopeful for an answer. Thanks in advance.

promise10:

What type of evidences would you need to believe in the existence of God?

I already believe in God. But to answer you question: Any evidence whatsoever.

promise10:

But, the last time I told my 4 year old kid that something came from nothing, he laughed SHIT OUTTA ME!!!

Atheism is an ABUSE to human thinking!!!

Yeah, but he's a 4 year old. He probably believes in father christmas and all that too. You can't base your thinking on the limitations of a 4 year olds mind.

What was the something out of nothing you told him about? Was it the story of Genesis and how God created the whole Universe ex nihilo (out of nothing)? Or was it some other something from nothing story?

PastorAIO:


I already believe in God. But to answer you question: Any evidence whatsoever.

Are you really an atheist?

Please, be specific because the word "evidence" would mean different things to different people.

PastorAIO:


One generally arrives at a conclusion of 'lack of evidence' when they do not see any evidence. ........................s.

Is this no what u wrote before?

.

PastorAIO:


Yeah, but he's a 4 year old. He probably believes in father christmas and all that too. You can't base your thinking on the limitations of a 4 year olds mind.

What was the something out of nothing you told him about? Was it the story of Genesis and how God created the whole Universe ex nihilo (out of nothing)? Or was it some other something from nothing story?

Hey man, do you really know anything about God?

But that sounds so retarded to him that it disturbed him so much. But, I wonder how you are sooo happy with such sickening ideology. Just because you have succeeded in forcefully subjecting yourself to believe in such nonsense.

I didn't teach him that something came out of nothing.

God NEVER created the world out of nothing, please avoid premature conclusions. He created everything by himself, with himself and from himself. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

promise10:

Are you really an atheist?

Duh... errr... what do you call someone that already believes in God, an atheist? Really?

Please, be specific because the word "evidence" would mean different things to different people.

What are the options? What are the various types of evidence that you are aware of?

promise10:

I copied and paste because I found it to be my exact view on atheism. So, what else?

Oh, I copied without thinking?

But, the last time I told my 4 year old kid that something came from nothing, he laughed SHIT OUTTA ME!!!

But, bro I can imagine how you needed to DEVALUE your sense of thinking to the essence of believing such miserable opinion.

My problem with you guys is not about your unbelief, but the fact that when you think like a so much deranged animal you still masquerade like unchained spirits claiming common sense and intelligent, mocking people all over NL to your own detriments.

Atheism is an ABUSE to human thinking!!!

Then your four-year old kid must be really intelligent. So unlike his dad.

johnydon22:


You are going to redefine what 'Life' means in order to infer this...

What do you mean when you say things are alive here?

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

I believe that these particles can demonstrate no less than 6 of these characteristics.

promise10:

What type of evidences would you need to believe in the existence of God?

Incontrovertible evidence. One that cannot be explained away.

promise10:

You still messing things up!



[size=18pt]For you to say that an eternal being can be conceived[/size] simply means that it is NOT OUT OF AGE.

I am all ears.

I never said the bolded. Read again.

promise10:


But, the last time I told my 4 year old kid that something came from nothing, he laughed SHIT OUTTA ME!!!

promise10:

I didn't teach him that something came out of nothing.

promise10:


But, the last time I told my 4 year old kid that something came from nothing, he laughed SHIT OUTTA ME!!!

promise10:

I didn't teach him that something came out of nothing.

You didn't just tell him once.... but the last time you told him..... he laughed and poo came out of his mouth.

Oh sorry, you never taught him that something came out of nothing.

promise10:

Hey man, do you really know anything about God?

Hardly. But the difference between me and you is that I am honest about knowing next to nothing about God while you on the other hand claim to know the inner workings of his mind.

promise10:

God NEVER created the world out of nothing, please avoid premature conclusions.

So how does this contradict the view of Scientists on Creation?