Is "life" bound to happen?

It's just that you quoted me and then said;
"Fine.
Why not "educate" me then, instead of "rudenoodle and gas stove are both evolved by random chance and natural selection from primordial atom and you are an idiot if you don't believe this" kind of an argument?"

So it seemed like you where talking to me and I don't think I even got into the "rudenoodle and gas stove" thing, let alone call you an idiot.

 

He confuses easily.

 

It's not always easy to juggle a conversation with 4 or 5 people at a time, especially on 3 or 4 different threads as well.

 

Evidently you red into it what i didn't write. I thought i cleared it up.

 

I gotta hear your explanation, because it's not cleared up.

 

I hear you. I was actually referring to jumbuledhead.

 

I know, I was just trying to defend him, not that he needs it.

 

Sorry, OWB
with so many Munchausens up against me I have no time for silly arguments originating in your own interpretation of to whom it was in reference to. I already did my best to clear it out. Now go figure!

 

That's okay but still wondering why if it wasn't directed to me, that you quoted me in your post as if directing your comment toward me? That's what confused me.

 

Did it ever occur to you that i may have quoted you because it was your post to which i replied where you were describing evolutionists' take on anyone disputing their assertions as being uneducated?
Are you still confused?

 

Oh, haven't you noticed, I'm always confused? I even believe in God!
But thanks, I'm not confused about this anymore. :hat:

 

I noticed that you work very hard to make those Munchausens appear infinitely more credible and rational than they actually are

 

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt but it's give an inch and they take a mile.

 

Do you somehow thnk that playing Socratic ignorance proves your point?
But then, you have no point--

Logic:

ALL possible Universes that can exist do exist. This one. (there is no evidence that other can exist.)
It produced Life.
the Universe is bound to produce life, de facto.

It's extremely difficult not to be condescending to ignorant fanatics.
Nature abhors a vacum-- especially in the Human head.

 

No, I do not think that playing Socratic ignorance proves my point.

Also I wanted to thank you, Socrates is my favorite philosopher and to even be mentioned in the sentence with him is an honor.

This is what I've talking about all along.

You state "it produced Life" and then draw the conclusion from that statement, that "the Universe is bound to produce life, de facto" and you don't see the fallacy in that, don't see that as circular logic?

The universe is bound to produce life because it produced it?

You don't even see the statement "it produced Life" is an assumption, that it is the thing you need to prove.

That there is now life in the universe is a given but we are discussing is how it got here and trying to prove your point by just assuming that the Universe "produced" it is cheating, don't you think?

You even titled it logic, how ironic.

Hope you saved some condescension for yourself.

 

I always disliked Occam's Razor for that very reason that it assumes that just because the answer seems simpler than it must produce a more true answer than the answer given to the one described as more complex. For all we know, the more complex answer can be the true one. Just because its complicated doesn't mean its untrue.

The answer that life MUST have developed on its own because we see life now truly is jumping the gun. They say, "Well, the universe has the necessary possibilities to generate life" but what exactly do they base that on other than life existing? We still don't know what caused life, so saying that, "It's here, so it must have occurred by random bumping together and other factors MUST have brought it about".

I thought scientists were supposed to remain skeptics yet a sentient being beginning life never enters into the realm of possibilities for some reason.

 

I was explaining at the level of understanding you display.

I began a technical answer (refered to at the begining of this thread) that you fear to address.

I will repost and continue, IF you will address the issue. but you won't, because there is no room for the bible.

You are faced with a fact to which you have no alternative, no reason to believe there is another possibility. yet you dispute the fact. jumbullism.
---
No denial of the Socratic ploy? Personally, I think Socrates ignorance is superceeded by Socratic arrogance everytime.

 

Science deals with empirical evidence. there is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
a) "sentient" has a meaning not attached to life
b) a super being does or even can exist. they don't investigate the three little pigs, either.

The sad part is, the minute you believe in god, you blind yourself to the possibility.

 

You really believe that I blinded myself of possibilities because of my belief in God? I can consider all possibilities and I am perfectly capable in analyzing any concept laid out.

Sounds like the grand old atheist of the gaps argument.

 

Oh gosh gee, thanks.

Please, at least give a post # because I see no "technical answer" from you at the beginning of this thread or are you afraid that I might find it and show it to be as weak as your "The universe is bound to produce life because it produced it" arguement".

Yadda yadda, I can't begin to count how many times some "evolutionist" has said something like this to me and I'm still waiting for this fearsome issue that I can't deal with.

What fact? The universe is bound to produce life because it produced it? That is definition of circular argument, plain and simple.
---

Ploy? You mean like your not even addressing the fact that you use circular reasoning, that you use an assumption to try prove your point?

Then trying to cover up the fact that you have no argument by using belittling comments. Do you guys all go to the same school that teaches you if your reasoning fails just insult them, that should win the day.