C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The virus cannot exist except by a host cell, a living organism. Therefore the virus came after the first living organism, not before it, and so cannot be considered a part of the process of abiogenesis.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Charlemagne III;13605610:
I could not observe my own birth. Nor can I jump down my own throat.Bradski;13604658:
Might you have observed your own birth…? How are you certain that you are even here…?
Lots of things are impossible.
The rest are unlikely, possible, or real.
B
Bradski
Guest
You are kidding me, Tony. That’s the biggest Get-Out-Of-Jail card since anyone started printing them.
I’m sure someone will drop by and put you straight quite shortly.
B
Bradski
Guest
You missed the point, Charles. Jelrak is explaining that there are even now organisms which could be said do not posses all the qualities we attribute to life.The virus cannot exist except by a host cell, a living organism. Therefore the virus came after the first living organism, not before it, and so cannot be considered a part of the process of abiogenesis.
Just as we are descended from apes, there never was one instant when an ape became a human. There never was a point where you could say: ‘This is an ape and…she just gave birth to a human’.
Similarly, there never was a point where you could say: ‘This thing is inanimate and what it has just turned into is alive’.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Again, the virus only exists because it depends on living organisms for its existence.
Looks like you are arguing the cart should pull the horse?
B
Bradski
Guest
No, for heaven’s sake. I am pointing out that there is and was an indeterminate point at which what could be considered ‘not alive’ evolves to be considered something which is alive.Again, the virus only exists because it depends on living organisms for its existence.
Looks like you are arguing the cart should pull the horse?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
If you were seeking an actual example or true explanation of what has been considered the means of evolution I am afraid I cannot provide a greater depth or detail as it is a banned topic…my comment, as Bradski has patiently explained, was merely an example of something that is between an animate and inanimate state.Again, the virus only exists because it depends on living organisms for its existence.
Looks like you are arguing the cart should pull the horse?
Yet I do understand your reservations in considering it relevant to your world-view and so I am perfectly willing to withdraw from further discussion of such an unnecessary tangent…
Instead perhaps we could focus on something else?
It has been stated before that God is mere perfect simplicity…a being with no moving parts…entirely pure in purpose and state…so in considered this fairly, do you believe He is able to have, or has, a personality? Ambitions? Motivations? Sensibilities? Passions?
Are any of these possible while in such a singular state?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
With God all things are possible. Not sure what that has to do with the theme of this thread.
So I ask you, regarding that theme, whether you think that it is possible there is any other reason why people are atheists than that they do not see God up close and personal? For example, is it possible **they do not want to see **a personal God up close and personal?
Or, to put it another way, do they prefer to think there is no One with a bigger Ego than their own?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
It is possible that some may not wish to see a personal God, but I would consider these to be in the minority…I would assume most atheists simply do not believe in one…With God all things are possible. Not sure what that has to do with the theme of this thread.
So I ask you, regarding that theme, whether you think that it is possible there is any other reason why people are atheists than that they do not see God up close and personal? For example, is it possible **they do not want to see **a personal God up close and personal?
Or, to put it another way, do they prefer to think there is no One with a bigger Ego than their own?
…and often for reasons such as the above: to be instructed that God is a being of simple love, but to then have ascribed to Him properties that appear incongruent with such a concept…
It is a difficult task to make into a belief that which does not appear linear to the non-believer…though I do sincerely appreciate the efforts put forward by those willing to take the time.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I think there may well be hundreds of reasons why people choose atheism, but I think simply not believing is the reason of the minority. One can always screw up the courage to believe in spite of any reservations one may have about consistency or credibility. But if one does not want to believe, there is no argument that can persuade. Likewise, there is no logical argument that can refute the existence of God. Perhaps that’s inevitable, because if there is a God, he would make it so we have a choice to believe in him or reject him, and how would that be possible if he were to impose himself on us up close and personal in all his terrible majesty without our permission?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Irrefutable!:knight1:
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then I shall pray for you at High Mass on Sunday, Charlie…
And for the sincere atheists on this forum of course!
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do you explain the reality of love? Or is it a mystery?
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Some people may say that the greatest argument against Christianity is Christians themselves. But I say that argument cuts both ways. If anything has turned me off of atheism it is the atheists themselves. Because of how much arrogance and insults I have seen coming from over their fence. (Not so much on this site but on other websites that I barely go to now). It is revolting to me now. So much so that at one time I said I would rather see Muslims in the street than atheists. But that may not be as accurate now with all the terrorist activities. So I would amend that to say I would rather see peaceful Muslims. It’s probably easier to dialogue with a peaceful Muslim. At least we share much in common.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I’ve had a similar experience at atheist websites. The rancor is insufferable.
At one atheist website I corrected a poster for asserting that Voltaire was an atheist and even cited Voltaire’s essay against atheism as proof. For my trouble I was expelled from the website. How’s that for so-called liberal and positive atheism?
H
hu324b
Guest
We I think most atheists are really agnostics - there is not one person in this world that understands reality looking through humans eyes - we can only scrap the surface - almost all of the universe is invisible to us except what is in the light spectrum we see - which is such a tiny view of whats actually there - and all the whys in the universe - so how can you be so sure with so little information - if you can answer all the mysteries of the universe then you can make the claim that you know - but who can say that - no one - the best a person can say is I don’t know - anything more than would be foolish and said in ignorance.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I went to an Atheist meetup once. Once it was clear no one was going to try to convert someone religiously we started to talk about food and movies. It was a lot of fun!
Semantic difference. Some atheist also identify as agnostics. Take a look at Jelrak TB’s religious label. Or do a search for the term “agnostic atheism.”
A Computer Science student that had gone by the online name Evid3nc3 had expressed almost this exact same thing. He stated that he would need to know about every corner of the universe (my paraphrasing, not his exact words) to know with absolute certainty that there were no gods. So he identified as “agnostic” because of this lack of knowdge, but also as an “atheist” because of the lack of conviction of there being any gods.
If we get around the labels you may find that there are a number of non-religious people on this site that will agree that they cannot know with absolute certainity that there are no gods.
Reference: youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ
Primary time markers: 6:18-8:07
Secondary marker 1:40-2:18
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
So it seems to me a waste of life’s precious short time not to try to hook up with the God that seems to be a God of love, if it’s love we want to think of as the most divine of traits.
I’m not talking about Eros or Aphrodite.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Try as one might it seems rather difficult to believe in something by sheer force of will. Choose any subject in which you currently lack belief and give it your best effort…I will patiently await your results.
This is possibly true…
I will accept that there is possibly no logical argument to refute the existence of a god, but once God has been declared along with His many attributes it appears fairly possible to dispute such a being as currently so defined.
This is certainly a possibility…but then how is it that any might lay claim to any true or accurate information about such an entity?
- Status