Jose Fly
Fisker of men
S-U,
You've already stated that the OP was intended specifically for someone else. So why is you answering questions I've asked you repeatedly contingent upon me answering questions you intended for someone else?
As I said, the more effort and time you put into avoiding my questions, the more weight you give to the notion that you can't answer them.
So once again...
Do you think anyone would find that at all compelling? No? Now you understand how we view your response.
Again, either you have evidence to support your assertions or you don't. The more effort and time you put into dodging providing any, the more credence you give to the notion that you have none.
You stated that life is non-natural and justified that assertion by arguing that if it wasn't, it would be everywhere in the universe. I simply applied your "logic" to something else, i.e. calcium. Calcium is natural, yet it is not everywhere in the universe. I therefore demonstrated that "natural" does not require "must be everywhere in the universe", thus exposing the fatal flaw in your argument.
If you disagree, I'll ask again: Does "natural" = "exists in every location in the universe"? If so, why?
Again: Where can I find "spirit" in a cell? What does it look like? What are its components?
The more effort and time you put into dodging these questions, the more weight you give to the notion that you can't answer them.
Do you disagree that chemistry is driven by energy?
Are you going to answer the OP or not?
You've already stated that the OP was intended specifically for someone else. So why is you answering questions I've asked you repeatedly contingent upon me answering questions you intended for someone else?
As I said, the more effort and time you put into avoiding my questions, the more weight you give to the notion that you can't answer them.
So once again...
Simply saying the word "universe" does not constitute providing evidence for your assertions any more than saying "wheelbarrow" constitutes providing evidence that badgers sectretly run the world.Evidence? I provided it, many times. Once again here it is, I'll take the universe.
Do you think anyone would find that at all compelling? No? Now you understand how we view your response.
Again, either you have evidence to support your assertions or you don't. The more effort and time you put into dodging providing any, the more credence you give to the notion that you have none.
You're the one making the positive assertion, i.e. that God exists. Therefore it falls upon you to substantiate that assertion.What's your evidence against God or is your only argument simply going to be "I'm not convinced"?
No. You need to pay closer attention.You compare life to... calcium?
You stated that life is non-natural and justified that assertion by arguing that if it wasn't, it would be everywhere in the universe. I simply applied your "logic" to something else, i.e. calcium. Calcium is natural, yet it is not everywhere in the universe. I therefore demonstrated that "natural" does not require "must be everywhere in the universe", thus exposing the fatal flaw in your argument.
If you disagree, I'll ask again: Does "natural" = "exists in every location in the universe"? If so, why?
You're dodging yet another direct question. I said absolutely nothing about neutrinos.Where can you find spirit in a cell? Where can you find neutrino's in an atom?
Again: Where can I find "spirit" in a cell? What does it look like? What are its components?
The more effort and time you put into dodging these questions, the more weight you give to the notion that you can't answer them.
You were the one who asked if "EMR" drives chemical reactions in an apparent objection to my stating that chemistry is driven by energy.I seriously don't know what YOU think drives chemical reactions.
Do you disagree that chemistry is driven by energy?