Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Waiting for your proof based on what is actually known by observers and observations (not speculated greasy imaginations of random ignorant chance) of design and chance in biology.

Happenings are happenings in the universe. Without any question, things happen.

Why and how do they happen? This is the part where scientists rely on their own imaginations to fill in the gaps.

Explanations of why things happen the way they do, or that we even happen to have a universe at all, and a universe that supports human life, are shaped by the bent of the person groping for an explanation, and in the absence of factual evidence of cause...he renders simply guesses. If one is predisposed to chance, then they will believe and accept chance without question. If someone doesn't believe in chance, but rather believes in cause and effect, that person will not be satisfied to give credit to chance, when giving credit to chance, or luck, or anything else that is not explained...is just a practice of superstition and sloppy thinking.

The one who opposes the concept that the universe exists by design, and subscribes to the belief that non life by itself combined with itself and the environment by chance to produce life is atheistic.

Gee, I guess that makes stu an atheist without evidence or proof of the cause of anything at all...just sloppy guessing to fill in the enormous gaps where we have no knowledge of cause.

So laughable this lifeless primordial soup...that just happened by itself...then just happened by itself to assemble itself into life. When and how did this primordial soup first appear? How long did this primordial soup exist before it magically created life from itself? What created this primordial soup? Oh yeah, some external forces of nature just happened along by chance to cause the generation the process of life from non life. The soup was just sitting there doing nothing on its own, and suddenly and magically, like the story of God breathing life into a piece of clay...the soup was breathed upon by some external lifeless force to produce life. Some lifeless process produced life. Sure, it happens all the time. Some chance encounter of two lifeless existences produced life from lifelessness.

How do these things just happen by themselves? Well, ask an atheist and they will tell you a bedtime story that Mr. Chance was behind all of it. Mr. Chance was there before the big bang, Mr. Chance was there when the primordial soup was assembled from non soup. Mr. Chance was there when life first came on the scene from lifeless soup. Mr. Chance was there in each change in life from one form of life to another form of life. Mr. Chance explains everything. Fables are like that.

A child might believe that, this magical and mystical force of Mr. Chance...but of course the real and true objective scientist sees no Mr. Chance, no force of chance, no law of chance...he just sees cause and effect...and if he is really desperate to create a theory to explain what he doesn't know...he will apply his childhood fairy tale of Mr. Chance doing it all.




QUOTE]Quote from stu:

It doesn't surprise me neither chance nor design is known to you in biology .

It's essential to your assertions that such things are not known of.

To an ID'er, denial and ignorance is everything.

Yes of course you do already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
You call it "design" but of course it is actually intelligent design creationism .
[/QUOTE]

That is some seriously good and persuasive writing.
Can I hire you for creating material for my real estate websits?

I already have some good spots on google but I think you could help me kill it by starting a community with legal questions and answers and writing about current events banksters and housing values.
 
Quote from jem:

That is some seriously good and persuasive writing.
Can I hire you for creating material for my real estate websits?

I already have some good spots on google but I think you could help me kill it by starting a community with legal questions and answers and writing about current events banksters and housing values.


Problem is, paragraph 7 is flawed.
 
Quote from jem:

That is some seriously good and persuasive writing.
Can I hire you for creating material for my real estate websits?

I already have some good spots on google but I think you could help me kill it by starting a community with legal questions and answers and writing about current events banksters and housing values.

How sweet the song of nonsense sounds in a creationist's ear.
 
Quote from stu:

None of the de Duve's quotes say any such thing.
A de Duve quote does state categorically chance.

But as an ID'er, you are of course all about misinformation, misrepresenting , misquoting and misunderstanding.

There is plenty of science showing life from non life.
But you've already overplayed the devious nature of your intention. You are not after any proof.

You'll take anything, proof, quotes, science, to misrepresent what they say as if by doing so it will give some credibility to your intelligent design nonsense.
It really doesn’t work.

Stu here is your quote... and you have stated it in other places.

Stu is denying he every said this on another thread.
Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... then when we present the science he denies he said it and makes up similar lies to the ones above.
 
Quote from jem:

Stu here is your quote... and you have stated it in other places.

Stu is denying he every said this on another thread.
Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... then when we present the science he denies he said it and makes up similar lies to the ones above.

I do seriously wonder if all your chairs are at home Jem.

I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look how that is quite true. There’s no pretence No mention of proof of life from non life… even though there is proof of how life’s essential components do arise naturally from inorganic matter.

So you say, I said this....." he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... "

You do that to everything don't you? Words and meaning must change as they pass through that creationist filter between your ears because you just don’t want to understand the reality.

It's incredible what religious delusion must have done to your ability to think straight.

And who is this "we" presenting science?
Just be careful is all I advise. You've shown many worrying signs of having a split personality with all that weird screen name business on quite a few previous occasions. Now this.

"We" don't want any more of that unhealthy kind of thing now do "we"?
 
How is an omnipresent infinitely powerful god instantly coming fully formed from nothing or always being here with no beginning easier to believe than evolution ?
 
Quote from bigarrow:

How is an omnipresent infinitely powerful god instantly coming fully formed from nothing or always being here with no beginning easier to believe than evolution ?

It's not, one is about as plausible as the other to me.
 
Back
Top