You go first, how long will this continue.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You go first, how long will this continue.

Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and  politics going to stop?

Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.

It sickens me that people don't get tired of war and violence. How many humans on either side have to die before it becomes clear that it is futile? Neither side is gong anywhere. Humans are involved on both sides.

There was a time when someone could make a case that they were on the right side of history. But I do not see that. All I see is both sides playing victime lo9oking for excuses for more violence. I wish the international community would step in and settle this with peace keeping forces. Palistinians should not live in a prison, their every day civiliians should not be starved to death. But at the same time they also should not be held hostage by those in power.

Isreal needs to give up on a Jewish state and simply be a westerinized secular state. Palistinians need to purge their rulers of the theocrats and zealots. All labels aside flesh is flesh and death is death and this has been going on for far too long and has affected the entire global community for fart too long.

I am tired of the excuses. Both sides are baging their heads against the wall and getting nowhere simply pissing the other side off more. Is a boarder or a tradition or label so important as to fail to realize that in the end when someone dies on either side, you are STILL killing another human being.

 

We are mpt ;;ovomg om any nobal age of conquest anymore. The world is round, not flat. What you do Palistinians to Isreal has an affect on the world. What you do Isreal to Palistinians has an affect on the world. The selfishness and war sickens me because it seems to be nothing more than a cry for attention trying to get the rest of the world to side with one side.

 

PLEASE FUCKING STOP! You are just two groups of people on a populated planet of 7 billion. Please tell me what right either of you have to turn our planet into your childish game of capture the flag. It is my hope that the international commun9ity instead of chosing sides, SHAMES both sides int o cooperations.

 

There has been no end to this shit and I am beyond caring at this point as an outsider who has no horse in the race. This all stems from evolution and nothing more. We side as humans with that which we are familure with and defend it from outside threats. The problem is that there is an utter failure of the WORLD, not just both sides, BUT THE WORLD, to put enough pressure on both sides.

 

ENOUGH! What right does either side after all this and no end in sight have to cry "poor me". Reea;;y? You'd both take a scorched earth policy and drag the region and possibly the entire world int a war over what?

 

There should be no two state solution. I am at the point where I think both of you need to have your asses kicked, your leaders arrested and repl,aced with sane secular leaders.

 

Regardless of which side I lean to, I am not going to take sides when clearly both sides are ussing the same stupid tactics that simply perpetuate this needless conflict.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

They don't change and I never said they change.

 

Yes you have, several times on here.

Quote me, give me the post # so I can go back and make sure you aren't taking my words out of context.

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I know, your worldview is inconsistent and completely devoid of logic.

Well, that should be easy to prove. Quote me. Quote something I stated that was inconsistent and devoid of logic.  Spell it out in context and ask me to back it up. Can you ? Or will you just ignore this post and keep answering the ones that you think you can handle ?

#129 "Of course I can say that is wrong." You, who believe that morals are subjective can't tell someone their morals are wrong. Do you even understand the difference between subjective and objective. Can you define them for me? Your viewpoint is inconsistent and defies what we know to be logic.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet somehow, you justify that killing.... why? HOW do you differentiate between murder and killing? . 

I don't justify murder. The difference is intent.

So when God wiped people off the face of the earth or commanded others to do so - they were all accidental or unintentional?

So Jc loves chaos. He wants convicted murderers and pedophiles and transgressors of the law to roam free. And your worldview is supposed to be a good thing?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet somehow, you justify that killing.... why? HOW do you differentiate between murder and killing? . 

I don't justify murder. The difference is intent.

So when God wiped people off the face of the earth or commanded others to do so - they were all accidental or unintentional?

So Jc loves chaos. He wants convicted murderers and pedophiles and transgressors of the law to roam free. And your worldview is supposed to be a good thing?

Lee, I'm sorry that you have such reading and comprehension issues with the things you post.

No, I don't want those people you describe to roam free.  Nor do I want them tortured eternally.

As I said, my morals are better than your God's.

Would you like to answer my question now? When God killed and ordered killing did he or did he not intend for it to happen?

Is your God a murderer or are you going to change your definition?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote: Lee2216

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

1) The moral law is the 10 commandments

2) An example of a civil law is Deuteronomy 15:1 , "At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts."

3) Deuteronomy 16:13, which instructed the Israelites to "celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles for seven days after you have gathered the produce of your threshing floor and your winepress."

Ok, but where is the context that tells you which ones no longer apply and which ones don't?

 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:23-26)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:13-16)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4578
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:#129 "Of

Lee2216 wrote:

#129 "Of course I can say that is wrong." You, who believe that morals are subjective can't tell someone their morals are wrong. Do you even understand the difference between subjective and objective. Can you define them for me? Your viewpoint is inconsistent and defies what we know to be logic.

Apparently Lee you are the one who does not understand the difference between subjective and objective. What is inherent of the idea of subjectivity that means a person cannot make a judgement using a subjective basis? Please explain it to me, because as I pointed out you make subjective judgments every day of your life. 

Furthermore, I have specifically asked you to give me an objective definition of murder, you have failed to do so, rather you gave me a very subjective one (paraphrasing:"it is in your heart&quotEye-wink. How can you claim that morals are objective when you cannot objectively define your moral standards? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Lee2216

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I would think logic would be enough evidence and the universe God has made. Where do you think all this came from...nothing?

Logic is only proof that humans can understand and conceptualize reality. Also, do you really think asserting "God made the universe" is going to convince anyone?

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

blacklight915 wrote:
As for your question: I don't know why the universe started expanding, and I don't what (if anything) happened before that.

Never mind how the universe is expanding how did it get here? You don't know what happened before the universe began expanding? Oh, I see, so you have faith just like I do but you trash Christians for believing in something we can't see or supposedly know but you place your faith in something you can't see or know. Isn't that a double standard?

 

 

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So can

Beyond Saving wrote:
So can you tell me how to objectively determine which intents to kill are murder and which not? It seems pointless to say "thou shalt not murder" if you don't define "murder". You might as well say, "thou shalt not snarkwargle". You tell me the knowledge is in my heart and I got drunk and spilled my heart all over the thread, yet my heart came to a very different answer than you said it should. So is my heart defective? If so, how do I obey gods commands to follow his commandments using my heart as a guide when he apparently fucked up making it? 

Give me a definition so if I am ever in a situation where I am deciding whether or not to kill someone I know if it is murder. And it has to be a definition that both of us could consider a particular situation and come to the same conclusion.

Case 1) A white man unlawfully murders a black man simply for the color of his skin because the white man had an evil heart.

Case 2) A masked intruder breaks into a home in the middle of the night and a person in the home picks up a shotgun and kills intruder.

In case 1 we call it murder in case 2 we call it self defense simply by the intent. Intent determines how we define it. That's why there are degrees of murder etc. All our hearts are defective. Before God regenerates us we have a heart of stone and we go our own way and we are at war with God. After we are indwelt by the holy spirit we hate sin and we love God's commands because of the power of His word and spirit in our lives. It's impossible to follow God's commands without His presence in our lives. He didn't make our hearts messed up. When He created us everything was good. Satan deceived Adam and Eve and they went their own way and listened to Satan rather than God. Wages of sin is death. 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:blacklight915

Lee2216 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I would think logic would be enough evidence and the universe God has made. Where do you think all this came from...nothing?

Logic is only proof that humans can understand and conceptualize reality. Also, do you really think asserting "God made the universe" is going to convince anyone?

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

blacklight915 wrote:
As for your question: I don't know why the universe started expanding, and I don't what (if anything) happened before that.

Never mind how the universe is expanding how did it get here? You don't know what happened before the universe began expanding? Oh, I see, so you have faith just like I do but you trash Christians for believing in something we can't see or supposedly know but you place your faith in something you can't see or know. Isn't that a double standard?

 

 

 

 

1. You can't describe your God as a something therefore he is indistinguishable from nothing. Yet you claim he created all things. So you, in fact, believe that something came from nothing. Why do you stand against reality?

2. Not knowing something does not imply having faith. Note that blacklight did not posit an idea to explain the universe's beginning. He left that to you and your "I don't know how this worked so Goddidit".

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Abuse is

Beyond Saving wrote:
Abuse is inflicting emotional or bodily harm on a child for a bad reason, no one does anything without some kind of reason. I should say that condemning someone to be tortured in hell for eternity is pretty significant harm. And simply because they don't believe in you is a very bad reason imo. Do you think it is a good reason? 

What would you think of me if I had a child then ran away for 30 years, leaving a letter with 10 rules. Had no contact with the child at all. Then 30 years later I come back and tell the kid "I'm your dad." The kid flips me the middle finger and disrespects me (even uses my name in vain!), then tells me "go away, I have a dad" (the man her mother married in my absence) *gasp* worshiping a false idol! So I decide this little squirt has broken my laws so I tie them up in my basement to be tortured. What would you say of me? Why do you apply a different standard to god?

I agree, no one does anything without reason. What would be God's reason for condemning someone to hell? Yes, disobedience is a good reason and disbelief is disobeying God. He commands everyone to repent and believe. I don't follow your analogy because I think it is an inaccurate one. Your implying that God left or is hiding Himself when in truth it is us who have turned and left Him and gone our own way.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:  

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"

2 Corinthians 6:14

 

I encourage you to leave the site as soon as possible. 

 

I thought you atheists where supposed to know your bible better than Christians?

 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Case 1) A

Lee2216 wrote:

Case 1) A white man unlawfully murders a black man simply for the color of his skin because the white man had an evil heart.

Case 2) A masked intruder breaks into a home in the middle of the night and a person in the home picks up a shotgun and kills intruder.

In case 1 we call it murder in case 2 we call it self defense simply by the intent. Intent determines how we define it. That's why there are degrees of murder etc. All our hearts are defective. Before God regenerates us we have a heart of stone and we go our own way and we are at war with God. After we are indwelt by the holy spirit we hate sin and we love God's commands because of the power of His word and spirit in our lives. It's impossible to follow God's commands without His presence in our lives. He didn't make our hearts messed up. When He created us everything was good. Satan deceived Adam and Eve and they went their own way and listened to Satan rather than God. Wages of sin is death. 

 

case 2 - You deliberately purchase a weapon and the ammunition for it, then you leave it lying around the house loaded for the express purpose of shooting (and murdering) person(s) unknown.  Just how premeditated is this?

Mind, I personally have no problem with murdering in self defense.  But call it what it is - a deliberate murder of someone who may or may not be a total stranger.

You have choices - it is either semantics or it is situational.  I choose situational as I prefer to call it what it is.  Murder.  Someone was alive and now they are dead and if I pulled the trigger, I have just murdered someone.  It may be justified as they may be armed and threatening my life or property - but they are still dead.

Have I ever shot someone?  No.  I came real close once.  Would I?  I'd have to purchase a weapon first and I am too cheap to do so.  Let alone I have no desire to redecorate the house.  (You will need to repaint and recarpet.  The smell and stain can not be cleaned out easily.)  Given the right justification and circumstances, likely I would.

Have I ever lied, you asked.  Sure.  I wouldn't tell someone they looked like a hippopotamus in their new dress, even if they did.  Have I ever stolen?  Not that I recall - but it is possible I picked up a pen at work or at a store counter and forgot to put it back.  Or some other sort of mistake.  Have I ever screwed around?  Sure, when I was a lot younger.  Am I going to hell for these transgressions?  Who cares.  I'd rather be in hell than heaven anyway.  Who would want to spend eternity with Tammy Faye Bakker?  Or some other televangelist or John Calvin or .... you.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet somehow, you justify that killing.... why? HOW do you differentiate between murder and killing? . 

I don't justify murder. The difference is intent.

So when God wiped people off the face of the earth or commanded others to do so - they were all accidental or unintentional?

So Jc loves chaos. He wants convicted murderers and pedophiles and transgressors of the law to roam free. And your worldview is supposed to be a good thing?

Lee, I'm sorry that you have such reading and comprehension issues with the things you post.

No, I don't want those people you describe to roam free.  Nor do I want them tortured eternally.

As I said, my morals are better than your God's.

Would you like to answer my question now? When God killed and ordered killing did he or did he not intend for it to happen?

Is your God a murderer or are you going to change your definition?

 

Yes Jc, according to your logic that's exactly what you want. Your morals can't be better than God's due to your presupposition that morals are subjective. Ok Jc, here is a little scenario let's see if you can logically follow this. Let's say a man lies to his child. What's going to be his punishment? Probably nothing right? He lies to his wife. He's going to be sleeping on his couch for a week. He lies to his boss. He is fired. He lies to the cops. He goes to jail. He lies to God. He goes to hell. Tell me what is changing in this scenario?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1588
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee is suggesting most of the board is mistaken on God . .

Re:: Lee is suggesting most of the board is mistaken on God.

Lee2216 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I would think logic would be enough evidence and the universe God has made. Where do you think all this came from...nothing?

Logic is only proof that humans can understand and conceptualize reality. Also, do you really think asserting "God made the universe" is going to convince anyone?

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

blacklight915 wrote:
As for your question: I don't know why the universe started expanding, and I don't what (if anything) happened before that.

Never mind how the universe is expanding how did it get here? You don't know what happened before the universe began expanding?

  No offense intended, I try to appreciate Lee a great deal,  by I think I can anticipate most people would not wish to have a discussion about origins of the universe in this thread. First cause arguments would be like a one on one with Kirk Cameron. Hi JcGadfly.  EVERYONE is beset with a lack of definitions, people couldn't know much with his presentation of non-existent definition for [for] God. Who's to say 'the Supreme being' of this thread wasn't an omniscient  "Black-hole"? What do you mean ? Theories are important, so dont get all Twd39 on this board. If you want to talk about origins I dont think you can do that and morality at the same time now can you? I am thinking of Professor Hawking, he is widely known outside of the field of cosmology. You know, for a guy who emphatically does not believe, Professor Hawking certainly has beaten the odds in terms of mortality :

 

  [quote ]Steven hawking wrote :  .. when I began my research. But I felt that the research area of elementary particles, at that time, was too like botany. Quantum Electrodynamics, the theory of light and electrons that governs chemistry and the structure of atoms, had been worked out completely in the 40s and 50s. Attention had now shifted to the weak and strong nuclear forces".[ /quote]

 [quote ] Steve hawking wrote: "My work on black holes began with a Eureka moment in 1970, a few days after the birth of my daughter, Lucy. While getting into bed, I realised that I could apply to black holes the causal structure theory I had developed for singularity theorems. In particular, the area of the horizon, the boundary of the black hole, would always increase. When two black holes collide and merge, the area of the final black hole is greater than the sum of the areas of the original holes. This, and other properties that Jim Bardeen, Brandon Carter, and I discovered, suggested that the area was like the entropy of a black hole. This would be a measure of how many states a black hole could have on the inside, for the same appearance on the outside. But the area couldn't actually be the entropy, because as everyone knew, black holes were completely black, and couldn't be in equilibrium with thermal radiation.There was an exciting period culminating in the Les Houches summer school in 1972, in which we solved most of the major problems in black hole theory.[ /quote]

  Under certain conditions when wed that once a dying star had contracted to a certain radius, there would inevitably become  a singularity, a point where space and time came to an end. Somewhat of an  icon like Hawking reached a singularity of infinite density. But in fact, the equations had been 'solved' only for the collapse of a perfectly spherical star. Most thinks in nature are not perfect, a real star wouldn't be exactly spherical now. Hawking states, "If Lifshitz and Khalatnikov were right, the departures from spherical symmetry would grow as the star collapsed, and would cause different parts of the star to miss each other, and avoid a singularity of infinite density".  Penrose showed they were wrong. Small departures from spherical symmetry will not prevent a singularity.

  Based on the no boundary proposal, Hawkin  pictures the origins of the universe, as like "the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water", I read.  Quantum fluctuations lead to "'the spontaneous creation of tiny universes'", as he puts it, essentially out of nothing due to the quirkier parts of some of these theories. But, Science exploration. According to him, Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but, he states : "'a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us'"(end quote). Yes, I know for almost three decades, Leonard Susskind and Hawking have been going at it in the clash of the titans. So what? Hawking should be given a chance over  anyone engaging in plain avoidance tactics. With BlackLight in this example.

 

 

 

 

      

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Quote me, give

Lee2216 wrote:

Quote me, give me the post # so I can go back and make sure you aren't taking my words out of context.

Did you or did you not advocate stoning for adultery and then backpedal and try to say that was a civil law and you would have condoned it at the time because it was applicable at the time ? Post #142, an attempt to default the blame over to another :

 You've continually flipped flopped back and forth about your positions on murder. Post 134. You stated : "God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes."    Post 187 : "I don't justify murder. The difference is intent."  The Ten Commandments say nothing about intent. Are you picking and choosing now ?

See Beyond's post 137 where he points out some of your contradictions. Which you backpedaled around with in your responses, by trying to claim that those were not god's laws but man's laws, and then you dodged blacklight's question about the difference between the 616 commandments by simply saying "according to context it is specified and then dodged around on that to pick and choose what is applicable and what is not. Same way you have tried to dodge the divorce question by stating god hates divorce and then switching around that it has been changed for our times.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

#129 "Of course I can say that is wrong." You, who believe that morals are subjective can't tell someone their morals are wrong. Do you even understand the difference between subjective and objective. Can you define them for me? Your viewpoint is inconsistent and defies what we know to be logic.

 Who said anything about all of it being subjective ?  A being with a central nervous system feels, right ? Feels pain, feels love, feels discomfort, stress, fear, and all of the above, right ? So obviously, if I punched someone in the face it's gonna cause them harm right ? If I am defending myself, it still causes them harm, but was justified right ? So, depending upon the SUBJECTIVE nature of the situation, it is morally right or wrong to define harm. But, the pain is still real right ?

YOU contradicted yourself by saying the Bible condones murder and then said the difference was behind the intent. So YOU are taking a subjective interpretation of the Ten Commandments, which has no sidenotes.

BTW. Subjective means : existing in the mind rather than the external world.

Objective means : Having to do with personal reality, without a persons prejudices and emotions.

So it seems that you have been interjecting quite a bit of subjective opinions in here, claiming they come from the word of god and dodging the questions.

YOU stated to cj that all of the other religions like Jehovah's Witnesses were going to hell for not following the Bible, but all of those other religions would say that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

So, if christian denominations all condemn the other one to hell for not following the bible, then it is obvious that christian denominations are using SUBJECTIVE interpretations of the Bible.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:And reality

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

No one has ever asserted that something comes from nothing, save for a few christians that think that is some sort of trump card.

You are using a god of the gaps argument.

It has been used a thousand times before and it fails.

Just like you have demonstrated your ignorance by making the absurd statement that life can only come from life.

Lee2216 wrote:

Never mind how the universe is expanding how did it get here? You don't know what happened before the universe began expanding? Oh, I see, so you have faith just like I do but you trash Christians for believing in something we can't see or supposedly know but you place your faith in something you can't see or know. Isn't that a double standard?

 

Never mind how the universe is expanding ? So, let's not actually get into something beyond 3rd grade science right ? How did it get there ? There you go with that god of the gaps argument again. Prove to me that Zeus didn't make it, prove to me that ancient aliens didn't make it, after all it had to come from somewhere right ?

Do you realize how ignorant those types of arguments sound ?

If my motorcycle doesn't crank in the morning, I can assume that A ) It's winter and it doesn't always start right away B) something's wrong with motor C) I don't know until I check it out D) An ancient book says that an Army of Gremlins will one day go around dismantling motorcycles.

Does option D sound very plausible over the others ? Why or why not ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4578
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Case 1) A

Lee2216 wrote:

Case 1) A white man unlawfully murders a black man simply for the color of his skin because the white man had an evil heart.

Case 2) A masked intruder breaks into a home in the middle of the night and a person in the home picks up a shotgun and kills intruder.

In case 1 we call it murder in case 2 we call it self defense simply by the intent. Intent determines how we define it. That's why there are degrees of murder etc. All our hearts are defective. Before God regenerates us we have a heart of stone and we go our own way and we are at war with God. After we are indwelt by the holy spirit we hate sin and we love God's commands because of the power of His word and spirit in our lives. It's impossible to follow God's commands without His presence in our lives. He didn't make our hearts messed up. When He created us everything was good. Satan deceived Adam and Eve and they went their own way and listened to Satan rather than God. Wages of sin is death. 

That is not an objective definition. It is completely subjective depending on the subject and determining the intent of the subject. I know what the law says, and you will note that every state in the US has a different law in regards to whether or not you can shoot someone in your home and under what conditions. Some states you can shoot first and ask questions later (Castle Doctrine), others you have to give the intruder an opportunity to run away and in others you must prove that you had good reason to believe your life or health was in imminent danger. It is completely subjective and rational people can have varying opinions on what the law should be.  

So what is god's objective truth? Can I shoot anyone in my house even if the force I use is clearly excessive? Or I would love for you to address the soldier situation where I am in another person's homeland but apparently you believe god is ok with me killing them even though by any standard that individual is innocent. How do I KNOW for certain whether or not a killing is murder in gods eyes? Not human legal eyes. I don't want to know for the extreme examples of cold blooded psychopathic killer and the person who may have some kind of justification. I want to know for the areas that are questionable. The areas where a subjective human court could rule either way. 

Your use of the persons intent is by definition subjective, which you criticize atheist morals for being subjective. Your determination of murder depends on the intent of the subject. What is the objective definition of murder, a definition that does not rely on me attempting to figure out the intent of a subject. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet somehow, you justify that killing.... why? HOW do you differentiate between murder and killing? . 

I don't justify murder. The difference is intent.

So when God wiped people off the face of the earth or commanded others to do so - they were all accidental or unintentional?

So Jc loves chaos. He wants convicted murderers and pedophiles and transgressors of the law to roam free. And your worldview is supposed to be a good thing?

Lee, I'm sorry that you have such reading and comprehension issues with the things you post.

No, I don't want those people you describe to roam free.  Nor do I want them tortured eternally.

As I said, my morals are better than your God's.

Would you like to answer my question now? When God killed and ordered killing did he or did he not intend for it to happen?

Is your God a murderer or are you going to change your definition?

 

Yes Jc, according to your logic that's exactly what you want. Your morals can't be better than God's due to your presupposition that morals are subjective. Ok Jc, here is a little scenario let's see if you can logically follow this. Let's say a man lies to his child. What's going to be his punishment? Probably nothing right? He lies to his wife. He's going to be sleeping on his couch for a week. He lies to his boss. He is fired. He lies to the cops. He goes to jail. He lies to God. He goes to hell. Tell me what is changing in this scenario?

By that, you mean the strawman you created and called "my logic".

I can say that my morals are better than God's precisely because God's morals are  exactly as subjective as the morals of the men who created him. the Bible is full of examples of this - I gave you several myself.

What has changed in the scenario you gave me?

1. In the first few instances, real people are being offended. In the last, God (who you haven't been able to describe as being different from nothing) is being offended.

2. In the earlier cases, the punishments are temporal. For your nothing God, the punishment is supposedly eternal. Though hell has just as much standing in reality as your God.

Your turn - suppose a man lies to God (or commits any other sin) but asks for and receives forgiveness. His slate is clean, right? As long as he has asked for and received forgiveness (which is guaranteed in Scripture) one more time than he commits sin - where does he go? Heaven or hell? I know the answer - do you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4578
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I agree, no

Lee2216 wrote:

I agree, no one does anything without reason. What would be God's reason for condemning someone to hell? Yes, disobedience is a good reason and disbelief is disobeying God. He commands everyone to repent and believe.

Why should we necessarily follow his commands? Do you follow the commands of any random person who gives you one?

 

Lee2216 wrote:

I don't follow your analogy because I think it is an inaccurate one. Your implying that God left or is hiding Himself when in truth it is us who have turned and left Him and gone our own way.

He is hiding himself from me. The deadbeat hasn't even sent me a christmas card with $10 in it. And considering he is an omnipotent being that could presumably make his presence known whenever he damn well feels like it, I have to say he is hiding, or at least not paying attention. How could I leave him when I have never seen him? I am a mere mortal, I can't leave this earth. There is no possible way I could escape an omnipotent, omnipresent being if I tried, he by definition has ALL of the power. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"

2 Corinthians 6:14

 

I encourage you to leave the site as soon as possible. 

 

I thought you atheists where supposed to know your bible better than Christians?

 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

You haven't done that yet - why are you disobeying one of your gods (Jesus is different from Yahweh - have you noticed?)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1588
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
? Synonymous ?

 (Speak to the king ; he will not) /? ?

jcgadfly wrote:

You haven't done that yet - why are you disobeying one of your gods (Jesus is different from Yahweh - have you noticed?)

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

^ Why I like this site so much. 

    It is understandable how it would get extraordinarily confusing (especially without the Helper) for some. I was reviewing a passage of scripture in 2 Sam. some time back. It was easy to conclude how  down right confusing to the popular imagination. To find "fire breathing" and "lightning-bolts" attributed to Yahweh:

  Synonymous between ea. ?

 

      :Then David spoke to the Lord (Yahweh) the words of this song, on the day when the Yahweh had delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. 2 And he said: “The Yahweh is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 The my God (Elohim) of my  strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; My Savior, You save me from violence. 4  I will call upon Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised;  So  shall I be saved from my enemies. 5 “When the waves of death surrounded me, The floods of ungodliness made me afraid. 6 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me. 7 In my distress I called upon Yahweh, And cried out to Elyon; He heard my voice from His temple, And my cry entered His ears.  8. "Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations of heaven  quaked and were shaken, Because He was angry. 9 Smoke went up from His nostrils, And devouring fire from His mouth; Coals were kindled by it. 10  He bowed the heavens also, and came down  With darkness under His feet. 11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew; And He was seen upon the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness canopies around Him, Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.  13 From the brightness before Him Coals of fire were kindled. 14 “Yahweh thundered from heaven, And the Most High [Elyon] uttered His voice. 15 He sent out arrows and scattered them; Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them. 16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, The foundations of the world were uncovered, At the rebuke of Yahweh, At the blast of the breath of His nostrils. 17 “He sent from above, He took me, He drew out of many waters. 18 He delivered me from my strong enemy, From those who hated me; For they were too strong for me. 19 They confronted me in the day of my calamity, But Yahweh was my support. 20 He also brought me out into a broad place; He delivered me because He delighted in me. 21 “Yahweh has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. 22 For I have kept the ways of the Lord [Yahweh], And have not wickedly departed from my God (?). 23 For all His judgments were before me; And as for His statutes, I did not depart from them. 24 I was also blameless before Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity.25 Therefore Yahweh has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in His eyes. 26a “With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless .." etc.
 


{The breath of His mouth, at His appearing}:
    2 Thes. - 1  Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him .. [the son] of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction .. 8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming.

 

:

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:For Christ is

Lee2216 wrote:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:23-26)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:13-16)

Um, the first two quotes just say "the law" no longer applies. The third does specify only those "expressed in ordinances". However, judging by its definitions, an "ordinance" is the same thing as a law...  (see  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordinance  for the definitions of ordinance I used)

I really don't see how these quotes support your position...

 

Lee2216 wrote:
 And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. 

We lack the information necessary to justify such a definitive statement. NOTE: My position is that we don't know enough to say whether or not something can come from nothing.

Lee2216 wrote:
 Life only comes from life 

Not true--there are a number of plausible hypothesis on how life could come from non-life.

Lee2216 wrote:
 so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life  

IF: life can only come from life   AND: the first life came to be  THEN: life can come from non-life and/or simply exist

Lee2216 wrote:
 otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually 

Again, I don't think any of us have the information required to justify such a statement. NOTE: My position is that we don't know enough to say whether or not an infinite regress is only possible conceptually.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

Oh, I see, so you have faith just like I do but you trash Christians for believing in something we can't see or supposedly know but you place your faith in something you can't see or know.

How is "I dont' know" a statement of faith?  Oh, and telling someone their beliefs are unjustified is not "trashing" them.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

Let's say a man lies to his child. What's going to be his punishment? Probably nothing right? He lies to his wife. He's going to be sleeping on his couch for a week. He lies to his boss. He is fired. He lies to the cops. He goes to jail. He lies to God. He goes to hell.

The punishment for wrongdoing should be proportional to the amount of physical and emotional pain caused.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Once again the

Brian37 wrote:

Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and  politics going to stop?

Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.

I have a good news for you. This senseless incident of violence isn't like the others before. As always, Israel provokes violence when there are some elections or other state-building intention in Palestine, to fuck that up and keep the military leaders in power. 

This time it wasn't just elections, it was Palestine getting some internationally recognized rights. There was a vote in the U.N., but it was the General Assembly this time. That's important. For all the violent decades of the past, there were dozens of Security Council resolutions against Israel and USA vetoed them all. USA perpetuates this conflict on purpose, because it's the greatest weapon exporter and 60 % goes to the middle east. Also, oil and Sionist lobbies have their influence on politicians and think tanks, so they make them go along. Remember, it was Rotschild who in 20's arranged the Balfour declaration and he referred to Palestinians just like "other ethnicities" and promised them no harm... 

Fortunately, this time it was a General Assembly vote that could not be vetoed like always. Palestine got some rights with great majority and that might mean a positive development in blocking USA and kicking Israel in the ass for its war crimes and ignoring all of U.N. resolutions.

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm

Just look, the world would be a much nicer place if USA obeyed these resolutions instead of vetoing them.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What is

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the objective definition of murder, a definition that does not rely on me attempting to figure out the intent of a subject. 

I'll give it to you once again...please read and listen. Also, this is NOT my definition so don't claim I'm being subjective. This is what God says not me so your problem is with God not me.

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the objective definition of murder, a definition that does not rely on me attempting to figure out the intent of a subject. 

I'll give it to you once again...please read and listen. Also, this is NOT my definition so don't claim I'm being subjective. This is what God says not me so your problem is with God not me.

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

And it's not what God said either - those are the words of people who wrote a book claiming to speak for God.

You're not being subjective - you're being lazy. You're borrowing someone else's subjective opinion and accepting their claim that it came from "God" (who you can't describe in a way that differs him from nothing).

His question still stands without an answer.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Brian37

Luminon wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and  politics going to stop?

Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.

I have a good news for you. This senseless incident of violence isn't like the others before. As always, Israel provokes violence when there are some elections or other state-building intention in Palestine, to fuck that up and keep the military leaders in power. 

This time it wasn't just elections, it was Palestine getting some internationally recognized rights. There was a vote in the U.N., but it was the General Assembly this time. That's important. For all the violent decades of the past, there were dozens of Security Council resolutions against Israel and USA vetoed them all. USA perpetuates this conflict on purpose, because it's the greatest weapon exporter and 60 % goes to the middle east. Also, oil and Sionist lobbies have their influence on politicians and think tanks, so they make them go along. Remember, it was Rotschild who in 20's arranged the Balfour declaration and he referred to Palestinians just like "other ethnicities" and promised them no harm... 

Fortunately, this time it was a General Assembly vote that could not be vetoed like always. Palestine got some rights with great majority and that might mean a positive development in blocking USA and kicking Israel in the ass for its war crimes and ignoring all of U.N. resolutions.

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm

Just look, the world would be a much nicer place if USA obeyed these resolutions instead of vetoing them.

Not as long as there are people like Lee who support Israel because a book they worship tells them so.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Did

harleysportster wrote:
Did you or did you not advocate stoning for adultery and then backpedal and try to say that was a civil law and you would have condoned it at the time because it was applicable at the time ? Post #142, an attempt to default the blame over to another :

Harley, I was being rhetorical about stoning to make a point. I never condoned it because it was applicable at that time, I was refuting somebody who was trying to say that stoning was a moral law.

 

harleysportster wrote:
YOU stated to cj that all of the other religions like Jehovah's Witnesses were going to hell for not following the Bible, but all of those other religions would say that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

So, if christian denominations all condemn the other one to hell for not following the bible, then it is obvious that christian denominations are using SUBJECTIVE interpretations of the Bible.

During this conversation I've been trying to focus on morality and whether it's objective or it's subjective. You're shifting over to everyday decision making or bible interpretations. That's a whole different topic. Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Just

harleysportster wrote:
Just like you have demonstrated your ignorance by making the absurd statement that life can only come from life.

Life only comes from life is an absurd statement lol? Where did life come from Harley? You tell me!

harleysportster wrote:
Never mind how the universe is expanding ? So, let's not actually get into something beyond 3rd grade science right ? How did it get there ? There you go with that god of the gaps argument again. Prove to me that Zeus didn't make it, prove to me that ancient aliens didn't make it, after all it had to come from somewhere right ?Do you realize how ignorant those types of arguments sound ?

I know you don't like my logic and you avoid the question because it points to God. Well, Zeus didn't make it because he never claimed to. No one has ever seen Zeus have they? We know ancient aliens didn't make it either. No one has seen an ancient alien have they? A bunch of people saw the risen Jesus who claimed to be God. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead it would have been disproven a myth not long after it started.

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Why

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why should we necessarily follow his commands? Do you follow the commands of any random person who gives you one?

Because He is the ultimate authority. Of course I don't follow commands of any random person. I follow the rules and regulations given by our government and the local authorities. I presume you follow those as well. Why do you follow them?

 

harleysportster wrote:
He is hiding himself from me. The deadbeat hasn't even sent me a christmas card with $10 in it. And considering he is an omnipotent being that could presumably make his presence known whenever he damn well feels like it, I have to say he is hiding, or at least not paying attention. How could I leave him when I have never seen him? I am a mere mortal, I can't leave this earth. There is no possible way I could escape an omnipotent, omnipresent being if I tried, he by definition has ALL of the power.

He is hiding Himself from you? Really? He has given you evidence by His creation. He has given you His word, the bible. Your rejecting Him, He is not hiding at all.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Just like you have demonstrated your ignorance by making the absurd statement that life can only come from life.

Life only comes from life is an absurd statement lol? Where did life come from Harley? You tell me!

harleysportster wrote:
Never mind how the universe is expanding ? So, let's not actually get into something beyond 3rd grade science right ? How did it get there ? There you go with that god of the gaps argument again. Prove to me that Zeus didn't make it, prove to me that ancient aliens didn't make it, after all it had to come from somewhere right ?Do you realize how ignorant those types of arguments sound ?

I know you don't like my logic and you avoid the question because it points to God. Well, Zeus didn't make it because he never claimed to. No one has ever seen Zeus have they? We know ancient aliens didn't make it either. No one has seen an ancient alien have they? A bunch of people saw the risen Jesus who claimed to be God. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead it would have been disproven a myth not long after it started.

 

 

why do you keep making the claim "life comes from life" when you believe (based on a book you worship) that all life was created by a non-entity you call God?

As for Jesus' resurrection - why do I need to provide a disproof for something that hasn't been proven? I'm not asking you to disprove abiogenesis. It's just that those theories happen to be closer to reality than "magic man done it".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

And those people never thought enough of such a thing to write it down? Instead they left it to people they'd never met to write decades later?

You'd think something like that would have gotten the attention of a historian of that time.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the objective definition of murder, a definition that does not rely on me attempting to figure out the intent of a subject. 

I'll give it to you once again...please read and listen. Also, this is NOT my definition so don't claim I'm being subjective. This is what God says not me so your problem is with God not me.

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

And it's not what God said either - those are the words of people who wrote a book claiming to speak for God.

You're not being subjective - you're being lazy. You're borrowing someone else's subjective opinion and accepting their claim that it came from "God" (who you can't describe in a way that differs him from nothing).

His question still stands without an answer.

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:why do you

jcgadfly wrote:
why do you keep making the claim "life comes from life" when you believe (based on a book you worship) that all life was created by a non-entity you call God?

As for Jesus' resurrection - why do I need to provide a disproof for something that hasn't been proven? I'm not asking you to disprove abiogenesis. It's just that those theories happen to be closer to reality than "magic man done it".

I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact. If God is a non-entity, who or what put us here? Really, your theory is a better one? Jc exists and is here talking to me because he was created by nothing is more logical than Jc exists because God created him? It was only proven to the ones who saw Him crucified and then risen on the third day. The rest of us have the go by evidence and faith.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:That quote came

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
 ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

And those people never thought enough of such a thing to write it down? Instead they left it to people they'd never met to write decades later?

You'd think something like that would have gotten the attention of a historian of that time.

 

We have the gospels, they did write it down. They left it to people they never met? Really? How do you pass information orally to someone you've never met? It was told orally then written down while eyewitnesses were still alive and could have easily been refuted had the information been false.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
 ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

Yep your right? I just did a hypocritical thing didn't I. Apologies to Jc. Chalk one up for the truth of the bible. Like I said earlier, I'm the worst sinner here. I'm humble enough to admit it. God doesn't save good people He saves bad people. The hospital is for sick people not healthy people. Make sense to you?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

And those people never thought enough of such a thing to write it down? Instead they left it to people they'd never met to write decades later?

You'd think something like that would have gotten the attention of a historian of that time.

 

We have the gospels, they did write it down. They left it to people they never met? Really? How do you pass information orally to someone you've never met? It was told orally then written down while eyewitnesses were still alive and could have easily been refuted had the information been false.

The gospels were written by people decades after the supposed resurrection, who didn't know any of the supposed eyewitnesses and couldn't have spoken to them if they did  (the supposed eyewitnesses knew no Greek). The gospel writers had no oral tradition given to them. They had the OT and Paul's writings to build their story from. The gospels were created by human research (with some plagiarism) not by a divine being.

One doesn't need to refute things that can't be factually shown. You're asking for disproof without offering proof.

You broke the 9th commandment again, Lee. You'd best get forgiveness so you can do it again.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

And those people never thought enough of such a thing to write it down? Instead they left it to people they'd never met to write decades later?

You'd think something like that would have gotten the attention of a historian of that time.

 

We have the gospels, they did write it down. They left it to people they never met? Really? How do you pass information orally to someone you've never met? It was told orally then written down while eyewitnesses were still alive and could have easily been refuted had the information been false.

The gospels were written by people decades after the supposed resurrection, who didn't know any of the supposed eyewitnesses and couldn't have spoken to them if they did  (the supposed eyewitnesses knew no Greek). The gospel writers had no oral tradition given to them. They had the OT and Paul's writings to build their story from. The gospels were created by human research (with some plagiarism) not by a divine being.

One doesn't need to refute things that can't be factually shown. You're asking for disproof without offering proof.

You broke the 9th commandment again, Lee. You'd best get forgiveness so you can do it again.

And these are all just your assumptions based on no evidence.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lee2216 wrote:

And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.

 

You propose a false dichotomy in which material existence depends on 'nothing' a human mental concept that has never been defined or shown to exist and god, a label representing a fallacious appeal to complexity that has equally never been defined or observed. And you insist you are even right after admitting your personal fallibility. 

 

 

God has never been observed? The risen Jesus was observed by a bunch of people.

 

And those people never thought enough of such a thing to write it down? Instead they left it to people they'd never met to write decades later?

You'd think something like that would have gotten the attention of a historian of that time.

 

We have the gospels, they did write it down. They left it to people they never met? Really? How do you pass information orally to someone you've never met? It was told orally then written down while eyewitnesses were still alive and could have easily been refuted had the information been false.

The gospels were written by people decades after the supposed resurrection, who didn't know any of the supposed eyewitnesses and couldn't have spoken to them if they did  (the supposed eyewitnesses knew no Greek). The gospel writers had no oral tradition given to them. They had the OT and Paul's writings to build their story from. The gospels were created by human research (with some plagiarism) not by a divine being.

One doesn't need to refute things that can't be factually shown. You're asking for disproof without offering proof.

You broke the 9th commandment again, Lee. You'd best get forgiveness so you can do it again.

And these are all just your assumptions based on no evidence.

"Assumptions based on no evidence" only after you throw out history and textual criticism. Are you asking me for some evidence or are you going to be content with lying and saying that my statements are equal to yours in the evidence department?

Most of this information can be easily found - even wikipedia could do you some good here.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
 ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

Yep your right? I just did a hypocritical thing didn't I. Apologies to Jc. Chalk one up for the truth of the bible. Like I said earlier, I'm the worst sinner here. I'm humble enough to admit it. God doesn't save good people He saves bad people. The hospital is for sick people not healthy people. Make sense to you?

No Problem - Can you point me in the direction of this science that says life must come from life? The nearest I can get is the fifth of Thomas Aquinas's '5 proofs' but as we both know that's philosophy, not science.

I can find lots of science that says it doesn't have to, but am stuggling to find the science that says it does.

 

Appreciated.

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The gospels

jcgadfly wrote:
The gospels were written by people decades after the supposed resurrection, who didn't know any of the supposed eyewitnesses and couldn't have spoken to them if they did  (the supposed eyewitnesses knew no Greek). The gospel writers had no oral tradition given to them.

Your premise is not true and historical evidence bears that out Jc. According to mainstream scholarly opinion in NT research the Christianity of the gospels was largely spread among Hellenistic Jews for whom Greek was their first language. It is well-known that even in Jerusalem of the period a large percentage of the population preferred Greek, as indicated by the large number of Greek inscriptions on sarcophagi. Scholarly consensus says that the translation from Aramaic to Greek occured at the stage of oral tradition, prior to the writing of any of the Gospels, or even proto-gospels like Q.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
 ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

Yep your right? I just did a hypocritical thing didn't I. Apologies to Jc. Chalk one up for the truth of the bible. Like I said earlier, I'm the worst sinner here. I'm humble enough to admit it. God doesn't save good people He saves bad people. The hospital is for sick people not healthy people. Make sense to you?

But with scientific findings the results can be reproduced and those results are made public. If the experiment is simple enough I can reproduce it myself. The miracles of your God is that they can't be reproduced. For you that is a strength - for most people in reality it's a weakness.

Seeing the same result over and over eliminates a need for faith. Tell me Lee, If you sit in the same chair every day for years do you offer a quick prayer to God that it will hold you up again? Or do you just sit down knowing that there is a strong probability that it will do again what it has done all the other days?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"Assumptions

jcgadfly wrote:
"Assumptions based on no evidence" only after you throw out history and textual criticism. Are you asking me for some evidence or are you going to be content with lying and saying that my statements are equal to yours in the evidence department?

Most of this information can be easily found - even wikipedia could do you some good here.

Let's not throw out history. We have good reason to believe that the gospels were written before A.D. 70 when the Romans burned down the temple. This is what Jesus said almost 40 years prior 

 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

How would Jesus know this if He were not God in the flesh? Are you going to deny that the second temple was burned down Jc? Are you going to deny historical fact? No, your going to tell me the gospels were written down after the temple was destroyed. One step ahead of you Jc.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
"Assumptions based on no evidence" only after you throw out history and textual criticism. Are you asking me for some evidence or are you going to be content with lying and saying that my statements are equal to yours in the evidence department?

Most of this information can be easily found - even wikipedia could do you some good here.

Let's not throw out history. We have good reason to believe that the gospels were written before A.D. 70 when the Romans burned down the temple. This is what Jesus said almost 40 years prior 

 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

How would Jesus know this if He were not God in the flesh? Are you going to deny that the second temple was burned down Jc? Are you going to deny historical fact? No, your going to tell me the gospels were written down after the temple was destroyed. One step ahead of you Jc.

Please state this good evidence or provide a link to it. Until then I'll stick with the consensus that leaves Mark at 75 CE and the others much later.

Based on the prior sentence, Jesus knew nothing of the kind and Mark wrote after the temple was destroyed. You tripped over your own feet and fell behind Lee.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
  ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing?   Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

Yep your right? I just did a hypocritical thing didn't I. Apologies to Jc. Chalk one up for the truth of the bible. Like I said earlier, I'm the worst sinner here. I'm humble enough to admit it. God doesn't save good people He saves bad people. The hospital is for sick people not healthy people. Make sense to you?

No Problem - Can you point me in the direction of this science that says life must come from life? The nearest I can get is the fifth of Thomas Aquinas's '5 proofs' but as we both know that's philosophy, not science.

I can find lots of science that says it doesn't have to, but am stuggling to find the science that says it does.

 

Appreciated.

 

Here you go. 

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.
 
Quote:
I keep making those claims because it's a proven scientific fact.
  ^Haven't you just done the same thing with science that you've accused jcgadfly of doing?   Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

Yep your right? I just did a hypocritical thing didn't I. Apologies to Jc. Chalk one up for the truth of the bible. Like I said earlier, I'm the worst sinner here. I'm humble enough to admit it. God doesn't save good people He saves bad people. The hospital is for sick people not healthy people. Make sense to you?

No Problem - Can you point me in the direction of this science that says life must come from life? The nearest I can get is the fifth of Thomas Aquinas's '5 proofs' but as we both know that's philosophy, not science.

I can find lots of science that says it doesn't have to, but am stuggling to find the science that says it does.

 

Appreciated.

 

Here you go. 

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

1. Wow, lots of old research. Got anything that isn't two decades old or older?

2. Why do you deny abiogenesis? It's a tenet of your belief - you believe that a God that you can't describe as different from nothing managed to create everything.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:But with

jcgadfly wrote:
But with scientific findings the results can be reproduced and those results are made public. If the experiment is simple enough I can reproduce it myself. The miracles of your God is that they can't be reproduced. For you that is a strength - for most people in reality it's a weakness.

Can science reproduce over and over that we came from a common ancestor. No, it can't. All we have is bare bones. But you probably accept that with what....FAITH! Of course the miracles of God can't be reproduced because only the spirit of God can do those things.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Please state

jcgadfly wrote:
Please state this good evidence or provide a link to it. Until then I'll stick with the consensus that leaves Mark at 75 CE and the others much later.

See I told you I'd be one step ahead of you. Where is this consensus, provide the link.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why do you

jcgadfly wrote:
Why do you deny abiogenesis?

Because it's not scientifically factual that's why. All we have is theories. Gee, weren't you just harping testable repeatable methods. Get back to me when you find a scientist that can reproduce life from non-life will ya.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20