The Problem with Christians

[Cyberman]

You are confusing a constant conjunction for a principle that denotes a causal relationship. If there is some reason life comes only from life, you might have a candidate for a natural law, but as yet you have nothing but their constant conjunction. If life did arise from non-life, then the conjunction isn't even constant. But you are declaring that the conjunction is constant, so you are declaring that life never came from non-life, and that is begging the question. Whether life ever arises from non-life is an empirical question which we simply have not answered yet. An indeterminate correlation is not a law.

"unless you can give an example of non-life producing life."
Whether I can give such an example is a moot point, as what is necessary to disprove the principle is not that any one person can give a counter-example, but that one is in principle possible. You keep stumbling over this point, which leads me to believe you don't understand the philosophy behind science much at all, or, that you are being purposely thick.

It's worse than that, as it happens. Fiat declaring that non-life can never produce life is both shutting out likely evidence to the contrary and shutting down investigation into the posslibilty whatsoever.

Viva the creation scientific method!

[J a c k]

For some reason, I can't quote your reply to me, so this is just in response to your most recent reply to me.

I don't think you read your own responses. Read it again and find what's wrong with your answer. This is exactly what I meant with "arrogance". OK. Let me paint your picture for you:

All powerful god is sitting there looking at our little world and all our troubles. He's "interested in our lives" (your words). All these kids over here are being sold like cattle for sex slave purposes. All these women are being sold, too. People are starving to death. Haddassah (she's 19 months old) has a tumor in her liver. She had chemo for the first time yesterday. Allie (she's four) has had chemo way too many times to count by now, and all other kinds of painful procedures. Jesse's dad raped him since he was five until he was twelve, and now Jesse is in trouble with the law, because he tried to do the same thing to another kid in school. Your all powerful god sat through all of it. Then he takes a look into the future and notices that grandpa is going to get a stroke. Oh, no! He's important. What can he do to save his life? No, silly, not stop the stroke from happening. Not erase that incident from the plan, you crazy. He makes your wife and sister in law dream it, so they can ask him nicely first. "Ladies, I'm going to kill him, but you can change my mind if you pray to me." 

Arrogant, you are.

Now lets be clear on something. I do not believe your god exists. Up until now, you have not presented any evidence. You have not convinced me that he is real. I'm not mad at your god for having such arrogant followers, because I can't be mad at someone I don't believe exists. I say this, because this is something you theists love to use as a weapon. I am, however, fucken tired of Christians telling me their god is interested in our lives. Not mad at their god, annoyed by the people who made him up. Why? How arrogant, selfish, and blind do you have to be to think that your story paints a loving god? I am a true believer that people with faith in a god tend to pick a god that matches their character. Your god (which again, let me be clear, is most likely fictitious) is an asshole. Match the god to the followers. 

In summary:
A) Interested in our lives? No. Interested in the lives of those that his followers deem important. Everyone else is dispensable. 
B) So your wife and sister in law could pray for him? Because they can change his mind? Because he's flawed? 

None of this matters, though. Until you have evidence that he is real, all this means is that you want to believe in a god that fits your needs. I haven't seen evidence. Carry on.

[Rhondazvous]

If God can create something from nothing then I doubt he would be prohibited from interfering  with his creation in whatever way he felt like.

IF

Surely, even you are capable of realizing the importance of the word you just used.

If does not equate to a certainty.  The usage of the word leaves room for doubt.

It leaves room to make up anything one wants. Help me out Pyrro, Is there a Latin term for a subjunctive argument?

IF I could fly without a plane, I could go to Mexico. Based on this argument, should I proceed to make reservations at the Holiday Inn in Acapulco?

[Rhondazvous]

Definition of natural law;

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

"All life comes from life" qualifies as natural law because this is the only way life occurs, unless you can give an example of non-life producing life.

You are arguing that physical life came from a non physical god. So the life comes from life argument doesn't really work for you.

[Angrboda]

Definition of natural law;

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

"All life comes from life" qualifies as natural law because this is the only way life occurs, unless you can give an example of non-life producing life.

You are arguing that  physical life came from a non physical god. So the life comes from life argument doesn't really work for you.

True. He created Adam from dirt. Theology fail.

[brewer]

AJ, you are a perfect example of the god fantasy delusion at work. If you can imagine it, then god, then explanation for anything you want. No proof. No evidence. Ta-Da!

For the rest of us you might want to add "stop looking behind the curtain."

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Op seems like a generalization.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You are dead right that you can't provide a scientific explanation for the supernatural. By their very nature, supernatural, miraculous occurrences defy scientific understanding.

You don't have a science degree of any sort, so cut the bullshit already! If you did, you would understand clearly that the scope of the supernatural has been steadily shrinking since the time of Isaac Newton, and it will only become smaller as science progresses further. Diseases were once believed to be of supernatural origin, and now that is known not to be so. Destructive weather patterns were once believed to be the wrath of god, and now these are all logically explained through science. As science marches on, the gaps in our understanding will shrink, leaving only less room for your supernatural explanations of anything. By their very nature, supernatural, miraculous occurrences defy scientific understanding only because they haven't been explained by science yet. They will be explained eventually, and then your god will disappear from popular discussion forever. This is what happens with things which are not real.

[GUBU]

You ignore the meat of my message,  the fact that the passage you said predicted the creation of Israel did no such thing, and try (while failing dismally) to refute a small aside. To quote Napoleon "bah, I have not ime for such nonsense!"

The passage promised the restoration of Israel.

How is it that the regathering of the Jews from the furthest reaches of the globe to their homeland does not constitute a restoration of the nation?

Ummm are you illiterate as well as terminally stupid numbnuts? I specifically said that your so called prophesy in isiah referred to the "restoration" of the kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian captivity (there was actually never a first kingdom despite what the bible tries to say). Hence why you get mentions to places and polities like Assyria and Moab which are long dead and in some places only ever had a fleeting existence. As I said when first dismantling your claim, anybody with even half a brain would know this.

Your claim of the bible predicting the 1948 creation of the never before seen nation of Israel by European descendants of hellenised jews taking the land off the native Palestinians (the descendants of the non hellenised jews) is nothing more than a putrid pile of puke.

[Rhondazvous]

You are dead right that you can't provide a scientific explanation for the supernatural. By their very nature, supernatural, miraculous occurrences defy scientific understanding.

You don't have a science degree of any sort, so cut the bullshit already! If you did, you would understand clearly that the scope of the supernatural has been steadily shrinking since the time of Isaac Newton, and it will only become smaller as science progresses further. Diseases were once believed to be of supernatural origin, and now that is known not to be so. Destructive weather patterns were once believed to be the wrath of god, and now these are all logically explained through science. As science marches on, the gaps in our understanding will shrink, leaving only less room for your supernatural explanations of anything. By their very nature, supernatural, miraculous occurrences defy scientific understanding only because they haven't been explained by science yet. They will be explained eventually, and then your god will disappear from popular discussion forever. This is what happens with things which are not real.

Pat Robertson, notwithstanding.