Fine, you’ve checkmated me through your superior intellect and morality.

All better now?

I said "it" checkmates "the position" ... not I checkmated you. You changed both parts of that for drama and diversion. Diversion from the point that the doctrine is checkmated over and over. So you went sarcastic ad hominem because it's mate on the merits. Truly, truly.

The position is utterly defeated by you. You win. What do you win?

Uh.... I think he wins the argument! ;-)

Ok, then. The argument is over. Any further engagement of the argument will have to be interpreted as an implicit admission that the argument was never won, and the opposing position was never defeated.

Your God sucks my dick.

You're a vile, disgusting pervert.

I would encourage you to repent today before it's too late!

THE BIBLE WAY TO HEAVEN:

1. Admit that you're a sinner.

There is none righteous, no not one. - Romans 3:10

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

2. Acknowledge that you deserve death because of your sin.

For the wages of sin is death... - Romans 6:23a


3. Believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to avoid an eternity in Hell.

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23b


4. Confess Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior!

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10:9,13



Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I'll attempt to answer each of your points one-at-a-time in separate posts:

The two bolded sentences "give away the farm" (as the old-timers used to say). Many of the greatest minds of the past 60+ years, given the greatest resources that technology has to offer, have attempted to create life from non-living sources. (That idea used to be called "Spontaneous Generation", which was debunked about 150 years ago.) Adding more time and adding extra steps doesn't help any. Anyhoo, my main point is that these really bright people with vast resources at their disposal can't even create life in a lab. So, a bunch of wise guys working together for 60+ years can't do it, but somehow it actually happened all by itself?. By a random process? I was born on a Thursday, but not last Thursday. Even if these wise guys "created life from non-life", it would at the very least be an example Intelligent Design. It would not be a natural process. It would be an intentional creation of life.

So, thank you for at least providing compelling evidence for Intelligent Design.

If humans cannot do it in a lab, then it must be God? That is the God of the Gaps argument, and you are welcomed to make it, but historically all it has resulted in is an incredible shrinking deity. In any case, whether humans can or cannot synthesize life is irrelevant. The point was that you are claiming life cannot come from non-life. Therefore there must be something qualitatively different between the matter making up living systems and that in nonliving systems. Interestingly, at one time scientists actually agreed with that idea. There is a branch of chemistry called organic chemistry. It is called this because it was believed that some substances only could be found in living organisms. Then we started synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic ones and we disproved that idea. There simply is no difference between the matter in living organisms and all other matter. Fundamentally all matter is the same.

The thing that makes living organisms alive is simply the way that this matter is organized. Putting the right chemicals in the right amounts in the right relative locations will lead to a living organism. This is true regardless of whether it happens naturally or by any intent. You have no evidence that it cannot happen naturally. This is not the same as random. Nature is predictable, not random. If you put water in your freezer do you really have to flip a coin to decide whether it will freeze or not? If you drop something does it sometimes go up? Natural processes are not random.

This is important because while we have not figured out exactly how life got started we have made some progress. We have figured out that certain chemicals will spontaneously form membranes under certain conditions. Amino acids will form polypeptides spontaneously. RNA nucleosides can self-catalyze and form polynucleosides spontaneously. A membrane with some simple polypeptides and a polynucleoside chain that can reproduce itself IS a living cell. Life from non-life via natural (not random) processes! It would be a simple cell, but that is all that is needed; evolution can produce diversity and increased complexity.

BTW you misunderstood the rejection of spontaneous generation. This was the idea that complex organisms come from non-living matter all the time, not the idea that very simple ones arose from non-life under completely different environmental circumstances on a limited number of occasions. People believed, for instance, that flies arose from rotten meat. That was debunked; flies are much too complex to have formed spontaneously via abiogenesis. Simple aggregates of polypeptides and polynucleotides surrounded by a membrane is a much different scenario than a fly.

If humans cannot do it in a lab, then it must be God? That is the God of the Gaps argument, and you are welcomed to make it, but historically all it has resulted in is an incredible shrinking deity. In any case, whether humans can or cannot synthesize life is irrelevant. The point was that you are claiming life cannot come from non-life. Therefore there must be something qualitatively different between the matter making up living systems and that in nonliving systems. Interestingly, at one time scientists actually agreed with that idea. There is a branch of chemistry called organic chemistry. It is called this because it was believed that some substances only could be found in living organisms. Then we started synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic ones and we disproved that idea. There simply is no difference between the matter in living organisms and all other matter. Fundamentally all matter is the same.

The thing that makes living organisms alive is simply the way that this matter is organized. Putting the right chemicals in the right amounts in the right relative locations will lead to a living organism. This is true regardless of whether it happens naturally or by any intent. You have no evidence that it cannot happen naturally. This is not the same as random. Nature is predictable, not random. If you put water in your freezer do you really have to flip a coin to decide whether it will freeze or not? If you drop something does it sometimes go up? Natural processes are not random.

This is important because while we have not figured out exactly how life got started we have made some progress. We have figured out that certain chemicals will spontaneously form membranes under certain conditions. Amino acids will form polypeptides spontaneously. RNA nucleosides can self-catalyze and form polynucleosides spontaneously. A membrane with some simple polypeptides and a polynucleoside chain that can reproduce itself IS a living cell. Life from non-life via natural (not random) processes! It would be a simple cell, but that is all that is needed; evolution can produce diversity and increased complexity.

BTW you misunderstood the rejection of spontaneous generation. This was the idea that complex organisms come from non-living matter all the time, not the idea that very simple ones arose from non-life under completely different environmental circumstances on a limited number of occasions. People believed, for instance, that flies arose from rotten meat. That was debunked; flies are much too complex to have formed spontaneously via abiogenesis. Simple aggregates of polypeptides and polynucleotides surrounded by a membrane is a much different scenario than a fly.

In the Bible, Jesus gives voice to the Son of Man - the one who inherits the Kingdom. Yet you choose to make Paul your prophet. A man who died and remains dead for 2000 years.

That’s unwise.

If you care about seeing fiction as fiction, myth as myth, fable as fable, and history as history. Dan Barker who has the ballz to question his beliefs and investigate them open-mindedly, instead of buying at face value the magic and superstitions of societies thousands of years ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7_6vUzqBA

Me:

THE BIGGEST ABSURDITY OF ATHEISTIC NATURALISM: EVERYTHING SOMEWAY, SOMEHOW EITHER EVOLVED INTO OR “CREATED” ITS OPPOSITE:

1. Inanimate matter became and/or created animate life (i.e. NON-life became LIFE).

2. A purposeless, unintended universe created a world populated by beings that could intentionally do things with a purpose.

3. A deterministic universe created a world with beings that could determine their own actions (aka “Free Will”).

4. An uncaring, amoral universe created a world with beings that care for others and have morals.

5. A physical “big bang” created a world replete with NON-physical things (i.e. IDEAS).

6. NOTHING created EVERYTHING (see A Universe from Nothing by biophysicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss.).

7. Chaos and disorder evolved into an orderly cosmos governed by physical laws

8. Non-conscious matter created a world populated with conscious beings.



Strembra70’s Response (and My “counter-response” in bold):

Define purpose.


From dictionary dot com:

noun

the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.


How do you know purpose is true and not just an illusion? Whose purpose?

Because the Bible says so many times. Here’s one:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)


99.9999% of the universe can be explained and accounted for without any reference to purpose or intention.

Since mankind still probably hasn’t even explained .00000000001% of the universe at this point, the proverbial jury is still out on that one.


You again beg the question by assuming that purpose cannot be just a byproduct of the physical arrangement of chemicals into certain systems.

Fair enough. But, YOU are ASSUMING WITHOUT EVIDENCE that purpose CAN be a byproduct of physical matter.

In the meantime, I’ll eagerly await your actual EVIDENCE for even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of purpose being a byproduct of physical matter. (I’m almost 65 years old, so I probably can’t wait a long time for the evidence, so please GET WITH IT! )

Maybe I've lived an overly-sheltered life, but I don't believe I've ever met even one person who was "buying at face value the magic and superstitions of societies thousands of years ago."

Maybe you meet such people in whatever nuthouse the State has committed you to.

Believing every word of the Holy Bible is always wise.

Then again you don't even realize that you believe in magic. Point blank at face value.

Let's find out if I believe in magic or not:

From merriam-webster.com:


mag·​ic | \ ˈma-jik \

Definition of magic (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

b: magic rites or incantations

2a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
Both pitchers, although they are older, haven't lost their magic.

b: something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT
all the mystery, magic and romance which belong to royalty alone
— J. E. P. Grigg

3: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
entertained with acts of jugglery and magic

1a above comes close to me believing in magic. I believe that God has supernatural power over natural forces. But neither I, nor anyone else I know, can actually exercise that power themselves (let alone actually have supernatural powers).

3 above would be like a couple of friends of mine who are professional magicians.

Neither 2a nor 2b really applies to me either, although 2a might apply to my beliefs if reworded a bit.

In short: if you believe that Penn and Teller (for example) exist, then you and I both believe in MAGIC!!

Cool that we both believe in MAGIC, ain't it?

addendum: Penn and Teller are not the two magicians I am friends with.

Then we have that thing where the whole religion is based on magic, magical thinking, bullshyt supernatural claims, ghosts (that holy ghost fella, I wonder is the holy ghost male too, is it a "him?"), spirits, miracles (code word for magic), the idea that any believer can surpass the miracles in the Bible, ritual superstitions with supernatural power, demons, talking animals and inanimate objects ...

Nope ... no magic here.

I have a question for you, even though you obviously have no interest at all in a serious discussion. So, I won't be surprised or disappointed or upset if you answer my question with one of your typical generic rants.

The question is this: Of the definitions of MAGIC I listed from the dictionary, which one would apply to Christians like myself?

1a: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

b: magic rites or incantations

2a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
Both pitchers, although they are older, haven't lost their magic.

b: something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT
all the mystery, magic and romance which belong to royalty alone
— J. E. P. Grigg

3: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
entertained with acts of jugglery and magic


Again, given I fully expect you to evade the question, I'm not completely wasting my time asking it because the readers will see that you're basically the only person left in this forum with zero interest in a discussion. Which is kinda funny to me, since this is a DISCUSSION forum.

You're a deceiver for your religion and a bearer of false witness about others ... because it is the only way to defend against the arguments which dismantle the dogma and doctrine. As to whether in this case it is conscious or unconscious, I won't hazard an opinion. Get away from me with the devious and pitiful, or clueless, game ... whichever it is. Thanks in advance.

A man comes looking for sincere debate and deliberation about metaphysics, origins, morality ... he's made a misstep when he does it in a religious forum. Truer words were never spoke.

Thank you for confirming my assertion that you would not actually engage my post.

I'm not sure why you are posting in a DISCUSSION forum, given that you have no interest in actually discussing anything.

You cannot serve two masters. If you make Paul your prophet and follow his commands, then you will be taken away from serving and following the commands of Jesus.

Do you pray for life? Do you ask, seek, and knock? That is what the follower of Jesus does.

Or do you call yourself saved because you made a proclamation? That is what the follower of Paul does.

This was my earlier point. I cannot imagine that anyone here (specifically here) is so lacking in self-awareness that they can believe that they are here for a discussion.

Some might possibly believe that other people are here for a discussion, but would be a very silly belief.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Stremba70 and I are having a discussion, and craig1120 and myself are also having a discussion.

And (apparently) you and I are having a discussion.

Please clarify your point. Thanks.

Have you or any of those you mentioned changed their minds on any points? Anyone start or stop believing something about anything at all? Anyone shift even the slightest? If not, what you have are people expounding in parallel, which is not what a discussion is. It is, in fact no different than what fella is doing, with the exception of being occasionally more polite.

We aren't even having a discussion (yet). I am just telling you things that are true.