OH. My. F-ing. GOD!
You refuse to answer this DOZENS of time, I keep asking you THIS VERY question time and time again, and after all those refusals, and attempts at dodging, OUT OF NOWHERE you just address the argument ?? You just wasted hours of my time! I've been asking you NOTHING but to answer this for HOURS, and you kept refusing, and now for no reason you just answered. If I wasted somebody's time like that, my parents or teachers would give me hell. It's clear nobody's taught you to respect other people's time. Unbelievable!

So, you initial argument was that Pasteur's experiment disproved Abiogenesis ( by proving «life only comes from life» ).

He not only did not prove that "life only comes from life», but also did not disprove abiogenesis. I've explained to you maybe 12 times why you are getting this wrong, and you don't seem to have read *any* of those explanations from what you are writing, but here I go again:

For your argument to be valid, Pasteur would need to have proven that life can only come from life. This is not what he proved, that is only a mistaken interpretation of his experiment. His experiment does not show "life only comes from life", but shows that "life does not come from sterile glass" ( thus disproving spontaneuous generation, a theory that has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis, the theory YOU are trying to disprove ).

When you read «encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, » that is only talking about modern life, with complex bacteria. It is saying NOTHING about primordial life coming from complex chemicals, AT ALL.

It is crazy that you do not understand the difference after I have explained it a half dozen times now. I hope this time you will read and undertand, but my hope isn't very strong, you clearly have shown you do not really care what is true here.

When you read « That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, » that is NOT what Pasteur showed, at all. This is not the theory. He only proved that in his experiments, life would not appear when life was not already present. This DOES NOT prove that life can not appear from non-living material, that is complete non-sense. Primordial chemicals have IN FACT been demonstrated to be able to self-assemble into pre-life cascade chemical reactions, able to start the path of life as we know it now. I can show you experiments showing this clearly, DO YOU CARE?

«which was the position held by spontaneous generation». Spontaneous generation only talked about what happened when a wound got garngenous, or when your bread went bad. It was only about MODERN life, it is NOT related AT ALL to the theory of abiogenesis, which is about priomordial life.

Pasteur DID NOT disprove ABIOGENESIS, and the fact despite clear explanations, you can't understand that, is mind-blowing.

Ha if I knew this was you talking today I would not have even bothered ....of course you intervene IU f you see that your way of thinking requires spontaneous generation .....or your arguments fail Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.

Rejection of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, experiments by Louis Pasteur and others refuted the traditional theory of spontaneous generation and supported biogenesis.

biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.
The reason this is important is because your belief can only be supported by spontaneous generation ..without that you have big problems period ....there is no more discussion

So if I see a child being raped, I should not intervene, because it's all going to be ok in the end, right? Your way of thinking is sick. Whether suffering stops at some point or not does not matter to the one suffering, and if somebody can do something to stop this sort of suffering, and they don't, they are a monster. This reasonning is even more true for omnipotent beings like your god. He can stop children from living in suffering for years on end, and he doesn't. This means he either doesn't care, or can't help. So he's either a monster, or not likely to be powerful enough to provide you with eternal life.

And all of this would only matter if there was any good reasons to believe these is any god at all ... which there is not.

I want to agree with your comment I think people don't look at it from the perspective of a greater power if you were God and you're looking at the situation why would you need to intervene ?? If you know there's a better place ? why would God need to intervene if he knows that everything's going to be okay anyway? Yes it's horrible..... to watch the news daily and see the bad things that are happening to people. I think DNA would be impossible to create itself just my opinion ......... I think that near-death experiences are way many to be ignored and there's some of them are being confirmed by doctors and staff members who are witness to it to me this is powerful evidence of a greater power

It's like saying that instances of irrationality somehow mean reason's not a reliable standard of thinking, or that suicide is proof that human flourishing is a flawed ideal.

Check out page 49 of this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zEZLzaLizZRNQy8S27GNZTrU5U1kSj9EaLREKSw_ceY

So from that you drew the wholly unsupported conclusion that God can't exist? At least we have identified the psychological basis for your otherwise irrational non-belief: you cannot acknowledge a limitation on your 'freedom.'

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

primenumbers, I'm recommending this website to everyone I recall discussing the problem of evil with.

I think you could get a lot out of it (website and facebook page). I certainly have.

http://newapologetics.com/
https://www.facebook.com/NewApologetics

Max, it's been three months, but here is a great resource I've discovered on these questions:

http://newapologetics.com/

With a facebook page on which you attack with your most devastating arguments:

https://www.facebook.com/NewApologetics

A adequate answer to your question can be found at New Apologetics. http://newapologetics.com/