Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[IndigoChild5559]

1. It started with an electric spark.
2. Molecules of life met on clay.
3. Life began at deep-sea vents.
4. Life had a chilly start.
5. The answer lies in understanding DNA formation.
6. Life had simple beginnings.

The problem is over your step #2. Scientists have been able to produce organic molecules (amino acids) by recreating the primordial environment. But organic molecules are not the same as life, nor do we have any scientific explanation (yet) for how amino acids can become life. So there is an unproven (yet) gap between #2 and #3.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I never saw myself or any human for that matter, worthy of defining God.

An undefined word is just a meaningless sound.

 

[Sargonski]

The premise is one shared by Dutch philosopher named Barouch Spinoza, although I didn't become aware of this until a few months ago. It's a basic concept, direct, and true, but whether anyone chooses to acknowledge this as a truth is up to each individual.

"Spinoza believed that everything that exists is God. However, he did not hold the converse view that God is no more than the sum of what exists. God had infinite qualities, of which we can perceive only two, thought and extension. Hence God must also exist in dimensions far beyond those of the visible world." Excerpt from: World Pantheism

We as living beings have a personal relationship with God as children born from God's own substance. This is true for all things existing. What you honor as God is a choice and true, whether subjectively, by proclamation, or by objective reason. The logical fallacy would belong to you no matter the "power" you might possess as an individual, or entity.

Waxing and waning on irrelevant Philosophical ideas yet another but perhaps not so obvious deflection .. one probably hidden from yourself in this case .. which is a tough one .. hard to avoid something you don't see. God is Everything definition is not a definition of anything .. it can be part of the definition .. God is everything .. great .. but what power does this God exert in the universe that might be of interest to a human ? .. do you not understand active vs passive in the equation ? is it nowhere to be found in your definition ? or rather .. your "non-definition" .. or perhaps better ..simplistic to the point of irrelevance and infinitely incomplete definition.

This came at you before .. do you not remember your previous deflection ? Probably best as was --trying to be nice --- pathentic. Just a **** poor attempt Brother Balth .. misdirection -- deflection .. said something to the effect of who says a God has to have power .. some nonsense like that .. you can go back and look it up .. or choose to move forward .. as here we are again .. trying to find the God of Jesus .. but you have not the faintest of any qualities of this God of Nothing - God - no definition.

This God of yours is not the God of Jesus so . it matters not. .. and what on earth is this "Personal Relationship" nonsense ? Personal relationship with what ? "Everything" ?? sure friend .. same page .. we all have a relationship to everything around us .. but what has that to do with having a personal relationship with God ? .. How is the personal relationship with undefined nothing-ness going .. this personal relationship with mis-direction and self deception and fallacy .. this being the only qualities of your God having been revealed beyond .. "Really Big" ! Thats God "Big Big Big" >>>>> how big ? <<<<<<< Bigger than Everything .. chuckle chuckle

Thy foundation you see .. is based on logical fallacy .. and I think we are moving backwards again .. the pull of darkness strong .. This is not the God of Jesus .. but of the anti-Jesus. Now do not accuse me logical fallacy - I am not who has failed to know his God .. failed to find and failed to define .. but talks about "Personal Relationship" .. come now how how .. how now brown cow ! or better yet Pinochio .. remember that .. personal relationship with Jepeto . Pinochio's creator .. Pinochio's God .. remember how Pinochio's nose would grow when he was engaging in self deception ..denial .. down the dark path of deceit . dirty deeds .. done dirt cheap ..

 

[Sargonski]

The problem is over your step #2. Scientists have been able to produce organic molecules (amino acids) by recreating the primordial environment. But organic molecules are not the same as life, nor do we have any scientific explanation (yet) for how amino acids can become life. So there is an unproven (yet) gap between #2 and #3.

Sure there are Scientific explanations - why do you say there are not ? .. "Us Scienctists" call them hypothesis . abiogenesis is full of hypothesis .. thats how these things start .. some ideas fall away .. others disproved .. some go on to become theories .. such as evolution .. the "theory" part of the "Theory" is that mutations happen .. that through these mutations one species over time can change into another .. mutations can change an organisms DNA .

Now part of the evolution mutation equation -- is that in order for this to happen .. you have to have self replication .. and indeed Scientists have how shown that self replicating proto-RNA molecules can arise from the Primordial clay soup. Your explanation .. and your gap filled.

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory​

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland's team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth's primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone."

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might...

www.wired.com

So these "ribonucleoties" are formed in the mud (clay) and line themselve up in different configurations on the clay .. so now you have the building blocks of RNA .. lined up on a surface .. connecting to form larger and more complex molecules .. and this process is repeated with in the matrix .. some of these structures more favored depending on the charge on the clay surface.

now --all these ribonucleotides produced in this mud - some eventually hook up .. making more complex RNA chains .. promordial cell membranes existed .. these RNA molecules would often be encased in what can be described as goo .. the goo having the property of selectivity across th em membrane ..

Yes there is a long way to go from here ..but the path is alot more advanced than what you were suggesting

 

[Sargonski]

Sorry, I never saw myself or any human for that matter, worthy of defining God.

not to worry as we don't either but do understand

An undefined word is just a meaningless sound.

and thus Bother Nako you should stop using the word God .. Right !

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you so much for your reply.

"Us Scienctists" call them hypothesis . abiogenesis is full of hypothesis

Oh yes. I'm fully aware what a scientific hypothesis is, and also what a scientific theory is. A hypothesis is an intelligent guess that you can test. And yes, hypotheses ARE a great place to start. But they are only a start. This inquiry is still in its early stages, and by the time all the evidence comes in, we may very well realize that it's not the case.

The original question was whether scientists had successfully brought life out of non-life. I said no. And I stand by that. Until we are able to do that, abiogenesis remains a hypothesis

So these "ribonucleoties"

Oh this is soooo exciting! Progress! Thank you so very much for sharing this with me.

To sum up, I am not at all saying that abiogenesis didn't happen. Only that we do not have proof of it. As I said, we are in the beginning stages of our inquiry.

 

[Balthazzar]

Waxing and waning on irrelevant Philosophical ideas yet another but perhaps not so obvious deflection .. one probably hidden from yourself in this case .. which is a tough one .. hard to avoid something you don't see. God is Everything definition is not a definition of anything .. it can be part of the definition .. God is everything .. great .. but what power does this God exert in the universe that might be of interest to a human ? .. do you not understand active vs passive in the equation ? is it nowhere to be found in your definition ? or rather .. your "non-definition" .. or perhaps better ..simplistic to the point of irrelevance and infinitely incomplete definition.

This came at you before .. do you not remember your previous deflection ? Probably best as was --trying to be nice --- pathentic. Just a **** poor attempt Brother Balth .. misdirection -- deflection .. said something to the effect of who says a God has to have power .. some nonsense like that .. you can go back and look it up .. or choose to move forward .. as here we are again .. trying to find the God of Jesus .. but you have not the faintest of any qualities of this God of Nothing - God - no definition.

This God of yours is not the God of Jesus so . it matters not. .. and what on earth is this "Personal Relationship" nonsense ? Personal relationship with what ? "Everything" ?? sure friend .. same page .. we all have a relationship to everything around us .. but what has that to do with having a personal relationship with God ? .. How is the personal relationship with undefined nothing-ness going .. this personal relationship with mis-direction and self deception and fallacy .. this being the only qualities of your God having been revealed beyond .. "Really Big" ! Thats God "Big Big Big" >>>>> how big ? <<<<<<< Bigger than Everything .. chuckle chuckle

Thy foundation you see .. is based on logical fallacy .. and I think we are moving backwards again .. the pull of darkness strong .. This is not the God of Jesus .. but of the anti-Jesus. Now do not accuse me logical fallacy - I am not who has failed to know his God .. failed to find and failed to define .. but talks about "Personal Relationship" .. come now how how .. how now brown cow ! or better yet Pinochio .. remember that .. personal relationship with Jepeto . Pinochio's creator .. Pinochio's God .. remember how Pinochio's nose would grow when he was engaging in self deception ..denial .. down the dark path of deceit . dirty deeds .. done dirt cheap ..

Acknowledgement of that which has been stated as a conscious organism, experiencing the reality that is in question, and navigation between sides of the coin (the metaphor), and the many variables that exist within that space itself, seem to have you in doubt of the understanding I adhere to and acknowledge as a conscious organism you doubt I myself acknowledge, to which you declare a logical fallacy held.

How is it you find such difficulty acknowledging a coin (God metaphor) to have two sides and many attributes (characteristics) existing within that space between? I experience as I am and when I leave or lay my soul to rest, the same will be experienced as I have experienced by those who are also of that substance, able. You seem to acknowledge consciousness as the determining factor. I acknowledge consciousness as opportunity to know as I know at all.

 

[Nakosis]

An undefined word is just a meaningless sound.

I wasn't talking about the word.
I was talking about what the word is in reference to.
How can you define what you have no knowledge of?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't talking about the word.
I was talking about what the word is in reference to.

"What the word is in reference to" is what we call the definition of the word.

How can you define what you have no knowledge of?

I'm not sure what you mean. Defining a term doesn't mean that the thing it describes exists or is known.

Here's an example: I'll define "boomcheddar" as a type of cheddar cheese that's inherently as explosive as C4. Do I know whether it's possible for cheese to be explosive? No. Do we now know what I mean when I say "boomcheddar?" Yes.

So what do you mean when you say "God"?

 

[Sargonski]

Thank you so much for your reply.

Oh yes. I'm fully aware what a scientific hypothesis is, and also what a scientific theory is. A hypothesis is an intelligent guess that you can test. And yes, hypotheses ARE a great place to start. But they are only a start. This inquiry is still in its early stages, and by the time all the evidence comes in, we may very well realize that it's not the case.

The original question was whether scientists had successfully brought life out of non-life. I said no. And I stand by that. Until we are able to do that, abiogenesis remains a hypothesis

Oh this is soooo exciting! Progress! Thank you so very much for sharing this with me.

To sum up, I am not at all saying that abiogenesis didn't happen. Only that we do not have proof of it. As I said, we are in the beginning stages of our inquiry.

actually . what you said was that we had progressed to X .. I informed you that actually have have progressed past that point .. good that you were thankful for this information. .. The original question was silly .. I was not responding to that .. only that we have progressed .. but this progression is quite significant .. evidence for new hypothesis is now in existence .. after the above posted I happened to be refreshing the biochemistry of ribonucleotides .. RNA .. DNA .. straight from wiki

Prebiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides​

[edit]
In order to understand how life arose, knowledge is required of the chemical pathways that permit formation of the key building blocks of life under plausible prebiotic conditions. According to the RNA world hypothesis free-floating ribonucleotides were present in the primitive soup. These were the fundamental molecules that combined in series to form RNA. Molecules as complex as RNA must have arisen from small molecules whose reactivity was governed by physico-chemical processes. RNA is composed of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides, both of which are necessary for reliable information transfer, and thus Darwinian natural selection and evolution. The synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides was demonstrated under plausible prebiotic conditions.[18] The starting materials for the synthesis (cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate) were considered to be plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules.[18] Nam et al. demonstrated the direct condensation of nucleobases with ribose to give ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets, a key step leading to RNA formation.[19] Also, a plausible prebiotic process for synthesizing pyrimidine and purine ribonucleotides using wet-dry cycles was presented by Becker et al.[20]

------------

OK wow notice they included the folks in the link I gave you (Becker et al) .. but look how close what they are saying is to the hypothesis I gave ... "spanky" !! forgive the self patting on back ... but this is a proto self replication system ... the "First Spark" .. the biggest hurdle cleared ... not that there are not others .. but self replicating proto RNA molecules that keep getting more complex .. is darn close to animate .. and not that ridiculously far away from a virus .. which some say is not really life .. just some nucleic acids in a sack - not a "cell wall" but a "Cell membrane .. these selective membranes also forming in the primordial mud. ... leading to the hypothesis that the first life might have been a virus .... or further down the chain .. prions ... these are little sacks o fnucleic acids that confer a certain trait to bacteria . .. a trait I actually make use in various projects .. "bioremediation" being one example.

 

[F1fan]

What sparked your natural process in motion? What happened before the Big Bang?

Honest answer is we don't know.

What scientists have done - is sliced "events" into pieces and when looking at one piece - it looks like a creator is not needed for that particular equation. Just like if you start looking at the chicken and egg issue - from the "chicken" - you don't need to worry about how the egg came about because the chicken is laying the egg!
Yeah! So let's start from the big bang!

Lots of unanswered question! What you have is - minor realities expanding into or coming out of wonderland!
Literally you have a big black hole!

Just because there are evidences of natural process and natural selection - it doesn't negate the reality that processes of this magnitude can not initiate on its own. Something cannot come out of nothing! Even energy cannot be created out of nothing!

Except your God. So your own claim defeats your solution.

And who says there was ever nothing? Only those who want their God to have a purpose. But no evidence of God, or creation event. So your God is irrelevant.

Ok. I get it - you are a 100% believer of the "natural process" (as you call it) - but the question is - why an intelligent designer is not needed to complete the equation? Your answer would be because the proof is missing... Right?

Nature exists. There is no known supernatural phenomenon observed or known to have caused anything, so we throw it out.

Do you realize that - in order for complex life to form on earth by evaluation process - billions of things have to be just in the right order to make it happen?

So what? It's an actual possibility. If you have a lottery to give one person on earth a prize there is a 1 in nearly 9 billion chance to win. It is highly improbable that you will win. But it is 100% certain that someone will win. Will you claim magic happened just because that person won?

Just as I predicted - you couldn't explain what you claimed. You said "infinite regress" pretty much obliterate any creator existing as the first cause!
You did not provide any explanation for making that claim!
Show how it obliterating any creator existing??

I did alreasy. You make a claim that a creator must exist to create anything, but don't realize that if a creator is needed to create something from nothing then what created the creator. So there can never be a first creator, because how did it come to exist if things need to be caused by something else? If you insist a creator always existed, then why couldn't matter have always existed? We know matter exists. There are no creators known to exist.

I guess you don't know how analogies work!

False, I used one above. Your analogies just happen to be horrible, as I explained.

If analogies were between completely equal things then there won't be a need to compare!

You are trying to imply imaginary things exist because you create analogies of real things doing observed actions. That doesn't work. You need exidence to show that your imaginary things are real.

Analogies are given to make you think from another prospective!

But you don't have valid analogies, so utter failure. You don't seem interested in learning why your analogies are flawed.

I guess analogies don't work on you because you can only think in one way!

The proper way via a sound education.

Wrong! Maybe agnostics are seeker of truth. Atheists have a solid and closed minded position when it comes to God/creator.

False yet again. Atheists are agnostic. And I assert that everyone is agnostic where it comes to religious ideas. And I say that because religious ideas are notorious for lacking any evidence for being true. And while theists will have beliefs in their religious ideas, they don;t have knowledge of them beig ntrue in reality. Only atheists are honest in assessing these ideas with standards of truth. And ironically any religious person who hold some religious framework will by default reject the religious ideas of all other religions. So they are as agnostic about religious ideas as atheists, with the exception of their own religion.

Further those who consider themselves agnostic tend to be uncertain about how to adequately assess religious religious ideas, but know they aren't swayed by the claims of believers. Atheists tend to be more skilled at this assessment.

From the net:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

It is obvious - you belong to the narrowest group. IMO

How is it obvious when I never stated any such thing? What you are claiming is that I fit into the Strong Atheist category, but I have stated on discussions before that that is a category that is irrational. It's irrational because there is no way to determine the nonexistence of gods, mainly because they are so poorly defined by believers.

Developing arrogance I see!
Billions of people will disagree with your logics and thus your standards. So, your position is not the norm!

Sorry, among educated and civilized people the standards I used are accepted. That includes law, science, and logic. If anyone disagrees then they aren't well educated. Theists who try to argue for their beliefs don't like the standard because they can't succede. That's why many believers aren't seekers of truth.

Evidence is everywhere. You are unable to see it. You are blind! Even if more evidence pours on you like heavy rain and you get drenched in it - you will still say - "no evidence" - "no evidence"!

This old tired claim? You are getting lazy. What you mean is interpretation of observations, not evidence. I don't interpret what we observe like believers do. I want to understand what we observe in a truthful way.

POE?
The only reason humans have a problem with babies dying with cancer is because people think from their own prospective. They think this world is everything!
If you think from God's prospective then no damage is done to any babies or any undeserving individuals.
God can erase memory and restore any baby or anyone not deserving of any pain - back into their original form and put them in heaven (an ultimate destination). If a baby dies of cancer and finds himself in heaven without the memory of any suffering - would the baby complain?

Why are you complaining?

We aren't Gods. We are human. And look at your hysterical answer. You make a series of claims that aren't true, and don't explain why God created cancer. Nothing you wrote justifies the suffering of children and families. It doesn't justify the love God is supposed to have for humans when a mother of three dies from brest cancer. I asked my question because I knw believers can't answer it. I ask it to expose the moral hypocrisy. And you fell into the trap with untrue claims that only make your idea of God terrible and unloving.

When a car manufacturer do crash tests on a car - do we call it injustice? The manufacturer can restore that car back into a brand new one - God can do trillions of time better than that!
So suffering erased - baby is restored and baby is playing in paradise!

What is the problem?

God has reasons behind everything (it is obviously not to teach the baby a lesson)- but at the end of the day - no innocents getting everlasting harm! So, no damage at all! The damage is only in your head!

Look at your panic. You are trying hard to justify your idea of God existing, and the fact that cancers kill innocent people. If your scenario was true, your God is a mass murderer. If you were a seeker of truth you would be free of the religious trap you find yourself in.

I don't need to provide any empirical evidence.

A convenient assertion since you have none. No evidence, no reason to believe a God exists. End of story.

I tried to show you your limitations. You didn't get it.

Haha, there are no limitations except for your lack of evidence. Look at you trying to blame others for not making an irrational conclusion.

You think you are ready to learn everything about God; you haven't even learnt much about earth yet! Yes! We are exploring the space - we can't even reach the bottom of all of our oceans yet!

What God? Remember, you have no evidence.

You need to believe with what proof you have for your own salvation.

Who says? You? The social indoctrination that your gullibility bought into? I'm a seeker of truth, remember?

The same request over and over?

You keep referring to a God as if it exists, so yes, you get asked to prove it exists outside of your imagination. And look at you all fussy because you get asked for evidence.

I told you to lower your standards.

Do you not read what you write? Low standards is why you are trapped in an irrational belief system.

Chances are you are not getting any empirical evidence while on earth. That is the name of the game. I told you - your CEO (ultimate boss) is watching you to see if your immediate department boss (who is evil) can manipulate you and make you work against the company guidelines. You are tested to see if you do anything wrong that you are not supposed to do. So far you are under the spell of your evil (immediate) boss. Chances are - your immediate evil boss will take you down with him on judgment day!

Nothing you write here is factual.

 

[Nakosis]

"What the word is in reference to" is what we call the definition of the word.



I'm not sure what you mean. Defining a term doesn't mean that the thing it describes exists or is known.

Here's an example: I'll define "boomcheddar" as a type of cheddar cheese that's inherently as explosive as C4. Do I know whether it's possible for cheese to be explosive? No. Do we now know what I mean when I say "boomcheddar?" Yes.

So what do you mean when you say "God"?

An person or object that someone defies. However that only defines it according to someone else's action toward it. Not the thing itself.

You could tell me boomcheddar is something you eat. Doesn't tell me what it is. Only that you eat it.

 

[1213]

You got that backwards. You made the claim, upto you to give reasons to justify offering it up as a valid option.

Me saying that there is no reason to consider it, is precisely because people claiming otherwise aren't able to meet that burden of proof.
If you can't give a justifiable reason for your claim, I can only conclude there is no justifiable reason.

I only gave two ways how life could come to exist. And because the second one is not visible, which I think it should, if it is possible, I think the first is correct. However, I was not trying to make you to believe.

But, because you made the claim that the first is not a valid option, I would like to know why. If you can't answer why you make such a claim, I have to think you just make baseless claims that are irrelevant.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think that is actually one of the saddest part concerning human existence. Too many of us live through too many crappy experiences, and we end up feeling the need to tell ourselves stories that will keep ourselves motivated, no matter if there is actual substance to those stories, and then we cling to those stories as if our very lives depended on it, particularly in moments of despair, like an addict feeling the need to get high when they are feeling down. And this is exactly why atheism is far more common in rich countries.... since there is less of a need to cope with harsh realities.

Yes, I think there’s some truth in this. Privilege and comfort eradicate the need to search for the spiritual comfort which only faith can provide.

There is a price to be paid for such an easy life though; deep down, the atheist surely recognises that he is incomplete, and his life is empty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What happened before the Big Bang?

What is north of the north pole?

Just as I predicted - you couldn't explain what you claimed. You said "infinite regress" pretty much obliterate any creator existing as the first cause!
You did not provide any explanation for making that claim!
Show how it obliterating any creator existing??

Because, other then special pleading, the reasoning for saying that the universe requires creation because it exists would equally apply to the creator you claim made the universe.

I guess you don't know how analogies work! If analogies were between completely equal things then there won't be a need to compare!
Analogies are given to make you think from another prospective!
I guess analogies don't work on you because you can only think in one way!

There is such a thing as "false analogies". He's pointing out that your analogy is a false analogy. And he's correct about it.

Billions of people will disagree with your logics and thus your standards. So, your position is not the norm!

Eum... what counts as rational evidence and correct logic, is not decided by popular opinion.

Evidence is everywhere.

Yes, theists keep claiming that. They are never able to point out this supposed evidence however.
And every time they attempt to do so, it turns out that all they have are mere beliefs, false analogies, anecdotes,...

You have no evidence of the independently verifiable kind. You know, the type of evidence that actually matters.

I don't need to provide any empirical evidence.

You mean, you don't have any.

I tried to show you your limitations.

Which are not actual arguments FOR something, but just cop-outs to try and weezle out of your burden of proof.

There are undetectable aliens from the future hiding under your bed... No we can't show you empirical evidence they are real. Their technology is so far ahead of us that our tools are limited. We simply can't comprehend their level of tech. So you're just going to have to believe these aliens are real.

It's just a rather pathetic way to try and give your bare claims a free pass.

You didn't get it. You think you are ready to learn everything about God; you haven't even learnt much about earth yet! Yes! We are exploring the space - we can't even reach the bottom of all of our oceans yet!
You need to believe with what proof you have for your own salvation.

Why would we "need" to believe? Because you say so?
You "need" to believe that those aliens are hiding under your bed. Bad things will happen if you don't.

The same request over and over?

Yeah. Annoying, isn't it? The nerve of some people to ask for rational justification for claims before believing them...............

I told you to lower your standards.

Haha. Love it.
Why don't you "lower your standards" and believe in aliens hiding under your bed?

The fact that one needs to "lower ones standards" in order to be able to believe something, should be kind of a red flag.
Only con-men require people to "lower their standards" to believe them.

Chances are you are not getting any empirical evidence while on earth.

Then while on earth, there is not rational justification to believe.
The time to believe something is the second rational justification to believe is provided.

That is the name of the game. I told you - your CEO (ultimate boss) is watching you to see if your immediate department boss (who is evil) can manipulate you and make you work against the company guidelines. You are tested to see if you do anything wrong that you are not supposed to do. So far you are under the spell of your evil (immediate) boss. Chances are - your immediate evil boss will take you down with him on judgment day!

Why should we believe that?

And before you answer, ask yourself if your answer would also work for believing that aliens are hiding under your bed who will harm you if you don't believe them to be real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I only gave two ways how life could come to exist.

No, you made an assertion. You have not shown that a creator is a valid option.
Not to mention that you just moved the problem back. If life requires a creator, then that creator would also require a creator.

And because the second one is not visible, which I think it should, if it is possible, I think the first is correct.

Because the first one IS visible??????????
At least we know chemistry is real.

But, because you made the claim that the first is not a valid option, I would like to know why.

I already told you: you fail to show how it is a valid option.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you can't answer why you make such a claim

I did answer. Both in this post as well as in the one you are replying to.
It seems you are just ignoring it.

, I have to think you just make baseless claims that are irrelevant.

Projection.

I repeat: what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You made a claim that some creator is a valid option. You provided no evidence.
Result: I reject that claim, on that basis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I think there’s some truth in this. Privilege and comfort eradicate the need to search for the spiritual comfort which only faith can provide.

What makes you think "only faith" can provide that?

There is a price to be paid for such an easy life though; deep down, the atheist surely recognises that he is incomplete, and his life is empty.

As an atheist myself, I'm calling bs on this one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

RNA .. DNA ..

In experiments aimed at replicating Earth's prebiotic conditions, scientists have not yet succeeded in producing fully formed RNA or DNA from non-living components.

It may in fact happen some day. As you have yourself noted, progress has been made. It just hasn't happened yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In experiments aimed at replicating Earth's prebiotic conditions, scientists have not yet succeeded in producing fully formed RNA or DNA from non-living components.

It may in fact happen some day. As you have yourself noted, progress has been made. It just hasn't happened yet.

How have the experiments aimed at replicating the production of fully-formed RNA or DNA by miraculous intervention by a creator-god been going?

 

[Sargonski]

In experiments aimed at replicating Earth's prebiotic conditions, scientists have not yet succeeded in producing fully formed RNA or DNA from non-living components.

It may in fact happen some day. As you have yourself noted, progress has been made. It just hasn't happened yet.

That is quite a moving of the bar in comparison to your previous claim .. to a somewhat nonsensical position to be frank .. what is "fully formed RNA" Fully formed RNA of what organism to be more specific ? and you would require this as evidence to determine what.

you have created a rather meaningless bar .. like if I was to say Show me a fully formed human walk out of a laboratory and I will believe in evolution. . and well who wouldn't ? .. but what about if some other form of primative life (a term you have not even defined in this conversation .. never mind used in your equation ) walks out of the lab .. does that not count as evidence for evolution ?