There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Subduction Zone]

Precise observation? You mean like God suspending the earth on nothing?

Nice attempt to reinterpret a flat Earth verse after the fact.

 

[nPeace]

So the question for the origin of life is how the right chemicals get together in the right combinations. And that *would* be life from non-life no matter what else intervenes.

There you go. No different to believing in fairies waving magic wands... and voilà... We have a unicorn.

The question is answered reasonably with an intelligent designer, and the evidence supports that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why do you ignore so much of what is written to you? I made what I thought was a compelling argument for creationist apologetics being counterproductive when offered to scientifically literate critical thinkers.

Obviously we don't find it compelling, so not worthy of comment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There you go. No different to believing in fairies waving magic wands... and voilà... We have a unicorn.

The question is answered reasonably with an intelligent designer, and the evidence supports that.

What is the evidence that supports a designer? Something that objectively points to a designer?

 

[nPeace]

Spiderman comics name real characters and real places as well. That doesn't make all of them real.
That people living at the time mentioned real people and places that existed at the time isn't very remarkable. And it doesn't make the extraordinary claims of the Bible true in the slightest, any more than mentioning New York City and Joe Biden in a Spiderman comic makes Spiderman a real person.

The newspaper you read, name real people, and events.
If you go to the comics, you will know the difference.
You don't claim the newspaper is fiction, just because comics exist.

To make an argument like that is to me, the silliest argument I have ever heard. The silliest 19th century argument.

On what basis do you claim the Bible to be fiction... other than denial?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go. No different to believing in fairies waving magic wands... and voilà... We have a unicorn.

The question is answered reasonably with an intelligent designer, and the evidence supports that.

Once again you conflate your beliefs for his. He has evidence supported beliefs. You have a book that is not all that different from Harry Potter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The newspaper you read, name real people, and events.
If you go to the comics, you will know the difference.
You don't claim the newspaper is fiction, just because comics exist.

To make an argument like that is to me, the silliest argument I have ever heard. The silliest 19th century argument.

On what basis do you claim the Bible to be fiction... other than denial?

Endless evidence that certain events in the Bible never happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the evidence that supports a designer? Something that objectively points to a designer?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Do you have any evidence that 'nothing' ever existed? For that matter, what would it even mean to say 'nothing' existed?

Do you need a definition?
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
"The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all."

You really can't make this stuff up!
What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

So much for science knowing everything. It doesn't even know nothing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Abiogenesis is a scientific *proposal*. It is not known to be true, but it is still a workable hypothesis that actually has a fair amount of *evidence* supporting it

I haven't seen one iota of evidence for it. Just a lot of babbling about life forms that already exist.

 

[nPeace]

Was your food alive when you ate it? No.

Is the matter from that food alive in you now? Yes.

So that matter went from not-alive to alive.

You are taking about something living eating something dead?
How did you go from nonliving to having something living?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The newspaper you read, name real people, and events.
If you go to the comics, you will know the difference.
You don't claim the newspaper is fiction, just because comics exist.

To make an argument like that is to me, the silliest argument I have ever heard. The silliest 19th century argument.

On what basis do you claim the Bible to be fiction... other than denial?

Sort of comparing apples to oranges there don't you think? We don't expect newspapers to publish fiction, though some do. But what is published can be fact checked and verified. However, even if a story contains facts that can be verified, the presence of those facts in themselves do not result in support of the claims of the story just by their mere presence.

I could write as story that includes real, contemporary people and events with the overall claim that I can fly unaided. Does the inclusion of those real, contemporary people and events demonstrate my claim to the ability to fly like Superman?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, the Higg's boson was not verified until fairly recently even though it was widely believed to exist because it fit into an overarching, tested theory.

The same could be said about God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I haven't seen one iota of evidence for it. Just a lot of babbling about life forms that already exist.

That settles it then. Since you haven't personally seen the evidence, the idea can be put to rest.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That settles it then. Since you haven't personally seen the evidence, the idea can be put to rest.

Well if there's actually evidence of abiogenesis happening, it should be easy enough to present. If not, then it's just a theory someone came up with, and we have no reason to take it seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you need a definition?
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
"The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all."

You really can't make this stuff up!
What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

So much for science knowing everything. It doesn't even know nothing.

I see that you know why you should not define "nothing""

Yes, running away when one is wrong can be the best strategy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if there's actually evidence of abiogenesis happening, it should be easy enough to present. If not, then it's just a theory someone came up with, and we have no reason to take it seriously.

You have been presented with one piece of evidence for it. But you denied it. Here it is again:

The Miller-Urey Experiment - Chemical Evolution | BioTechSquad.

By the way, simply denying it does not do any good. To do so would only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. If you want to know why this qualifies as scientific evidence we can go over that. You now have two options. You can either refute it, I doubt if you can do that, or you can accept it as evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[nPeace]

Wildswanderer said: ↑
Science has to be testable or it's just opinion.

Not quite true. if it is based on other known laws of science, it can be a good scientific hypothesis that inspires a high degree of confidence.
.

Do you disagree for argument's sake?
If the scientific method is not used to determine an idea, it's still science? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Firelight]

Maybe a debate forum, is not the forum for you?

FYI no one cares what you believe, or how passionately you blindly believe it.

If that were true, no one would respond to my posts.

 

[Firelight]

What created your deity, what existed before your deity, what is your deity made of...?

You don't want to play the argumentum ad ignorantiam game, when you are the one believing in inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity.

Another deity existed before and formed my deity. My deity is made of flesh, bones, and spirit.

If he is unevidenced to you, that is a shame.