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

[Polymath257]

We can figure that stuff out on our own like we don’t need God to tell us how to tie our shoes, shovel snow, swim etc.

And that is what science does: figures things out for ourselves.

We also don't need God to tell us to be nice to other people, or to be responsible, or to not lie, or to figure out that drinking to excess is bad for your health, etc.

So, what, precisely is God necessary for?

 

[Polymath257]

Only it doesn't, because it's not about abiogenesis at all.

The point is to get an understanding of what is and what is not 'life'. We are are also looking at what sorts of processes can transfer something that is not alive into something that is.

And, we have found that it *is* possible to have non-living matter transformed into living matter. It actually happens all the time with the mediation of living matter. The question is whether it can also happen with no living matter around.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you forget that the mother's body is a necessary component?

Maybe you should consider rewording your argument. I don't believe that when you say that life never comes from nonlife that you mean that the ingredients of life are alive before they are incorporated into a living thing, but rather, that they cannot organize themselves into life without the help of pre-existing life. Here you are arguing over whether food is life.

But you're still dead in the water with that claim for the reason I've given you, which you have chosen to disregard, namely, that YOU believe that life is not always preceded by prior life. Where did the first life come from? God, you say? Is God alive? If so, God is the first life, and did not come from prior life. Is disembodied mind not considered life? Then the life it created in life from nonlife. Phrasing your position properly will not rescue from this impasse, but it will redirect the discussion away from whether organic molecules being assembled into cells counts as life from nonlife.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And that is what science does: figures things out for ourselves.

We also don't need God to tell us to be nice to other people, or to be responsible, or to not lie, or to figure out that drinking to excess is bad for your health, etc.

So, what, precisely is God necessary for?

Then why have you done these things? You’ve never lied, been irresponsible , envied, gotten drunk, immoral behavior, etc. ?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Where did the first life come from? God, you say? Is God alive? If so, God is the first life, and did not come from prior life.

God always was. If course it defies the laws of science, but I don't have a disadvantage of believing science can answer all the questions. You, on the other hand have to stay within the field of scientific possibility, and that makes abiogenesis highly doubtful in your reality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yet are denigrating them, which is the point I made

Because you don't believe in them, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your world doesn't allow for miracles but you are supposing one happened...yes that's amusing.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Which chemicals did not create themselves. Please be specific and be ready to support your claims with peer reviewed science.

Folks, how long should I set my timer for? Is an hour a reasonable amount of time for a well supported answer? Maybe a day? And who had never?

Better yet how about some exegesis when talking Bible instead of eisegesis which is a common theme for you.
We might be waiting a while for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Better yet how about some exegesis when talking Bible instead of eisegesis which is a common theme for you.
We might be waiting a while for that.

Sorry but you constantly misapply exegesis. You follow the very erroneous and user of circular logic Kevin Conner. You have no valid complaint.

Since I do understand that quite a bit of the Bible is myth, but the authors often believed those myths I can beat you in both of those areas.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This should help you understand the difference.

The guy on the left is no less close minded. He is simply refusing to believe anything outside his secular religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You just demonstrated that you don't understand basic chemistry/physics.

You don't understand what I was talking about obviously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The guy on the left is no less close minded. He is simply refusing to believe anything outside his secular religion.

False. He is only, and rightfully, refusing to believe ideas that are not supported by evidence. Do you believe in fairies? There is no reliable evidence for them, just as there is no reliable evidence for your beliefs. You cannot seem to justify your beliefs over the beliefs in fairies.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So a fully grown adult exists at the moment of conception? Are you sure?

A human body feeds the baby. Take it away, the baby dies. Again, more distraction from the topic...the life doesn't form on its own, so quit pretending.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is no reliable evidence for them, just as there is no reliable evidence for our beliefs.

Exactly.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, some did. Certain elements will naturally form other elements and compounds under the right conditions, - thus "creating themselves".

Lol, so you have to have chemicals to get chemicals, just like you need life to create life. You are just talking in circles.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which chemicals did not create themselves.

The first ones to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first ones to exist.

Helium hydride? Why would that need a god?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly.

Sorry, typo. Fixed it.

 

[KWED]

You don't understand what I was talking about obviously.

That makes two of us.

 

[KWED]

The guy on the left is no less close minded. He is simply refusing to believe anything outside his secular religion.

If you watch the video it will explain why you are wrong. With cartoons, which should make it easier to understand.

 

[KWED]

A human body feeds the baby.

Again, where does the human body get the material to feed the foetus? It wasn't born with it.

Take it away, the baby dies.

Something religionists often deny when arguing that an early-stage foetus is a "person".

Again, more distraction from the topic...

You brought it up.

the life doesn't form on its own, so quit pretending.

Never claimed it did. But you claimed that a living thing can't develop from non-living material - which was wrong.

Also, it is entirely likely that life can form on its own. We know that the amino acids needed for basic life can form on their own from inert chemical compounds, so we have part of the puzzle. It is not fantasy that can simply be dismissed.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that a creator god exists, so the claim that it created life from nothing by magic is fantasy that can be dismissed.