Well, since I never claimed that we can observe a creator directly creating in nature that is unfortunately a straw-man argument. What i did say, and which you totally ignore, is that the only pattern we are able to observe in nature is life coming from previous life. Any other idea has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support...
But you
do claim the existence of a creator... and you admit that this creator cannot be directly observed in nature.
So obviously this idea also has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support. Just saying.
...which should make far less viable than the life is derived only from life conclusion. The fact that it is avoided like the Bubonic plague seems to or might indicate a bias which might be traceable in some instances to the psychological phenomenon referred to as theophobia.
Why "theophobia"? You were talking about "life", weren't you? Now where do gods come into that?
But that is the point that
you avoid like the plague: in your "life only from life" inference, you keep ignoring the necessary starting point. Where does the "first life" come from?
Observation might not help you a lot here, but logic might.
- The "first life" cannot have come from "life"... it wouldn't be "first" life.
- Thus "first life" is extempt from the rule that "life only comes from life".
- "First life" is still "life". Thus the rule "life only comes from life" is not universal.
Thus we would have to adjust the rule "(current / higher) life only comes from life. (Original / basic) life must have come from something different than life, especially (current / higher) life."
Now it is a decision between your "life - The Creator" and "a certain combination of in-itself non-living components".
And then we are back to step 1. The later might not have been "observed in nature" or "forced to happen in the lab"... but there exists evidence that it is at least possible.
For the former, no hypothesis, no attempt at an explanation even exists.
Life doesn't arise from life in church?
Sorry but life coming from life can certainly be made to happen in church. The problem is that allowing congress in church in order to provide a demonstration is rather inappropriate. Mendel used animals in his initial genetic research and was told to stop because it appeared unseemly to his religious supervisors so he switched to vegetation. But rest assured that despite the religious ambience in which he was working life was certainly coming via life. The good thing about it was that he needed no forcing of the type attempted in abiogenesis to have it happen.
You don't need to play dumb. You know quite well what I was aiming at. But your evasion plays very well into my next point. Let's go on!
Aware of what the principle encompasses? The principles involved in reaching a conclusion based on that observation? Oh! You must mean the inductive leap based on observation of pattern. Yes, we are aware that in order to make the inductive leap an observable pattern must exist. Otherwise an inductive leap would be impossible. That's basic to the scientific method and if we unceremoniously discard it when we deem it convenient-then we can be accused of being unscientific ad we certainly don't want that-right?
What does this "life" that you are talking about encompass? What is this "life" that is the origin... what is this "life" that is the product?
You weasel and wiggle and never say... but your examples show it: you are talking about biological, material life. And you still promote "a creator" as the "life" from which other "life" originates.
So if you want to show in church that this "life (the creator)" can produce "life (biological lifeforms)"... don't use Mendel and his breeding experiments... get your "creator" to make some life!
BTW
I have also said that the manner in which such life is organized meets the requirements for logically concluding the activity a creative mind.
Really? You might have said that... asserted it... but if you did indeed present a logical conclusion to this point, I must have missed it.
If you already posted it, please point me to the relevant post. If you didn't... well, do it now!
To which atheists always respond with:
"We can't see!"
I'd like to see you respond to the conclusion that logically follows from your approach, necessitating a material / physical existence of "the creator", but I fear you will just ignore it.