In The Beginning.

[FoeHammer]

Why, exactly?

No sensible alternative is the short answer.
I suspect any answer beyond that would be pointless to an atheist since, by definition, you deny/disbelieve in the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

 

[Psudopod]

Abiogenesis is not an unsensible answer. If you are using the existance of life as evidence for God, then it's just as much evidence for any other deity, incluing the FSM. It's not like each organism is signed "created by God" is it?

And there are plenty of non athiests who consider abiogenesis a valid answer and still believe in God.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No sensible alternative is the short answer.

Why? Abiogenesis, while still unclear on many points, offers a perfectly rational explanation for life.

I suspect any answer beyond that would be pointless to an atheist since, by definition, you deny/disbelieve in the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

Try your luck.

 

[WilliamduBois]

No sensible alternative is the short answer.

However, "we don't know yet" is a sensible answer. And just because we don't know yet, is no reason to jump to "Goddidit". That's just being lazy.

I suspect any answer beyond that would be pointless to an atheist since, by definition, you deny/disbelieve in the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

Indeed. For us, "we don't know yet" is an honest answer. Jumping to "goddidit" without actual evidence is not honest.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How about Life to begin with since none of this would be an issue without it.

FoeHammer.

Huh?

Life is evidence for the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

Why, exactly?

No sensible alternative is the short answer.
I suspect any answer beyond that would be pointless to an atheist since, by definition, you deny/disbelieve in the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

I'd just like to point out the hippocracy of FoeHammer here.
He claims that life is evidence of his deity, but when questioned on it, appeals straight to the god of the gaps. There is no demonstration of the Judaeo-Christian divinity (I'm assuming that that is who he meant by 'evidence of God'), no refutation of any of the alternatives (Abiogenesis, as Psudopod pointed out), etc.

To FoeHammer: show atheists evidence of your (or indeed any) god, and they are bound by logic to accept that evidence exists for said deity. It may not be conclusive, but d*mnit it's something! We all want objective evidence for the claims of the literal Christians (why their god instead of another, Genesis, etc), and even when they claim to have it, they utterly fail to deliver. Curious, no?

 

[FoeHammer]

Abiogenesis is not an unsensible answer. If you are using the existance of life as evidence for God, then it's just as much evidence for any other deity, incluing the FSM...

As far as I am concerned there is only One God, The Almighty, The creator of heaven and earth as revealed in The (KJV) Bible.

...It's not like each organism is signed "created by God" is it?

Actually I would say that it is by virtue of the fact that it lives, life is God's signature.

And there are plenty of non athiests who consider abiogenesis a valid answer and still believe in God.

This does not alter my opinion one jot.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Why? Abiogenesis, while still unclear on many points, offers a perfectly rational explanation for life.

To an atheist perhaps who, having rejected God, is forced to come up with an alternative explanation.

Try your luck.

What luck? You are an avowed atheist.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

However, "we don't know yet" is a sensible answer. And just because we don't know yet, is no reason to jump to "Goddidit". That's just being lazy.

I believe that God created everything, it is not lazy of me to acknowledge Him for it.

Indeed. For us, "we don't know yet" is an honest answer. Jumping to "goddidit" without actual evidence is not honest.

The evidence is all around and within you, not to acknowledge that is dishonest.

FoeHammer.

 

[WilliamduBois]

[/color]I believe that God created everything, it is not lazy of me to acknowledge Him for it.

It is, however, lazy to expect everyone to share your belief without evidence.

You can believe whatever you want, just don't say it's a fact without supporting evidence.

The evidence is all around and within you, not to acknowledge that is dishonest.

FoeHammer.

Nope. That's not evidence whatsoever, and it's not dishonest for me to expect real, emperical evidence before acknowledging the existance of a supernatural deity.

 

[RedAndy]

No sensible alternative is the short answer.

And if a "sensible alternative" was proposed? If an abiogenesis event was simulated in the laboratory?

The problem with your God-of-the-gaps reasoning is that the gaps will eventually close. And what happens when they do? Will you cease to believe in your God? Or will you move him to the next gap? And when that is closed, will you move again, and again, and again, ad nauseum?

Lots of theists reject God-of-the-gaps for precisely this reason. If and when a gap is closed, it undermines the existence of God. You'd be better off claiming "I believe it, that is all" rather than trying to use such faulty logic to demonstrate the undemonstrable.

 

[Pikachu]

Life is evidence for the existence of God.

FoeHammer.

Nice try, but no. Present real evidence please.

 

[FoeHammer]

I'd just like to point out the hippocracy of FoeHammer here.

He claims that life is evidence of his deity, but when questioned on it, appeals straight to the god of the gaps. There is no demonstration of the Judaeo-Christian divinity (I'm assuming that that is who he meant by 'evidence of God'), no refutation of any of the alternatives (Abiogenesis, as Psudopod pointed out), etc.

What gaps?
As for refuting abiogenesis (the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.) what is there left to refute?

To FoeHammer: show atheists evidence of your (or indeed any) god, and they are bound by logic to accept that evidence exists for said deity. It may not be conclusive, but d*mnit it's something! We all want objective evidence for the claims of the literal Christians (why their god instead of another, Genesis, etc), and even when they claim to have it, they utterly fail to deliver. Curious, no?

I have said repeatedly the evidence is all around and within you.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

It is, however, lazy to expect everyone to share your belief without evidence.

You can believe whatever you want, just don't say it's a fact without supporting evidence.

Nope. That's not evidence whatsoever, and it's not dishonest for me to expect real, emperical evidence before acknowledging the existance of a supernatural deity.

You are free to believe what you like.
How about you explain to me why that which I propose to be evidence for the existence of God is not evidence for the existence of God?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

And if a "sensible alternative" was proposed? If an abiogenesis event was simulated in the laboratory?

It would be a miracle.

The problem with your God-of-the-gaps reasoning is that the gaps will eventually close. And what happens when they do? Will you cease to believe in your God? Or will you move him to the next gap? And when that is closed, will you move again, and again, and again, ad nauseum?

What gaps?

Lots of theists reject God-of-the-gaps for precisely this reason. If and when a gap is closed, it undermines the existence of God. You'd be better off claiming "I believe it, that is all" rather than trying to use such faulty logic to demonstrate the undemonstrable.

As I say, what gaps?

I am not trying to demonstrate the indemonstrable I leave that for the advocates of the abiogenesis/evolution of life.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Nice try, but no. Present real evidence please.

Why is life not real evidence of the existence of God?

FoeHammer.

 

[Pikachu]

Life is evidence of, well, life. Now back to your task of presenting evidence. So far you have failed miserably.

 

[FoeHammer]

Life is evidence of, well, life. Now back to your task of presenting evidence. So far you have failed miserably.

I have not failed to present evidence you have refused to accept it as such and neglected to answer my question i.e.
Why is life not real evidence of the existence of God?

FoeHammer.

 

[Pikachu]

I have not failed to present evidence you have refused to accept it as such and neglected to answer my question i.e.
Why is life not real evidence of the existence of God?

FoeHammer.

No, you really have failed to present any evidence. Now go do some research. First, research what constitutes evidence, and what does not. And take a look at logical fallacies while you're at it because people around here aren't real fond of those either.

 

[Chalnoth]

What gaps?

The gaps in current scientific knowledge.

 

[Shadowsun]

Foehammer, what would you say if I said: Aha, the fact that life exists proves Thor is real. For he created all life. Life proves Thor, you are wrong to deny. Also Thor created the universe, because science doens't have an answer yet. Yes this proves Thor did it.

Same principle, circular logic and god of the gaps. Also evolution proves life rather good I would say. You should learn about it. As for the universe, we're working on it ,please stand by for further info.