In The Beginning.

[Wiccan_Child]

What gaps?

You have lept upon an unknown (i.e., the exact origin of life) and shoved your deity into it.

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?

Now discredited? You might want to look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

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

FoeHammer.

Well, yes. Where else is it going to be? Unfortunately for you, you have neither specified the evidence nor explained how it supports your claim.

For example:
1) I claim that Abiogenesis is the correct model for the origin of life
2) My older cat is older than my younger cat
3) (1) is true since (2).

 

[RedAndy]

It would be a miracle.

No, it would be a demonstration of what scientists currently consider to be the case. It would provide good evidence for any theory of abiogenesis similar to what was observed.

What gaps?

The gaps in current scientific knowledge - just because we do not yet know how the universe began does not mean that Goddidit; when we fully understand how the universe did begin, without the intervention of a Creator, that will undermine your God.

Another poster mentioned Thor. Why do so few people believe that Thor is the god of thunder? Because we know of natural, physical, atheistic processes that cause thunder - the same, I feel, will eventually be true of the origin of the universe.

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

I mentioned in my previous post the eventual possibility of replicating an abiogenesis event in the lab. Such an occurrence would verify that a theory of abiogenesis was at least a possibility.

We emphatically cannot repeat the Creation event postulated in Genesis 1. Such an event involves miracles, and miracles, by their nature, cannot be verified. Thus Creationism is indemonstrable.

 

[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.

I have not failed at all regardless of how many times you tell me that I have. The fact is that you cannot tell me why life is not evidence for God and you are attempting to avoid answering my question.
As for what people around here are, or are not, real fond of... (to coin a popular catchword in the UK at the moment) Am I bovvered though?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

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.

I would say that you have broken the first commandment and you need to get right with God.

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.

Your opinion is noted.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

You have lept upon an unknown (i.e., the exact origin of life) and shoved your deity into it.

I haven't shoved our God in anywhere He has always been everywhere it is the atheist trying to force God out that has created gaps for them.

[/color][/size][/font][/font][/color]
Now discredited? You might want to look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis[/color][/font][/font][/color]
As for this...

... abiogenesis (the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.)...

You may want to drop these a line...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis
... along with your link

Well, yes. Where else is it going to be? Unfortunately for you, you have neither specified the evidence nor explained how it supports your claim.

For example:
1) I claim that Abiogenesis is the correct model for the origin of life
2) My older cat is older than my younger cat
3) (1) is true since (2).

I specified life because there is no other way to explain it's origin other than Goddidit.

FoeHammer.

 

[Shadowsun]

I would say that you have broken the first commandment and you need to get right with God.

Allow me to retort with equal lack of intelligence: You have broken Thor's 449th commandment. Please make it right by sacrificing a young goat while humming the Simpsons intro tune. Your soul can be saved.

DO NOT push your beliefs onto me without REAL evidence. As soon as Gawd appears in my room throwing lightning bolts at me I will apologize to you.

 

[FishFace]

I will state it here and now, nothing comes from nothing, if, in the future, science should prove me wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

You needn't wait.

Of course, the proposition, "Nothing comes from nothing" is an unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) one, since everything could have a cause.
But without evidence to that effect, it is only sensible to act as if there is none.

But there's still more... If nothing comes from nothing, where did God come from?
And if god just is, then why can't the universe just be?

feel free to ridicule me all you like.

Why would I want to do that? Your ignorance of modern science is something to be pitied, not ridiculed. At least for most of the time.

There is a universe full of evidence that God exists.

No! It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Or rather, what about the universe could not have happened without God? Everything could happen by chance. Thus the universe's brute existence cannot be evidence for god on its own. We need something else, as well.

 

[FishFace]

The fact is that you cannot tell me why life is not evidence for God and you are attempting to avoid answering my question.

Life is not evidence for God because it does not fit the criteria for evidence.
If Life were not there, would that be evidence against god?
If God were not there, could life have come about some other way?

"No, Yes." God could just as well have created no life, and life could also have come about through entirely natural means. So while life is compatible with god, it is not evidence for it - because another state of affairs would not lead you to a different conclusion.
That is what evidence is.

This is illustrated by everyone sitting around saying, "No! Life is evidence of Thor! Thor is the creator!"
The existence of life shows that there is likely some reason for their being life - that reason could be: The God of Christianity, Allah, Thor, Amun Ra, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Fairies, my left elbow, abiogenesis, or something else we've not thought of.
You've taken this unknown and screamed, "GOD!!" because it's the first thing that leapt into your mind. If you'd been born somewhere or somewhen else, it would be a different deity, or a nondeity.

 

[RedAndy]

The Great Green Arkleseizuredidit.

 

[Pikachu]

I have not failed at all regardless of how many times you tell me that I have. The fact is that you cannot tell me why life is not evidence for God and you are attempting to avoid answering my question.
As for what people around here are, or are not, real fond of... (to coin a popular catchword in the UK at the moment) Am I bovvered though?

FoeHammer.

You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You have simply stated your opinion. I'm not the one making the blind assertion that life is evidence for god, you are. Now if you have any evidence, please present it.

And to answer your question, although I already have done so, life is evidence of life, not of god. I could restate the assertion as "life is evidence of the invisible pink unicorn, all hail the IPU!" and it would still make just as much sense.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I have not failed at all regardless of how many times you tell me that I have. The fact is that you cannot tell me why life is not evidence for God and you are attempting to avoid answering my question.
As for what people around here are, or are not, real fond of... (to coin a popular catchword in the UK at the moment) Am I bovvered though?

FoeHammer.

Life is evidence for life. For life to be evidence for god, you would first have to show something that is definitively NOT evidence for god. Otherwise there is no way to make the distinction. Just because you believe in god does not allow you to be exempt from the simple rules of logic when trying to present your case.

 

[FoeHammer]

Allow me to retort with equal lack of intelligence: You have broken Thor's 449th commandment. Please make it right by sacrificing a young goat while humming the Simpsons intro tune. Your soul can be saved.

DO NOT push your beliefs onto me without REAL evidence. As soon as Gawd appears in my room throwing lightning bolts at me I will apologize to you.

How is my telling you that you have broken the first commandment lacking intelligence?

FoeHammer

 

[FoeHammer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

You needn't wait.

Of course, the proposition, "Nothing comes from nothing" is an unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) one, since everything could have a cause.
But without evidence to that effect, it is only sensible to act as if there is none.

But there's still more... If nothing comes from nothing, where did God come from?
And if god just is, then why can't the universe just be?

Why would I want to do that? Your ignorance of modern science is something to be pitied, not ridiculed. At least for most of the time.


No! It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Or rather, what about the universe could not have happened without God? Everything could happen by chance. Thus the universe's brute existence cannot be evidence for god on its own. We need something else, as well.

Please state your position clearly, do you or do you not believe that the universe had a beginning?

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I haven't shoved our God in anywhere He has always been everywhere it is the atheist trying to force God out that has created gaps for them.

No. Perhaps you need further clarification (or electroshock treatment). The 'god of the gaps' is effectively the goddidit argument; wherever there is an unknown process (why the sun rises, how plants grow, where babies come from, etc), people say 'Oh, god does it'. Since pretty much all such phenomena can be explained via science, the 'goddidit' argument can only be used to explain what few unknowns are left (notice that people rarely use it to explain, say, the probabilistic nature of quantum particles, but for vague and grandose concepts like 'revelation', 'life', 'OBEs', etc). What was attributed to divine intervention before, is now known to be simply the consequence of (macroscopically) predictable behaviour.​

As for this...

You may want to drop these a line...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis
... along with your link

If you hadn't noticed, that was the definition as given by T. H. Huxley in 1870. In any case, this definition is erroneous because it has not been refuted. Dictionary.com pales in the light of Wikipedia (incedentally, did you ever stop to think about the other definitions? Nothing refuted or disproved there:

n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

nouna hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Function: noun
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called also spontaneous generation; —compare [SIZE=-1]BIOGENESIS[/SIZE] —abi·og·e·nist /"A-(")bI-'äj-&-n&st/ or abio·gen·e·sist /-"bI-O-'jen-&-s&st/ noun

Or, wikipedia:

Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).
)

I specified life because there is no other way to explain it's origin other than Goddidit.

FoeHammer.

I'm sorry? If we're talking about terrestrial life, then panspermia? Extraterrestrial terraforming? If we're talking about any and all life, then Abiogenesis (the still-valid hypothesis that life can and indeed has come from nonlife) is far more probable that 'goddidit' (Occam's Razor, anyone?).​

 

[FoeHammer]

Life is not evidence for God because it does not fit the criteria for evidence.

What criteria?

If Life were not there, would that be evidence against god?

No.

If God were not there, could life have come about some other way?

No.

"No, Yes." God could just as well have created no life...

How could God create no life?

...and life could also have come about through entirely natural means...

Well that's the claim but there is nothing to back it up is there?

...So while life is compatible with god, it is not evidence for it - because another state of affairs would not lead you to a different conclusion.
That is what evidence is.

This is illustrated by everyone sitting around saying, "No! Life is evidence of Thor! Thor is the creator!"
The existence of life shows that there is likely some reason for their being life - that reason could be: The God of Christianity, Allah, Thor, Amun Ra, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Fairies, my left elbow, abiogenesis, or something else we've not thought of.
You've taken this unknown and screamed, "GOD!!" because it's the first thing that leapt into your mind. If you'd been born somewhere or somewhen else, it would be a different deity, or a nondeity.

Why would I believe in a different deity or non-deity if I were born somewhere other than where I was born (England)?

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why would I believe in a different deity or non-deity if I were born somewhere other than where I was born (England)?

FoeHammer.

The Muslim does not look at the Kallam Argument and scream, 'Of course! Brahman exists!'.

 

[FoeHammer]

You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You have simply stated your opinion. I'm not the one making the blind assertion that life is evidence for god, you are. Now if you have any evidence, please present it.

I have.
As far as I am concerned life is evidence of the existence of God you simply do not accept it as such... so what?

And to answer your question, although I already have done so, life is evidence of life, not of god.

Life is proof of life and evidence of God.
Without knowing for certain how life came to be without the need for God then it cannot be ruled out as evidence of His existence.

I could restate the assertion as "life is evidence of the invisible pink unicorn, all hail the IPU!" and it would still make just as much sense.

To you perhaps.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Life is evidence for life. For life to be evidence for god, you would first have to show something that is definitively NOT evidence for god. Otherwise there is no way to make the distinction. Just because you believe in god does not allow you to be exempt from the simple rules of logic when trying to present your case.

How might I show something that is definitively NOT evidence for God when God created everything?

FoeHammer.

 

[Pikachu]

I have.
As far as I am concerned life is evidence of the existence of God you simply do not accept it as such... so what?

And therein lies the problem. You're using an opinion as evidence.

Life is proof of life and evidence of God.

Do you still not see the fallacy in that statement? It's akin to saying "light is evidence of the lightmonster." It is not necessarily true.

Without knowing for certain how life came to be without the need for God then it cannot be ruled out as evidence of His existence.

This has been explained several times already. I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

I could restate the assertion as "life is evidence of the invisible pink unicorn, all hail the IPU!" and it would still make just as much sense.

To you perhaps.

Logically, one statment is just as valid as the other.

 

[OdwinOddball]

How might I show something that is definitively NOT evidence for God when God created everything?

FoeHammer.

That would be the entire problem. And as such, if you cannot show something that would NOT be evidence for God, then it is not possible to determine that something is actual evidence for God.

Your whole idea rest on your a priori assumption that god exists. It is a circular argument.