Abiogenesis is impossible

[Sword of Christ]

You believe there's a god, right? Do I believe you when you say there is? No, I don't.

If you don't have an alternative belief in Gods place you don't really have a reason to disagree with anyone. Whatever belief you have in place of God is not something you can prove so it may as well be a faith that is "not based on evidence". You have various arguments and reasons to support the atheist view but that's the same thing as a belief in God it still isn't you can demonstrate.

Atheism demonstrated.

A belief in God can be demonstrated as well but it's not scientific it's what you believe.

That must be very convenient for you.

You may as well say it's convenient that you can't have "proof and evidence of atheism". You can't have one and you can't have the other.

So how do you know he exists at all?

Well reasoned arguments, subjective experience, history, revelation and that kind of thing. You do have to use apply some level of faith of course seeing as you can't know. You can't know either so it's the same difference.

You have literally one way to interact with reality at all, and that's through your sensory apparatus.

You can't see/detect God with sensory apparatus, that's what the Holy Spirit is for.

it tells us nothing about the mechanism behind anything

You're right it doesn't. Science covers all that.

our knowledge is not enhanced on any point, and an answer that you can't demonstrate and need faith to believe isn't a true answer by any stretch.

It doesn't enhance your scientific knowledge but no-ones saying it does. It can give you a greater appreciation for natural world as Gods creation and so feed your interest in science and discovery. At least that's how science began.

Nah, the big bang was how Odin created the world.

He would be like a demiurge if he did, that would be a being who formed the universe from already pre-existing material. The demiurge would be reasonable for the actual existence of what he works with and something else will have created the demiurge. This is something the Gnostics and Mormons believe in though I'm happy with the orthodox Christian view of God being the creator of the physical universe or universes if there is more than one.

See? I can retrofit religious beliefs into known facts too.

What you retrofitted still kind of works though, there were/are Christians who believe in a demiurge so that's viable if not very orthodox.

That's really interesting, considering science hasn't given a concrete statement on the particulars of the big bang, nor what occurred before it. The general consensus is that we're unable to do so at the current time, so... maybe you should go and publish these bare assertions you've made, since you clearly know more than the people who've actually studied this.

It just confirms that the universe as we know it didn't always exist and time as experience had a point of origin. There could be multiple universes and all kind of things going on that we could potentially understand but regardless of the extent of existence it will still need a context, some kind of eternal foundation to rest in. We can only study what physically exists and can be observed and detected so God falls beyond all this however you try to cut it.

Actually, the claim I'm making is that I don't know how the universe began

Neither do I but I do believe wasn't accidental but has the purpose to produce life and civilization, given the precise and complex nature of what into setting all this up. I also believe that God is the designer and creator all in one there's no point making it more complicated than it needs to be. One God and one creation of God.

, but that I find your "evidence" for your claims insufficient.

You can't have any scientific evidence of the existence God so that's a moot point. You have to use other kinds of evidence and faith.

My claim is this: "I don't believe you." The moment you actually present some good evidence

I could present you with the Bible but you wouldn't like it, and it's not like you're interested in an inner experience of God either. It depends what you want to accept as evidence when you can't ever have scientific evidence for the existence of something. But seeing as you can't ever have any scientific evidence of God by the definition of what he would be you don't have to worry about a conflict between faith and science. You can have both.

, and not a series of fiat assertions, I'll believe you. That's the way rationality works.

You have the premise of Gods existence as a reality and then the reasons as to why the premise is true and the counter argument/claim is not true. So that's the best you can do with it seeing as science has nothing to say on this issue. Science is limited to what we can see, detect and observe and it gives you the function and operation of natural physical processes. That's all it will ever be able to do so God is beyond it's scope.

Interesting how you never present any.

I do but you keep saying "No because science" so that's what needs to be addressed before you can seriously consider the arguments in Gods favor.

No, it doesn't. At least, not without the desperate scrabble you religious folks to to bend over backwards to twist science to fit your religious dogma.

You don't have to twist anything if science is not in conflict with God to begin with.