Why does science always upstage God?

[Huggy Bear]

Can you demonstrate abiogenesis?

That's rather a predictable way of saying no. Why should I have to demonstrate abiogenesis for you to be able to demonstrate the supernatural? Particularly when you know I don't chase herring?

What is it about 'faith' that you don't understand? I have repeatedly stated that proof is not a requirement for faith, so I don't need to demonstrate anything.

If a demonstration is necessary for YOU to believe the supernatural exists, then why isn't a demonstration required of something like abiogenesis?

See the hypocrisy?

[Mr.wizard]

That's rather a predictable way of saying no. Why should I have to demonstrate abiogenesis for you to be able to demonstrate the supernatural? Particularly when you know I don't chase herring?

What is it about 'faith' that you don't understand?  I have repeatedly stated that proof is not a requirement for faith, so I don't need to demonstrate anything.

If a demonstration is necessary for YOU to believe the supernatural exists, then why isn't a demonstration  required of something  like  abiogenesis?

See the hypocrisy?

A demonstration of Abiogenesis is required to believe that it is how life started. Nobody is saying Abiogenesis is absolutely how life began, so no faith is required, it's simply a hypothesis.

[Whateverist]

@OP: Science is useful, powerful and transparent. God is none of those things.

[Huggy Bear]

I notice ignoramus would rather spend time handing out kudos than actually address anything I've asked him, what a coward.

---

What is it about 'faith' that you don't understand?  I have repeatedly stated that proof is not a requirement for faith, so I don't need to demonstrate anything.

If a demonstration is necessary for YOU to believe the supernatural exists, then why isn't a demonstration  required of something  like  abiogenesis?

See the hypocrisy?

A demonstration of Abiogenesis is required to believe that it is how life started. Nobody is saying Abiogenesis is absolutely how life began, so no faith is required, it's simply a hypothesis.

You absolutely ARE saying that abiogenisis is how life began IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR! So unless you are of the opinion that life has always existed (which again there is no evidence of), then by eliminating the possibility that life had a creator, you accept abiogenesis (life from non-life) by default.

[ignoramus]

Sorry man... I'm struggling! with my atheistic mental gymnastics..

I generally don't reply back to theists who try to use science to prove their skydaddy and ignore all the other scientific evidence if it conflicts...
If you can cherry pick, I too, can cherry pick who I reply to...
Be cool!

[Whateverist]

I notice ignoramus would rather spend time handing out kudos than actually address anything I've asked him, what a coward.

---

A demonstration of Abiogenesis is required to believe that it is how life started. Nobody is saying Abiogenesis is absolutely how life began, so no faith is required, it's simply a hypothesis.

You absolutely ARE saying that abiogenisis is how life began IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR! So unless you are of the opinion that life has always existed (which again there is no evidence of), then by eliminating the possibility that life had a creator, you accept abiogenesis (life from non-life) by default.

To say abiogenesis is "how life began" doesn't really provide an explanation of how life began.  It merely asserts our confidence that the answer will turn out to be natural, no magic required.

To say 'god' created life says even less.  As with abiogenesis, it provides no clue as to how this god thing created life.  But it asserts that you expect the answer to involve a kind of magic that takes any possibility of an explanation permanently off the table.  It asserts your contentment with never understanding how life began.

[Huggy Bear]

I notice ignoramus would rather spend time handing out kudos than actually address anything I've asked him, what a coward.

---

You absolutely ARE saying that abiogenisis is how life began IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR! So unless you are of the opinion that life has always existed (which again there is no evidence of), then by eliminating the possibility that life had a creator, you accept abiogenesis (life from non-life) by default.

To say abiogenesis is "how life began" doesn't really provide an explanation of how life began.  It merely asserts our confidence that the answer will turn out to be natural, no magic required.

To say 'god' created life says even less.  As with abiogenesis, it provides no clue as to how this god thing created life.  But it asserts that you expect the answer to involve a kind of magic that takes any possibility of an explanation permanently off the table.  It asserts your contentment with never understanding how life began.

So basically you choose to accept abiogenesis even though there's no evidence of it, simply because it falls in line with your ideology...

Aren't you doing the same thing you accuse theists of doing?

---

Sorry man... I'm struggling! with my atheistic mental gymnastics..

I generally don't reply back to theists who try to use science to prove their skydaddy and ignore all the other scientific evidence if it conflicts...
If you can cherry pick, I too, can cherry pick who I reply to...
Be cool!

So basically you have nothing...

I have yet to see ANY conflicting scientific evidence presented in this thread, if you think there is some conflicting scientific evidence then post it.

Funny how I'm supposed to hold the irrational position which I constantly stick my neck out in defense of, but trying to get you to defend your position of so-called logic and reason is like trying to get blood from a turnip.

[Mr.wizard]

I notice ignoramus would rather spend time handing out kudos than actually address anything I've asked him, what a coward.

---

A demonstration of Abiogenesis is required to believe that it is how life started. Nobody is saying Abiogenesis is absolutely how life began, so no faith is required, it's simply a hypothesis.

You absolutely ARE saying that abiogenisis is how life began IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR! So unless you are of the opinion that life has always existed (which again there is no evidence of), then by eliminating the possibility that life had a creator, you accept abiogenesis (life from non-life) by default.

Life may have always existed, it may be abiogenesis, it may have been created, it may be from some other process that hasn't been discovered, we simply don't know. You don't have to pick your favorite idea and run with it, you can simply say " I don't know how life began", which is a more honest response than "God did it". At least with abiogenesis there is evidence that under the right circumstances it is at least possible and that's the difference between the god claim and faith. We don't even know if God is a possibility because all we have to evaluate God, is Faith, which tells us nothing because there is nothing we couldn't take on faith.

[Whateverist]

To say abiogenesis is "how life began" doesn't really provide an explanation of how life began.  It merely asserts our confidence that the answer will turn out to be natural, no magic required.

To say 'god' created life says even less.  As with abiogenesis, it provides no clue as to how this god thing created life.  But it asserts that you expect the answer to involve a kind of magic that takes any possibility of an explanation permanently off the table.  It asserts your contentment with never understanding how life began.

So basically you choose to accept abiogenesis even though there's no evidence of it, simply because it falls in line with your ideology...

Aren't you doing the same thing you accuse theists of doing?

You could say that but expecting natural explanations just is superior to accepting magical ones.  Natural explanations relate less understood phenomena to better understood ones.  Naming magic as an explanation is essential saying no explanation is possible.

For example, why does the tide rise and fall predictably?
Me: Gravitational changes caused by the fluctuating nearness of the sun and moon.
You: Magic.

Or why does the sun come up in the morning?
Me: The result of our perspective on a spinning globe which circles the sun.
You: God's will.

And Rik's favorite, what accounts for the experiences people report when their hearts stop briefly?
Me: Probably a change in mental processing caused by oxygen deprivation but more information is needed.
You: People actually die and wake up in heaven before some fairy tells them to get back in their body.

---

So basically you choose to accept abiogenesis even though there's no evidence of it, simply because it falls in line with your ideology...

No, I choose to look for natural causes because those are the only kind that have ever been found. If being resolved to live in the real world can be called an ideology, then yes.

[Catholic_Lady]

Anal sphincter