Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Heywood]

Nobody has ever seen abiogenesis....so why should you believe it has happened?

Do I really have to do everything for you? You could of at least read what is currently been done. Second, your argunment is a god-of-the-gaps variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis...generation

Iron-sulfur surfaces, which are abundant near hydrothermal vents, are also capable of producing small amounts of amino acids and other biological metabolites.

In 1961, it was shown that the nucleic acid purine base adenine can be formed by heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions. Other pathways for synthesizing bases from inorganic materials were also reported.

I'm posting only two. There are more.

None of those are observations of abiogenesis. No one has ever seen abiogenesis so why should we believe it happened? I am arguing that your claim...that atheist only believe things which have been shown to be true....is false. I am arguing by presenting an example of a belief held by atheists which has never been shown to be true.

I am not arguing the existence of God. There is no God of the Gaps here no matter how much you plead that platitude.

[Surgenator]

How about we agree to an intermediate statement:

It's up to a theist to present a concept of God and to provide reasons why it refers, and it's up to an atheist to follow and understand the argument and to evaluate it fairly.

The point is, we all have to, well, think hard.

I want to add an addendum, it is also up to the theist understand and fairly evalute the atheist counter arguments.

[Chas]

How about we agree to an intermediate statement:

It's up to a theist to present a concept of God and to provide reasons why it refers, and it's up to an atheist to follow and understand the argument and to evaluate it fairly.

The point is, we all have to, well, think hard.

No, you have to provide evidence for that god. Concepts are a dime a dozen.

---

Do I really have to do everything for you? You could of at least read what is currently been done. Second, your argunment is a god-of-the-gaps variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis...generation


I'm posting only two. There are more.

None of those are observations of abiogenesis. No one has ever seen abiogenesis so why should we believe it happened? I am arguing that your claim...that atheist only believe things which have been shown to be true....is false. I am arguing by presenting an example of a belief held by atheists which has never been shown to be true.

I am not arguing the existence of God. There is no God of the Gaps here no matter how much you plead that platitude.

They are evidence for the hypothesis. You have no actual evidence for your idea.

[Surgenator]

None of those are observations of abiogenesis. No one has ever seen abiogenesis so why should we believe it happened? I am arguing that your claim...that atheist only believe things which have been shown to be true....is false. I am arguing by shown an example of a belief held by atheists which has never been shown to be true.

I am not arguing the existence of God. There is no God of the Gaps here no matter how much you plead that platitude.

Definition.
"Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds"

If you actually follow the link and read, you'll see your statement is flatly wrong.

[datc]

How about we agree to an intermediate statement:

It's up to a theist to present a concept of God and to provide reasons why it refers, and it's up to an atheist to follow and understand the argument and to evaluate it fairly.

The point is, we all have to, well, think hard.

No, you have to provide evidence for that god. Concepts are a dime a dozen.

Chas, here I was thinking you were a really tough-minded motherf*cker, and you go and write something like that, demonstrating that apparently, you can't read.

I wrote, "to present a concept of God AND to provide reasons why it refers." "Refers," as in has an actual reference? As in provide reasons (evidence) for why this concept exists?

You can do better than that.

[Heywood]

None of those are observations of abiogenesis. No one has ever seen abiogenesis so why should we believe it happened? I am arguing that your claim...that atheist only believe things which have been shown to be true....is false. I am arguing by shown an example of a belief held by atheists which has never been shown to be true.

I am not arguing the existence of God. There is no God of the Gaps here no matter how much you plead that platitude.

Definition.
"Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds"

If you actually follow the link and read, you'll see your statement is flatly wrong.

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

[Chas]

No, you have to provide evidence for that god. Concepts are a dime a dozen.

Chas, here I was thinking you were a really tough-minded motherf*cker, and you go and write something like that, demonstrating that apparently, you can't read.

I wrote, "to present a concept of God AND to provide reasons why it refers." "Refers," as in has an actual reference? As in provide reasons (evidence) for why this concept exists?

You can do better than that.

"to provide reasons why it refers" is not providing evidence. Do you even know what evidence is? It is not 'reasons'.

[Heywood]

"to provide reasons why it refers" is not providing evidence. Do you even know what evidence is? It is not 'reasons'.

The reason I believe you exist Chas, is because I read posts which appear to be written by someone who calls himself Chas.

These posts are the reason or evidence I used to substantiate my claim that a person who calls himself Chas, exists. They are how I fulfill my burden of proof.

[Surgenator]

Definition.
"Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds"

If you actually follow the link and read, you'll see your statement is flatly wrong.

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

so the Miller–Urey experiment didn' t make amino acids? Or did they? They did.

[Heywood]

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

so the Miller–Urey experiment didn' t make amino acids? Or did they? They did.

Amino acids are not living things therefore the Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate abiogenesis.