After thinking about this some more, I would say I really don't have any objection to proposals in abiogenesis along the lines of "life can spontaneously come from non-life with x materials and under y conditions".
That being said, you said some things in your last post that interest me.
And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?
Has it? How? How can you tell the difference between a purely natural/biological result and a result that happens in nature (we observe it) that is caused by God? By what standard do you make that distinction? If you cannot make that distinction, how can you say "The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified"?
Or there is a God in control of all that happens in the world?
Is it your position that science is the only way to evaluate any claim?
That being said, you said some things in your last post that interest me.
khemical Wrote:If god played in the dirt with organic chemistry to create life, there would be evidence of that in the dirt, the chemistry, and life itself - and as such god would find itself firmly approachable by natural science through it;s demonstrable or falsifiable effects on the natural world.
And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?
khemical Wrote:As an example. If some believer proposed that there was a god that made bananas fall from trees - and we found that this was not the case, that- rather- a biological process related of fruiting bodies caused this seperation - then The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified. In common parlance, it simply doesn't exist. He can protest that his god is supernatural, "other"..or that science is somehow limited to studying the banana...but none of this will change the fact that the Banana God is not where he said it was, nor does it do what he said it did. He'll have to change his proposition to Some Other God - that ones DOA.
Has it? How? How can you tell the difference between a purely natural/biological result and a result that happens in nature (we observe it) that is caused by God? By what standard do you make that distinction? If you cannot make that distinction, how can you say "The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified"?
khemical Wrote:The only way to escape the horrible grasp of science (), in the end, is to propose a god that has absolutely no effect on the natural world - our world.
Or there is a God in control of all that happens in the world?
Is it your position that science is the only way to evaluate any claim?
