Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

OK, what's this concept of plausibility that I missed out on?

OK, teach me this concept of plausibility. Honestly it just sounds like bullshit at this point.

If there are multiple hypotheses, that means that none of them has enough evidence to be proven.

So, what makes them very plausible? How does very plausible differ from plain old plausible? How do we measure plausibility?

Well thank you for demonstrating my point about how raising a child to believe that one fairy tale is true while all the others is false means that they have no concept of plausibility.

Incidentally, asking for proof is binary religious thinking. It is thinking that something is either true or false. The only thing that ever gets proved is a logic theorem because it uses a heavily constrained set of rules that are unrealistic. Nothing ever gets proved 100% in real life. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Which means that we need to look at plausibility. How likely is it that an explanation is correct? How many questions does it satisfactorily answer compared to competing explanations? Does it rely on assumptions that we have no basis in making? Do we see the same process or phenomenon happen elsewhere for the same reasons? Can we test the hypothesis and reproduce the results?

When comparing the explanation of a god as a creator compared to the laws of thermodynamics leading to abiogenesis, the latter wins by a long shot. The former just raises more questions than it purports to answer.

Citation required.

OK:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inanimate

1.  not animate; lifeless

Right, so you're deliberately limited the debate here by referring to matter that is lifeless rather than matter that is not animated. Which means that you now need to define what life is. Because from what I can see you are making an assumption that life is some kind of force that inhabits matter like a soul in a body. Since we're using your definitions here, how can you tell whether a lump of matter is alive or not? What does it actually mean for matter to not be lifeless? The very word inanimate means that it is not animated, yet you are arbitrarily limiting it to mean lifeless.

What you are doing is using a vague definition of life yet demanding an exact answer as to how it developed, yet while at the same time ignoring all possible answers that do not match your vague definitions. These are questions posed in a way so you won't find answer that satisfies you.

For example:

I see you ignored my example of a car being made up of inanimate matter, yet no one would argue that a car can't be animated.

I ignored it because it's stupid. First, in this context, I'm obviously using animate/inanimate regarding life, not in the sense of motion as with the car. Second, yes, in the weaker definition the car can be built and animated - by intelligent designers. We've never seen a car arise spontaneously, and life is much more complex than a car.

It only sounds stupid to you because you have this vague (and wrong) idea of what life is and aren't open to the idea of not knowing. And then when you start to think about it, you start to make yet more assumptions that are not warranted. Why should we require a car to arise spontaneously? Why should complexity be an issue? You can't even define what life is and here you are making assumptions about it.

As I said, the very word inanimate means that it is not animated. The opposite therefore is animated matter. How does matter become animated? Through the flow of free energy. You're thinking of an engine as something that drives your car, but the word actually refers to anything that convert one form of energy into mechanical energy. Which is why we talk about rocket engines, steam engines, internal combustion engines, stirling engines, molecular engines etc.

The only characteristic of all forms of life is that it has a metabolism. Any other definition will have an exception that can be applied to something that we still consider alive.

A cell therefore is a molecular engine which uses a metabolism to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy. Thereby making inanimate matter into animated matter.

What you are doing is performing a fallacy of composition. It is energy that animates the car. The only difference between inanimate and animated matter is whether there is a flow of energy through it that can perform work. I could have instead used the example of an ice crystal growing, or snow recrystalising over time while the temperature (energy) changes but stays below freezing.

I'm talking about life, not snowflakes. If you need to define life broadly enough to include such in order to make your point, you're a perfect example of what I'm saying to emjay.

You were claiming that inanimate matter coming to life is implausible and I was giving an example of inanimate matter becoming animated. I was not defining snowflakes as being alive. But both life, snowflakes, intelligence and evolution are examples of self organisation. The same underlying thermodynamic process underlies it all. That is, self organisation happens when a system can settle into a stable state by minimising free energy in accordance with the laws of Thermodynamics. The same laws that underlie modern engines that we create ourselves. Free energy occurs when there is a thermodynamic gradient. Self organisation happens when there is just enough energy to allow for the matter to be animated, but not too much that no stable state can be reached (e.g. during the initial formation of the Earth). Free energy acts as a form of disturbance and a system falls into a stable state when the disturbance is minimised.

Abiogenesis is plausible using my definition above because we see the same underlying thermodynamic processes occur throughout our daily life. And these aren't just observations, We make use of this understanding when we create engines, or build a fire under a chimney, or try to eat well.

For this to even start becoming plausible, you would have to show that telepathy exists, that energy can persist as a complex ordered pattern without the use of matter and that there is some physical mechanism that could allow a brain to be scanned and the information transmitted back to a non-corporeal being.

So, for my view to even start becoming plausible, we have to show all that. But for you, car + snowflake = abiogenesis plausible. Complete bullshit.

I have now briefly explained above. Over to you to explain how your god is plausible.

No. At the point of the Big Bang there was only energy. Matter came afterwards. Nor would I ever say that there was ever a point in the universe's history where all matter was inanimate. Although that's not to say that we won't reach that point at the heat death of the universe.

And again you're playing word games with "inanimate."

It only looks that way because you have not defined what life is and are ignorant about physics.