To theists- A logical insight into Atheism

[Magilla]

. . .
You may as well add abiogenesis to that list of beliefs that have no proof, which put you in the same boat.
. . .
Oh, and speaking of woo.



I believe life had a creator, I have no idea of the process.

You believe live created itself, you have no idea of the process.

If one is woo then they are both woo.

Looks like were in the same woo boat buddy.

The term created is a loaded one. It implies that there is a creator. A better expression is to say that 'life arose by natural processes', which we do not yet have worked out, but it seems likely that we one day may. If that happens - if abiogenesis is worked out as a perfectly possible and reasonable explanation, with good evidence, then where would that leave religions which insist on divine creation?

So I don't believe that life created itself - that's circular. The word 'created' is a loaded one, and life creating itself implies life from the get-go. It's not 'created itself', and it is 'arose from non-life'. It's not woo, since the honest person has to admit that we don't know. So I don't say that life arose from non-life, I just say that that is what the word and concept of abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is not a belief, (in my thinking) - I don't believe it, but I do view it as a possibility. What makes something woo, is that it relies on something which cannot be demonstrated, or shown by evidence to be possible in the real universe - it's just something that you have to accept. So take care that abiogenesis may one day be upheld as a valid way for life to have arisen. If it does achieve that status, then Occam's Razor will make it more likely, than divine supernatural 'creation'.

Q. Has abiogenesis been proven or even demonstrated? A. No.
The answer is we don't know.