Abiogenesis is impossible

[Esquilax]

If you don't have an alternative belief in Gods place you don't really have a reason to disagree with anyone.

Why would I need a belief in god's place? You don't need a replacement to something that doesn't have a basis in itself; your god claim is not the default position here. Do I need a belief in place of fairies? Bigfoot?

Whatever belief you have in place of God is not something you can prove so it may as well be a faith that is "not based on evidence".

No, I only believe in things that are proved to exist, buddy. You got the wrong end of the stick on this one.

You have various arguments and reasons to support the atheist view but that's the same thing as a belief in God it still isn't you can demonstrate.

Again, I don't need to support the idea that I don't believe you. I'm not making a claim, so I have nothing to do with atheism that requires evidence. I'm an agnostic atheist, pay attention to that; disbelief in god claims, no claim to knowledge otherwise entailed.

My entire position is, "your evidence is shitty."

A belief in God can be demonstrated as well but it's not scientific it's what you believe.

Funny how you never bother to do so.

You may as well say it's convenient that you can't have "proof and evidence of atheism". You can't have one and you can't have the other.

Only because you don't bother to listen.

Well reasoned arguments, subjective experience, history, revelation and that kind of thing. You do have to use apply some level of faith of course seeing as you can't know. You can't know either so it's the same difference.

I'm not claiming to know, though. You are, which is why you need evidence; faith and personal experience won't do it.

You can't see/detect God with sensory apparatus, that's what the Holy Spirit is for.

So you have no way of detecting god, his existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence, and yet you believe anyway. Got it.

You're right it doesn't. Science covers all that.

Explanations tend to cover that too; when you ask a Why or How question, you don't want to get a What answer back, which is all "god did it" is. A What, without a corresponding How or Why to give that answer any meaning at all.

He would be like a demiurge if he did, that would be a being who formed the universe from already pre-existing material. The demiurge would be reasonable for the actual existence of what he works with and something else will have created the demiurge. This is something the Gnostics and Mormons believe in though I'm happy with the orthodox Christian view of God being the creator of the physical universe or universes if there is more than one.

You're really terrible at this whole "supporting your arguments," thing. Just asserting some fanfiction-ey property of Odin doesn't automatically make it so; you're trying to define my real argument out of existence simply by making unjustified assertions.

What you retrofitted still kind of works though, there were/are Christians who believe in a demiurge so that's viable if not very orthodox.

And yet the point still floats over your head.

It just confirms that the universe as we know it didn't always exist and time as experience had a point of origin. There could be multiple universes and all kind of things going on that we could potentially understand but regardless of the extent of existence it will still need a context, some kind of eternal foundation to rest in. We can only study what physically exists and can be observed and detected so God falls beyond all this however you try to cut it.

Uh huh, but you made a claim about what happened before the big bang, how ordered and perfectly designed it all was; you've made a claim to knowledge that literally nobody else in the world has, and you back it up with nothing.

My point is that you have a habit of making unsupported, likely untrue statements as though they were facts, and count as an argument. We're not obligated to respond to every random utterance you make, though; personally, I don't have the time to sit here and type a response to every unthinking "god did that," you write, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. Are you here for conversation and debate, or are you here to just spew your dogma at every reasonable question you get asked?

Neither do I but I do believe wasn't accidental but has the purpose to produce life and civilization, given the precise and complex nature of what into setting all this up. I also believe that God is the designer and creator all in one there's no point making it more complicated than it needs to be. One God and one creation of God.

That's cool; I'll do that too the moment I'm provided with some non-fallacious evidence for that.

You can't have any scientific evidence of the existence God so that's a moot point. You have to use other kinds of evidence and faith.

That's really a pity for your side, then; faith isn't a pathway to truth, and rational arguments don't necessarily conform to reality, if the premises you feed into them are flawed. You'll never get to justifiable evidence through those two things alone.

I could present you with the Bible but you wouldn't like it, and it's not like you're interested in an inner experience of God either. It depends what you want to accept as evidence when you can't ever have scientific evidence for the existence of something. But seeing as you can't ever have any scientific evidence of God by the definition of what he would be you don't have to worry about a conflict between faith and science. You can have both.

Why would I accept the bible as evidence? Would you accept the quran?

You have the premise of Gods existence as a reality and then the reasons as to why the premise is true and the counter argument/claim is not true. So that's the best you can do with it seeing as science has nothing to say on this issue. Science is limited to what we can see, detect and observe and it gives you the function and operation of natural physical processes. That's all it will ever be able to do so God is beyond it's scope.

If you have a belief that you've made unfalsifiable, you've also got a belief that you've made irrational.

I do but you keep saying "No because science" so that's what needs to be addressed before you can seriously consider the arguments in Gods favor.

Do you seriously not know the difference between an argument and an assertion?

You don't have to twist anything if science is not in conflict with God to begin with.

See? This is an "assertion." It's a claim that has been made, but right now has been supplied no evidence to back it up. Acceptance of this claim, right now, would be irrational. Once evidence and support has been supplied, such that this statement can be demonstrated to be true in the real world, it becomes an "argument," and can be rationally accepted, or rebutted by additional arguments.