Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Rampant.A.I.]

Let's go over this again:
<God exists> + <God has always existed> + <God is all powerful> + <God created the universe> each have no evidence, yet each premise is required for a theist or deist viewpoint.

<Abiogenesis might be how life originated> has evidence behind it.

How are these two "interchangeable" by any stretch of the imagination?

You have a theory with evidence, and somehow have equated that to an unfounded assertion that there must be some sort of magical being, somewhere in the universe, that is empirically unverifiable, unfalsifiable (and therefore not scientific), and this magical being suddenly becomes an "alternative choice" to a well-founded theory with supporting evidence.

What is this, amateur hour?

It's the same as saying <lightening is an electrostatic discharge between charged clouds and the planet> or <Thor exists> <Thor is the God of Thunder and Lightning> therefore <Thor causes lighting> are interchangeable "theories."

What?

In the same vein: Either God exists, or I have a piece of lint in my pocket. I have a piece of lint in my pocket, therefore God does not exist.

Someone should write a mobile app where you can shake your device, and 2-3 random premises appear with a conclusion.

I guarantee you some of the Theists on this board would start copy-pasting arguments whenever they ended in "Therefore God"

You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally.

[/quote] belief in observable natural phenomena are well-founded beliefs supported by empirical evidence. An example of a belief that is not:

God, is a supernatural being.

God, with less than the amount of evidence for unicorns existing, since we have Narwhal tusks that can at least to be claimed to be unicorn horns, and yet you assume God exists in the absence of evidence.

He created a natural

Unsupported claim.

world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring,

Unsupported claims, show evidence of such events and their origin being supernatural.

and will occur.

So you also claim to know the future? Support? Waiting. Any specific predictions?

Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

I have several near death experiences, however do not have good reason to believe anything experienced was supernatural in nature.

Do you have anything to present to support your claims, or are we playing the unfounded assertion game?

If so: supernatural beings do not exist, underscored by a lack of evidence.

The absence of evidence does not constitute reason to believe a claim.

This can be demonstrated by your disbelief in unicorns and leprechauns.

No assertions about said supernatural beings should be accepted without evidence, as supported by your rational disbelief in unsubstantiated supernatural claims.

Thus, your supernatural claims are of equal merit, until proven otherwise, and you therefore ought to be equally credulous of any and all supernatural claims lacking evidence, especially those with supposed evidence.