Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

We can't explain how life got started therefore you claim you can by saying "god did it!".

First of all, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate some evidence.

No, you're equating lack of evidence as a support to your claim, which also LACKS evidence.

It's a false dichotomy and is fractally wrong.

The problem is that people are clicking into my threads thinking that they're going to find definite proof of God's existence. Notice that I never said proof. I said 'evidence.'

The problem is that you're titling your threads "evidence God exists", then spouting off a bunch of nonsense about how no one can demonstrate abiogenesis and humans have intelligence. Assumptions aren't evidence.

There's a difference between evidence and proof.

There is also a difference between evidence and unfounded assumption.

No one will ever find definite proof of God's existence, because that is not how God wants it.

Begging the question. You can't assume something's existence when it's the existence of that something you're trying to verify. Not to mention add attributes to that unknown entity in order to fit your already biased conclusion.

Belief in God is meant to be faith-based. However, I believe that there are clues all around us that point towards his existence, and that's what I'm attempting to detail.

You haven't demonstrated any clues unless I'm missing something.

You clearly stated that lack of evidence for abiogenesis = God exists.

Does that make any fucking sense to you?

Secondly, as a theist, it's not much of a jump for me to say that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis points towards God. For me, it's a logical conclusion.

No, it's an irrational confirmation bias. Logic has nothing to do with it.

However, I understand that atheists won't view it this way. All I'm asking is that you consider this evidence not as conclusive proof, but as a clue, or a piece of a larger puzzle.

You're not understanding this at all.

What's stopping me from saying that lack of evidence for abiogenesis means that celestial fairies seeded this planet? Why couldn't the fairies' existence share the same standards of evidence?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis

and had you looked a wee bit further than the first link, you would have realized that it was meant in the context of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, a theory, long debunked, in which flies were though to generate from waste. We know this is not the case as we can document life cycles quite regularly and accurately.

This is not abiogenesis in the context of life origins on this planet.

Here's a more concise explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.

Read up on the varying theories and methodologies used for abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I'm tired of spoonfeeding you and correcting your crackpot claims. Please stop writing nonsense.