Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

Believers don't view God as supernatural. God is nature.

...If God is nature, then there is no difference between God creating life, and abiogenesis (which is nature creating life). What is the problem you have with abiogenesis then?

You know what, Adrian? You've convinced me of something. You're right. If as a theistic evolutionist I can embrace evolution as God's tool, then I can also embrace abiogenesis as God's tool for originating life. I should not be disputing abiogenesis. If abiogenesis happened only once, as scientists have come to believe after centuries of failed experiments, then it was God's tool for creation. What I should really be arguing is that since abiogenesis cannot be replicated, this demonstrates that it happened only once because God allowed it to happen in order to create life.

I would have to do more research, and think about it some more. But what I'm saying is that I am now open to the possibility that abiogenesis may have occurred. And that's thanks to you.

I know the final result is not exactly what you intended, but no doubt you are a smart guy, and I'm not afraid to give someone credit if I feel they bring something new and challenging to the table. Believe me when I say that I consider all the comments that are posted.

Here's where your newfound revelation falls apart.

You made the point in previous posts that God has a nature - a nature in which he cannot act against.
If God is described by his nature, he cannot prescribe things that are against his nature, and thus cannot also BE nature, nor can he be omnipotent, if by definition he cannot act against his own prescribed nature.

If he is bound to a specific set of guidelines, what is your account for that? Do you understand that if someone is constrained to a set of rules of operations, they necessarily couldn't have authored them in the case that a key attribute of that entity is immutability?

An unchanging God couldn't have "made" rules at one point or had another nature.