Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Heywood]

The problem is that you're arguing from the false premise that all atheists believe abiogenesis to have occurred. Personally, my position is that I don't know how life began on Earth, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of the atheists here will join me in that, which immediately demonstrates that your argument is working from a faulty foundation.

The reason why the folks here are defending abiogenesis, before you cut in with the "oh yeah? Well why are they all posting evidence for it, then?" crap, is that at least we have some indications that abiogenesis is possible and can happen. At the moment, it is the best supported theory for how life could have arisen. That doesn't afford it automatic certain belief, but it is a fact that requires recognition; this is where the smart money goes.

If pressed most atheist would claim that abiogenesis happens or has happened somewhere. At least that is my experience after countless discussion with them. Maybe I am wrong...maybe atheists secretly believe there is an intelligent agent out there somewhere....that creates life.

Anyways all you have regarding abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis. If you believe it happened, you believe in something which has not be shown to be true. Surgenator's claim that atheists don't believe things which are not shown to be true is clearly false. Why you want to defend a claim which is clearly wrong is perplexing.

---

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

Well I admit I believe it to the same extent I believe in the existence of other minds. There is no cold hard proof but the alternative would be so fantastically absurd that I have no qualms in dismissing it. I mean, here we are and yet any reasonable account of our planet's formation would hold that there was an earlier period when it was not capable of supporting any life. So of course life had to have come from non life. You believe that too, you just think there was a magic bunny who turned non life to live life.

If you insist life did not come from non-life, what do you think it did come from? Positing a magic bunny doesn't change the fact that you think the live bits came from something that was not life.

First, there is nothing wrong with believing something which is not proven to be true. Even God has to believe somethings which are not proven to be true. If God is all powerful God can create a lessor being and trick that lessor being into thinking it is God. God knowing that He can do this has to wonder if He is not some lessor being being tricked by a covert superior being. God can't really know with absolute certainty....if He is God. It is a necessary truth that a world view must contain at least one assertion.

Second, I don't insist that abiogenesis is not true. God could have created the universe in such as fashion as to insure abiogenesis would happen. I just note that creation via intellect as a means to bring lineages of life into this world has been proven while abiogenesis has not.