Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Thor]

That's what my evidence is for God's existence. 500 years of scientific experiments have demonstrated that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.

And how does this prove "God's" existence? Why doesn't it prove the existence of a universe-creating magical troll? Why doesn't it prove the existence of elves who created people out of clay and brought them to life? Why doesn't it prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why does this prove the existence of your deity above anything else?

Also, I would point out that Thomas Edison experimented with literally THOUSANDS of materials before he developed a light bulb that would burn for more than a few hours. By your logic, after he failed a few hundred times he should have concluded that it's impossible to create a filament that will burn for a long time.

[Caecilian]

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence...

This was meant to be more of an expression, semi-slogan, if you will, for my OP. But a lot of you took it too literally, as a lot of replies were built around the premise that "lack of evidence is not evidence." I just wanted to point out that it is not lack of evidence that I am presenting as evidence, but the results of 500 years of failed experiments. That's what my evidence is for God's existence. 500 years of scientific experiments have demonstrated that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.

So lets imagine AngelThMan in 1900.

'Men have been trying to build flying machines for over 2000 years. Some of the greatest minds in history, Leonardo da Vinci for one, have tried and failed. We still, after all of those centuries of effort, lack any sort of viable artificial flight. From this I conclude that flying machines are downright impossible- only GOD can make things that fly. And this is clear evidence for the existence of a Christian GOD, and for the truth of the entire Bible.'

Then comes December 17th, 1903.



People don't understand how to do things, until they do.

[AngelThMan]

@Thor and Caecilian: You can't equate a couple of inventions, or the development of technology to the origin of life. Let's at least find a concept that's analogous to the theory that life can appear out of thin air.

How about invisibility? Or time travel? Can scientists experiment for centuries, fail, and then still hold on to the notion that these can be made a reality?

[tavarish]

@Thor and Caecilian: You can't equate a couple of inventions, or the development of technology to the origin of life. Let's at least find a concept that's analogous to the theory that life can appear out of thin air.

How about invisibility? Or time travel? Can scientists experiment for centuries, fail, and then still hold on to the notion that these can be made a reality?

Ouch. Something that daft hurts my brain.

[Thor]

@Thor and Caecilian: You can't equate a couple of inventions, or the development of technology to the origin of life.

Uh.... yes, we can. Your argument against abiogenesis revolved around the fact that no one has been able to conduct a successful experiment despite trying for 500 years. According to you, this makes abiogenesis an impossibility. We demonstrated how there are other things thought to be impossible at one time which suffered many failures before success was achieved. How does this not apply to abiogenesis?

Let's at least find a concept that's analogous to the theory that life can appear out of thin air.

Isn't that YOUR theory? That some invisible being created all life out of thin air?

[Minimalist]

@Thor and Caecilian: You can't equate a couple of inventions, or the development of technology to the origin of life. Let's at least find a concept that's analogous to the theory that life can appear out of thin air.

How about invisibility? Or time travel? Can scientists experiment for centuries, fail, and then still hold on to the notion that these can be made a reality?

Ouch. Something that daft hurts my brain.

How about something damn near impossible.....like finding an intelligent jesus freak?

[tackattack]

Or an open-minded atheist

[Thor]

Or an open-minded atheist

The vast majority of atheists I know are quite open minded. We are open to the possibility that a god exists. All you have to do is present some convincing evidence (keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Now, the vast majority of BELIEVERS will not even consider the possibility that their deity is a fraud. I have flat out asked many of them what would convince them that their god does NOT exist and, overwhelmingly, the answer I have received is "nothing".

So who is truly close minded?

[AngelThMan]

The vast majority of atheists I know are quite open minded. We are open to the possibility that a god exists...

Right. That's why atheists spend half their time posting attacks and insults, often obscene, directed at God or Jesus. If they were open to the possibility that God exists, they wouldn't commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy.

[tavarish]

The vast majority of atheists I know are quite open minded. We are open to the possibility that a god exists...

Right. That's why atheists spend half their time posting attacks and insults, often obscene, directed at God or Jesus. If they were open to the possibility that God exists, they wouldn't commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy.

Open to the possibility does not equal belief. If I am shown evidence for a God, I could become a theist. I haven't been shown evidence as of yet, therefore I do not believe - I am an atheist. Why would I follow rules of something I don't believe exists?

In that case, should I also follow Islamic and Hindu doctrine, because after all, it's just as plausible as a Christian version?

Should I then follow every single rule by every religion (both major and minor), as well as anything anyone else might think of, because there's a POSSIBILITY of it being true?