Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

-Sorry, I'll stick with what science has shown us.  You can believe whatever you like.  No abiogenesis.  Fiction created by fiction enthusiasts, then brainwashing people to buy into the nonsense.

-Answer to what?  I provided a response and you just quoted it.  What more do you want?  But I can tell you what I would love to see.  A video of something inorganic forming something organic.  How about nothing exploding into something?  If it's scientific, I'm sure you should have no problem providing a demonstration of it happening.  

Accept science has not shown this . It's got nothing to do with belief . Nope it's science based on observation of science studied by scientists . And the rest is conspiracy speak .

No one cares what you want to see . The evidence for abiogenesis or big bang is there and accepted by scientific community .

Oh and can you provide a video of life always existing or life only ever coming from life forever and ever.  No not just life replicating I mean life originating from life or life itself lacking an origin  . After all if it's science surely you can provide a demonstration   or are a man of double standards ?

And no ones claiming nothing exploded (considering the big bang wasn't an explosion ) into something so your demands is unreasonable. But even if they were your proof it couldn't happen is ?No not the current state of the universe does not permit it or this or that this thing or that thing doesn't occur that way . I mean universally there is no way it could ever occur  . What would be awesome is to see something supernatural create something and then provide any reason to believe that it's supernatural   . Oh right god is beyond science yada yada .

---

Oh his statement makes no sense as all as technically all organic compounds are formed of inorganic compounds oh and organic does not mean alive , And stranger still is god organic and did he use the organic to create the organic ?

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

[GrandizerII]

There's a big difference between spontaneous generation (which has effectively been debunked and wasn't exactly scientific anyway) and abiogenesis as we understand it now in the modern sense (which is pretty much well-accepted in the scientific community broadly speaking, it's just not clear how exactly it came about). For one, no one is saying that bacteria directly emerge from non-life.

So can we now stop pretending they're the same thing? Thank you.

[Abaddon_ire]

Accept science has not shown this . It's got nothing to do with belief . Nope it's science based on observation of science studied by scientists . And the rest is conspiracy speak .

No one cares what you want to see . The evidence for abiogenesis or big bang is there and accepted by scientific community .

Oh and can you provide a video of life always existing or life only ever coming from life forever and ever.  No not just life replicating I mean life originating from life or life itself lacking an origin  . After all if it's science surely you can provide a demonstration   or are a man of double standards ?

And no ones claiming nothing exploded (considering the big bang wasn't an explosion ) into something so your demands is unreasonable. But even if they were your proof it couldn't happen is ?No not the current state of the universe does not permit it or this or that this thing or that thing doesn't occur that way . I mean universally there is no way it could ever occur  . What would be awesome is to see something supernatural create something and then provide any reason to believe that it's supernatural   . Oh right god is beyond science yada yada .

---

Oh his statement makes no sense as all as technically all organic compounds are formed of inorganic compounds oh and organic does not mean alive , And stranger still is god organic and did he use the organic to create the organic ?

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

This is by far your dumbest argument.

Can you show me a video of your god?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry.  The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe.  We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions.  Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world.  All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

Said god has already submitted to "my demands"...by doing something that science can and does study.  You fucked the pooch.  

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

Can you point out whatever fallacy you're referring to in the text you quoted?

[Rahn127]

After all, if you can't show a video of a murder, it didn't happen.

[Deesse23]

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

Ever read the thread title, troll?

[Amarok]

Accept science has not shown this . It's got nothing to do with belief . Nope it's science based on observation of science studied by scientists . And the rest is conspiracy speak .

No one cares what you want to see . The evidence for abiogenesis or big bang is there and accepted by scientific community .

Oh and can you provide a video of life always existing or life only ever coming from life forever and ever.  No not just life replicating I mean life originating from life or life itself lacking an origin  . After all if it's science surely you can provide a demonstration   or are a man of double standards ?

And no ones claiming nothing exploded (considering the big bang wasn't an explosion ) into something so your demands is unreasonable. But even if they were your proof it couldn't happen is ?No not the current state of the universe does not permit it or this or that this thing or that thing doesn't occur that way . I mean universally there is no way it could ever occur  . What would be awesome is to see something supernatural create something and then provide any reason to believe that it's supernatural   . Oh right god is beyond science yada yada .

---

Oh his statement makes no sense as all as technically all organic compounds are formed of inorganic compounds oh and organic does not mean alive , And stranger still is god organic and did he use the organic to create the organic ?

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

Simply calling my post logical fallacies is not a counter . And your request is denied .

[polymath257]

Accept science has not shown this . It's got nothing to do with belief . Nope it's science based on observation of science studied by scientists . And the rest is conspiracy speak .

No one cares what you want to see . The evidence for abiogenesis or big bang is there and accepted by scientific community .

Oh and can you provide a video of life always existing or life only ever coming from life forever and ever.  No not just life replicating I mean life originating from life or life itself lacking an origin  . After all if it's science surely you can provide a demonstration   or are a man of double standards ?

And no ones claiming nothing exploded (considering the big bang wasn't an explosion ) into something so your demands is unreasonable. But even if they were your proof it couldn't happen is ?No not the current state of the universe does not permit it or this or that this thing or that thing doesn't occur that way . I mean universally there is no way it could ever occur  . What would be awesome is to see something supernatural create something and then provide any reason to believe that it's supernatural   . Oh right god is beyond science yada yada .

---

Oh his statement makes no sense as all as technically all organic compounds are formed of inorganic compounds oh and organic does not mean alive , And stranger still is god organic and did he use the organic to create the organic ?

Enough with the logical fallacies.  Just show a video of it, then it can be settled.

No video would survive. We do, however, have a snapshot of a later stage in the CMBR. And that snapshot tells us a LOT about what the universe was like at that time and before.

---

If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry.  The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe.  We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions.  Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world.  All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

 And the reason the picture cannot make such demands is that the picture isn't a conscious entity. If. on the other hand, it were conscious, then moral rules would apply to it and you would NOT have the right to destroy it and it *would* have the right to question you.

[Angelina]

[Fake Messiah]