If I personally believe it was God, that's my business.
If you believe it wasn't, your business.
But if you idea goes against science itself, you don't have a leg to stand on.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
If I personally believe it was God, that's my business.
If you believe it wasn't, your business.
But if you idea goes against science itself, you don't have a leg to stand on.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Your "question" has been answered multiple times on this thread, but you blithely continue to scream at other posters to answer ze qvestion. No answer. Yet you don't see the double standard. Athiest: No evidence life came from non-life. No scientific evidence that it could even occur. Believer: No scientific evidence of a God. Two opposite mentalities, yet, neither has sufficient evidence. What makes one better than the other? (And believe, I got many questions you would not be able to answer scientifically. But since you can't even address this one, then nothing else would even matter)
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Believer: where did life start?
Atheist: I don't know.
Believer: How can life start on it's own?
Atheist: I don't know.
Believer: Where is the evidence that has life has the ability to start on it's own?
Atheist: There are some theories, but no evidence yet.
Believer: You ask me for evidence, but you won't provide evidence.
Atheist: I know it wasn't a God.
Believer: Fine. But where did life come from?
Atheist: I don't know. But it's based on some evidence we don't have yet.
Believer: I'm not asking about God. Just the contradiction. Science is based on evidences. You don't have it. In fact, your idea goes against science. How is your way of reasoning different than any believer?
Atheist: It wasn't magic!
Believer: I know. That's my point. So please explain.
Atheist: It wasn't God!
Believer: Just give me evidence that life even may have come about on it's own.
Atheist: It wasn't magic!
Believer: nothing?... Im disappointed that you have no proof whatsoever for believing somehow something came from nothing. anything?
Atheist: I know it wasn't magic! Or God!
Believer: ok....
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Instead of Berengaria providing an answer, you'd rather comment on his quips.
lol....
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
FA
Wow. Another ad hominem.
Why don't you listen.
LIFE CAN'T COME FROM NON-LIFE! NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVES THAT IT HAS OR CAN.
Since atheism would suggest thats the case, YOU ARE GOING AGAINST THE VERY SCIENCE YOU SUPPORT!
Give an answer to your own contradiction or shut up.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
WOW. So not one person has provided an answer.
NOT ONE! No evidence, the very thing you demand from us.
But you all keep posting crap!
If your can't asnwer, the OP, you have nothing to say.
Scientifically, life can't come from non life. NO evidence of that. None. Zip. Zero. In 1248 years, maybe there will be answer. But none of you have it. And you all look down on believers.
This turned into a joke thread!
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Let's get this straight.
belief in a God is not a fall back answer for me. It's not, I don't have an answer, so God must have did it.
So stop using that as your leverage.
Any evidence I provide you will view differently. Ok. Your choice. But PROVE that life came about on it's own. Life started from nothing.
YOU CAN'T. Therefore, you have no evidence for the origin of your own beliefs. But you still believe it.
Hypocritical ignorance.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Flat Accent provides no proof, simply straw manned me up.
Flat Accent, I look to not change your position. But don't hypocritically tell me I supply no evidence when you clearly haven't either.
That's my point! You have no answer for the OP yet you wish to condescend on belief in a Creator by referring to him as a "magic man in the sky".
You might as well go back to the KH.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
We don't know how life got here.
What we do know, in detail, is the process by which simple life became complex life through random mutation and natural selection. So to me, the idea of simple life being formed under the right conditions is not hard to envision.
You however, posit an magic man in the sky that popped life into existence.
I claim nothing, instead I tacitly admit I don't know.
You claim God, yet you supply no evidence of this, so therefore I reject your claim and have no reason to change from my initial position - Agnostic Atheism.
If anything this thread should be the other way round.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Speaking only for myself it's like "I don't know how life got started, but I don't see any evidence for it being the work of an identifiable God" No contradiction. You are one in the few I've spoken too. Many of your peers have stated they don't know, but it wasn't "magic", referring to of course, a God. So they are not sure what it was, but they are sure what it wasn't. you can see some of this in this thread.
Also, no valid reason for not questioning theistic claims.And it goes both ways. Thus, this thread...