The Topic of God Has Been Settled!....

[POI]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

*******************

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

[fredonly]

You continue to believe in evolution, what else? I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason from no one spontaneously although there is zero evidence for this and all the evidence leads that life comes only from life.

Actually, there is strong evidence life came from non-life: there was no life on earth for millions of years, but eventually - there was life.

That fact that there is life now and there was no life before is no evidence of any kind at all, let alone strong.

I'll reword it in a non-controversial way.

Here are two facts we're seeking to explain:
1. earth was devoid of life for millions of years.
2. Subsequently, life existed on earth.

The 2 hypotheses I described are alternative explanations for these noncontroversial facts and our objective is to identify the best explanation, using abductive reasoning.

Here again are the 2 hypotheses:

1) nature did it - somehow, but we don't know specifically how.

2) God did it. again, we don't know how - not just because it's magic, but we also don't know exactly what he created. He could have created self-replicating molecules, intact unicellular organisms, or even fully skunks and kittens. Or he may have simply created a universe in which abiogenesis would occur naturally.

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. ...

What can one say? Gods don't exist, so there is really only one viable hypothesis.

Seriously, you can't possibly show that abiogenesis is impossible, and neither can I show that a God can't possibly exist.

All processes of nature that were are still there. If do not see a process we (they) would very much like to see and have tried for 100s of years to see and do not see, it is not there.

Apply your reasoning broadly: any aspect of nature that scientists have not yet solved, are unsolveable - so goddidit. That's silly. Google "argument from ignorance".

God said how he did it.

I see no reason to think gods exist. The existence of life certainly isn't a reason.

Nature is not life...Nature is not at option at all if we go by what we can observe (science.)

Life is formed of matter (natural), and all life operations are consistent with chemistry and physics, so there's no evidence something unnatural is involved.

If we reject science and decide that we WANT life to come from non-life, a leap of totally blind faith, that anything is on the table.

A naturalist will obviously assume hypothesis 1 is the answer, and a theist will obviously assume #2 is true. So let's agree to set aside our prejudices and objectively evaluate both.

No one sees life coming into existence from nonlife, either through natural means or through miracles. So it's a tie on that point.

The God hypothesis fits what we observe in science

Both hypotheses fit all the relevant facts. Neither has been verified by experiment.

God spoke and energy was released.

It seems that you blindly accept an ancient myth. You're free to do that, but obviously your faith doesn't constitute objective support for hypothesis 2 over hypothesis 1.

It's undeniable that each hypothesis is possibly true: neither is provably false; neither is provably true. Every objection you've raised against #1 also applies to #2. Your belief in the Bible may help you choose but you beliefs have no power to persuade others. Equivalently: my belief in naturalism has no power to persuade you.

If you can't provide objectively compelling reasons to think #2 is the best explanation (abductive reasoning), then at least accept the fact that it's a draw.

Now modern science tells us that life is made up of energy. Einstein said that matter (life as well) is a persistent dillusion. It fits perfectly in with what we know.

You're misquoting Einstein. He actually said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

This was not a scientific claim, it was a metaphysical claim by a man whose expertise was physics, not metaphysics. We can discuss solipsism and idealism sometime, if you like, but it has zero bearing on the matter at hand.

But you're on the right track, because both hypotheses are metaphysical, not scientific. Science doesn't give vague answers, but metahysics often does. Both naturalism and theism are metaphysical systems. Naturalism entails hypothesis 1, while theism entails hypothesis 2 (although I'll remind that #2 includes the possibility God created a universe in which abiogesis could occur).

[benchwarmer]

I'm only going to address this since this seems to be the main confusion:

By “satisfied” I mean you don’t have to have an answer as to how and yet completely believe. It is noteworthy as the search has been in with zero results since Darwin.

Continually believe what?

I said "I don't know", what's to believe? Are you not familiar with open questions?

You continue to believe in evolution, what else?

Yes, I believe the scientific theory of evolution best explains the current evidence for how life evolves.

I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason

Let's stop right here. Now you are inserting words in my mouth.

The scientific theory of evolution has no position on how life started. Why do some theists (such as yourself clearly) not understand this? My "I don't know" was in reference to how life started, not how it evolves.

For a person that must have taken courses in biology, I can't fathom how you've missed this distinction and have such a wrong understanding of what the science actually refers to.

For the question on how life started, it's an open question in science with some possible, unverified as yet theories. Here's a paper that may help you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

If you are going to continually go on about how into science you are and then purposely (or perhaps you really don't know?) what the actual scientific theories cover then I think there's not much more to debate. I think readers can clearly see what's happening here and that's all I can hope for.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #45]

We might have reached the end of the exchange as your posts are becoming the usually atheist ridicule and jeering when the atheist is faced with points that cannot be answered from that position. It becomes too disjointed and unpleasant. You equate the LAW of gravity with the theory of evolution such that one must research the LAW of gravity before one can state it is so.

But the scientific training I have and the lack of such training on your side makes interaction difficult.

The irony is quite hilarious here.

I notice you still haven't let us know which university you went to. I'm guessing they have a statement of faith that must be signed and adhered to. Am I wrong? If I am, I'm wondering what caused the disconnect from actual science to your current position.

I went to the University of Victoria and have a Bachelor of Engineering. No statement of faith required to get my degree or current job.

Yup, absolutely no science training whatsoever on my side (That was sarcasm in case you need it pointed out.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Yeah. I don't want to flame our welcome guest and critique the reasoning methods which is often taken or portrayed as personals, though they are not, but I thought I'd comment on a couple of things Mae said.
As regards evolution, questioning abiogenesis is a cop out. To repeat a point I made the other day, even if it was conceded that an Intelligent Creator started life off, the overwhelming evidence is that it thereafter evolved from blobs and fronds through sea snails and bugs through fish, land fish (amphibians (1) dinosaurs to birds (2) then after the Cretaceous extinction, domination of birds and mammals. It was not all made in a week, nor even (post Flood) super -evolved in the time from the Flood to say 3,000 BC.

The other point was Einstein on the illusion of matter as 'persistent'. I prefer to say 'reliable'. The illusion that matter is solid and not mostly empty space with energy in motion, gives the illusion of solidity, persistent or persisting because of reliable physical laws (never mind what goes on at quantum level) and is the 'reality', not what one can bang on a table. I'll save the 'imperfect human perception' apologetic debunk for another time.

(1) and this answers one of the recurring and rather dim creationist apologetics. Even if reptiles mammals and eventually humans evolved from fish, it is absolutely understandable that we still have lots of fish. The evolutionary reason being we needed something to go with our chips.

(2) there was another one I saw with a creationist arguing that if therapods ate birds, then birds were already around and therapods could not have evolved from them and the magic wand "Impossible" (which evolution - denying Creationism relies on to leave God the only possible option. The answer is that birds evidently evolved from dinosaurs by the Jurassic, but they co - existed all through the Cretaceous to the KT extinction. I think the Chichaluba asteroid impact is called the KT event and not K2 as Creationists often calling it.

Now, to cite Bill Nye in the debate that Ken Ham not only lost but discredited himself and creationism, the thing that would serious;ly question evolution is OOPs: out of place objects, such as a horse in a Jurassic strata. Which is what we ought to see all the time if the Ark and Flood and 6 day creation was true. Despite persistent attempts to find Out of Place evidence, we never see out of strata fossils. Other than wash ins, of course, but the strata shows the intruding layer.

[Mae von H]

You continue to believe in evolution, what else? I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason from no one spontaneously although there is zero evidence for this and all the evidence leads that life comes only from life.

Actually, there is strong evidence life came from non-life: there was no life on earth for millions of years, but eventually - there was life.

That fact that there is life now and there was no life before is no evidence of any kind at all, let alone strong.

I'll reword it in a non-controversial way.

Here are two facts we're seeking to explain:
1. earth was devoid of life for millions of years.
2. Subsequently, life existed on earth.

The 2 hypotheses I described are alternative explanations for these noncontroversial facts and our objective is to identify the best explanation, using abductive reasoning.

Here again are the 2 hypotheses:

1) nature did it - somehow, but we don't know specifically how.

2) God did it. again, we don't know how - not just because it's magic, but we also don't know exactly what he created. He could have created self-replicating molecules, intact unicellular organisms, or even fully skunks and kittens. Or he may have simply created a universe in which abiogenesis would occur naturally.

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation. The former is blind faith. The latter matches real life. Life springs from living beings, not non-living matter. They aren’t even close to being equal.

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. ...

What can one say? Gods don't exist, so there is really only one viable hypothesis.

Please prove that one. If you’re going to state that as fact, you need proof.

Seriously, you can't possibly show that abiogenesis is impossible, and neither can I show that a God can't possibly exist.

Its been tried for over 100 years with 0 success. But you can believe it anyway.

All processes of nature that were are still there. If do not see a process we (they) would very much like to see and have tried for 100s of years to see and do not see, it is not there.

Apply your reasoning broadly: any aspect of nature that scientists have not yet solved, are unsolveable - so goddidit. That's silly. Google "argument from ignorance".

No, life produces life so the position that Life produced life is demonstrable. That non-life produces life (somehow) is nature donnit….somehow…a pure argument from admitted ignorance.

God said how he did it.

I see no reason to think gods exist. The existence of life certainly isn't a reason.

That’s a personal choice. But there’s no reason for anyone to see that nature did it.

Nature is not life...Nature is not at option at all if we go by what we can observe (science.)

Life is formed of matter (natural), and all life operations are consistent with chemistry and physics, so there's no evidence something unnatural is involved.

But chemistry and physics aren’t life.

If we reject science and decide that we WANT life to come from non-life, a leap of totally blind faith, that anything is on the table.

A naturalist will obviously assume hypothesis 1 is the answer, and a theist will obviously assume #2 is true. So let's agree to set aside our prejudices and objectively evaluate both.

The naturalist operates in blind faith. The theist operates from observed phenomena, that life comes from life.

No one sees life coming into existence from nonlife, either through natural means or through miracles. So it's a tie on that point.

The God hypothesis fits what we observe in science

Both hypotheses fit all the relevant facts. Neither has been verified by experiment.

Life from life is the only observed phenomenon.

God spoke and energy was released.

It seems that you blindly accept an ancient myth. You're free to do that, but obviously your faith doesn't constitute objective support for hypothesis 2 over hypothesis 1.

It seems you blindly accept a modern myth with no reservations in saying you are ignorant (don’t know)as to the mechanism. It is observed that energy affects matter. When a heart has stopped, it is known that applying energy can restore that life. My position is observed.

It's undeniable that each hypothesis is possibly true: neither is provably false; neither is provably true. Every objection you've raised against #1 also applies to #2. Your belief in the Bible may help you choose but you beliefs have no power to persuade others. Equivalently: my belief in naturalism has no power to persuade you.

Ever heard of the Muller Urey experiment. ENERGY was forced into chemicals and amino acids assembled. Not nature but an intelligent designer.

If you can't provide objectively compelling reasons to think #2 is the best explanation (abductive reasoning), then at least accept the fact that it's a draw.

I just did.

Now modern science tells us that life is made up of energy. Einstein said that matter (life as well) is a persistent dillusion. It fits perfectly in with what we know.

You're misquoting Einstein. He actually said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

You’re probably unaware that a statement NOT in quotes is purposely not word for word. So no, I did not.

This was not a scientific claim, it was a metaphysical claim by a man whose expertise was physics, not metaphysics. We can discuss solipsism and idealism sometime, if you like, but it has zero bearing on the matter at hand.

It fits perfectly in with the 2 answer. God spoke and that energy impacted the recipients and life came to be.

But you're on the right track, because both hypotheses are metaphysical, not scientific. Science doesn't give vague answers, but metahysics often does. Both naturalism and theism are metaphysical systems. Naturalism entails hypothesis 1, while theism entails hypothesis 2 (although I'll remind that #2 includes the possibility God created a universe in which abiogesis could occur).

If one refuses the observed reality, all possibilities are in the table.

It needs to be acknowledged that you are quite patient and polite in your presentation and I appreciate it very much.


I’ve lived for decades in the germanic culture and learned not to compromise the truth for the sake of politeness or being American”nice.” But I very much appreciate your effort at agreement. It’s just that I can’t see the options as equal. Please understand.

[fredonly]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

We agree that there is no scientific answer available. Nevertheless, we can still propose metaphysical hypotheses. God-did-it is a metaphysical hypothesis. So is Nature-did-it.

The former is blind faith.

Not in my case. I believe metaphysical naturalism is true because it's the best (simplest) explanation for all clear facts of the world. I arrived at this after years of studying different metaphysical systems, including theism. So I've done my due diligence, and settled on what seems most likely. That isn't blind faith; it's abductive reasoning.

Given that I believe naturalism is true, it follows that life came about through natural means. You seem to suggest that I should abandon naturalism because science hasn't figured out how life began. That is naive. There are many aspects of the natural world that haven't been fully explained by science. Furthermore, the God-did-it alternative doesn't "solve" the mystery - it doesn't identify what a God created. So in terms of explanatory power, both hypotheses are on par.

By contrast, you've shown that you embrace a theist metaphysics. I doubt you arrived at this after considering alternative metaphysical theories - so in your case, your position is almost certainly rooted in blind faith.

It's interesting that you disparage faith, and yet yours is the only position that is rooted in faith.

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. ...

What can one say? Gods don't exist, so there is really only one viable hypothesis.

Please prove that one. If you’re going to state that as fact, you need proof.

I was being ironic. You made the unprovable claim that "nature CANNOT create life" so I responded with an unprovable claim. I pointed out that both hypotheses are on par: both are logically possible, but neither is provable. All your responses just show that you reject hypothesis 1 only because you believe hypothesis 2. You have not, and cannot, show that #2 is objectively a better answer. You apply a double standard: naturalism needs to be proven, but theism is exempt from that requirement.

Its been tried for over 100 years with 0 success.

So you're saying that if science can't find a natural explanation for something within 100 years, that means there is no natural explanation, so naturalism must be false. That is irrational.

This was not a scientific claim, it was a metaphysical claim by a man whose expertise was physics, not metaphysics. We can discuss solipsism and idealism sometime, if you like, but
But you're on the right track, because both hypotheses are metaphysical, not scientific. Science doesn't give vague answers, but metahysics often does. Both naturalism and theism are metaphysical systems. Naturalism entails hypothesis 1, while theism entails hypothesis 2 (although I'll remind that #2 includes the possibility God created a universe in which abiogesis could occur).

If one refuses the observed reality, all possibilities are in the table.

The only thing I refuse is to accept your fallacious claim that science has only 100 years to answer questions, and after that we are compelled to accept the unprovable claim that God-did-it. There are almost certainly aspects if the natural world that we'll never understand - irrespective of whether a god exists.

[Mae von H]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

Shall I, too, attack you personally as atheists do? I repeatedly said we DO know how God created life. Why is this so difficult for you to read and remember?

We agree that there is no scientific answer available. Nevertheless, we can still propose metaphysical hypotheses. God-did-it is a metaphysical hypothesis. So is Nature-did-it.

When God does something, the Metaphysical meets the physical. Thee Scientist created life. God is in a different category or both physical and metaphysical.

The former is blind faith.

Not in my case. I believe metaphysical naturalism is true because it's the best (simplest) explanation for all clear facts of the world. I arrived at this after years of studying different metaphysical systems, including theism. So I've done my due diligence, and settled on what seems most likely. That isn't blind faith; it's abductive reasoning.

Except the answer as to how life evolved from non-life has no scientific nor philosophical answer.Its a choice to believe by blind faith. We KNOW how God created. You can, of course, choose nature but it’s a faith choice. There is no science behind you.

Given that I believe naturalism is true, it follows that life came about through natural means. You seem to suggest that I should abandon naturalism because science hasn't figured out how life began. That is naive.

Well you insist on believing what science in >100 years of desperate experiments has failed to prove. That’s blind faith and naive.
When scientists realized that they couldn’t produce gold from non-gold, they gave up. They didn’t call those who did so “naïve.”

There are many aspects of the natural world that haven't been fully explained by science. Furthermore, the God-did-it alternative doesn't "solve" the mystery - it doesn't identify what a God created. So in terms of explanatory power, both hypotheses are on par.

That intelligence created life is fully explained by observed phenomena. Who is a different question. If we find words scratched on a cave wall, it doesn’t tell us who but it certainly tells us intelligence did it.

By contrast, you've shown that you embrace a theist metaphysics. I doubt you arrived at this after considering alternative metaphysical theories - so in your case, your position is almost certainly rooted in blind faith.

Not at all. I observe that life comes from the living. Ergo, first life came from the Living. Seeing, not blind.

It's interesting that you disparage faith, and yet yours is the only position that is rooted in faith.

Actually yours is the faith position. But I do understand why you say that since an agent who is beyond us is involved. So I can see from your point of view that any involvement of God is faith. My point is yours is a blind faith nature created life, a blind unguided process…that’s also faith,

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. ...

What can one say? Gods don't exist, so there is really only one viable hypothesis.

Please prove that one. If you’re going to state that as fact, you need proof.

I was being ironic. You made the unprovable claim that "nature CANNOT create life" so I responded with an unprovable claim. I pointed out that both hypotheses are on par: both are logically possible, but neither is provable. All your responses just show that you reject hypothesis 1 only because you believe hypothesis 2. You have not, and cannot, show that #2 is objectively a better answer. You apply a double standard: naturalism needs to be proven, but theism is exempt from that requirement.

Irony is a weak response.

Its been tried for over 100 years with 0 success.

So you're saying that if science can't find a natural explanation for something within 100 years, that means there is no natural explanation, so naturalism must be false. That is irrational.

No, that’s science, Scientists gave up trying to create gold from non-gold. They saw that it cannot be done. That’s the mind searching for truth not the mind insisting a preselected position MUST be true.

This was not a scientific claim, it was a metaphysical claim by a man whose expertise was physics, not metaphysics. We can discuss solipsism and idealism sometime, if you like, but
But you're on the right track, because both hypotheses are metaphysical, not scientific. Science doesn't give vague answers, but metahysics often does. Both naturalism and theism are metaphysical systems. Naturalism entails hypothesis 1, while theism entails hypothesis 2 (although I'll remind that #2 includes the possibility God created a universe in which abiogesis could occur).

It was a scientist more famous and respected than many today. He saw the hypothesis is incorrect and abandoned it, You can choose to insult him as a defense but his understanding was way beyond yours and mine

If one refuses the observed reality, all possibilities are in the table.

The only thing I refuse is to accept your fallacious claim that science has only 100 years to answer questions, and after that we are compelled to accept the unprovable claim that God-did-it. There are almost certainly aspects if the natural world that we'll never understand - irrespective of whether a god exists.

Good thing you’re not a scientist. Such stubborn insistence that a hypothesis has to be despite 100+ years of abysmal failure would doom science to the cage of a priori assumptions. Accepting failure is a necessity in science.

[TRANSPONDER]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

Shall I, too, attack you personally as atheists do? I repeatedly said we DO know how God created life. Why is this so difficult for you to read and remember?

I have never seen any explanation of how God supposedly created life. Could you perhaps give an explanation or link?

We agree that there is no scientific answer available. Nevertheless, we can still propose metaphysical hypotheses. God-did-it is a metaphysical hypothesis. So is Nature-did-it.

When God does something, the Metaphysical meets the physical. Thee Scientist created life. God is in a different category or both physical and metaphysical.

That says and means nothing. You are just saying that 'when there is no physical explanation, claim the supernatural.

The former is blind faith.

Not in my case. I believe metaphysical naturalism is true because it's the best (simplest) explanation for all clear facts of the world. I arrived at this after years of studying different metaphysical systems, including theism. So I've done my due diligence, and settled on what seems most likely. That isn't blind faith; it's abductive reasoning.

Except the answer as to how life evolved from non-life has no scientific nor philosophical answer.Its a choice to believe by blind faith. We KNOW how God created. You can, of course, choose nature but it’s a faith choice. There is no science behind you.

Given that I believe naturalism is true, it follows that life came about through natural means. You seem to suggest that I should abandon naturalism because science hasn't figured out how life began. That is naive.

Well you insist on believing what science in >100 years of desperate experiments has failed to prove. That’s blind faith and naive.
When scientists realized that they couldn’t produce gold from non-gold, they gave up. They didn’t call those who did so “naïve.”

Actually gold has been produced from non -gold, by nuclear tranformation, so there's your answer - because there isn't an answer right now, you can't claim it is 'impossible', which you have to argue to make 'god' the only option. This is one reason why your (actually pointless) claim that abiogenesis is impossible fails.

There are many aspects of the natural world that haven't been fully explained by science. Furthermore, the God-did-it alternative doesn't "solve" the mystery - it doesn't identify what a God created. So in terms of explanatory power, both hypotheses are on par.

That intelligence created life is fully explained by observed phenomena. Who is a different question. If we find words scratched on a cave wall, it doesn’t tell us who but it certainly tells us intelligence did it.

By contrast, you've shown that you embrace a theist metaphysics. I doubt you arrived at this after considering alternative metaphysical theories - so in your case, your position is almost certainly rooted in blind faith.

Not at all. I observe that life comes from the living. Ergo, first life came from the Living. Seeing, not blind.

This is the common problem with Religious Faith trying to prewtend to be science. Seeing they way things look is deceptive. The earth is not flat, the sky is not blue, and matter is not solid. The way things look to us is not how they actually are.

It's interesting that you disparage faith, and yet yours is the only position that is rooted in faith.

Actually yours is the faith position. But I do understand why you say that since an agent who is beyond us is involved. So I can see from your point of view that any involvement of God is faith. My point is yours is a blind faith nature created life, a blind unguided process…that’s also faith,

The fact is that nobody knows and it is 'blind Faith' in the part of the theists to think that nn intelligent creator is the default theory. It isn't. That natural process have so far been the default makes 'nature' the default theory for Life, even if it can't be proven how, though there is a hypothetical explanation.

But even if a god was conceded, which one?

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. ...

What can one say? Gods don't exist, so there is really only one viable hypothesis.

Please prove that one. If you’re going to state that as fact, you need proof.

It looks like this was a response so I shall treat it as one. It's a valid point, anyway.

Please prove that one. If you’re going to state that as fact, you need proof.

This is actually you reversing burden of proof. Our pal really uses the term as 'I do not beleive in any of the god -claims. After all God -beleivers don't believe all the others , do they? The actual situation of 'we don't know' how life started, which is why it is a gap for God. But the burden of proof is on you to prove that gods exist, not for the unbeleiver to prove they don't.

I was being ironic. You made the unprovable claim that "nature CANNOT create life" so I responded with an unprovable claim. I pointed out that both hypotheses are on par: both are logically possible, but neither is provable. All your responses just show that you reject hypothesis 1 only because you believe hypothesis 2. You have not, and cannot, show that #2 is objectively a better answer. You apply a double standard: naturalism needs to be proven, but theism is exempt from that requirement.

Irony is a weak response.

Its been tried for over 100 years with 0 success.

So you're saying that if science can't find a natural explanation for something within 100 years, that means there is no natural explanation, so naturalism must be false. That is irrational.

No.Your response is not only irrational, but crafty in trying to buy the argument with a trick. For example, inexplicable instinct until DNA was discovered. Your trick is to have blind faith that, because there is no explanation now, there never will be. .

No, that’s science, Scientists gave up trying to create gold from non-gold. They saw that it cannot be done. That’s the mind searching for truth not the mind insisting a preselected position MUST be true.

As I say, it has been done (though the process is not cost -effective). But that something cannot after 100 years be shown to work , like prayer, does not affect the blind faith of those who believe that it does. It is a trick, as I said, to point to something impossible (or supposed to be so) and use that to argue that anything not doable now should be declared impossible and ascribed to a god (name your own). I'm sure even you can see how this utterly fails and is no more than a trick. Faith failed for hundreds of years to cure serious disease, but science stepped in and did it. Time for science to get a bit of credit. wouldn't you say?

This was not a scientific claim, it was a metaphysical claim by a man whose expertise was physics, not metaphysics. We can discuss solipsism and idealism sometime, if you like, but
But you're on the right track, because both hypotheses are metaphysical, not scientific. Science doesn't give vague answers, but metahysics often does. Both naturalism and theism are metaphysical systems. Naturalism entails hypothesis 1, while theism entails hypothesis 2 (although I'll remind that #2 includes the possibility God created a universe in which abiogesis could occur).

It was a scientist more famous and respected than many today. He saw the hypothesis is incorrect and abandoned it, You can choose to insult him as a defense but his understanding was way beyond yours and mine

Which scientist was this, I wonder?

If one refuses the observed reality, all possibilities are in the table.

The only thing I refuse is to accept your fallacious claim that science has only 100 years to answer questions, and after that we are compelled to accept the unprovable claim that God-did-it. There are almost certainly aspects if the natural world that we'll never understand - irrespective of whether a god exists.

Good thing you’re not a scientist. Such stubborn insistence that a hypothesis has to be despite 100+ years of abysmal failure would doom science to the cage of a priori assumptions. Accepting failure is a necessity in science.

Your response is not only unscientific but irrational as well. Science never gives up trying to find an answer, to disease, instinct and morality, cosmic origins, consciousness or origins of Life. It is a theist trick, not science, to demand that science declare 'there is no answer other than god'.

Atheist axiom no 4 'When people are shown how a trick works, they won't be fooled by it ever again".

Suppose we were to concede that a god created Life, how do we know which one it was? Ball back in your court.

[benchwarmer]

No, that’s science, Scientists gave up trying to create gold from non-gold. They saw that it cannot be done. That’s the mind searching for truth not the mind insisting a preselected position MUST be true.

This pretty much seals it for me. Your continued lack of knowledge in the domain of science while at the same time deriding others for not understanding science renders pretty much all your responses invalid or at least suspect until proven otherwise.

Can gold be created from other elements?
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/0 ... -elements/

It seems your limited understanding of science boils down to "take what agrees with my position and toss anything that doesn't". That's about as unscientific as it gets.

[Clownboat]

No, that’s science, Scientists gave up trying to create gold from non-gold. They saw that it cannot be done. That’s the mind searching for truth not the mind insisting a preselected position MUST be true.

This pretty much seals it for me. Your continued lack of knowledge in the domain of science while at the same time deriding others for not understanding science renders pretty much all your responses invalid or at least suspect until proven otherwise.

Can gold be created from other elements?
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/0 ... -elements/

It seems your limited understanding of science boils down to "take what agrees with my position and toss anything that doesn't". That's about as unscientific as it gets.

What gets me is the lamenting about not knowing something in science as if that is a bad thing. In truth, the 3 most powerful words in science are: "I don't know".
These words encourage additional work/discovery. Pretending/assuming to know the solution to something that is unknown is to prevent additional work/discovery.

Therefore, to insert a god concept (typically the god concept picked is due to geography of all things ) as an answer to an unknown is not how discoveries are made and is illogical. 'I don't know' is what allowed Zeus to no longer be the cause of lightning or demons as the cause of mental disorders.

At least this type of reasoning is not being brought up in the science subsection, but it still hurts to read here.