Thread: Why God Exists.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Because we don't have any evidence of anything ever being caused by something supernatural. Not one instance. Or that anything supernatural even exists. However we have a number of examples of natural causes.

I agree we have plenty examples of natural causes, one being life only brings about life. Abiogenesis is not among any example of natural causes. We do not have a single drop of evidence that supports abiogenesis either. Also, abiogenesis is an un-natural event there is absolutely nothing natural about it. So why are we not equally giving the same likelihood of another concept that cannot be supported by science in the same retrospect?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Because we run into the problem of trying to understand the supernatural, to gain knowledge of the unknowable, which is an impossible task.

Well isn't this the same thing that is currently going on with abiogenesis? Urey Miller's experiment only worked with a made-up scenario. An environment that has no scientific basis to support the validity of it and plenty of scientific evidence that goes against it. However, within an environment that has scientific basis regarding the 'true' conditions of early Earth, his experiment breaks down and hits a major dead end, one which is unrecoverable.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

By definition, if something is supernatural, then it cannot be understood by humans, because it transgresses the boundaries of human understanding. A being that is supernatural is not bound by the natural laws of the universe because it is above or beyond the natural universe. It is not linked to the causal relationships that essentially define the natural universe and everything in it. Because of this, man cannot possibly know anything about this being. So how can a totally incomprehensible being be used as an explanation?

Abiogenesis falls directly in line with the unknowable. We have not one drop of evidence that supports it. It truly is, in all sense of the word 'unknowable'. Because we cannot observe it, we cannot test it nor can we duplicate it. Because of this man cannot possible know the unknowable events that may or may have transpired. So how can an event of this nature not be equally faulty on the same level that a transcendent being who is also unknowable be faulty?

Thinking back on that question I've asked you before. Why do you think such an event like abiogenesis could gather momentum in the future thus giving it more plausibility. Your answer was because of Science track records. What you fail to understand is that Science track record is only good for explaining 'natural phenomena' with that being said, abigoenesis is considered an un-natural event. Science track records doesn't support un-natural phenomena. You're are not being completely honest with yourself and giving the rights of passage to other possible events that are equally unknown. Which one would have to wonder why do you put 'faith' into abiogenesis. I say faith because that's exactly what you have but you have to much pride to admit it.