Existence of god

Now finally you start to at least in parts come away from just quoting the bible. Lets go through your arguments. First you sad that it is "incompetence" to not be able to observe things, which the human senses don't allow and that god can't be observed in the human way. So far I agree. Now you say that it is just a fact, which is given to you, if you seek him. Now as you can see in my last arguments I have shown that such experiences of believing people can be explained by neurological studies of their brain activity. This studies of the brain activity (besides others by Andrew Newberg) don't have the need to evoke a supernatural entity to account for the religious experience. The major problem with the claims of experiencing god lye in the problem, that the human experience, as we aren't perfectly rational, is prone to experience things, which aren't happening. This combined with the fact that we can't observe god in any other way, suggests that the accounts given are no useful prove of the existence of god. Now you comprehend the message of the god of the bible rather well as you say that to "refuse to subjugate yourself" is a sin and this again fits into the picture that the bible isn't in fact a document given to us by god, but rather a human document from tribal Palestine, which was devised to build a structure of hierarchy in a society for which religion always was an important base. Now I agree again that the things I don't know can fill volumes. This isn't surprising at all in the light of the immense amount of matters, which could be known. You then go on to say that I don't know what constitutes truth and I again am willing to say that I can't know it for certain, but what all humans know, is that trough the method of science, which had empirically the best output (better then faith by far), obtains objective facts about our universe. Besides the logical truths discovered by mathematicians it so far seems to be the only way to obtain truth (I would like to know another which you could provide). What you can see throughout history is that religion and faith (which is in conflict with science), doesn't provide truths comparable to those of science (I encourage you to search for similar prosperity in the human race in the 13th century). Therefore as we don't have any sources of god (the bible is no source) or any evidence for his existence, we can conclude on the basis of our current understanding of truth that he doesn't exist (and I can assure you that there are scientific efforts to find either). Now you say that the bible is truth, which you again can't back up with evidence, which would dispel my doubts I have expressed earlier about the low likelihood that it actually is divine. Also I have just shown you that you believing to have met god is an absolute non sequitur, as we can account for it in natural ways and can't obtain any evidence for your or someone else's statement to met god. Therefore we would have to say either that all we think we know about science or mathematics is in fact wrong, because someone thinks to have met god, or we accept that the human brain isn't always perfectly rational and people see sometimes things which aren't real (which we know they do). I think for any reasonable person the choice is clear. Therefore I seems both absolutely rational to say that most likely your "meting with god" doesn't show reality, as well as to say if I myself would experience such an event. You could change that if you would present clear (scientific) evidence for this encounter. Now we come to actual evidence which can be interpreted. Your quote describes that the conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment weren't representing the actual conditions and that with the new conditions the tests run by Jeffrey Bada didn't result in the needed amino acids. The point which you seemingly have missed and which shows that your point is false comes now as it was noticed that amino acids where actually build, but destroyed right after by nitrites which turn the solution acidic. But now we have to take into account that this acid would have been neutralized and with the needed base (which was in the "primordial soup") he got the amino acids (unimportant of the color). "When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids." Now the other building blocks which need cyanide's still seemingly came from meteorites (which isn't in any way unlikely as in the early earth there were many meteorites hitting the earth). This is all absolutely cogent with evolution (even if it all had to come from a meteorite it would still not contradict evolution in the slightest). Even the paper it self describes exactly your reaction as creationists who want to see evolution fall. "It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations. But Bada's repeat of the experiment armed with a new insight seems likely to turn the tables once again. " Therefore as you seemingly didn't understand what the principle of evolution actually is, I would encourage you to study it again and then also reread the paper you quoted. I would always advise you to first read the whole article you are quoting, because as you see already the paper debunks all of your arguments. Also no one in science tries to spread an illusion as you can see evolution both on the micro scale in bacteria and in the macro scale if you look at the abundant number of intermediary fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Now your following remarks about evolution really show your ignorance of the subject matter, as you say that neither humans nor animals are born from "soup". If you knew what evolution actually proposes, you would know that there is no one defending the point that animals where directly born from the primordial soup. Evolution started with RNA most likely and went over single celled live to sponges etc. till we at last are now at animals and plants, where humans evolved in the branch of the primates. This doesn't happen directly and doesn't start directly, because it takes time. even though it started relatively fast it was still a matter of several thousand years as it is a process of probability. I encourage you to actually study what evolution is about and you will see that it fits the data very well. Again the abiogenesis building organic chemistry from inorganic materials as you see above is absolutely consistent and is still very much attested for. How those molecules assemble is so far not fully understood, but for example in the RNA-world hypothesis we have a good basis to assume it started with self-replicating RNA (and peptides according to your second source). That we don't know for sure, isn't in the slightest an argument for god ,as we can say pretty much certainly due to other factors, that this isn't a solving hypothesis (it would be a stupid god of the gaps hypothesis). The claim that everything start with the Ovum is also false, because you haven't considered the cell division, which was the first mode of proliferation. I all in all really encourage you to understand about what you are talking. As you see there is no need for a god in the origin of life and it is therefore disproved (your hypothesis isn't the one matching the data). Now I have also shown that it isn't at all surprising that we haven't build random live in our labs, because it takes time (more than the few years it is studied). You follow with a source describing that after LUCA as the first common ancestor the evolution is clear and that LUCA according to newest research was build in the interaction between peptides and RNA. Again we don't yet know the exact mechanism, but there is nothing to suggest that it isn't natural (it is a little complex and therefore not easy to find out). The again we know that single celled life was the precursor of multicellular life, which was build from it with the mechanism of evolution. That not everything living comes from an egg I have already explained. The problem we have for why we can't se a single cell mutate into multicellular life is that it takes time. To be exact from LUCA about 3 billion years therefore again it isn't surprising that we don't find it. No one said that an egg was build in the primordial soup, again learn what you are talking about. Now to comprehend it there is nothing you say, that even in the slightest contradicts the principle of evolution or which would point to a supernatural begin of life. As we can understand all of that scientifically this still doesn't even hint at a god. I would really encourage you to learn about what you are talking, because it wouldn't have wasted a whole round on demonstrating your scientific illiteracy. We can conclude over all arguments that you still haven't brought a single one and that there is no reason to believe in the imaginative figure god.