The Christian God exists (10)

1. You seem to be fundamentally misinterpreting my statements regarding spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. I advise you to read my argument carefully. I am not suggesting that the process of abiogenesis involves spontaneous generation. What I am saying is that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are two developmental steps in creation that are inevitable if we disbelieve in God. They are different processes, and only one is a valid scientific theory. The first organic compound, eons ago, must have been generated from nonorganic compounds. The organic matter had to be created somehow, and according to modern science, there is no inkling of proof to support any theory that any type of nonorganic matter could ever generate organic matter. Everything we know about matter supports Einstein"s theory that "we cannot create or destroy matter. " If there is any scientific evidence to support nonorganic matter independently resulting in organic matter, then I politely ask for sources. Spontaneous generation is a laughable theory in every scientific arena, and yet, if we do not believe in God, it is the only source of organic matter that we can theorize. Believing in the possibility that nonorganic matter can generate organic, nonliving, matter is spontaneous generation, and nothing less. Therefore, since spontaneous generation is not supported in any scientific arena, and fundamentally defies the laws of nature, then we are forced to scientifically dismiss it as a viable theory regarding the creation of organic matter. Only after this original organic matter was created, was it subject to the process of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, in case you have not thoroughly read the description, only accounts for the process by which simplified organic compounds evolve in to organic life. This process is a widely accepted scientific theory. However, no matter how far back we can trace abiogenesis, even if we could trace it back to the very first instance of nonliving organic material, we still would not be able to explain where this original nonorganic material had come from. 2. I find it interesting that you bring up the Periodic Table of Elements as your response, because in the last round you referred to a specific debate in which you suggested that the Periodic Table was a creation of man. Because this is so, I argue that the periodic table is subject to human error. If life is not considerable as a Periodic Element, then it is arguably disregarded because of man, rather than nature. If these elements can be isolated and manipulated, as you suggest, then life is the result of elemental compounds. We can analyze the elemental composition of just about every compound and phenomenon in the world, including the human body. Therefore, I ask, why can"t we isolate the compound for life? If life is truly a byproduct of the elements, then theoretically, there should be scientific support for life as a direct result of elemental chemistry, yet there is none. Abiogenesis does not require faith. It is nigh undeniable according to our understanding of science, and will not/can not refute it. However, the origin of organic matter is as foreign to us as God himself, therefore, in that specific spectrum, the only two answers are either "We have no idea, so we say God made organic matter," or "We have no idea, so we say nothing made organic matter. " Then, is it unfair to lump this in your whole, "this is easier to comprehend" mentality? 4. What you mean is that personal claims do not count as scientific evidence. Personal accounts used to achieve something or explain something away do not bear any real evidential weight, and rightfully so. However, something to consider is how many people believe in the supernatural without any explicit scientific evidence. Theoretically speaking, if there was scientific proof that God existed and was observable, then there would be no burden of faith, and the spiritual concepts would be pointless. Theoretically, there would be no free will, no diversity of opinions, no need for science, and no real supernatural spiritualism. He would cease to be a supernatural being, because that is the nature of humanity. 5. My point with this question is that if we disbelieve in God, then the human race bears the burden of scientifically explaining every phenomenon that we can ever observe and even the ones that we can"t. Although we can"t observe even a fraction of our universe, we believe it exists, and theorize about itregardless of the fact that there is no support for it. Alternatively, why is it acceptable to scientifically disregard the supernatural, despite the many personal accounts? And your comment is fair, but I would also argue that there are individuals who refuse to entertain the concept of God, just as stubbornly as those who deny science. 6. If you believe in extraterrestrial life, then why is it not permissible to theorize that God is a mistaken interpretation of an alien life form? Especially after considering that ancient civilizations have multiple references to extraterrestrial phenomena? 8. This is because I am not trying to prove abiogenesis as invalid. Abiogenesis is scientifically supported. Spontaneous generation is not, and you have not answered my arguments about the spontaneous generation of simple organic material at all. If you have any substantial evidence to support how naturally occurring gasses and minerals randomly result in an organic compound, I hope to see it. I would be remiss if I did not bring up the concept of the Bible, as this text is critical to any version of the Christian faith. I would like to point out that this text was written by a group of authors who each wrote stories, which were then canonized into a single collaborative document. It contains references to real people, and many historically accurate references. I would also suggest that the majority of the contradictions and typical "errors" that nonbelievers point to, regarding the Bible, are only damning when taken in a firmly literal sense. The last point that I would like to raise is that of philosophy. While many Christians and nonbelievers do take the Bible as an explicitly literal text, I would like to suggest that it is not necessarily so. If I do take this text as philosophical, then God, no matter what the physical implications of this world entail, is forced to exist as a concept, if not as a physical being. One such case example is Plato"s philosophical allegory of the cave. Although the Cave itself physically is nonexistent, the Cave as a metaphor is one of the most profound and appropriate philosophical concepts that has ever been conceived. In conclusion, Con has not yet successfully proven that nonorganic material can lead to organic material, and has thus far failed to provide any substantial evidence that life came from a purely scientific source. I hope that Con will carefully inspect all of my arguments and address them accordingly. Being that I am not permitted to rebut Con"s 4th Round, I would like to thank them now for the stimulating discussion, and I will likely be challenging it back to him under the opposing banner that they cannot concretely disprove God. Finally, I would like to thank our audience, and I hope that you have enjoyed the back and forth. If I have not provided sufficient evidence, then I hope that I have at least piqued your interest.