Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

That's the beauty of science, you should be able to recreate such an experiment, however if you read the link I attached it definitely was not a double blind study.As I said before, even if the study is completely bunk, we know that religious faith varies Geo-culturally, we know this. How people interpret spiritual experiences likewise also varies Geo-culturally.It's culture wide confirmation bias. People will interpret experiences in a way to confirm their prior convictions.How is that God of the Gaps?You cannot account for the acuity of universal constants, thus God did it. This is a God of the gaps argument. You can do nothing more than to suppose that God is responsible. anything will be proposed before scientists accept that there1. By proposing hypotheses, this is how scientific understanding is advanced.2. You seem to already be pretty confident that only 1 universe is possible.there is only one universe and it was created by the big bang, which has theological implications.Indeed it does, which is precisely why the strongest opposition to the Big Bang theory has always come from the religious communities.If that were true they'd be able to do it right now, right?We can. The Urey-Miller experiment has been repeated.In an atmosphere that was no where near what the Earth would have been like.This is an irrelevant contention. The experiment showed that it is possible for inorganic material to become organic material. As I mentioned above, creating organic material is not creating lifeNo, it is creating the building blocks of life.There is still no evidence that LIFE can spring from non-life. Well, certainly if inorganic material can become organic, then certainly organic material can become living material. All of the steps are theoretically possible and a few of the have actually been demonstrated in the lab. To say there is no evidence is denial.Arrogantly posting science articlesHow does one arrogantly post articles? "As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones."- John Horgan, science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of TechnologyDo you have a source for this? When this quote is only found on creationist apologetic websites, a quote that appears that someone is arguing against a belief we know them to hold, I'm inclined to say this is a quote mine. Can you show me the paragraph in which this quote appears?"This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential." G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel Professor, Departments of Molecular Biology and ChemistryThis in fact is a quote mine. Joyce does believe in the RNA world hypothesis. The argument isn't one against self-replicating RNA leading to DNA, but against De Novo Synthesis.Quote mines are the favorite tool of creationists. Any quote from someone arguing against what we know them to believe, is going to be a quote mine 99% of the time. That being said do you have an actual rebuttal to the article I posted?