Does a carbon atom and two oxygen items “come together” on their own according to chemical processes to form carbon dioxide? Or where they “put together by God”? You are demanding a false dichotomy. You badly need to read my post again. A proximate cause and an ultimate cause can both be true without a logical contradiction.
Does an automobile manage to travel to the next town because of the driver or because fuel is burned in an internal combustion engine? Both an ultimate cause and proximate cause can be true.
I never said God is dead. I assumed that you understand that God is NOT a biological organism. And as I’ve explained many times on this form, the fact that modern English appears to conflate biological-life and non-biological life with the same word (“life”) does NOT mean that the languages of the Bible conflate them. See one of my posts on the topic at:
In fact, you would do well to read the entire thread on that topic so as to address your tendency to apply English language semantic fields to the Greek and Hebrew words related to life in Bible.
Obviously, abiogenesis is about biological-life from non-biologically-living ingredients. God is not a biological lifeform nor is God non-living chemical ingredients. That doesn’t make God “dead.” (Actually, I think you understand these distinctions but find it convenient for your argument to ignore them.)
I already made very clear that I considered God the ultimate cause.
Apparently you prefer a view of God who “poofs” everything into existence (one at a time perhaps) rather than by means of proximate causes. Both of the verses I cited in Genesis speak of the ERETZ (the land) bringing forth plants and animals. Again, the idea that both God and the chemical elements of the planet produced the first living things poses no logical contradiction nor theological contradiction.
Again, you are making the same mistake of Christians of the past who insisted that only God could create organic chemicals like urea.
(1) Science has been explained to you many times on this forum. (2) I don’t know of any definition of science which includes theology and all fields of philosophy. Are you claiming that everything is under the rubric of science? If yes, I’m wasting my time here.
You are conflating two different topics in the philosophy of science. The Demarcation Problem does NOT imply that science automatically includes everything. Oh my. Please investigate a topic before pontificating. You are dealing with academics on this forum who are not uninformed.
Oh my. This is a slogan/taunt of uniformed amateurs which has nothing to do with my statement. It is a self-contradiction made possible by arrangements of words. (A concoction of semantic contradiction does not pose a philosophical conundrum. Just because a language can express an idea doesn’t make that idea valid—nor an impressive argument.) My statement was not a self-contradiction. This is basic undergraduate logic. Only dilettantes think it poses a problem.