R_speir and naturalism

The creation of the universe is what brought about the chemical elements and the physics which brought about the chemistry of life. (Did God get it right the first time or does he have to intervene and “help it along” wherever you think it necessary?)

How do you know that? You keep begging the question, a glaring logic fallacy.

Why can’t the “striking the match” (as you call it) be the creation of the universe? Why do you think that God is so weak that he must intervene in his creation to produce living things? Why do you assume that God is unable to create a universe which produces living things—and the amazing evolutionary processes which diversify and adapt life to every conceivable environment on the planet where God willed there to be biological life?

You are asking me to believe in a deity far more limited than the one I find in the Bible.

And I called you on the logic fallacy of taking one particular example in the Bible and applying it to every situation.

Why do you want us to assume your wild hermeneutics where you cherry-pick one text and try to make it a universal rule?

Would you deny the possibility of successful modern ophthalmology by citing an example where Jesus healed a blind man? (Is my ophthalmologist guilty of using the occult arts to help my eye.)

It is all around us—and certainly in textbooks. We have abundant evidence that the chemical reactions in living organisms involve the same physics as the chemical reactions observed among non-organic ingredients. Unless you can provide evidence that there is some sort of “boundary”—a fence separating two very different kinds of chemistry and physics contrasting the organic and inorganic “worlds”—you are simply begging the question. Again.

This is getting kind of old. If you simply want to say, “It is my opinion that man will never create biological life in the lab.”, I have no problem with that. Lots of people happen to hold that opinion. But if you are going to say that your claim is obvious or supported by science, you are going to have to do better than mere proclamation.

Why isn’t the abundant evidence from within God’s creation at all relevant to this discussion?

YOU are the one insisting on supernatural intervention as the sole possibility.

My question exactly!


Have you ever seen inanimate matter become a living organism?

You do not possess any such thing. Because when those physical organisms die, life leaves and they are then dead, physical organisms. If you could resurrect one, however, you might have a point to be made. Otherwise, physics and chemistry are not to be conflated with life. And you are conflating them.

You have already messed up this early in your discourse. This is a completely false statement.

I think @Edgar probably thanks you for that good point you just made in his favor.

Again, @Edgar thanks you as well.

1 Like

You keep getting this wrong. Yours is a belief system just like ours. Your belief system says God does not exist. But it is no more difficult for God to exist than not. Therefore, you are obligated to prove his non-existence.

You mistakenly think the burden of proof is ours alone. You are obligated to prove his non-existence. Until you do that, we can claim life arose via God’s command all day long and you must accept it as a viable option.

Wrong. My “belief system” is that one does not presume the existence of things in the absence of evidence for their existence.

The existence of physical and chemical processes is beyond any doubt. Not even you YEC’s deny this.

There remains no good evidence for the existence of your god.

Depends what you mean by “viable”. If you mean “Could happen, in theory, in some world, if we allow that literally anything is possible”, then, sure, it’s “viable.” But that’s a really, really low bar.


Where does it say this? Do I have some sort of Atheist Bible I can consult to check if you are correctly describing my belief system?

1 Like

That statement is a subjective call and so is out of bounds in this argument because all one has to do is disagree and say, “There is plenty of good evidence for God’s existence.”

So let’s bring it back to solid. Here is the crux of the argument:

It is no more difficult for God to exist than not.

That means I do not have to prove his existence. All I have to assert is that God alone is the giver of life and that you are mistaken.

Your premise is your conclusion. That is called “begging the question”. What you need to present is evidence that God created the physical and chemical processes.


But you do accept that there exist physical and chemical processes that occur in accordance with the laws of nature as we have understood them, and which can be understood without positing any direct intervention from a god or other intelligent being, correct?


NEVER! Where did you get the idea that we could agree to that?

Not quite. You left out the most important ingredient of life

“Then God said,”

1 Like

Hee hee. I’m going to be generous and presume you just didn’t understand the statement with which you express such vehement disagreement.

Very good. Now, if you wish, try explain that to your friend @r_speir. He’s struggling with the concept.

1 Like

That is a patently false accusation. I quoted verse 12.

Verse 11 doesn’t help you either:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth …

That’s abiogenesis, not God think-poofing.

You are confused. Everything in @thoughtful 's response is undergirded by God.

1 Like

You are contradicting yourself. Creation by God is the antithesis of abiogenesis.

1 Like

A-bio-genesis literally just means non-living beginning.
A = not
Bio = living
Genesis = beginning

So if God took something not alive and made it alive, that would qualify as abiogenesis. In a technical sense, no matter how God created the first life it would qualify as abiogenesis. Even if God created life from nothing, that is without using any pre-existing material or substance, that would still qualify under the definition, since “nothing” is not alive.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the work of Paul Draper:


His argument completely implodes right here

because he gets it precisely backwards. It should read

Atheism is a specific version of naturalism instead. Then the burden of proof is equally shared.

Anyway, from his first point, he completely submerges and drowns his original premise of God. So he runs off the rails immediately.