That's not the topic.

I quoted myself.

I agree with your example

@Yusa you're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. You're asking two separate questions with two different answers expecting one linear explanation.

If you can't actually *prove* that god exists, then logically you can't claim to truly *know* that he does. Lets say that he is outside the realm of reality, the problem is that you are still bound by those laws. Even if he is real, if you are separated effectively by the laws of reality itself then obviously *you yourself* cannot truly know for certain if he exists. This is not on the same level as the origin of life, we already know that there are simple organic molecules and compounds, which we already know for certain can be created naturally, that can *likely* give rise to life.

And now that I understand that you weren't answering my question, I agree with your example

Well, okay, but that's still not relevant.

Irregardless of why you did it, you still subjected my example through an examination.

@Cobra Commander Well, life coming from non-life has a bigger problem then God. Not only can you not prove it, but it goes against the laws of science.

And you're not doing that with the idea of God doing shit.

Why?

You see, if God created the laws of science, he wouldn't have been subjected to them in the beginning

Laws of science are created by men.

They're describing natural phenomenons.

And nature, which the men of science are describing, could have originated from non-divine means.

So, what you're saying is irrelevant.

Let me ask you a quick question

I literally just said that organic molecules and compounds are able to appear. There is no problem with that, but we can only infer that this leads to actual life forms instead of truly claim to know. That's why I didn't say that we know this was the case for absolute certainty.

Is the god you believe in omnipotent @Yusa

@Vlad They are describing natural phenomenons that always repeat themselves. They are the rules of nature. "Laws" are "rules".

K?

@Cobra Commander Well because I view the world differently, I can **know** that the theory of life coming from non-life is not true

How so?

You understand that you are operating on complete certainty that god exists without anything being able to substantiate that right?

I've answered that question 3000 times!

Good job!

lol

@Cobra Commander Well, now that I logically came to that conclusion, I know it's true.

You can't actually. You can believe that but you can easily infer that it is possible through organic compounds for primitive life forms to appear.

So yes

You didn't use logic though.

@Cobra Commander How?

How can you infer that?

It takes more belief to believe that then it takes to believe in a God

Because you haven't used anything to actually determine that, you've only claimed it and ignored my explanation regarding how primitive life can come from pre existing organic compounds.

GG @Cobra Commander, you just advanced to level 28!

Again wrong, as already explained here.

You have to use more belief to come to the conclusion that "god *is* real and life *cannot* come from 'non-life'" instead of just "life can *maybe* come around due to these existing compounds"

Well, I did suggest he should read about hypothermal vents.

I don't think anyone here is claiming "life did come from non life"

People are saying "life could come from non life"