Stephen Hawking Says 'there Is No God,' Confirms He's An Atheist

[Politico]

I was an Atheist long before I ever knew Hawking was one.

Thing is everyone knew. Not really a story.

 

[S.J.]

What would the lefties do if Hawking suddenly changed his mind, had a spiritual awakening, and said he saw God? They would turn on him like a Pit Bull with rabies.

Lefties, I didn't know all atheists were lefties?

Most of them are lefties.

 

[reddler]

Hawking will find out if there is a God when Hawking dies, just like all the rest of us.

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

 

[Tuatara]

Hawking will find out if there is a God when Hawking dies, just like all the rest of us.

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hawking will find out if there is a God when Hawking dies, just like all the rest of us.

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Probably ? you don't sound convinced. New cells come from already existing cells, fact !

 

[reddler]

Hawking will find out if there is a God when Hawking dies, just like all the rest of us.

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

 

[Tuatara]

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

 

[reddler]

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

 

[OZman]

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48

Wherever life is possible, given time, it should arise. It should then ramify into a wide array of forms, differing in detail from those we now observe (as did earlier organisms on the earth) yet including many which should look familiar to us -- perhaps even men.

We are not alone in the universe, and do not bear alone the whole burden of life and what comes of it. Life is a cosmic event -- so far as we know the most complex state of organization that matter has achieved in our cosmos. It has come many times, in many places -- places closed off from us by impenetrable distances, probably never to be crossed even with a signal. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.53

 

[Hollie]

And what if the God is Loki, which means 99.99% of all humans that were/are religious were praying to the wrong God.

Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki. Since some consider Hawking to be 'the smartest guy' he should be able to find some way of getting a message back to you Maybe Hawking could send the message with Thor

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Probably ? you don't sound convinced. New cells come from already existing cells, fact !

Except that biological processes have cause cells to mutate, thus modifying existing cells.

That conflicts with your Fundie beliefs of a 6,000 year old planet but it's just a fact that the universe and this planet are far older than 6,000 years.

 

[Hollie]

Hawking is an atheist which means your question is redundant. I think Hawkings is pretty smart,dont you?

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

Sorry to disappoint you but your "quote" is a fabrication.

You see, this is one of the dangers you face when you carelessly cut and paste "quotes" without taking the time or effort to determine that you are simply perpetuating a fraud. Your "quote" is one that appears on christian fundamentalist websites and is recognizable for its absence of accuracy.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

 

[reddler]

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48

Wherever life is possible, given time, it should arise. It should then ramify into a wide array of forms, differing in detail from those we now observe (as did earlier organisms on the earth) yet including many which should look familiar to us -- perhaps even men.

We are not alone in the universe, and do not bear alone the whole burden of life and what comes of it. Life is a cosmic event -- so far as we know the most complex state of organization that matter has achieved in our cosmos. It has come many times, in many places -- places closed off from us by impenetrable distances, probably never to be crossed even with a signal. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.53

"The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough."
If once is enough then there is no growth and reproduction. It only happened once. Hence, life is limited it only happened once

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48

Wherever life is possible, given time, it should arise. It should then ramify into a wide array of forms, differing in detail from those we now observe (as did earlier organisms on the earth) yet including many which should look familiar to us -- perhaps even men.

We are not alone in the universe, and do not bear alone the whole burden of life and what comes of it. Life is a cosmic event -- so far as we know the most complex state of organization that matter has achieved in our cosmos. It has come many times, in many places -- places closed off from us by impenetrable distances, probably never to be crossed even with a signal. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.53

If once is enough then there is no growth and reproduction. It only happened once. Hence, life is limited to only happening once and when life died it was gone forever bc it was limited to once. The process by which it happened once is gone forever. Gone forever is called death. Wald now knows if he was wrong about God or not.

 

[reddler]

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

Sorry to disappoint you but your "quote" is a fabrication.

You see, this is one of the dangers you face when you carelessly cut and paste "quotes" without taking the time or effort to determine that you are simply perpetuating a fraud. Your "quote" is one that appears on christian fundamentalist websites and is recognizable for its absence of accuracy.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

 

[reddler]

Prove the quote wrong. Give a third way for life to come about.

 

[Hollie]

Prove the quote wrong. Give a third way for life to come about.

You proved the quote wrong. You carelessly "quote-mined" a fraudulent "quote". Now you're trying to sidestep your deliberate fraud.

Here's a bit of knowledge for you: I'm not required to disprove every fraudulent "quote" you cut and paste from sources that prey on those like you who are gullible and easy to manipulate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What question? I never asked one. As for Hawking, I am waiting for him or anyone else to prove abiogenesis. Until abiogenesis is duplicated as to how life started on earth then God is as viable as Hawking's belief or anyone else's belief in atheism.

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

Sorry to disappoint you but your "quote" is a fabrication.

You see, this is one of the dangers you face when you carelessly cut and paste "quotes" without taking the time or effort to determine that you are simply perpetuating a fraud. Your "quote" is one that appears on christian fundamentalist websites and is recognizable for its absence of accuracy.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Same old Quote Mine Project on behalf of Hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Prove the quote wrong. Give a third way for life to come about.

You proved the quote wrong. You carelessly "quote-mined" a fraudulent "quote". Now you're trying to sidestep your deliberate fraud.

Here's a bit of knowledge for you: I'm not required to disprove every fraudulent "quote" you cut and paste from sources that prey on those like you who are gullible and easy to manipulate.

Answer the question. Provide an alternative to the two explanations for the origins of life. There is only two explanations ,chemical evolution or a creator.

 

[Hollie]

The question you asked was "Ask Hawking to let you know if God is Loki" As for abiogenesis, whether it is correct or not has no bearing on the existence of a god. Also abiogenesis probably took millions upon millions of years to come about so duplicating it for you to observe is ridiculous.

Ok, close enough to a question, my apology. If abiogenesis is a reality then the process should be able to be duplicated. Without proof then abiogenesis is based on faith that science will someday be able to duplicate the process. Which means my belief in God and your belief in abiogenesis are both based on faith. Neither one can be proven.

Actually both can be proven. If there was a "god" and he decided to present himself to everyone then he would be able to do it, since according to the bible he has already done it to several individuals. People cannot prove it but a god if he exists can. Abiogenesis could one day be replicated in a lab. I'm not saying in our lifetime or even in the distant future but there is a possibility.

George Wald, Nobel Prize winning Atheist, on the Origin of Life
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
— George Wald, The Origin of Life

Sorry to disappoint you but your "quote" is a fabrication.

You see, this is one of the dangers you face when you carelessly cut and paste "quotes" without taking the time or effort to determine that you are simply perpetuating a fraud. Your "quote" is one that appears on christian fundamentalist websites and is recognizable for its absence of accuracy.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Same old Quote Mine Project on behalf of Hollie.

Same old Quote Mine project that exposed your fraudulent "quotes". What a shame that people like you are completely comfortable with fraud as long as it suits your agenda.

 

[Hollie]

Prove the quote wrong. Give a third way for life to come about.

You proved the quote wrong. You carelessly "quote-mined" a fraudulent "quote". Now you're trying to sidestep your deliberate fraud.

Here's a bit of knowledge for you: I'm not required to disprove every fraudulent "quote" you cut and paste from sources that prey on those like you who are gullible and easy to manipulate.

Answer the question. Provide an alternative to the two explanations for the origins of life. There is only two explanations ,chemical evolution or a creator.

Answer the question: why are so willing to promote your agenda of dishonesty?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't believe anyone when they say there is no god for the very same reason I dont' believe those who say there is. Without evidence the assertion doesn't mean much. To be able to prove empirically there's nothing in the rather large universe we might call God requires knowledge of everything in the universe. If you had that much information you'd BE god rendering your original assertion wrong.