Theists, if a charlatan existed...

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you use the word 'God'? To endear yourself to Christians and others? You want to differentiate between yourself and Muslims? Why don't you use the word 'Allah', which is what Bahaullah used? Why hesitate to use the word Allah? Anything wrong with that word? OK, be happy with your Allah, His Manifestation, the sender of Prophets/sons/messengers, and what all he has written.

So, we cannot judge what Bahaullah or Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi has written and should take it for granted like an unlettered village buffoon in 19th Century? Is that what you mean?

.. and how He was not educated in schools.

That is the basic problem. He was not educated. He knew nothing about science. Had he been educated, perhaps he would have had different views.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Reason, neglected as it often is, turns out to be a marvelous tool for making decisions.

What does that have to with implying 99% of persons don't have the faculties of reason that the (prideful) atheists have?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Absolutely correct! I honestly don't know how anyone could claim otherwise. Just think about some of the things we used to think, collectively. Bloodletting to rid ourselves of disease (search up "The Four Humors"), astrology as a portent or method to access divine knowledge, alchemical prescriptions of understanding that held that all the substances in the world/universe were composed of earth, wind, water, fire in varying amounts, the concept of "geocentricity" (that is, Earth as the center of the universe), or how about one of the biggest "gems" of all - "Spontaneous Generation":
Yeah... humans are just a fountain of "truth," aren't they?

Not what it's about. I don't want to "lead" anyone. What I want is everyone else to stop trying to lead ANYONE else solely relying on garbage justification they got from some "holy" book. That's what I want.

No, that doesn't work, since atheists claim they have all the "facts" regarding a god, abiogenesis, etc. While you can make a case for gaps in past knowledge, as you've done above, you can never say there is something other than God that 99% of people believe DESPITE the facts and science in hand.

And yes, there was no need to repeat as you did above that atheists love any libertarian/libertine possibilities to commit sin without temporal judgment (stop telling US ATHEISTS to behave biblically)!

 

[LuisDantas]

What does that have to with implying 99% of persons don't have the faculties of reason that the (prideful) atheists have?

I have no idea. Did anyone even say such a thing?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, that doesn't work, since atheists claim they have all the "facts" regarding a god, abiogenesis, etc. While you can make a case for gaps in past knowledge, as you've done above, you can never say there is something other than God that 99% of people believe DESPITE the facts and science in hand.

I would never say that: "there is something other than God that 99% of people believe DESPITE the facts and science in hand" - people OBVIOUSLY believe in God. And in the end, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the facts and science say about ANY OTHER TOPIC. This is another thing I am quite sure you have been told thousands of times - disproving evolution does not bring to the table any actual evidence regarding God's existence. Bashing abiogenesis does not, in any way, "prove God." So who cares what science has to say about any other topic when you re trying to provide evidence for God? None of it should matter. What should matter is whether or not you have any evidence for the claim at hand: that God exists. And no... I am not talking about personal revelation, or an argumentum ad populum (like you keep trying to pull with this 99% bullcrap), or "The Bible." I'm talking about evidence that can stand on its own, and doesn't need an advocate putting all the pieces together and effectively leading the witness. DEMONSTRATION. That's just about all I care about.

And yes, there was no need to repeat as you did above that atheists love any libertarian/libertine possibilities to commit sin without temporal judgment (stop telling US ATHEISTS to behave biblically)!

If all you have is "because The Bible says so" then I'm going to straight up tell you that you can't ask me to "behave biblically." I have MUCH BETTER reasons and rationale behind why I remain morally upstanding. I don't, at all, seek "libertarian/libertine possibilities to commit sin without temporal judgment" - that's just you viewing atheism through your bigoted lens. Of course, without that little prejudice on your part, your entire narrative would fall apart, wouldn't it? You basically have to believe that atheists are just immoral, degenerate beings who deny God only so that they can go around participating in a perpetual sin party. The Bible says so, right? So dumb. Just so dumb and naive of you to dredge up that broken record and pretend it holds any weight in a conversation. You prove how little you know or care about your fellow man with statements like that. I truly believe that Christianity is dying precisely due to viewpoints like yours. Hallelujah.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Okay, if you want to believe that Baha’u’llah was deluded in a non-clinical sense I am not going to try to talk you out if it. It is a logical possibility, but the other logical possibility is that He actually got communication from God, as He said

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon Mycouch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.”” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

I cannot imagine why anyone would make something like that up but YMMV.

Of course nobody should believe such a bold claim without doing a thorough investigation and looking at all the evidence.

Okay, if you want to believe that Baha’u’llah was deluded in a non-clinical sense I am not going to try to talk you out if it. It is a logical possibility, but the other logical possibility is that He actually got communication from God, as He said

Both are possibilities, though one seems FAR more logical that the other. After all, there are plenty of verifiable examples of delusional people who are convinced that God talks to them, yet absolutely no verifiable evidence that there are people who God actually talked to.

I cannot imagine why anyone would make something like that up but YMMV.

It's not a matter of people 'making it up'. A person with mental issues who is convinced that God talks to them is not 'making it up'... they are simply incorrect.

 

[Bird123]

Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

Well, let's see if I can come up with a few things. This fake religion would have to teach people to value beliefs since that is all they have. They would have to recite and repeat these beliefs over and over along with telling people it's not right to question God. They must accept the word.

To sell the religion, they would have to tell people what they want to hear. By following those beliefs, one will reach eternal bliss with no more problems and everything goes their way. They can tell people God only loves and takes care of followers. Of course, God must be out of reach except for going through their religion.

This new religion can use some of the petty things mankind holds so dear. They can create a we against they since God loves those followers more. They judge, blame, condemn those who do not follow. Since people want to be on the good side and we have God's backing, we are the good guys; they are the bad guys.

Religion can not exist without followers. This new religion will tell their followers that God wants them to convert others to be followers as well. This will guaranty growth with new converts and new people trying to convert others. It's an expanding process.

Of course, there will always be those who refuse to believe. They must intimidate those into believing with the use of fear. God will get you and do unthinkable things to you if you do not follow this religion. Just the threat of God doing unthinkable things to nonbelievers will keep those believers in line as well.

This religion will gain much power and influence. Followers must teach their children from the youngest age. After all, we do not want God doing unthinkable things to our children. Followers must donate lots of money their entire lives. Bringing converts to God takes lots of money.

Giant, Beautiful, Inviting Churches will bring people to this new religion. Let the people feel the wealth and magnificence of the church so they too can feel wealthy and associate this with God.

Remember, this is God's word. You surely do not have the gall to question God. Accept! You do not need to do anything else. It is the only way to happiness.

Oh, yes. I almost forgot. Along the way, God can ask you to do anything. No matter how bad it sounds, don't worry, just do it. After all, God is the one making the rules and God can do anything God wants and it's OK!


Well, does this sound like it would make a good new religion?

Of course, there will always be hard headed people such as myself who will question everything, even God. I will never accept: Cause God says so! I'm sure I will incur the anger and wrath of those followers. They will condemn, hate me, and call me evil. This will not matter since I realize that more is learned around Drama than at almost any other time. Light always hurts the eyes when it hasn't been around. In time, light will help one see what actually exists. It was staring us in the face all along.

Whew!! That's my view. I hope it's clear.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, if you want to believe that Baha’u’llah was deluded in a non-clinical sense I am not going to try to talk you out if it. It is a logical possibility, but the other logical possibility is that He actually got communication from God, as He said

Both are possibilities, though one seems FAR more logical that the other. After all, there are plenty of verifiable examples of delusional people who are convinced that God talks to them, yet absolutely no verifiable evidence that there are people who God actually talked to.

I understand that perspective, but it is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions
to assume that just because most people who were convinced that God talks to them were delusional that all people who are convinced that God talks to them are delusional.

No, there is no proof that God ever talked to anyone, but there is evidence that indicates that *true* Messengers of God exist. Scriptures alone are evidence but the history of their mission on earth and the effect they have had upon mankind is also evidence.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

I cannot imagine why anyone would make something like that up but YMMV.

It's not a matter of people 'making it up'. A person with mental issues who is convinced that God talks to them is not 'making it up'... they are simply incorrect.

There is no reason to assume that Baha'u'llah had any mental issues. If you knew more about Him and his life you would understand why that is not even feasible. So you might have to try to come up with another explanation.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand that perspective, but it is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions
to assume that just because most people who were convinced that God talks to them were delusional that all people who are convinced that God talks to them are delusional.

No, there is no proof that God ever talked to anyone, but there is evidence that indicates that *true* Messengers of God exist. Scriptures alone are evidence but the history of their mission on earth and the effect they have had upon mankind is also evidence.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

There is no reason to assume that Baha'u'llah had any mental issues. If you knew more about Him and his life you would understand why that is not even feasible. So you might have to try to come up with another explanation.

I understand that perspective, but it is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions
to assume that just because most people who were convinced that God talks to them were delusional that all people who are convinced that God talks to them are delusional.

Never said that it's IMPOSSIBLE... only that based upon the reality that we have numerous verifiable examples of deluded people who incorrectly BELIEVE that god talks to them when in fact he does not and absolutely ZERO verifiable evidence that god has ever talked to anyone, it would take EXTREMELY convincing evidence for me to ever conclude that latter ever actually happened.

No, there is no proof that God ever talked to anyone, but there is evidence that indicates that *true* Messengers of God exist. Scriptures alone are evidence but the history of their mission on earth and the effect they have had upon mankind is also evidence.

If scriptures are indeed 'evidence' then they represent very WEAK evidence and as I said before, in order for me to believe in a fantastical claim like 'God talks to me!" I'm going to need EXTREMELY convincing evidence. Unverifiable claims written in old scriptures does NOT qualify.

There is no reason to assume that Baha'u'llah had any mental issues. If you knew more about Him and his life you would understand why that is not even feasible. So you might have to try to come up with another explanation.

Of course there is reason to assume that he might very well have had mental issues. There are plenty of examples of people with mental issues who claim that god or gods speak to them. That reality alone means that there is no reason to believe that he DIDN'T have mental issues, without some EXTREMELY convincing evidence to the contrary. The fact that he said some 'wise things' or was extremely articulate does NOT mean that he didn't suffer from delusions. People with mental issues can be quite brilliant and successful at times.

 

[Milton Platt]

Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

Aren't all religions false?

 

[epronovost]

Aren't all religions false?

Religions aren't false per say, many of their claims are false, many others are simply impossible to verify, some are opinions and some are indeed true.

 

[Milton Platt]

Religions aren't false per say, many of their claims are false, many others are simply impossible to verify, some are opinions and some are indeed true.

Well, yes, religions are actually religions, if that is what you are meaning. But I know of no religion thus far that has proven to be based upon truth, at least not theistic ones.

 

[Trailblazer]

Aren't all religions false?

No, only some of them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that perspective, but it is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions
to assume that just because most people who were convinced that God talks to them were delusional that all people who are convinced that God talks to them are delusional.

Never said that it's IMPOSSIBLE... only that based upon the reality that we have numerous verifiable examples of deluded people who incorrectly BELIEVE that god talks to them when in fact he does not and absolutely ZERO verifiable evidence that god has ever talked to anyone, it would take EXTREMELY convincing evidence for me to ever conclude that latter ever actually happened.

I would not expect you to accept anything less than that kind of evidence.

No, there is no proof that God ever talked to anyone, but there is evidence that indicates that *true* Messengers of God exist. Scriptures alone are evidence but the history of their mission on earth and the effect they have had upon mankind is also evidence.
If scriptures are indeed 'evidence' then they represent very WEAK evidence and as I said before, in order for me to believe in a fantastical claim like 'God talks to me!" I'm going to need EXTREMELY convincing evidence. Unverifiable claims written in old scriptures does NOT qualify.

I would not expect you to accept anything less than that kind of evidence, and I would not recommend you reading old scriptures that were not even written by a Messenger of God.

There is no reason to assume that Baha'u'llah had any mental issues. If you knew more about Him and his life you would understand why that is not even feasible. So you might have to try to come up with another explanation.

Of course there is reason to assume that he might very well have had mental issues. There are plenty of examples of people with mental issues who claim that god or gods speak to them. That reality alone means that there is no reason to believe that he DIDN'T have mental issues, without some EXTREMELY convincing evidence to the contrary. The fact that he said some 'wise things' or was extremely articulate does NOT mean that he didn't suffer from delusions. People with mental issues can be quite brilliant and successful at times.

That’s true, there is reason to think (but not assume) that he might have had mental issues, given the bold claims that He made, and that is precisely why Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at ALL the evidence, not “just believe” the bold claims He was making.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation…”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

I suggest you read the book on this link:

The Challenge of Baha'u'llah, PROOFS OF THE BAHA'I REVELATION

Here is the Introduction to the book, explaining why he wrote the book and his intended audience:

Religion is a system of belief, but it is also much more: it is voluntary submission to a Higher Power. This remains true whether we interpret that power as a living God, an impersonal cosmic force or simply some noble purpose. Religion means joyous surrender, a giving of ourselves to something greater than ourselves.

No one was ever argued into such a commitment, any more than anyone was ever argued into falling in love. It is not enough for religion to make sense intellectually; it must also feel right and ring true in the very depth of one's being. Beyond that, it requires deliberate choice, an act of courage and humility that must spring as much from the heart as from the head. Sometimes linear thought plays only a minor role: persons with sharp insight may embrace a religion -knowing exactly why they choose to do so - long before they can explain or justify the logic of their decision to anyone else. Instinctively, they simply know.

Just the same, we can recognize these facts and still agree with Bertrand Russell: 'What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ' There is deep satisfaction in thinking clearly and rationally about religion and exchanging ideas with other people. Without the illumination of spiritual intuition, reason is sterile; but without the discipline of reason, intuition can be hard to distinguish from blind emotionalism - or, worse yet, from blind imitation.

The sacred writings of the Baha'i Faith clearly define the role of reason in attaining spiritual insight. These teachings advise a seeker to 'apply thyself to rational and authoritative arguments. For arguments are a guide to the path and by this the heart will be turned unto the Sun of Truth. And when the heart is turned unto the Sun, then the eye will be opened and will recognize the Sun through the Sun itself. Then man will be in no need of arguments... '1 'In divine questions we must not depend entirely upon the heritage of tradition and former human experience; nay, rather, we must exercise reason, analyze and logically examine the facts presented so that confidence will be inspired and faith attained. '2

This book is the fruit of one person's struggle to understand and fulfil these admonitions. It seeks to present, in rational terms, the basis for my belief that the Baha'i Revelation is divine in origin, and to explain why I see its claim as posing a challenge of critical importance to humanity. Since religious conviction has roots that go far deeper than words or logic, it would be presumptuous to call this book a complete statement of my reasons for being a Baha'i. Those reasons which I can explain in print constitute only one aspect (and not necessarily the most important aspect) of the experiences and promptings which have helped shape my belief. Nevertheless, I share them in the hope that they will prove useful or stimulating.

I have written primarily for two large groups of people: 1) those interested in the Baha'i Faith but not committed to it; and 2) those already committed to the Faith who want to know more about the evidence upon which its claims rest. However, some readers may be hearing of the Baha'i Faith for the first time so I have tried to provide, as the discussion unfolds, whatever background information is needed for an understanding of the points raised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baha'u'llah gave prophecies of future events that people of future generations could use to prove the truth of His Claim. I posted those prophecies on another thread today: #103

 

[Milton Platt]

So, 99% of humans over all history are WRONG in varied ways. If only the 1% could truly lead we, the 99%!

I question your 99% figure..I'd like to see the underlying math, please. Everyone is wrong some of the time about some things. some people simply employ reason and logic as a means of increasing their odds of being correct.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would never say that: "there is something other than God that 99% of people believe DESPITE the facts and science in hand" - people OBVIOUSLY believe in God. And in the end, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the facts and science say about ANY OTHER TOPIC. This is another thing I am quite sure you have been told thousands of times - disproving evolution does not bring to the table any actual evidence regarding God's existence. Bashing abiogenesis does not, in any way, "prove God." So who cares what science has to say about any other topic when you re trying to provide evidence for God? None of it should matter. What should matter is whether or not you have any evidence for the claim at hand: that God exists. And no... I am not talking about personal revelation, or an argumentum ad populum (like you keep trying to pull with this 99% bullcrap), or "The Bible." I'm talking about evidence that can stand on its own, and doesn't need an advocate putting all the pieces together and effectively leading the witness. DEMONSTRATION. That's just about all I care about.

If all you have is "because The Bible says so" then I'm going to straight up tell you that you can't ask me to "behave biblically." I have MUCH BETTER reasons and rationale behind why I remain morally upstanding. I don't, at all, seek "libertarian/libertine possibilities to commit sin without temporal judgment" - that's just you viewing atheism through your bigoted lens. Of course, without that little prejudice on your part, your entire narrative would fall apart, wouldn't it? You basically have to believe that atheists are just immoral, degenerate beings who deny God only so that they can go around participating in a perpetual sin party. The Bible says so, right? So dumb. Just so dumb and naive of you to dredge up that broken record and pretend it holds any weight in a conversation. You prove how little you know or care about your fellow man with statements like that. I truly believe that Christianity is dying precisely due to viewpoints like yours. Hallelujah.

If we restate "bashing abiogenesis" to "abogenesis shown to be not possible" than the alternative can only be intelligent design. Do you disagree?

Regarding degeneracy, I believe that not only atheists, but Christians, are prone to sin and imperfection, therefore, the Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I question your 99% figure..I'd like to see the underlying math, please. Everyone is wrong some of the time about some things. some people simply employ reason and logic as a means of increasing their odds of being correct.

It wouldn't be underlying "math" it would be "certified opinion polls" and other tools.

Over 99% of humans think atheists are wrong/foolish/deceived/unspiritual, etc. Does that help?

 

[epronovost]

If we restate "bashing abiogenesis" to "abogenesis shown to be not possible" than the alternative can only be intelligent design. Do you disagree?

Not quite. While abiogenesis and more specifically the RNA hypothesis, is geting more and more solid as a theory for the apparition of life with a latest experiment yielding impressive results, it's not the only possible explanation. Panspermia, the idea that life would have emerged on another planet and ''crash landed'' on Earth while frozen in comet's ice is also a possibility. In that case of course, it simply ''moves'' the problem of the emergence of life to another theatre than Earth, but it's still a valid, if marginal, theory for the apparition of life on Earth. On the other hand, spontaneous generation of life has yet to be observed, let alone its process explained, thus is a ''not even wrong'' type of explanation.

 

[Milton Platt]

It wouldn't be underlying "math" it would be "certified opinion polls" and other tools.

Over 99% of humans think atheists are wrong/foolish/deceived/unspiritual, etc. Does that help?

No, because far more than 1% of the earths' population are atheists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If we restate "bashing abiogenesis" to "abogenesis shown to be not possible" than the alternative can only be intelligent design. Do you disagree?

Yep. Disagree. There are infinitely many possibilities that are just as fanciful as your "God" explanation that shouldn't be ruled out if we aren't going to rule out "God." How about these:

1. A machine that, given infinite time, was built just by chance molecules and parts all coming together in just the right form, was turned on when an asteroid accidentally bumped its "power" button. This machine is/was capable of producing entire planets with life already instantiated upon their surfaces. This I would term "unintelligent design."
2. If we're talking about the Earth specifically then how about: An alien race that was already established accidentally by genie magic (yes, genies are real - but to be clear, they are NOT intelligent! They actually have no brains or thoughts, and magic just sort of "happens" around them) came to the earth and one of their kind took a dump in a pool of Earth water. That alien's intestinal evacuations provided the first bacteria that served as the first life forms on Earth.
3. Or: Lightning, while not intelligent, is actually concentrated "life." It is consciousness and the spark of life in concentrated form. All it actually takes is for lightning to strike just the right combination of materials within a solution of water and other key compounds for some of the long-chain molecules to come "to life." That this happens is just an innate fact of the universe - no intelligence was involved, and it is argued that lightning being concentrated "spark of life" it is actually "biological" - and so this is not an "abiogenesis." Once this all happens, organisms begin to grow and reproduce. We've just never been in just the right place at just the right time, and besides that, with what we've done to the environment these "perfect conditions" just aren't present on Earth anymore.

I mean seriously - you want to claim "magic" from an "intelligent" source is the ONLY other alternative to "abiogenesis?" The only thing you can genuinely say is that life either arose from intelligent sources or it didn't. That is the only "true" statement you can make. You can't make a valid dichotomy out of "life either arose from non-life or an intelligent agent created it." That is not necessarily true. And I can make up as many examples as you want of other fictions for which I have zero compelling empirical evidence (i.e. the SAME type of evidence you have for your claims that "God did it" - hearsay) that explain the origins of life in the universe.