Consider an “idol”. You know, a cult image: perhaps a statue, which some group somewhere prays to.

By any reasonable definition of the word, this idol is a “god”. Moreover, by any scientific test you care to name, this idol exists. Therefore at least one god exists.

I think you’re right by concentrating on “belief in God”, rather than the mere question of existence.

The creationist idea of Abiogenesis has not been held by scientists since the 1850s(!), and is ridiculously far from the real theory. A simplifed (but still confusing :() description of the theory is as follows: simple molecules react to form polymers, very few of which would form catalytic cylces of self-recplicating polymers (e.g. protein enzymes or RNA ribosomes); these continue in this manner to form self-reproducing macromolecular systems, or hypercycles; under experimental conditions, simulating those on early Earth, these systems have shown a tendency to become encased in a phospholipid bilayer, similar to that found in living cells. These liposomes, sheltering complex hypercylces, are known as protobionts and exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including very simple reproduction, metabolism and the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. These stages have been observed under experimental conditions, with a number of them being observed at deep sea vents, where conditions are most similar to those of early Earth. The one stage that is yet to be seen is the transformation from Protobiont (simple imitation life) to Prokaryote (single celled organisms); although this theory is now generally accepted, in one of its many forms, and extensive experimental work is currently underway to actually observe this final stage in ‘real life’.

The figure often parroted, for the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis is the 1 in 2.04 x 10 (to the power of) 390 of the standard creationist “generating carboxypeptidase by chance” scenario, publshed by the Institute for Creation Research. This probability is calculated assuming that molecules just react randomly, failing to recognise that molecules react in very specific patterns. Given the correct conditions, many of the complex molecules that are needed for life can form in a relatively short time and experiments exploring different conditions have resulted in the formation of surprisingly large amounts of complex molecules. ‘If you combine the Law of Truly Large Numbers with the horrendous vastness of the universe and the inconceivably huge amount of luminous matter within it, it is nigh inevitable that an event as improbable as abiogenesis would occur somewhere.’ (from evowiki) The statistical model used to produce this calculation is not even used by biologists. Ronald, I implore you to do some serious reading on statistics of probability, as I fear your understanding of them is less than sound. A good place to start would be this page, which I linked to earlier, or this eBook

I agree with you, that Dawkins’ remark was a bit careless and irresponsible; but, never did he present this as an actual theory for abiogenesis, it was merely a response during an informal interview, when he was asked, hypothetically, what it would mean for Intelligent Design to be true. The context in which he said it was on the subject of God and intelligent design; Like myself, Dawkins is not fundamentally against the concept of a God, but merely states that there is no quantifiable evidence in favour of one, and hence any intelligent scientist should presume its none existence - very much in the same way we presume the nonexistence of fairies, Santa Claus, or the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’. Here are two hypothetical situations: first, that any such God would either exist outside of the universe - in which case she is of no interest to Scientists - or otherwise exist within this universe - in which case she, also, would have arisen through evolution - could have seeded or guided life on Earth. There is no more scientific evidence in favour of biblical genesis as there is for the ‘theory’ that aliens seeded life on Earth, so how is it that you find yourself able to reject one but not the other?

We know that it is possible for life to exist in this universe, we are solid proof of this. However, we are yet to find a single shred of quantifiable evidence showing a God at work in this universe. Therefore, although the odds of Aliens evolving over billions of years, developing the technology to reach Earth, seeding life here without leaving any trace of their presence, and then disappearing, is hilariously unlikely; there is still more reason to believe this, than God-guided genesis. Any free-thinking, clear minded and rational person will see these ideas for the vulgar, infantile myths that they are.

A universe with a God would be very different than one without, therefore the existence of God is very much a scientific question. The age of religion is coming to an end. Ironically, religious extremism is sealing the coffin on religion itself. Whether or not you like it, we are witnessing the dawn of a new era; one in which the clear light of science will thin the oily fog of religion, giving us a new window into the pure, serene beauty of this universe and the minds through which we experience it, void of supernatural mysticism.

Also if someone resorts to “Oh yeah, Life was brought to Earth by Aliens obviously” that is a VERY weak arguement.

Back when Earth was being formed, what is the likelihood that another planet would have been formed already and evolved sufficiently intelligent life to go spreading life to the universe? Was Earth just late in forming?