A Guide to Finding Faith

It does not state that. There is no theory of abiogenesis, only hypotheses.
The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events.
A hypothesis is not a theory. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory, not the other way 'round. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
That isn't how processes work.
Neither a theory nor a hypothesis is a 'process'.
The next stage is built upon previous stages and so on.
There are no 'stages' required of any theory or hypothesis.
Again, there is no Theory of Abiogenesis.
The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. It is not a theory of science.
The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. It is also not a theory of science.

Both are theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. That is it. That is all.
A theory of science must be falsifiable. That is it. That is all.

There are many non-scientific theories. Many of them are also religions.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. This is actually the best way to define what 'religion' means.
In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God. ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this.
In the Church of No God, the initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist. ALL other arguments in that religion likewise stem from this.

It is not possible to prove any circular argument either True nor False. Any attempt to do so creates the Circular Argument fallacy. It is what a fundamentalist does.

Theories of science MUST be falsifiable. That is, there must be available a test that tries to destroy that theory (the null hypothesis thing again). That test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. So long as the theory can survive such tests, it is automatically a part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.

No one has to vote on it. There is no elite voting body for it. There is no 'peer' review or other voting bloc.
 
I'm not looking for a reason to need faith.

If I accept that the universe is infinite, then everything that sub-atomic particles can physically do or form will not only be done or formed but will be done or formed an infinite number of times.

Throughout the infinite universe, there are probably an infinite number of innocent children born with inoperable tumors.
Conversely, every great piece of art which we admire was probably created an infinite number of times.

Michelangelo's Pieta was mentioned once before as an example of something that transcends a material universe.
It's a carved statue of a mother holding the dead body of her executed son.
I saw it and cringed. It depicts one of the negative realities that happens in an infinite universe where anything can happen.
It was excellent craft if that's what we're evaluating, but I couldn't imagine many things less beautiful.

Perhaps in an infinite universe, minds can react in an infinite number of ways.

'Faith' is simply another word for the circular argument. That itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument True or False is the fallacy.
You already HAVE faith. Oddly enough, you do not need to define the thing you have faith in.
 
Back
Top