if you feel that Hawking's theory that the universe just 'pop' out of a 'nothing', you denied it, and say that 'atheists are not organised'

but when you feel that wickramasenghe's theory of panspermia is ok, you say that atheist like him is very brilliant..

how convenient. how cherry-picking!

In response to lots of unsupported, unevidenced assertions, nothing more is required.

lots of denials

yet we conclude that only a pre-existing life did it.

No, we don't conclude that. You do. I don't.

secular astronomers would claim, that several lumps of debris, with the help of gravity, formed the planets - but this claim can't be verified thru observations and experiment,

Which part can't be verified? The existence of debris, or the existence of gravity?

secular scientists have said that life started from a single cell

No, they don't say that.

there are things, like life, that happened in the distant past, that nobody has observed it, and yet we conclude that only a pre-existing life did it. we have scientific evidence that 'life only comes from pre-existing life'..

we know that a car has intelligent designer even though nobody has observed it, because nature alone can't accomplish this task, it needs a 'prime mover', a 'conscious entity'

but planet-building, just like secular astronomers would claim, that several lumps of debris, with the help of gravity, formed the planets - but this claim can't be verified thru observations and experiment, therefore, it remains a claim..

secular scientists have said that life started from a single cell, and thru time, it evolved. this claim is not verified and tested. there are hundreds of questions that needs to be answered squarely and scientifically. what triggers it to develop? why it has to exists? these even 2 questions are not answered by scientists themselves. what are the chances that this LUCA will survive in the first day or weeks of its life? we all know that micro organisms are the smallest forms of life and they never evolved, ever! anyway, uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past) is always false because of that. micro organisms found embedded in fossils '4.5 billlion years ago' are still the same as '4.5 billion years later'

good observations, good experimentations, will always result in good science.

That is my question, and I wish you would answer it.

nope.

OK. So you agree, then, that we can be justified in believing that something happened even though we did not see it happen?

nope. i only want to know if a 'nothing' produces a 'something'.. is that hard to be experimented?

i'm beginning to think, or i conclude that both krauss and hawking don't understand what really is a 'nothing'.. i thought they are the most brilliant astronomers and scientists in the whole universe.

it digs deeper in your throat!

So, we're not justified in believing something happened unless we personally saw it happen. Is that your position? That is my question, and I wish you would answer it.