Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

If we're talking about ultimate causes, then to avoid an infinite regress, logically, we must start with some type of non-contingency that is uncaused, whether that is a supernatural being (which is commonly understood to be an uncaused being) or an uncaused universe/multiverse.

Either way we seem to have a conundrum.

Yes, either way one has to start with a *brute fact*

It is very difficult to believe that the Lord has been around for thousands, millions, zillions of years,Stephen, but he's the only self sustaining, self existing 'being' the world has ever known.

We're all dependent upon someone / something no matter how independent we may think we are. He isn't.

   Hence the phrase "supernatural", beyond nature. Unexplainable ever. No tie to the natural environment whatsoever. Out of our realm. However you want to say it.

   And obviously I'm not alluding to anything. I've never hid my belief in the God of the Bible, but my arguments here are only that the cause of everything cannot be of a natural essence. It's impossible.

But that's a faith belief that @stephen_33 doesn't share

In philosophy, a *brute fact* is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more 'fundamental fact'

It would seem that brute facts are unavoidable 

Z was caused by Y which was caused by X....which was caused by A which was caused by.... To avoid an infinite regress, logically we must eventually start with an *uncaused* first cause and assert this as a *brute fact* that cannot be explained.

Theists assert an uncaused supernatural being (God) that has always been as a brute fact that cannot be further explained ('God just is')

Atheists like Bertrand Russel must assert the universe/multiverse as a brute fact that is *uncaused* and 'just is' (which, of course, is not an explanation for why there is 'something rather than nothing').

*So it seems that *everyone* has to assert an uncaused first cause as a brute fact in order to avoid an infinite regress. While I know @stephen_33 will disagree, I do think the scales tip towards the theist side on this one (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a theist). I know. What a convenient 'self-serving argument', but it's actually true (I would say otherwise if I thought it was supported. Hopefully people know me well enough to recognize that). And the reason is simply because the universe seems contingent (i.e., it's possible for the universe not to exist). It also seems like the universe 'began' to exist (and yes, @stephen_33, I know we get into some complicated things with the meaning of 'time' and causation and so on, but even granting that, as far as we can tell the universe has a finite age ~13.7 billion years old, and we have like a minute, split fraction of a second 'escape hatch' to claim 'we don't know'). On top of that, it seems like the universe won't last forever. We could speculate about an eternal multiverse, but I see us running into the same types of issues. The problem of contingency vs. non-contingency.

HOWEVER, having said all that it's important to recognize that this is philosophy and philosophical musings. It's not science. Science can no more demonstrate the supernatural than it can prove that nature is all there is. Science can't prove metaphysics.

   So a theist saying "God" and an atheist saying "I don't want to talk about it" are supposed to be considered equal answers?

   Nope.

No, that's not what the atheist says

Cannot be explained = I won't explain it = I don't want to talk about it.

The theist can't explain God

So he gets a pass and can call it a "Brute Fact"?

   Not with me. That there is an Almighty Creator is my whole point. His point can't be "Brute Fact" or he's conceded the point.

No one gets a pass. That's the point. EVERYONE--atheist and theist alike--has to ultimately assert an uncaused cause as a brute fact that they can't explain. The atheist has to assert a multiverse that 'just is,' while the theist has to assert a supernatural being (God) that 'just is.'  

Hold on, who said "the Lord" or 'God' has anything remotely to do with whether or not life owes its emergence to a naturalistic cause?

I've pointed this out before and I'll repeat it ad nauseum - even if we accept a non-natural cause for life, that doesn't mean it corresponds remotely with any of the divine beings of human religion or mythology.

Those who believe 'X' proves 'Y' are most probably heading for a huge disappointment.

Well that depends very much on exactly what 'the theist' is claiming? Would you like to expand on that within the confines of existing knowledge?

Nah, that's OK. We've already discussed this issue at length elsewhere when we discussed Antony Flew et al's Aristotlean conception of God. Been there, done that. Don't see any new ground to cover.

Well I more or less assumed you meant, or were strongly hinting at, the kind of divine entity worshipped the world over and often described as the 'Almighty' and the 'Creator' of all things?

Are you saying you don't have the conventional 'God' of religion in mind when you ponder the existence of a non-natural creator of life?