No, you are misstating what we say.One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.
By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.
The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?
You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, canít exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.
It seems you are more reasonable than most and realize that life did evolve from a single cell. So even though you do not like the word "abiogenesis" you are still accepting an abiogenesis event. The problem with claiming that "God did it" is that you need evidence to make that claim. One thing that scientists have learned is that "God did it" is a mental dead end and has been shown be wrong every time that it has been claimed in the past. So if you are going to make assumptions the reasonable one to make is the one that has been shown to be right in the past. In the past natural processes have won every time there was a debate.
So we have two very good reasons to assume that abiogenesis was a natural process. All other events have been shown to be the results of natural processes, never have we observed something where "God did it" was the right answer. And "God did it" is a mental dead end. You end up with an unsolvable question, something scientists do not like at all.