Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You seem incapable of or unwilling to accept an explanation that doesn'tThat is the post I was referred to when I asked what evidence you had presented. Am I to assume that you have no evidence to present?
You're trying to paint my syllogism as an analogy for yours (like what Freodin actually tries to do). I'm not. I'm just trying to give you a good impression of how nonsensical your argument is. It simply does not follow from the premises. Consciousness exists, I will grant that. But this does not imply that there is an eternal consciousness, this does not imply a "first cause" or even the concept of a "cause", this doesn't imply any of the things you say. It is a non-sequitur - it simply does not follow.
Show us how you test it.
What experiment can demonstrate that no life in the history of the universe came from non-life?
Also, how many times has anyone observed a deity creating life?
Consciousness is what we really need to be considering as the quantitative substance of life, not matter. If consciousness lives outside of matter, then matter is not the beginning: consciousness is. I suggest that all one has to do is look at the fact that the universe is not eternal to understand that consciousness is the most likely beginning of the material universe.
Why look for the beginning of the universe outside of consciousness when consciousness is not only a viable option, but it is the only option that is provable as being factual?
You know no instance of life arising from abiogenesis. Neither do you have evidence of it ever occurring. Yet that doesn't interfere with your beliefs.I know of no instance of consciousness "Living outside of matter". Do you have any evidence of this ever occurring?
Can you prove that what you are seeing is real? No, but you cannot deny the existence of consciousness: that is the only reality you can prove. Why would you try and base your theories upon something you cannot prove is real?
How is the fact that life comes only from previous life not testable?
It can logically be argued that every single time that your abiogenesis fails the fact that life comes only from life it is being tested and being proven right
Actually, it needs no such testing since obviously that's the way life naturally arises.
The abiogenesis idea is simply the old Spontaneous Generation idea which was proven bogus in disguise.
Can you prove that what you are seeing is real?
You know no instance of life arising from abiogenesis.
Neither do you have evidence of it ever occurring.
Yet that doesn't interfere with your beliefs.
That's rich.
If you are going to appeal to all the evidence at our disposal to then assert something else, then you are making a huge argument from ignorance right out the gates.
ie: "we haven't observed X happening, only Y, therefor X is impossible".
The problem is the you folks haven't observed Y happening at all. We have observed X happening all the time-and choose to reject y in favor of X. So the ones being totally irrational are not those preferring Y it is those who prefer X.No. Observing X happening is only evidence that X happens. It isn't evidence that Y does NOT happen.
That's technically not correct.
Fact 1: at one point, there was no life
Fact 2: then there was life
Conclusion: life originated in some way.
The question is "how".
You merely declare it to be impossible that the answer to that question is a natural process, but you cannot back up that assertion.
The mocking is about people making assertions without evidence.
That's why scientists are investigating it.
However, we do know that at one point there was no life and then there was.
So life did arise *somehow*, in *some way*
False. As said, at one point there was no life and then there was. So it must have formed somehow, in some way.
The origins of life question is still a puzzle to be solved. Scientists are working to solve it. Abiogenesis is the field they work in. It's also the name of a collection of hypothesis, which shows some promise, but has nothing conclusive as of yet.
What beliefs?
You can never make that 100% assertion when using inductive reasoning.
The sun has appeared every morning for thousands of years. The conclusion that it will appear tomorrow isn't 100% guaranteed.
Only to probability increases with the number of times we observe a repetition of a pattern.
The probability of life having come from life at the outset is increased based the observation of that pattern which according to research has gone on for millions of years.
The problem with abiogenesis is that you have absolutely no pattern upon which to base your probability at all. That makes it extremely unlikely that it occurred that way.
Add to that the inability to force nature to comply in lab-and the probability that such a thing happened becomes even more ridiculously remote.
The problem is the you folks haven't observed Y happening at all.
We have observed X happening all the time-and choose to reject y in favor of X.
Obviously it had to originate in some way. that is a logical conclusion.
However, that isn't the issue since I am not denying that life had to originate in some way.
I am talking about the absurdity of assuming it arrived in a way abnormally contrary to how it arrives via nature.
Nope! I did not say that it's impossible for the answer to be a natural process because I don't consider abiogenesis a natural process.
The natural process is life arising from previous life.
That is a natural process because it has been observed in nature. Abiogenesis has never been observed in nature so how is that a natural process? You have it all backwards.
Then they should mock themselves since they are the ones making assertions when they don't really have a leg to stand on.
Absolutely no life? Really? Ummmm, how do you know?
I mean, you don't even know anything at all about before the Big Bang
and can only conjecture about branes, and multiple universes. So ummm, how can you be so sure that there was absolutely no life anywhere from which life was derived to be here?
Obviously your puzzlement and your scientists' puzzlement is based on a mere irrational assumption which you and they prefer to entertain.
You can never make that 100% assertion when using inductive reasoning.
The problem with abiogenesis is that you have absolutely no pattern upon which to base your probability at all. That makes it extremely unlikely that it occurred that way. Add to that the inability to force nature to comply in lab-and the probability that such a thing happened becomes even more ridiculously remote.
The problem is the you folks haven't observed Y happening at all.
I am talking about the absurdity of assuming it arrived in a way abnormally contrary to how it arrives via nature.
Nope! I did not say that it's impossible for the answer to be a natural process because I don't consider abiogenesis a natural process.
Abiogenesis has never been observed in nature so how is that a natural process?
Evidence.
Life leaves traces.
Furthermore, this planet hasn't got an infinite past.
Neither does the solar system.
Neither does the universe.
And you already agreed in your previous post that life originated in "some way".
Your physicists speculate about time before the Big Bang existing in other universes."before" time, ha?
Evidence. Life as we know it on this planet requires certain criteria to be able to exist.
Even ignoring all those criteria, the matter it is made from has to exist as well. Hydrogen, carbon, etc.
See, now you are even retreating into not only ignoring biology, but also chemistry and physics.
The lengths you need to go through in order to make your faith based beliefs seem likely or probable or sensible, ha....
It's not irrational to ask the question and then look for the answer.
What is irrational is to pretend to have the answer before asking the question - which is what you are doing.
1. The planet need not have an infinite past for a life source to initiate life on it.
2. Neither does the solar system
3. Neither does the universe
Your premise is flawed.
Your physicists speculate about time before the Big Bang existing in other universes.
Claim that our Big Bag might have been merely one in an infinite number of Big bangs all resulting from the collisions of what they call branes. Why you seem completely oblivious to this is beyond me.
I never denied that these things aren't essential to life. So that is strawman.
BTW
The blind faith accusation applies more to you that it does to me.
Only if we ask despite the obvious answer being right under our noses.
As for asking, every human asks hat question and reaches a conclusion.
Then why are you doing exactly that??
That's a very bad analogy. We know exactly why the sun "appears" every day. We know that for it to not "appear", the earth would have to stop rotating.
We know from physics that this will not be happening.
We also know that IF the sun would not "appear" tomorrow, none of us will be here to witness it, because none of us would survive whatever event would make that happen.
The physics of the solar system are very well understood.
See, this is why this is a very bad analogy. It doesn't matter how many times we have witnessed the sunrise, because we understand the physics involved.
For example, we have NEVER witnessed Pluto complete a full orbit, because a single orbit of that planet takes longer then the time we actually know about this object.
But that doesn't stop us from knowing that a single orbit of Pluto takes 248 years.
We don't need to observe its complete orbit to know this.
Once again, observing X does not tell you anything about the probability of Y.
Observing life reproducing does not tell you anything about the origins of life.
Argument from ignorance, again.
Not having access to any observable data doesn't make something impossible.
Black holes were described and predicted long before a single one was discovered.
Argument from ignorance, once again.
When you don't know how something happened (yet), it's not that surprising that there were no successful reproductions of the phenomena.
But we know that it DID happen.
Because at one point there was no life and then there was.
X and Y are two different phenomena.
Observing X doesn't tell you anything about Y.
Argument from ignorance.... AGAIN.
Great, so what are you arguing about, really?
Scientists working in the field of abiogenesis are investigating the "how" of this event. What is the problem? Obviously you agree that the event happened. You agree that it originated in some way.
This means that you agree that life doesn't only come from life. Since you agree that original life did not come from pre-existing life.
So again, what are you arguing about???
It seems like you are, though.......
You're contradicting yourself.
If original life didn't come from pre-existing life...... then it didn't come from pre-existing life. Why do you oppose investigating this event so much? Are you afraid of what they will find??
You're the one who has it backwards.
Original life didn't come from pre-existing life. It originated in some way.
Abiogenesis investigates how that happened.
Black holes weren't observed before they were described either.
The orbit of pluto has never been observed, but it's known to be 248 years.
Yes, the investigation is looking for a natural process on how it could have occurred. But you're asserting that it could not have been a natural process, up front. You cannot support that assertion. You're just making it because of your a priori faith based beliefs.
The only one making assertions here, is you.
If abiogenesis was just an assertion, there would be no investigation or research ongoing.
Your reasoning is absurd.
Are you now claiming that life exists outside of the universe?
It sure sounds like it.
In any case, you seem to be asserting an infinite string of life creating life.
"my" physicsists?
And do you know what the word "speculate" means?
I'm not oblivious to it. Rather, you seem to not understand the difference between "claims" and "speculation". You also rather happy to pick and choose the "speculations" that you can use in your argument, while ignoring all the others.
Then you contradict yourself.
If they are essential to life, then you imply that the must exist before life can exist. And in that case, you imply a time when life didn't exist, as those criteria weren't met at that time.
No. I'm not the one who is asserting things to be "impossible". I'm not the one who is pretending to have the answers before asking the questions. That would be you. The origins of life are unknown. There's no "obvious answer" here.
Scientists investigating the origins of life haven't reached a conclusion, as evidenced by the ongoing research.
I personally find it adequate and all your objections totally irrelevant.
Totally irrelevant!
We are talking about human expectations based on observation of patterns.
There is no need to know physics and mathematics uinvolved to develop such an expectation. The Pluto example is also a false analogy. Pluto is detectable. Abiogenesis is not.
So if life were reproducing via abiogenesis that would tell me nothing about the origins of life? LOL!
Is that why they are struggling to make it happen-because it will tell them nothing about X or of life coming only from life?
That's ridiculous!
No, that's not at all what I said.You sound as if not having any observable data means that something is likely to exist.
False analogy: Black holes indicated their presence via gravitational effects.
In contrast abiogenesis doesn't leave any observable effect
My inductive leap is justified. What isn't justified is calling something an event when you have absolutely no evidence to call it an event. Now THAT is BLIND FAITH.
I never claimed that observing X necessarily reveals anything about Y.
There is no event of abiogenesis to argue about except in your imagination. That's what the argument is about.
The only reason you IMAGINE that I am afraid is because you IMAGINE that I am approaching this subject from a religious point of view.
Actually, I have reason to suspect that YOU are the one who is actually terrified to contemplate what life coming only from life
might reveal because you can't seem to fathom that original life as anything other than God or a god.
You see, I'm not limited in that peculiar way.
Suppose life were presently clearly arising only via abiogenesis you would take that as evidence that life arises only via abiogenesis.
In that case you would consider those who suggested it arose from previous life, a process nver observed once, and never forced to happen in a la, you would tag the research as ubnnecessary and ridiculous.
That demands omniscience
I support it with a pattern in nature.
BTW
Your problem is that you want to bring religion and deities, goddesses, gods into this when religion and deitihave nothing to do with it.
I am merely refraining from dogmatically claiming omniscience by limiting life to this universe
Obviously you are the ones who don't since I clearly expressed my view as a speculation based on speculations, and you have taken it as if I were claiming 100% fact.
Not at all. Elements were used in order to form organisms. No contradiction there at all.
Speculation? Claims?
Wrong! I clearly expressed my first post as a speculation based on speculations. You folks understood it otherwise and began demanding that I back up my so-called claims with facts. I again explained that it was a speculation. Again you folks insist that it wasn't and that I should cough up facts. Do YOU know the difference between the twain?
I have good reason to feel that such a thing is impossible. It has never been observed to happen in nature.
It can't be forced to happen in a lab.
Furthermore the are just too many extremely improbable happy accidents necessary
for it to be a feasible idea.
The only reason it is treated as feasible is because of a dread of the alternative.
Wrong! Atheist scientists and their admirers proceed with the a priori belief that there is no life that could have produced the first life because to them that would be a recognition of the possibility to a being which the thing that they need to call God. There is your a priori.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?