Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, the life of God has a form, and God can reveal his life in various forms.

I didn't ask if he has a form. I asked if he is a life form. That is a two-word term and you cannot just separate the words like that.

We know what a life form is. In what way is God a life form?

Can you define what life is?

An open thermal system with a metabolism is I guess the simplest definition, but I'm no bio major.

It is impossible for life to come from non-life because non-life cannot produce life. Only life can produce life. All evidence points to this fact.

If we created life in a lab, it would not be proof of concept for abiogenesis but it would contradict what you said above.

Do you honestly think it's impossible to do that? Is life magical then?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, Karl Popper popularized the idea of falsification in science.

It's often described as though he 'won' and falsification is the only way to talk about science forevermore. This isn't true within the philosophy of science community, and I think the the vast majority of the actual scientific community doesn't pay much attention to the philosophy of science community anyway.

I think the importance of falsifiability is exaggerated.

I don't think that is the case when it comes to proposing hypothesis in the natural sciences.

Perhaps "falsification" in popper's definition is a bit different from how I am using it... But it seems to me that if an idea isn't falsifiable, it is impossible to tell how accurate it is.

An unfalsifiable proposition is by definition an untestable one.
The way I understand the word, it's basically almost synonymous with "testable" or "verifiable".

A model that makes no testable predictions is a useless model.
A model that makes testable predictions is falsifiable.

Seems to me that you can't have one (testability) without the other (falsifiability).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand, but the issue I'm addressing is once you determine the true cause of something, why would you continue to consider it falsifiable?

If you have a model that makes testable predictions, then you have a model that makes testable predictions. You can redo the testing succesfully till you turn blue in the face. You'll still have a testable (ie, falsifiable) model.

Also, no matter how accurate any given idea seems to be at any given time, there's still that chance you're actually wrong about your determination.

Right, but when the truth value is assessed to actually be true or actually be false, then it's no longer a falsifiable proposition because the true value has been determined.

No. Your model remains testable and thus falsifiable. It's a property of the nature of the proposition.

Something that's known to actually be accurate can't possibly be false

Unless, off course, you are actually wrong about what you thought you knew.

And if it's never shown to be wrong we can confidently call it a fact.

Wow! Nooooo!
Things aren't facts when "they can't shown to be wrong".

I have an undetectable pet dragon. Good luck "showing that to be wrong".

 

[Astrophile]

The input of an intelligent life source is required to make the chemical system operate.

And the input of conscious intention is required to demonstrate that this chemical system can operate.
Which requires the input of an intelligent life source to make this complex chemical system work.

I don't see how you make this out, how you can say that an emergent property of a system requires an external input.

To use an analogy, one can't say that a single atom or molecule has a temperature or a density, or an electrical conductivity, or an opacity; these are properties of matter in the mass. That is what I mean by emergent properties. Presumably you don't think that it is necessary to have the input of an intelligent electrical conductivity source or an intelligent opacity source to make a large assemblage of atoms or molecules electrically conducting or opaque to light. In the same way, so far as I understand it, what we call life is an emergent property of complex systems of organic compounds, something that is not present in a small number of molecules but emerges naturally in larger and more complex systems.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Perhaps "falsification" in popper's definition is a bit different from how I am using it...

I certainly agree with the main thrust of your comments. Crucial tests of hypotheses and theories depend on specific testable predictions that separate them from competing theories.

But yes, for me anyway, the specific word 'falsifiability' comes with a lot of philosophical baggage.

 

[Chriliman]

If you have a model that makes testable predictions, then you have a model that makes testable predictions. You can redo the testing succesfully till you turn blue in the face. You'll still have a testable (ie, falsifiable) model.

If you define falsifiable as synonymous with verifiable then this helps me understand your thinking. When something is verifiable, it means it can possibly be known as true, when something is falsifiable, it means it can possibly be known as false. In both cases, truth value can be determined so I would agree they are synonymous.

Also, no matter how accurate any given idea seems to be at any given time, there's still that chance you're actually wrong about your determination.

So you believe no one can have true knowledge because there's always a chance they're wrong? I would disagree with that.

Wow! Nooooo!
Things aren't facts when "they can't shown to be wrong".

I have an undetectable pet dragon. Good luck "showing that to be wrong".

This ties into my above question - how do you believe facts are determined? Can someone even have true knowledge of a fact? If so, then there'd be no chance that they're wrong.

Do you have true knowledge of the facts about your "undetectable pet dragon"?
For instance; do you know it's just something you made up in your mind?

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, there are many problems with our current knowledge of abiogenesis, which is why scientists continue to research and study it.

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

"Life" is not some magical separate concept. It's just a list of traits and biological processes that can be observed in some organic material. All life is made up of non-life.

 

[Chriliman]

"Life" is not some magical separate concept. It's just a list of traits and biological processes that can be observed in some organic material. All life is made up of non-life.

It may be true that all life on earth is made up of non-life materials(because that's how God made it), but the assumption that non-life materials gave rise to life on earth(apart from all conscious intention) can't ever be demonstrated as true, since any demonstration requires conscious intention.

 

[Cearbhall]

It may be true that all life on earth is made up of non-life materials(because that's how God made it), but the assumption that non-life materials gave rise to life on earth(apart from all conscious intention) can't ever be demonstrated as true, since any demonstration requires conscious intention.

So what?

I don't know how else life would come to be. We know that it exists and that at one point it didn't exist. Therefore, it came from non-life.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what?

I don't know how else life would come to be. We know that it exists and that at one point it didn't exist. Therefore, it came from non-life.

Of the seven symbols on your flaming chalice there, which one(s) are you disrespecting?

This is what is so bogus about that COEXIST sticker: it only makes the displayer look good.

But we know better.

Whenever I see a “COEXIST” sticker (like the one above) on the back bumper of a car, I can’t help but laugh. I realize that many people slap it on their vehicles under the naive assumption that they’re saying something profound in an incredibly clever way. Then again…

When you stop and think about it; when you consider the implications of that word in that context… is it really such a clever slogan after all? Is it even intelligent? I would say not. Granted, it looks cool and it sounds cooler; but if you throw away the rose-colored “let’s all just get along and have world-peace” glasses, it’s quite plain that the “COEXIST” sticker is nothing more than godless asininity dressed up in a fancy ball gown.

SOURCE

I dare you to read the whole article.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.

The logic is flawed - what someone does in a lab today can't change the causality of events in the past. That experiment only demonstrates that if those conditions had been present in the past, life could plausibly have arisen as a result. It says nothing about the causes of those conditions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I don't see as the discovery of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis would shed any light on the question of God's existence, one way or the other.

That's right - although, as per the 'God of the gaps' argument, it would be one less unexplained feature of the world for which God could be claimed to be specifically necessary. From a philosophical viewpoint, this would change the Bayesian posteriors for those who wished to calculate the probability of God existing

If (hypothetically) one reaches the stage where the only remaining 'gap' is the origin of the universe itself, and the most probable god concept (philosophically) would be a deist god that originates a naturalistic universe and leaves it to its own devices (as many religious people already believe). But it then becomes even more difficult to argue that the universe was created for our benefit, or even for the benefit of life in general - because major features of the universe are inexplicably unnecessary for our existence. This doesn't mean a god didn't do the job, but casts serious doubt on the idea that we have a privileged position in it. A sceptic might wonder whether it would better to prefer a naturalistic universe of unknown origin, than one inexplicably created by a deity stripped of human relevance...

 

[Chriliman]

So what?

I don't know how else life would come to be. We know that it exists and that at one point it didn't exist. Therefore, it came from non-life.

Actually, you do know life comes from life and you don't know if life has ever not existed, you assume as much, but don't know and actually can't know, since life is required in order to know anything.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Actually, you do know life comes from life and you don't know if life has ever not existed, you assume as much, but don't know and actually can't know, since life is required in order to know anything.

No, we have plenty of evidence that tells us what the past earth was like.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you believe no one can have true knowledge because there's always a chance they're wrong? I would disagree with that.

Can you give an example of some knowledge about the world that cannot be wrong? - and I don't mean self-referential semantics (e.g. "I think therefore I am").

 

[Cearbhall]

Actually, you do know life comes from life and you don't know if life has ever not existed, you assume as much, but don't know and actually can't know, since life is required in order to know anything.

Yes, life is required to know something. I am alive. However, it is possible to know things about a time before there was life.

(At least, before life on Earth. I'm sure we weren't the first place in the universe where life occurred.)

 

[quatona]

you don't know if life has ever not existed,

This assumption seems to be the premise of those very persons here who keep asking the question "Where did life come from?".

 

[Chriliman]

The logic is flawed - what someone does in a lab today can't change the causality of events in the past.

I didn't say it could.

That experiment only demonstrates that if those conditions had been present in the past, life could plausibly have arisen as a result. It says nothing about the causes of those conditions.

It would not prove that life did not come from unintentional, non-life material, but it provide a plausible cause of life to be conscious intention, since the demonstration would be consciously intended to take non-living material and make life.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, life is required to know something. I am alive. However, it is possible to know things about a time before there was life.

(At least, before life on Earth. I'm sure we weren't the first place in the universe where life occurred.)

Knowledge is only possible through experience, if you didn't experience the time before you existed then you can't know anything about it right now, you can believe things about it right now. This isn't to say you can never have true knowledge of events that precede your existence, rather, at this moment in time you can't have true knowledge of those events, you can either believe or disbelieve that they happened.

I do believe it's possible to have true knowledge of all events in time and that only God has this knowledge.

 

[Chriliman]

Can you give an example of some knowledge about the world that cannot be wrong? - and I don't mean self-referential semantics (e.g. "I think therefore I am").

It's impossible to use physical material to make a circle that's simultaneously a square.