Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[Chriliman]

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

True, but that same evidence can't be used to conclude there was never any life, anywhere, before life arose on earth.

 

[Cearbhall]

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 simply isn't true at all. I'm not sure why you would think or say that.

 

[Chriliman]

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

It's not an assumption. Life could have existed prior to the life that arose on earth and it's not possible to know that it didn't exist.

 

[Chriliman]

This simply isn't true at all. I'm not sure why you would think or say that.

Actually, I redact that claim, I do believe past events can be known to be true, if the evidence suggesting they're true is strong enough.

 

[essentialsaltes]

True, but that same evidence can't be used to conclude there was never any life, anywhere, before life arose on earth.

No, but different evidence is pretty conclusive that there was no life anywhere 1 second after the Big Bang.

 

[quatona]

It's not an assumption. Life could have existed prior to the life that arose on earth and it's not possible to know that it didn't exist.

Yeah, tell that to those theists who ask "Where did life come from?"
ETA: Sorry, I saw to late that you abandoned your line of reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you define falsifiable as synonymous with verifiable then this helps me understand your thinking.

You can't have one without the other. How would something be falsifiable, if it isn't testable?

When something is verifiable, it means it can possibly be known as true

Not exactly. It can be shown as accurate.
There is no "showing true".

As Krauss once said: "Science is not in the business of proving things. Science is in the business of DISproving things".

In other words: science can't tell you what models are absolutely true. But it CAN tell you which models are absolutely incorrect.

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

In the sense of absolute certainty, yes.
Also keep in mind that I'm talking about models of explanation here. Hypothesis and theories.

This ties into my above question - how do you believe facts are determined?

Facts are just pieces of data. Facts require explanation. It's the explanatory models that I am talking about here. Facts don't require evidence. Facts ARE the evidence.

Explanatory model (hypothesis/theories) require evidence.

Can someone even have true knowledge of a fact? If so, then there'd be no chance that they're wrong.

Actually, facts can be wrong as well. Your observation can be misguided. Your measurement can be inacurate. Your measuring device can be miscalibrated.

All kinds of things can possibly go wrong when gathering facts.

Do you have true knowledge of the facts about your "undetectable pet dragon"?

About as true as the facts of theistic claims.

For instance; do you know it's just something you made up in your mind?

Not relevant. You made a statement and I responded to that statement.
You said something is "fact until proven wrong". Clearly, that is incorrect as a sweeping statement...

It doesn't matter how sincere I am in my claim about a pet dragon.
Sincerity has no bearing on the underlying accuracy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

You don't know that. That's just some statement that you WANT to be true because it would be consistent with your religious beliefs.

But the truth is that you can't really tell the future, nore do you have the required knowledge to be justified in making such a claim.

, since any demonstration requires conscious intention.

We've been over this. It's complete nonsense.
You should read up on experimentation in controlled conditions, because such statements are, pardon me for saying so but, incredibly ignorant - not to say plain stupid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Cool.

So, next to throwing out all of experimental science, you just also threw out all of historical science.

Awesome.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...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.

That is flawed logic. The demonstration of some event in a lab today doesn't prove that a previous occurrence of that event required a conscious living being - it only shows that the event is possible under the kind of conditions provided in the demonstration.

... 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.

It would show that intelligent life can create life by emulating past environmental conditions in which life emerges spontaneously, but more importantly, it would demonstrate that intelligent life is not necessary, because the conditions emulated in the demonstration could naturally have been present without intelligent life.

That's the whole point of abiogenesis research - life couldn't have existed on early Earth, so we want to see how it might have first arisen in naturally occurring conditions, i.e. without existing life to manipulate it.

You could argue that the early conditions on Earth that enabled the spontaneous emergence of life were a result of the creation of universe by some intelligent creator, but that's a different argument with it's own messy problems.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Ah, no. That's an analytic proposition, logically true or false by definition of the terms involved, like 'all bachelors are unmarried', or 'a circle is not a square'. Saying you can't implement it physically is just hand-waving (quite apart from circles and squares per-se being geometric abstractions).

[Having said that, it is possible to use physical material to make an object that has both a square profile and a circular profile, e.g. a cylinder).

 

[Chriliman]

That's the whole point of abiogenesis research - life couldn't have existed on early Earth, so we want to see how it might have first arisen in naturally occurring conditions, i.e. without existing life to manipulate it.

Right, I'm saying any demonstration showing life arise via naturally occurring conditions, would require existing life to manipulate the conditions in order to perform the demonstration.

If you want to show life arise purely from natural occurring conditions, apart from any intelligent manipulation, then you actually can't attempt to demonstrate it, it just has to happen on it's own, without anyone(including God) trying to make it happen.

 

[Chriliman]

Ah, no. That's an analytic proposition, logically true or false by definition of the terms involved, like 'all bachelors are unmarried', or 'a circle is not a square'. Saying you can't implement it physically is just hand-waving.

Is what you're saying a known fact?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is what you're saying a known fact?

Yes, it's an analytic proposition, true by definition

The sort of facts I'm asking you to suggest are 'synthetic' or empirical facts about the world, i.e. contingent, obtained by observation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right, I'm saying any demonstration showing life arise via naturally occurring conditions, would require existing life to manipulate the conditions in order to perform the demonstration.

That's just saying demonstrations require demonstrators. Don't confuse the map with the territory, the proposed abiogenesis of life on Earth wasn't a demonstration.

If you want to show life arise purely from natural occurring conditions, apart from any intelligent manipulation, then you actually can't attempt to demonstrate it, it just has to happen on it's own, without anyone(including God) trying to make it happen.

There's a difference between 'trying to make it happen' and 'trying to find the conditions under which it can happen on its own'. If you provide conditions that could plausibly occur on Earth naturally at the relevant time, and then it 'just happens on its own', you plausibly demonstrate that it could naturally 'just happen on its own' on Earth at the relevant time.

Several discoveries of abiogenesis research have followed this pattern; the spontaneous (and surprising) appearance of life-related structure or chemistry in plausible early Earth conditions - vesicles that grow and divide, lipid membranes, amino acids, DNA and RNA components and precursors, core metabolic pathways, etc.

The ideal goal of abiogenesis research would be a single experiment where replicators assemble in an environment that could plausibly have occurred on early Earth - although I think it's unlikely that a single experiment will produce life, because some stages will probably be statistically improbable, and the conditions might need dynamic periodicity and extended timescales. Nevertheless, if every significant stage can be demonstrated in conditions that could plausibly have occurred on early Earth, it would be sufficient confirmation that spontaneous abiogenesis was possible.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, it's an analytic proposition, true by definition

The sort of facts I'm asking you to suggest are 'synthetic' or empirical facts about the world, i.e. contingent, obtained by observation.

Didn't I just observe a known fact by reading what you said in the last post? If so, then yes, facts can be obtained through observation, 'synthetically'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Didn't I just observe a known fact by reading what you said in the last post? If so, then yes, facts can be obtained through observation, 'synthetically'.

OK; Yes, for practical reasons we generally take it for granted that this is the case; but strictly, you only think you observed it, you can't be absolutely certain - your senses may have deceived you, your memory might be inaccurate, you might have dreamed the whole thing, you might still be dreaming, etc. These possibilities are so remote that you can often say beyond reasonable doubt that you observed a known fact, but you can never be 100% certain (of anything). This is why even Popper's concept of falsification (e.g. a single black swan invalidates the claim that all swans are white) is not absolutely definitive - mistakes can happen.

This is the problem Descartes addressed in his 1641 'Meditations on First Philosophy' (Meditation 1. 'Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful').

"All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived..."
​

It's a good read

 

[Strathos]

What I think the OP is basically saying is that you can't disprove that an abiogenesis event wasn't arranged/directed by an intelligence.

 

[Chriliman]

OK; Yes, for practical reasons we generally take it for granted that this is the case; but strictly, you only think you observed it, you can't be absolutely certain - your senses may have deceived you, your memory might be inaccurate, you might have dreamed the whole thing, you might still be dreaming, etc. These possibilities are so remote that you can often say beyond reasonable doubt that you observed a known fact, but you can never be 100% certain (of anything). This is why even Popper's concept of falsification (e.g. a single black swan invalidates the claim that all swans are white) is not absolutely definitive - mistakes can happen.

Sure mistakes can happen, but that doesn't mean they will happen. If something is shown to be true for as long as anyone exists(including God), then it's safe to conclude it's actually true.

This is the problem Descartes addressed in his 1641 'Meditations on First Philosophy' (Meditation 1. 'Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful').

"All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived..."
​

It's a good read

I agree, we should reject what we realize is false and accept what is true and trust that more truth will be revealed for as long as anyone exists(including God).

 

[Chriliman]

What I think the OP is basically saying is that you can't disprove that an abiogenesis event wasn't arranged/directed by an intelligence.

Do you mean; you can't prove that an abiogenesis event wasn't arranged/directed by an intelligence?

Edit: however, the intelligence that arranged/directed the abiogenesis event could prove that it arranged it via demonstration.