Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[essentialsaltes]

Haven't you heard of the body of Christ aka the church? It's biologically alive.

The church did not exist before life on earth existed.

 

[Chriliman]

The church did not exist before life on earth existed.

Neither did Jesus when he was a man, this doesn't negate the idea that all life on earth possibly came from an eternal life source. You seem to lean away from that possibility, in search of anything that doesn't involve that possibility, maybe I'm wrong and you're actually open to the possibility of God.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Neither did Jesus when he was a man, this doesn't negate the idea that all life on earth possibly came from an eternal life source. You seem to lean away from that possibility, in search of anything that doesn't involve that possibility, maybe I'm wrong and you're actually open to the possibility of God.

You have to have some sort of consistent description of this thing, before I can even consider it. The thing we're looking had to come before biological life on earth, but the thing you yourself suggested did not.
Is the life source alive? You pointed to live things that could not be the source (because they were alive after the first life).
Is the life source not alive? Then maybe it can be a source, and life came from not life.

 

[quatona]

biological life

Still not sure what other life than "biological life" can be there, seeing that "bios" is Greek word for "life".

 

[DogmaHunter]

The claim 'God exists' can only be shown to be true, if indeed God exists.

Nope. It can only be shown to be true (or false), if inherent in the claim/definition is an actual way to do so. If the claim is unfalsifiable (ie: untestable, unverifiable, doesn't make testable predictions,etc.), then it can't be SHOWN to be true or SUPPORTED as true - even if it is true.

Consider my undetectable pet dragon. By definition, it is undetectable. It can not be shown to exist nore can it be shown to not exist.
This dragon COULD exist. But how would you know?

It's an unfalsifiable claim, after all....

Your god (or anything "supernatural" for that matter) isn't any different.
It COULD be true. But how would you know? You couldn't. By definition. That's kind of the thing with unfalsifiable claims. This is why you need "faith" to be a theist.

I would also require "faith" in order to believe that my undetectable pet dragon is actually real.

It cannot be shown to be false.

...or true.

Same with your pet dragon if you never choose to disclose the truth about your pet dragon.

There is nothing there to disclose. I could make up entire books full of stories about this undetectable dragon and all of them would completely unverifiable.

(The truth being it does not exist as a material animal, it does exist in your thoughts though

Exactly. Just like gods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When a proposition becomes known to be true, it can no longer be falsifiable. This is simple logic.

I thought you said that you understood the concept of falsifiability?
When you write stuff like this, you're proving otherwise.

ps: as I have explained multiple times now, since your claim is unfalsifiable to begin with - you can't find out if it is true in the first place.

 

[Chriliman]

I thought you said that you understood the concept of falsifiability?
When you write stuff like this, you're proving otherwise.

ps: as I have explained multiple times now, since your claim is unfalsifiable to begin with - you can't find out if it is true in the first place.

You can't falsify something that's known to be true.

Is the fact that 2+2=4 falsifiable?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't falsify something that's known to be true.

To falsify (the verb) and falsifiability (the concept) are two entirely different things.

A falsifiable proposition that is demonstrated to be correct, remains a falsifiable proposition.

 

[Chriliman]

To falsify (the verb) and falsifiability (the concept) are two entirely different things.

A falsifiable proposition that is demonstrated to be correct, remains a falsifiable proposition.

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone try to conceive of a possible argument or obsevation to negate the fact that 2+2=4?

No logical person would do such a thing, therefore we can logically conclude that known truths should no longer be considered falsifiable. As I said before, falsifiability is only for things we don't yet know are true, but have reason to believe might be true. Which is why one would attempt to falsify the belief, but instead of finding out it's actually false they might find out it's actually true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone try to conceive of a possible argument or obsevation to negate the fact that 2+2=4?

No logical person would do such a thing, therefore we can logically conclude that known truths should no longer be considered falsifiable. As I said before, falsifiability is only for things we don't yet know are true, but have reason to believe might be true. Which is why one would attempt to falsify the belief, but instead of finding out it's actually false they might find out it's actually true.

I think Popper's importance is exaggerated, but you should at least find out what he's talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you, because you still aren't properly comprehending the principle of falsifiability. Eventhough I repeatedly explained it to you.

I don't really know what is left to do, but to repeat myself.

Why would anyone try to conceive of a possible argument or obsevation to negate the fact that 2+2=4?

This is a false analogy, because 2+2 equaling 4, is a mathematical thingy.
We aren't dealing with absolutes or mathematical axioms or whatever, here.

Instead, falsifibility applies to proposed explanations of a certain event or phenomena that might or might not be accurate.

And the point is that without such a proposition being falsifiable, it's truth value (or lack thereof) can NOT be assessed.

No logical person would do such a thing

No logical person would pretend that "2+2=4" is in the same league as what we are talking about.

, therefore we can logically conclude that known truths should no longer be considered falsifiable

Still not getting it.
A falsifiable proposition that is demonstrated to be accurate, stays a falsifiable proposition.
It still makes testable predictions. There still are potential ways in wich it could be shown wrong if it is wrong.

A proposition isn't falsifiable if it CAN be shown incorrect.
A proposition is falsifiable if it COULD be shown incorrect IF IT HAPPENS TO BE INCORRECT.

As I said before, falsifiability is only for things we don't yet know are true, but have reason to believe might be true.

No. I think I did enough attempts at explaining why that is not the case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think Popper's importance is exaggerated, but you should at least find out what he's talking about.

What is "Popper's importance"? Never heared of that.

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you, because you still aren't properly comprehending the principle of falsifiability. Eventhough I repeatedly explained it to you.

I don't really know what is left to do, but to repeat myself.

I don't know either, it seems we're talking past each other.

This is a false analogy, because 2+2 equaling 4, is a mathematical thingy.
We aren't dealing with absolutes or mathematical axioms or whatever, here.

Instead, falsifibility applies to proposed explanations of a certain event or phenomena that might or might not be accurate.

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?

And the point is that without such a proposition being falsifiable, it's truth value (or lack thereof) can NOT be assessed.

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. It either becomes a fact that it's false or a fact that it's true, just like the 2+2=4 fact.

Still not getting it.
A falsifiable proposition that is demonstrated to be accurate, stays a falsifiable proposition.

Something that's known to actually be accurate can't possibly be false, if it could possibly be false then it's not known to actually be accurate. Again, this is simple logic that you'll probably just glaze right over.

It still makes testable predictions. There still are potential ways in wich it could be shown wrong if it is wrong.

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

A proposition isn't falsifiable if it CAN be shown incorrect.

I know that's what I've been saying, it's no longer falsifiable if it's been shown to be correct or incorrect.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is "Popper's importance"? Never heared of that.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the importance of falsifiability is exaggerated.

Falsifiability is a joke.

Some say rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify evolution.

That's a joke.

 

[Doveaman]

God is a life form?

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

Could you name one characteristic of life that applies to God?

Can you define what life is?

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.

 

[Doveaman]

You appear to be adopting the hypothesis of vitalism, the idea that 'life' is an independent (and perhaps supernatural) entity that has to be introduced from outside (by God?) into a chemical system to make it operate.

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.

So far as I know, biologists rejected this idea during the 19th century, and they now regard life as an emergent property of complex chemical systems.

Which requires the input of an intelligent life source to make this complex chemical system work.

 

[Doveaman]

Then it does not explain where life came from.

Are you making a distinction between what life came from and where life came from?

Is there a difference?

 

[Doveaman]

Still not sure what other life than "biological life" can be there, seeing that "bios" is Greek word for "life".

Were the Greeks only referring to physical life, or life in general?

 

[quatona]

Are you making a distinction between what life came from and where life came from?

Me? I am just responding to the arguments as presented.

Were the Greeks only referring to physical life, or life in general?

I guess the term was pretty much congruent with the English "life". So adding "biological" to "life" doesn´t add any information.
If you have any information about connotative differences between "life" and "bios", I am all ear.