3 ms·

> Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life Yet we know it happened, because life exists, and it didn't spring from magic so i

> Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life Yet we know it happened, because life exists, and it didn't spring from magic so it must have sprung from non-life. Random chance is a hell of a search algorithm, abiogenesis is simply the inevitable outcome randomly trying every possible combination over hundreds of millions of years. There are no more likely scenarios.

oldandtired 9y ago
Just because we know something is, does not mean know why. You make a very broad leap to say that there are only two possibilities - magic and abiogenesis - and that one of those possibilities doesn't exist. There are three broad classifications of philosophical belief - the universe is all there is and there is no non-physical component, that the universe is and has a non-physical component (it is alive, etc) and that there is a creator who is separate from the universe and that creator made the universe. Within that context, the three can be split into two variations, the universe (with or without a non-physical component) is eternal (steady state or cyclic) and an eternal creator who has made a finite lifespan universe. Abiogenesis can arise in one of those three variations, in the other two, either the universe creates life as apart of its functionality (its non-physical attributes) or there is a creator that has designed and set in motion life. Please note that abiogenesis is a completely different subject to any evolutionary model that people may subscribe to. You can argue all you like about the variations above but you cannot use science to determine the "truth" of which variety you personally believe in. That is a metaphysical/philosophical/religious debate that is outside of the domain of science. So, where does that leave us in this discussion? Well, it says that you have not given much thought to your point of view in such a way that you are able to logically argue its merit. In which case, I would suggest that you might like to flesh out your arguments because as they stand, the arguments you present are extremely weak and illogical.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  I've given it plenty of thought, I simply don't subscribe to philosophical masturbation involving that which simply has no evidence of existing at all, the non-physical; there is no such thing, it's woo, nonsense, magic, unsupported by any evidence in all of history. Dualism is the view of an irrational mind. You give equal weight to the possibility of an eternal universe or a created universe, this is simply illogical as there's no logical argument to be made for a creator that doesn't suffer from the fallacies of infinite regress and special pleading; the very idea of a creator is at its base irrational and illogical. Thus the entire fantasy of the creator can be ruled out leaving only the universe to contend with, and as there's no such thing as the non-physical that rules out the other path. Of the three possibilities you presented, two are magic, which I addressed originally. This is not outside the domain of science, it is not a metaphysical/philosophical debate, it is very much firmly a matter of science and evidence. Abiogenesis happened, we can deduce that logically as a fact, we are here, there's really nothing to debate other than figuring out how it happened. So please don't talk to me about illogical while you posit illogical faulty arguments akin to magic; you have no logical leg to stand on. Where does this leave us in this discussion, with me realizing you haven't yet grown beyond belief in magic and superstition making having a logical discussion all but impossible.

oldandtired 9y ago

Just because we know something is, does not mean know why. You make a very broad leap to say that there are only two possibilities - magic and abiogenesis - and that one of those possibilities doesn't exist. There are three broad classifications of philosophical belief - the universe is all there is and there is no non-physical component, that the universe is and has a non-physical component (it is alive, etc) and that there is a creator who is separate from the universe and that creator made the universe. Within that context, the three can be split into two variations, the universe (with or without a non-physical component) is eternal (steady state or cyclic) and an eternal creator who has made a finite lifespan universe. Abiogenesis can arise in one of those three variations, in the other two, either the universe creates life as apart of its functionality (its non-physical attributes) or there is a creator that has designed and set in motion life. Please note that abiogenesis is a completely different subject to any evolutionary model that people may subscribe to. You can argue all you like about the variations above but you cannot use science to determine the "truth" of which variety you personally believe in. That is a metaphysical/philosophical/religious debate that is outside of the domain of science. So, where does that leave us in this discussion? Well, it says that you have not given much thought to your point of view in such a way that you are able to logically argue its merit. In which case, I would suggest that you might like to flesh out your arguments because as they stand, the arguments you present are extremely weak and illogical.

gnaritas 9y ago
I've given it plenty of thought, I simply don't subscribe to philosophical masturbation involving that which simply has no evidence of existing at all, the non-physical; there is no such thing, it's woo, nonsense, magic, unsupported by any evidence in all of history. Dualism is the view of an irrational mind. You give equal weight to the possibility of an eternal universe or a created universe, this is simply illogical as there's no logical argument to be made for a creator that doesn't suffer from the fallacies of infinite regress and special pleading; the very idea of a creator is at its base irrational and illogical. Thus the entire fantasy of the creator can be ruled out leaving only the universe to contend with, and as there's no such thing as the non-physical that rules out the other path. Of the three possibilities you presented, two are magic, which I addressed originally. This is not outside the domain of science, it is not a metaphysical/philosophical debate, it is very much firmly a matter of science and evidence. Abiogenesis happened, we can deduce that logically as a fact, we are here, there's really nothing to debate other than figuring out how it happened. So please don't talk to me about illogical while you posit illogical faulty arguments akin to magic; you have no logical leg to stand on. Where does this leave us in this discussion, with me realizing you haven't yet grown beyond belief in magic and superstition making having a logical discussion all but impossible.