3 ms·
I would change 4. to “there is no materialistic explanation for existence” since we have a pretty accurate (as far as we can tell) explanation for how we got to
by Fezzik 5y ago
I would change 4. to “there is no materialistic explanation for existence” since we have a pretty accurate (as far as we can tell) explanation for how we got to life once stars started exploding and forming the necessary elements for life. Maybe I’m quibbling though.
- jononomo 5y agoWe do not have a "pretty accurate" explanation for how we got to life once stars started exploding. In fact, we have no idea whatsoever and the more we learn the more infinitely intractable the problem appears. We're moving further away from an answer as our understanding grows, not closer.
- Fezzik 5y agoI should have been clearer - the hypothesis of abiogenesis provides an accurate explanation for the origins of life from non-life and is accepted by the vast majority if non-religious biologists as the most likely explanation for how life started… and, for what it’s worth, there is absolutely no evidence for any other explanation. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that organic material can result from inorganic material in 1952; the abiogenesis hypothesis has only grown stronger since then, not weaker. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment