The origin of biology

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, did you just list off some of the evidence based scientific explanations for the origin of life in a sentence that began with the claim that there is currently no evidence based scientific explanation for the origin of life?

L2Words.

In any case, atheism is not a position on the explanation for the origins of life.  Atheism is not believing in gods. That clears everything up nicely, I hope.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Does anyone in the sciences claim to really know how abiogenesis happened?

Depends on what you mean by "really know". I mean, I think there are people who very strongly suspect a particular scenario.  I don't think anyone's affirmatively claimed "this is how it happened, and I have proof."

[Simon Moon]

Hello everyone

Hope you're having a great day!


There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

What makes you think there isn't any evidence for the examples you mention?

[Esquilax]

The presence of free will suggests a possibility of the presence of supernatural phenomena, you can't deny that.

Sure I can! Mostly because you haven't bothered to A: define free will, B: demonstrate that it exists, C: explain what in it is suggestive of the supernatural, and D: explain why you think a natural explanation for it is less parsimonious than never-evidenced magic. You've got a long row to hoe before I'm obligated to entertain your- as of now- bald assertion.

Even if you oppose this view, you must allow at least a small percentage (maybe 20%? - just an arbitrary number) for its likelihood.

Nope. Probabilities aren't just pulled out of someone's ass because they can't explain a given phenomena, you know. They're actually determined based on data and evidence, not simply "I can't explain free will, so maybe it's magical." Without a means of determining the probability of the supernatural, I have no reason at all to assign it a positive probability, which brings us to...

Therefore, there does exist the possibility of supernatural phenomena.

Possibility requires more than just a bare assertion based in an argument from ignorance. There are actually ways of determining whether things are possible, you know, and you aren't using any of them. You're just pointing to a gap in our knowledge and saying "maybe the supernatural is in there?" which, I mean... no. Not until you've first established that the supernatural is even contained within the set of things that could exist. You're attempting to put the car before the horse, and then pretending that the cart is the horse.

likelihood is not the same as possibility.

If A has a  90% likelihood and B has a 10% likelihood, they are both possible.

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

[Jackalope]

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

Oooo... I can answer that! "Sloppy thinking."

What do I win?

[Simon Moon]

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

Oooo... I can answer that!  "Sloppy thinking."

What do I win?

Bing! Bing! Bing!

We have a winner!

[truth_seeker]

If A has a  90% likelihood and B has a 10% likelihood, they are both possible.

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

You are making a logical fallacy.

You are (correctly) assuming that the set of possible explanations expand in the presence of new evidence.
But you are ignoring that new evidence can also shrink the set of possible explanations.

Accordingly, its is completely fine to say that two statements:
A     and      NOT A 
are both possible, with non-zero likelihood, until further evidence reduces the likelihood of one of them to exact zero

[KUSA]

Hello everyone

Hope you're having a great day!


There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

Now if someone chooses to reject the possibility of the super-natural because they don't like the idea of a super-natural being, then that's fine. But that can't be called evidence.

It's not super-natural. It's super-duper-natural.

[truth_seeker]

I'm sorry, did you just list off some of the evidence based scientific explanations for the origin of life in a sentence that began with the claim that there is currently no evidence based scientific explanation for the origin of life?

L2Words.

In any case, atheism is not a position on the explanation for the origins of life.  Atheism is not believing in gods.  That clears everything up nicely, I hope.

Mmm. There is a difference between a speculation, and a fact. The former is not supported by solid evidence. The latter is.

The nature of the origin of life will affect atheism. If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.

[Minimalist]

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

No it doesn't, asshole.