I guess for my first thread I will tell you how I go about answering this question and let you pick apart the reasoning.
But first I think I should provide a bit of an explanation why I think this is a reasonable starting point. First, I think this is a reasonable place to start because “life exists”. The statement “life exists” I take to be self-evident and, therefore, requires no further evidence or explanation. While some people might argue with this as being reasonable, I would not even try to rebut what they might choose to say about this as even in their own thinking, they would not exist and, therefore, there would be nothing to which I could respond. Second, any world view that would agree that “life exists” should reasonably provide an explanation for such an existence.
Let’s start with the following syllogism:
1. If life in our universe (space/time continuum) never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, then at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.
2. Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy.
3. Therefore, at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.
This is a logically valid syllogism.
The truthfulness of the first statement, the hypothetical proposition or major premise, to me seems self evident since I cannot think of another possibility. There may be one out there and if there is, I’m sure you will let me know. As I wrote the last sentence, I did think of another possibility, i.e., that life within our universe has always existed. However, I do not think that would be appropriate here since I’m not sure anyone here actually holds that position.
The second statement, the minor premise, I believe to be true. I know some of you might be thinking at this point: “This guy is crazy because scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact.” My answer to that would be that I disagree that scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact. A bunch of ideas about how abiogenesis might have occurred without any experimental evidence that it is, in fact, possible (experiments where abiogenesis occurs) is not sufficient evidence to prove abiogenesis is a fact (at least for me). Furthermore, I think the repeated attempts at abiogenesis by scientists and/or the failure to achieve this by scientists provides operational scientific support for this statement. So if you think that the second statement is false, please point me to some reproducible experimentation where some scientist has gotten abiogenesis to occur.
Believing the first two statements to be true and rational, I conclude that the third is also true.
So there you have it for the picking!!
Thanks.
But first I think I should provide a bit of an explanation why I think this is a reasonable starting point. First, I think this is a reasonable place to start because “life exists”. The statement “life exists” I take to be self-evident and, therefore, requires no further evidence or explanation. While some people might argue with this as being reasonable, I would not even try to rebut what they might choose to say about this as even in their own thinking, they would not exist and, therefore, there would be nothing to which I could respond. Second, any world view that would agree that “life exists” should reasonably provide an explanation for such an existence.
Let’s start with the following syllogism:
1. If life in our universe (space/time continuum) never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, then at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.
2. Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy.
3. Therefore, at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.
This is a logically valid syllogism.
The truthfulness of the first statement, the hypothetical proposition or major premise, to me seems self evident since I cannot think of another possibility. There may be one out there and if there is, I’m sure you will let me know. As I wrote the last sentence, I did think of another possibility, i.e., that life within our universe has always existed. However, I do not think that would be appropriate here since I’m not sure anyone here actually holds that position.
The second statement, the minor premise, I believe to be true. I know some of you might be thinking at this point: “This guy is crazy because scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact.” My answer to that would be that I disagree that scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact. A bunch of ideas about how abiogenesis might have occurred without any experimental evidence that it is, in fact, possible (experiments where abiogenesis occurs) is not sufficient evidence to prove abiogenesis is a fact (at least for me). Furthermore, I think the repeated attempts at abiogenesis by scientists and/or the failure to achieve this by scientists provides operational scientific support for this statement. So if you think that the second statement is false, please point me to some reproducible experimentation where some scientist has gotten abiogenesis to occur.
Believing the first two statements to be true and rational, I conclude that the third is also true.
So there you have it for the picking!!
Thanks.