Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[bennyboy]

Anyways all you have regarding abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis. If you believe it happened, you believe in something which has not be shown to be true.

It's one thing to prove an idea, and another to at least ensure that it conforms to observable fact.

On the one hand, given that all our studies into biology are based on physical observations, and that we observe chemicals and compounds in various stages of organization, the position that the complex interactions among chemicals progressively led to simple life forms is a sensible one.

The idea that God created life, which is also unproven, and probably uprovable, has the disadvantage of being based on absolutely nothing that we can observe in the universe. It does not conform with any of the other things we have learned or observed, and therefore instantly fails as an academic position.

Is it possible that some kind of intelligent creative energy or force was involved in the creation of the universe and life? Yes, I think it's a possibility. Is this creation, as a theory of biogenesis, comparable to abiogenesis? No. They are not peers. They are not two of a line up of sensible attempts. We do not need to consider abiogenesis along with God, with the balance of four mystical psychic winds, with the hoofy will of an invisible pink unicorn, or with the delicious desires of a flying spaghetti monster. All those ideas are based on fantasy, where as abiogenesis is based on a single philosophical assumption: that the things we find in the universe, including living things, are a natural expression of the interaction of matter according to physical laws, in the arena of statistical interactions of many parts over time.