Was at least the first life form created?

[rjh4 is back]

The alternative you presented was that of a divine creator. We must use God's existence in the poetic sense in order to hold discussions regarding his existence.

That's fair.

Is God alive? Do we assume he came into existence spontaneously or is he an exception to this line of logic?

And added to this...why would the creator be an exception to this logic?

I thought I answered that when I said: Second, your comment would assume that God has his origin, if He has one, in our universe (space/time continuum). I would not hold that, and, therefore, would conclude that God is not covered by my syllogism.

You (rjh4) that assume because you cannot accept non-living matter as a form of origin, that divine creation must automatically be the alternative. Is this really the best alternative you foresee?

That is similar to Eilonnway who said: "Just because you can't imagine another method, does not mean it doesn't exist."
I am open to hearing the alternatives and thinking about them if you are willing to share.

Also, for the sake of the discussion, can I assume that the creator you are referring to is the Christian God?

Certainly I believe in the Christian God. However, for the syllogism I proposed, I do not think that is necessary.

[Secularone]

The vast majority of the 256 possible forms of syllogism are invalid (the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises). Yours is one of them.

I suggest you visit Wikipedia and read up on the subject.

And yes, Fr0d0, I do cut and paste when and where I think appropriate.

[Minimalist]

Well, rjh, in spite of your assertions that abiogenesis is impossible I hope you'll forgive scientists if they ignore you and continue research towards the goal.

Just think of all the fun you will have denying reality when it happens?



Meanwhile, this article from Scientific American (which I'm sure you avoid as it does not commence "In the beginnning....")

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ist&page=3

From #7:

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

The difference between science and religion (which is, after all, what you are here to promote) is that science will continue to ask questions while religion thinks it already has all the answers.

[Tiberius]

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.

False dichotomy. It does not follow that if life could have never spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, that therefore creation is the only valid alternative. The only thing you can say here is that if life never arose spontaneously from non-living matter/energy, then life came about by some other event that is not spontaneously arising from non-living matter/energy.

In other words, if P is the proposition that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter/energy, and we know that P did not happen, then the only thing we can say with certainty is that the answer lies in Q, a set of all possible explanations that doesn't include the original P.

What you are saying is that if ¬P then R, where R is another explanation. This is logically invalid unless R is equal to the set Q.

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.

Given the invalid proposition at the start, the rest of the syllogism is invalid. Here is one I would agree to:

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 did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter/energy.

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 did not arise spontaneously form non-living matter/energy.

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.

So you admit two things, that this entire argument is also based on an argument from ignorance; that just because you cannot think of any other methods, your two must stand. Sorry, but this is a blatant logical fallacy. Further, you contradict your own argument by thinking up another possibility, yet discard it because nobody here believes in it. Personal belief doesn't come into it at all; if there is another explanation, no-matter how controversial or insane, it is still a valid other explanation for the purposes of your argument.

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.

Yet another argument from ignorance, this time of the type "because X has not been proven, X is false". This is a logical fallacy; none of us know the future, and so you have no justification to argue that scientists in the future will never be able to prove abiogenesis. Thus, since both 2 premises of your argument are deeply flawed, your conclusion is as well.

[rjh4 is back]

Thank you for all your responses. I really do appreciate them. After looking back at my original post and the arguments presented, I have to agree that my syllogism was flawed. While I still think it was in a valid logical form, i.e., that of modus ponens (If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.), I have committed some fallacies in the premises themselves. The first premise was a false dichotomy as pointed out by Eilonnwy and Adrian. Furthermore, even if the first was fixed as suggested by Adrian, the second would still fall into the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, again as pointed out by Eilonnwy and Adrian.

While I agree that my first premise was a false dichotomy I do not agree that Eilonnwy’s cite to the concept of panspermia demonstrates this. The “seeds” of this seem to either be life itself that was planted here somehow from outer space or merely the building blocks for life. If the former, it cannot provide evidence for the false dichotomy as it is actually the subject of the first premise. In other words life does not provide an explanation or possibility of how at least the first life form in our universe came to be. If the latter, then life would still have to somehow arise from these seeded building blocks which, if it happened spontaneously, would still be abiogenesis, which was addressed in the premise. I any event, I guess I shot myself in the foot relative to this premise in my original post, as pointed out by Adrian.

Before I leave this topic alone, I would like to ask a question and make a few more comments.

My question is regarding “Burden of Proof”. I understand the concept with respect to the law. The law in the US is such that one is innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the party who is accusing the other has the initial burden of proof (the initial burden of making the case that the accused party actually did that of which he is accused). Only after the accusing party can make a prima facie case does the burden shift to the accused. What I do not understand is how this concept is applied to these types of discussions. Who has the initial burden of proof? Are there recognized rules governing this concept as it applies to these types of discussions? Any help here would be appreciated as I really am trying to understand this.

My first comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s comment:

And as far as me arguing for the non-existence of God, nice hand waving there, but this is not what we're discussing and neither have I claimed there is absolutely no god.

First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.

My last comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s response to my comments on the Miller experiment:

Big deal? You clearly do not understand science. It shows abiogenesis is possibly, which clearly refutes your claim that by no means can life come from non-life.

All I can say here is that if you think that the Miller experiment is enough evidence to prove to you that abiogenesis is possible, your bar for evidence is really low. If I said that it is possible for me to produce designer pets, e.g., like Nickelodeon’s CatDog but real, would you believe me? If I said that I could prove to you that it is possible for me to do this and then offered evidence that I have isolated the DNA of cats and dogs, would I convince you that it was possible for me to do this? Would you now accept that this is possible? It seems like an analogous situation only I would have more evidence for my position than the Miller experiment provided for abiogenesis as the information to produce a cat and a dog is much more than just a few amino acids.

[downbeatplumb]

An awful lot of time has elapsed since the first life form oozed into existence and it was probably the first thing the second life form ate.
This means that the original stuff has long since gone.
However chemical reactions can do amazing things and given enough time can turn into biology that can type on cheap computers.
One day scientists will replicate it but religious types will say 'ok it could have happened lke that but god did it anyway'.

It is this head in the sand attitude that makes me sad.

[Tiberius]

First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.

The word "atheism" stems from the greek 'a' (without) 'theos' (gods), literally meaning "without gods". Anyone without gods can be reasonably called an atheist. Today the general interpretation is one who does not believe (disbelieves) in the existence of gods.

Note that to disbelieve in something requires no positive belief or assertion, neither does it require knowledge or a lack of knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist, I do not claim to know whether gods exist or not absolutely, but I still don't believe in them.

This is very different from gnostic atheism (or "strong" atheism), which is where someone states that they actively believe there are no gods, and in some cases will say that the non-existence of gods is a known fact. I dispute this entirely.

[theVOID]

First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.

The word "atheism" stems from the greek 'a' (without) 'theos' (gods), literally meaning "without gods". Anyone without gods can be reasonably called an atheist. Today the general interpretation is one who does not believe (disbelieves) in the existence of gods.

Note that to disbelieve in something requires no positive belief or assertion, neither does it require knowledge or a lack of knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist, I do not claim to know whether gods exist or not absolutely, but I still don't believe in them.

This is very different from gnostic atheism (or "strong" atheism), which is where someone states that they actively believe there are no gods, and in some cases will say that the non-existence of gods is a known fact. I dispute this entirely.

I don't know about that last part, i consider myself a gnostic atheist in every practical sense but don't claim that the non-existence of God is a provable fact, i claim that God is no more believable than Unicorns, dragons and fairies and i am certainly not agnostic when it comes to the later (ok, except unicorns, i mean, horse with a horn... not really THAT surprising) so why should i change my position from one fictional being compared to another just because some people take the idea seriously?

---

Big deal? You clearly do not understand science. It shows abiogenesis is possibly, which clearly refutes your claim that by no means can life come from non-life.

All I can say here is that if you think that the Miller experiment is enough evidence to prove to you that abiogenesis is possible, your bar for evidence is really low. If I said that it is possible for me to produce designer pets, e.g., like Nickelodeon’s CatDog but real, would you believe me? If I said that I could prove to you that it is possible for me to do this and then offered evidence that I have isolated the DNA of cats and dogs, would I convince you that it was possible for me to do this? Would you now accept that this is possible? It seems like an analogous situation only I would have more evidence for my position than the Miller experiment provided for abiogenesis as the information to produce a cat and a dog is much more than just a few amino acids.

The Miller experiment proves that organic material (amino acids) can come from a chemical reaction of non-organic sources that are very likely to exist in a primitive earth environment, thus suggesting that life can come from non-life. The Miller experiments alone do not prove that abiogenesis happened, only that it is possible.... HOWEVER!:

The Miller experiment is historic, and since then there has been substantial development in developing solid base of evidence for Abiogenesis, including experiments that took place not too long ago (published in 'nature') that have shown that Ribonucleotides (the components of RNA) can also be created from the same type of simple precursors and conditions predicted to exist in a 1billion year old earth. Even better is the fact that Ribonucleotides are SELF-REPLICATING! http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

And that isn't all, there are now over 50 different series of circumstances that are believed to have the potential to create these simple building blocks for life on earth (terrestrial theories included) and despite the fact that far more study needs to be done to discern which of these potential scenarios is most likely, the fact that so many potential scenarios exist and the fact that there are more and more achievements in the field arising lately only lends credence to the idea of Abiogenesis.

Compare all of that with the complete lack of evidence for creation at any level (creationists & ID supporters have completely failed to demonstrate irreducible complexity, in fact their favorite example, the bacterial flagellum, has been proven conclusively NOT to be irreducibly complex) and the case for Abiogenesis is far more robustly supported than the argument for creation.

[Minimalist]

My question is regarding “Burden of Proof”. I understand the concept with respect to the law.

But this is not a criminal case under US law. You, and people like you, propose that there is a divine sky-daddy who created everything and who controls every aspect of your life and death.

We are saying that your arguments are unconvincing.

In fact, you have no actual evidence and can only present "belief" as a substitute for reason/evidence.

Merely repeating the same old shit, over and over, is not likely to get you any further with us.

[Eilonnwy]

As far as what an atheist is, I back what Adrian said. As far as the Urey Miller experiment, theVoid nailed it.

As far as Burden of Proof goes, when you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof. It can be tricky to figure out which claims are "positive". Hopefully I can make that clear to you.

So if you claim there is a god, you have the positive claim and if I reject that claim I make a negative claim, therefore I don't have to prove my position, you do. If I claim there are no god(s), then I am making a positive claim, and if you reject that claim, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in Jesus de facto. It just means you reject the claim that there are no gods. So in essence, when you posit something, you then have the burden of proof, and the one rejecting your claim does not unless they posit something of their own. Does that clear up the issue for you?