Was at least the first life form created?

[rjh4 is back]

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.

[Eilonnwy]

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.

You are asserting that life could never have spontaneously arisen. You have to prove that in order for the statement to be true. You have not done that.

The truthfulness of the first statement, the hypothetical proposition or major premise, to me seems self evident since I cannot think of another possibility.

Argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine another method, does not mean it doesn't exist.

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.

If you prove abiogenesis false, which you have failed to do so, you would still have to prove that there is no other possible way for life to come from non-life.

The Miller-Urey experiment proves they can achieve the building blocks for life, Amino Acids, from non-life. It doesn't matter that the conditions are now known to not have been those of early earth. It doesn't matter because that's not what you're claiming. By the simple statement of life coming from non-life, this experiment shows it's possible and that you are wrong.

Furthermore, just because we don't know specifically how the first ancestor was formed, does not mean "God did it".

[Meatball]

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

[rjh4 is back]

You are asserting that life could never have spontaneously arisen. You have to prove that in order for the statement to be true. You have not done that.

I am...but not in the first statement. I am asserting this by believing in the truthfulness of the second statement. But my second statement is a negative, i.e., Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy. Isn't asking me to "prove" the that abiogenesis never could have happened like asking an athiet to prove that God does not exist? I have seen how athiests respond to the challenge to "prove" that God does not exist. Usually the response is something along the lines that it is the asserting party that must prove their case, i.e., the one asserting there is a God, as it is impossible to prove a negative. So I will likewise argue that the burden is on you to prove that abiogenesis could have happened. If this line of argument is not acceptable to you, then maybe you, Eilonnwy, would accept the challenge to prove that God does not exist. Back to abiogenesis...I would like to remind you that my assertion is quite falsifiable by proof that abiogenesis has happened, i.e., by experiments that demonstrate abiogenesis occurring.

Just because you can't imagine another method, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Quite true, but can you think of another possibility? Seems to me there are only two possibilities for at least the first life: abiogenesis or creation. I would be happy to entertain any other possibilities but I do not think it is my burden to come up with something I cannot think of. You could certainly falsify my first statement by showing me another possibility...and then I would have to consider this.

If you prove abiogenesis false, which you have failed to do so, you would still have to prove that there is no other possible way for life to come from non-life.

I think I addressed this above where I argue that this is not my burden to prove a negative and where I point out that you have not provided any other possibility other than abiogenesis and creation.

The Miller-Urey experiment proves they can achieve the building blocks for life, Amino Acids, from non-life. It doesn't matter that the conditions are now known to not have been those of early earth. It doesn't matter because that's not what you're claiming. By the simple statement of life coming from non-life, this experiment shows it's possible and that you are wrong.

The Miller experiment does not show that abiogenesis is possible and that I am wrong. It merely showed that when you do what Miller did that certain amino acids form. Big deal. That is far from proving that abiogenesis is possible. Did some sort of life come from that experiment? No. Furthermore, even the amino acids were a racemic mixture. Given that only L-amino acids occur in life as we know it and that life cannot happen with a racemic mixture, I would say it is more evidence proving death than life but in any case fails to prove me wrong.

Furthermore, just because we don't know specifically how the first ancestor was formed, does not mean "God did it".

So far I have not asserted that God did anything (even though I would have to admit that is where I would ultimately go). My assertion is that I think I have presented a logically consistent case that is falsifiable and you have failed to show me otherwise.

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

First, I didn't say anything about God in my post and as an athiest why would you assume anything in particular about God as you do not think He exists. 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.

[Meatball]

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

First, I didn't say anything about God in my post and as an athiest why would you assume anything in particular about God as you do not think He exists. 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.

Being created implies a creator.

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

[Nick A.]

First, I didn't say anything about God in my post and as an athiest why would you assume anything in particular about God as you do not think He exists.

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.

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? You (rjh4) assume that 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?

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

[solarwave]

Being created implies a creator.

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

I'm not saying I agree with rjh4 (I don't know what i believe about this area) but I would like to just answer this.

The creator is alive but not in the same way as us. He is a simple being (by this I mean not made up of parts) and also we don't believe the creator had a beginning (being outside time) and so it is not the same as the creation of life.

[Secularone]

That we do not know the cause of a result does not mean there is no cause.

As far as I am aware, science has never concluded that it has found an example of randomness or chaos.

Every algorithm has but a single result. No algorithm produces two or more different results.
Everything is the product of an algorithm. This is the argument for determinism.

Not that I like the idea, but if I have no good evidence to falsify it, I must accept it.
I refuse to be dogmatic and pretend science doesn't have credibility.

It is also a very good argument against the concept of god. Think about it. Is god chaos? If not, then god is a slave to order just as everything else that exists.

And lastly, since we know life exists, we also know there is an algorithm that produced it. So, we don't need to discover the chaos god, we only need to discover the algorithm.

[fr0d0]

It is also a very good argument against the concept of god. Think about it. Is god chaos? If not, then god is a slave to order just as everything else that exists.

Well that's very odd you've said the exact same thing twice: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2079-pos...l#pid37321

Are you cutting and pasting SO?

It's a fallacious statement assuming slavery when that cannot be assumed given chaos or order. If God's nature was chaos then from him would come chaos. Yet given our universe seems ordered we can assume an ordered creation. How to you equate chaos with good? I'd suggest order is good and therefore proves that God is also good.

[Eilonnwy]

I am...but not in the first statement. I am asserting this by believing in the truthfulness of the second statement. But my second statement is a negative, i.e., Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy. Isn't asking me to "prove" the that abiogenesis never could have happened like asking an athiet to prove that God does not exist? I have seen how athiests respond to the challenge to "prove" that God does not exist. Usually the response is something along the lines that it is the asserting party that must prove their case, i.e., the one asserting there is a God, as it is impossible to prove a negative. So I will likewise argue that the burden is on you to prove that abiogenesis could have happened. If this line of argument is not acceptable to you, then maybe you, Eilonnwy, would accept the challenge to prove that God does not exist. Back to abiogenesis...I would like to remind you that my assertion is quite falsifiable by proof that abiogenesis has happened, i.e., by experiments that demonstrate abiogenesis occurring.

This is called Burden of Proof. It's a basic concept. I don't have to prove abiogenesis had to have happened because that's not what you assert. You assert by no means can life come from non-life. Abiogenesis is the idea that life comes from non-life through chemical evolution. There could be another method that we know nothing about. You cannot prove your statement to be true, so in essence, you have not met your burden of proof. It doesn't matter that I have not shown specifically how life comes from non-life, your argument is based on a fallacy so it doesn't work and is not a valid evidence for a creator.

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.

Quite true, but can you think of another possibility? Seems to me there are only two possibilities for at least the first life: abiogenesis or creation. I would be happy to entertain any other possibilities but I do not think it is my burden to come up with something I cannot think of. You could certainly falsify my first statement by showing me another possibility...and then I would have to consider this.

False dichotomy. Regardless, there is another theory, Panspermia. It's a fascinating hypothesis that looks more promising with the discovery of amino acids on a comet.

I think I addressed this above where I argue that this is not my burden to prove a negative and where I point out that you have not provided any other possibility other than abiogenesis and creation.

You are claiming there is no means by which life can come from non-life. you have to prove that. Regardles, panspermia, listed above. Another hypothesis. I've even met your silly claim that I have to provide another possibility when I really don't have to.

The Miller experiment does not show that abiogenesis is possible and that I am wrong. It merely showed that when you do what Miller did that certain amino acids form. Big deal. That is far from proving that abiogenesis is possible. Did some sort of life come from that experiment? No. Furthermore, even the amino acids were a racemic mixture. Given that only L-amino acids occur in life as we know it and that life cannot happen with a racemic mixture, I would say it is more evidence proving death than life but in any case fails to prove me wrong.

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.

So far I have not asserted that God did anything (even though I would have to admit that is where I would ultimately go). My assertion is that I think I have presented a logically consistent case that is falsifiable and you have failed to show me otherwise.

So why object to my criticism, if you know that's what you are claiming. It's fallacious to assume that because you don't know or can't imagine how something came to be means a god did it. You are essentially saying that you're going to say you don't know something, therefore you do know something. "I don't know how it happened, so god did it". It's the god of the gaps and has been so thoroughly shown to be fallacioius. People thought god made it rain because they didn't know better. Now we do.