It’s an oxymoron. the verification of the NDE reported experiences/events and the confirmation that it actually occurred as reported is evidence for the non-physical supernatural nature of consciousness /self-awareness.
You understand that without causality as a fundamental principle, the entire scientific method collapses, even our argument now would be meaningless. Except for the first cause, every entity is caused even if the cause is not known.
Nonsense, you always miss the concept. Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. There are non-physical aspects of life as evidenced by the NDE studies. Non-living physical matter cannot give rise to the non-physical consciousness /self-awareness.
NDEs provided evidence that our...
If it ever gets resolved, let's talk. Speculation/wishful thinking is meaningless.
Wishful thinking, you’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is none of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution...
False, see line of evidence # 2 and # 3 and you will see that your speculation is wrong
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)
No, LUCA is the only overlap between the ToE and Abiogenesis.
Without life, there is no evolution; here comes the proposed role of Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is intended to explain the first life. The ToE is only concerned with explanation of the diversity of life.
Abiogenesis ends with LUCA ...
If the question/logic applies, then it demands an answer and vice versa.
Every contingent needs an explanation, but that logic doesn’t apply to the non-contingent whose existence is necessary to explain the contingent.
False, all evidence points to intention/purpose. Randomness is your claim. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact.
a) The values of fundamental physical constants are extremely fine-tuned. If the values of these parameters in the physical theories had differed only very slightly from those...
I don’t see how can an ordinary language “Russian" give rise to “War and Peace" on its own without Leo Tolstoy.
Abiogenesis is merely a name to an assumed mechanism that is not known.
True but this is not the point.
The problem is the inability to differentiate between what is knowable vs...
Simply not true.
Remember, the context here is “prebiotic conditions” not controlled lab environment and starting material that was not available or possible under prebiotic conditions.
That is a flawed reasoning. It happened is neither an explanation nor a confirmation of how it happened...
Evidence.
We observe causal influences that control the behavior of matter from subatomic particles to entire galaxies. We give it names, (strong nuclear force, dark energy, etc.). Then we forget that these are merely names of unknowns. Then we deceive ourselves to think we have coherent...
Not true, the mechanism is not known. Yes, nonliving matter interact but there is no evidence that chemical interactions of nonliving matter give rise to life. None of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical...
The religious scriptures are neither scientific books nor intended to be scientific books. The religious scriptures address the supernatural realm. In addition, the scriptures (Quran) provide evidence form within the physical realm to support its own authenticity. The authenticity being...
Let’s agree on some basics.
First, God and abiogenesis being considered as two contraries doesn’t mean if one is false, the other is true by default or vice versa. This kind of binary thinking/dualism constitutes a false ditchotomy. The possibilities are “one is true and the other is false”...
Hard to resolve, IOW, was not resolved can be very well evidence for a false premise.
I did. It’s simply the fact that abiogenesis was not established as a scientific theory. Based on the inductive logic of evidential support, “Lack of evidence with” is "evidence against”.
Have you seen...
You always lose track of the argument whether intentionally or unintentionally.
In #2495 you mentioned that “abiogenesis is merely the most likely source of first life” which necessarily implies other sources.
In #2497, I questioned other sources and mentioned Dawkins claim about life being...
True.
The NDE studies points to the fact that our conscious/self-aware beings are independent from the physical body.
Consciousness is not a physical characteristic of matter. It’s a non-physical characteristic of life.
Yes, logically, this is the only way. Whatever is contingent must have...