Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

No it means that you had no point at all. That is why the question "So what?" was asked. It would not matter if your claim was true or false for the argument. It was a worthless argument.

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 possibly seeded on earth by aliens from outer space simply to emphasize the lack of conclusive evidence about abiogenesis, which opened the door for such speculative/unevidenced claims by Dawkins or others.

Then you denied Dawkins claim and finally acknowledged it when you said, “so what”. The point was made. There is no other argument.

Since it is work in progress the correct attitude is, we can wait.

I’m sure you can, you already waited for a century.

Meanwhile you appear to have no clue as to how close they are to solving this problem

I do but other than your wishful thinking, you don’t.

If you read that article you would have to agree that most of the problems of abiogenesis have been answered. But I already said that it was not a numbers game

Really? The article was written in English. The conclusion is clear.

Now if you are talking about clickbait articles that claim that the start of life has been solved, I never take those too seriously. As I said there are still problems to be solved in the field.

That is rational!!

There is no reason to think that this problem will not be solved.

There is. The article clearly said, “The review will emphasize that THERE ARE—AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE—MANY MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS from the synthetic, mechanistic, and analytical perspectives.”

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

I can and do support my claims. But you are asking for a ton of work

I’m not.

I’m only asking those on the other side of the argument to be reasonable and acknowledge the facts when they see it. Don’t dwell in denial. If you can see it, just admit it. a rational argument would be appreciated.

 

[LIIA]

The article that you linked should have shown you how complex the problems can get. But "hard" is never evidence against.

Hard to resolve, IOW, was not resolved can be very well evidence for a false premise.

I have not seen any evidence against abiogenesis.

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 evidence against alien abductions/ UFOs? Have you seen evidence against Elon Musk’s mansion on Mars? Have you seen evidence against the flying hippopotamus in Tanzania? “Lack of evidence with” is “evidence against”.

As a scientific theory, abiogenesis is nonexistent. There is no need for evidence against something that doesn’t exist (i.e., a negative in that respect).

To be reasonable, in general, we can neither claim that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or false because it has not yet been proven true.

Meanwhile you have a belief in magic that is not supported by any evidence at all.

What is magic? If magic is an effect without a cause, then I definitely don’t believe in magic. If the effect is observed, then the cause must exist but it’s perfectly acceptable that the cause can be of an unknown nature or can’t be understood.

Simply if there was nothing to cause/give rise to possibilities/contingent beings, then there are no possibilities of any kind. Every single contingent must be ultimately rooted in the absolute. There is no other way.

Every single contingent entity is evidence for the absolute. No exception. The evidence is extremely abundant to the point that it cannot be seen.

 

[LIIA]

LIIA

Sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences required that sciences or scientific theories to pass two essential requirements in Methodological Naturalism:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method

Failing even the first requirement - Falsifiability - would not allow a MODEL of concept (question on natural or physical phenomena, eg proposed ideas) or explanation (proposed explanations & proposed solutions) - to proceed to the next requirement - Scientific Method.

The points in the above, is that any "model" - any theory, any framework, any concept, any hypothesis, any explanation, any prediction, etc - must be falsifiable, meaning the model must be testable, and the only way "to TEST the model", is the second half of the Scientific Method.

And the test will require observations to the physical or natural phenomena, through evidence gathering or through experiments, or both.

If there are external "cause" for phenomena, then there must be evidence for the "cause" and there must be also evidence for "cause" being responsible for the "effect". You cannot have only evidence for the "effect", because that would defeat the cause-and-effect argument.

What you are proposing that "supernatural being", eg God, being the original cause of the "natural" or "physical" effect, but how do you "test" God, "observe" God, "measure" God, "analyze" God????

You can't. Which mean you cannot add God to your model - or to your hypothesis or theory - because you would be adding something UNFALSIFIABLE into the hypothesis or theory, which would render your concept untestable.

"God did it" isn't a mechanism, and don't yield natural explanation, especially in regarding to biology.

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”, "both are false" or even “both are true” (i.e., God caused chemistry and physical characteristics of matter to allow for abiogenesis).

The bottom line is my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my argument against abiogenesis (I never claimed abiogenesis is false because my religion said so). Valjean asked me if I can propose another way, which I do as a Muslim but logically, I don’t need to propose an alternative option X to reject option Y.

That said let’s move on.

Second, with respect to falsifiability, you are parroting a subject that you don’t understand, and you always make the illogical separation between related entities. Falsifiability is not a separate (first) requirement, it’s a fundamental aspect of the scientific method that defines/influences the rules of the verification process. The falsifiability logic is very influential but if you think falsifiability is a rigid rule that is typically followed in the scientific method, then you’re wrong, it’s not that simple. Let’s start from the roots.

The real concern is the logical reasoning of the verification process, more precisely, inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning.

Let’s start with the problem. When scientists draw general conclusions from data, they always use background theories to evaluate these data, i.e., they look at the data from the perspective of the theories they tend to believe, meaning, science wouldn’t be purely driven by observation but rather guided by or biased by a theoretical perspective, which translates to theories that are taken for granted or without criticism. In addition, verification of a theory through induction may only establish the likelihood of a probability, but never a confirmation, simply because we always have a limited amount of observations (It's not possible to observe every entity), I.e., Induction entails that scientists draw general conclusions from a limited set of observations. There could always be a new observation that shows the conclusion to be wrong.

That is why the logic of falsification was proposed by Karl Popper to address these concerns about the scientific method. The falsification logic always use deductive reasoning, never inductive reasoning. Falsifiability entails that science must be always critical, IOW, scientists are not interested in claiming that any theories are true, scientists must always try to show that their own theories are false. They don’t try to prove their theory but rather try to prove the null hypothesis through testing/ experimentation. The null hypothesis provides the basis of falsifiability to ensure that the theory has the essential capacity to be proven false.

The logic behind deductive reasoning was to make sure that the verification process is not guided by or biased by a theoretical perspective, rather than claiming that a theory is probable or true or anything like that, the falsification logic would be to prove a certain theory (the null hypothesis) wrong through an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies, the successful elimination of induction would mean that science can be purely driven by observations without bias by a prior theoretical perspective but the actual application of the deductive/falsification logic proved to be problematic.

Deductive reasoning essentially depends on the validity of the premises, but the problem is, how can this validity be established? A premise would typically make a number of assumptions; the acceptance of the assumptions would depend on induction or uncritical acceptance. In either case the intended critical thinking or logic was violated. (In fact, scientists do lots of claims based on induction).

The problem with Induction is that it’s not possible without accepting some background theory/some theoretical perspective that guides your thinking and as it turned out, falsification is also not possible without having such a background theory/theoretical perspective and that is why philosophers of science have come to the conclusion that the falsification principles although have been very popular/influential among scientists are not in fact an alternative to the standard method of induction because it turns out that induction cannot be eliminated from science. In conclusion, the scientific method always works in the realm of probabilities.

That said let’s move on.

Now, how abiogenesis, the idea that non-living matter gives rise to life is falsifiable? Especially if it doesn’t even provide a viable model consistent with the real-world observations, how can it be falsified?

Here are the options:

a) The general idea of abiogenesis cannot be falsified, because there is no empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies to prove the theory (that non-living matter gives rise to life) wrong.

b) abiogenesis is complex problem with multiple claims, each claim can be falsified separately. In this case, each claim is falsifiable and is actually false because of contradiction with empirical evidence. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons and we can discuss further.

Third, your claim that both “effect” and “cause” need separate/independent evidence is totally false. We discussed that before. See #178 of your thread “cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too”

cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too | Page 9 | Religious Forums

Here is a quote from #178

Cause and effect are inseparable. Your argument that we need evidence for both is an oxymoron, simply because the effect itself is the evidence for the cause. You don’t prove each one separately.

You cannot argue that dark energy, as a cause of astrophysical effects needs independent evidence of its existence, it’s an oxymoron since the effects itself is the evidence of the cause.

Similarly, Newton inferred the existence of gravity because of the effects of gravity. You don’t need separate evidence of gravity as the cause of observed effects. It’s an oxymoron. Effects (of gravity) are the evidence of the cause (gravity).

In most cases, effects are directly observed, IOW, its evidence is simply the fact that we observe it, on the other hand, causes may not be observed, yet it can be scientifically/logically inferred through the observations of its effects. The effects itself are the evidence of the causes.

On a fundamental level, we never test the causes we test the effects, the causes may be unobservable, of an unknown nature, exerting influences through unknown mechanisms, yet it must exist to explain the observations (similar to the example of dark energy, totally unknown /unobservable but the effects are the logical evidence). This concept is not foreign to naturalism but rather very common and acceptable.

This is exactly the same case with the understanding of God. The only difference is that God is not an individual cause for an individual effect; God is the absolute cause for every contingent entity in existence.

God as the absolute is not subject to the laws that control the contingent entities. The creation doesn’t encompass the creator. God is external to spacetime. We are within spacetime. You cannot test the cause. you only test the effects. Fundamental Causes are always beyond our capacity to observe/understand. The ultimate cause of all causes is the (ever-existing) first cause. God.

Here is a simple logic,

- Causes and effects are inseparable.

- The causal chain cannot continue in infinite regression, it must end.

- Any contingent being/effect must be ultimately rooted in the necessary/absolute being (the ultimate cause) at the absolute end of the causal chain.

- Contingent beings exist. hence the absolute being exists.

You still think you have mechanisms. On a fundamental level, you don’t have mechanisms or explanations of any kind, and will never do. You only have observed influences.

- Is “the dark energy did it” a mechanism/explanation?
- Is “the strong nuclear force did it” a mechanism/explanation?
- Is “gravity did it” a mechanism/explanation?

These are not mechanisms; these are observed influences through unknown mechanisms. It’s merely given names to unknowns. Do you know the intrinsic nature of these forces or how it exerts its influences or why/how it exists? You think you have explanations; you have none and will never do. Do you understand?

Things happen, we can observe it, it becomes the norm, the norm becomes the law, we give it a name. The norm takes away the wonder. The name gives a false impression/illusion of knowledge. You know nothing. You think the image has solids and void. Without God, It’s only void. Without God/the absolute reference, no relative entity of any kind may exist or have any meaning. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

In Abrahamic religions, the core teachings of the respective religions are only found in the Jewish Torah or Tanakh, the Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur'an. All that are required in each of these religions, is that you believe in the scriptures and that you believe in God, and that beliefs required FAITH, not in any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of God's existence.

Plus, not of the above scriptures offer anything in the way of natural explanation of the physical and natural phenomena, and since the topic are on Evolution & on Abiogenesis, vs Creationism, there are no explanations to the anatomy and physiology of living organisms in any of the scriptures, no explanations on reproduction and passing genetic traits from parent to offspring (nothing about DNA or RNA), no explanations to what the cells are, nor how cells work.

There are no explanations within the scriptures about plant life (Plantae) or about animal life (Animalia), including humans. Nothing in the scriptures include how one species of animal differ from another species. And the authors to these scriptures are completely ignorant about microorganisms such as the unicellular bacteria and the archaea, or the unicellular and eukaryotic cellular organisms, the protozans or the protists - from the kingdom Protista.

The creation in each of these scriptures only offered vague and general description of life, hence no explanations.

But worse of all, your scripture, the Qur'an, included magic creation of the first human - a fully grown male human, Adam, being made of clay and water.

All life, all organisms, whether it be unicellular microorganism or multicellular like animals (which included humans) and plants required cells. Muhammad know nothing about cells. I don't think he even have any idea what molecule or atom are. And cells are made from whole bunch of complex molecules and compounds.

What you and most creationists (regardless if they (creationists) are Jews, Christians or Muslims) don't understand that clay are not made of cells, and clay and water cannot turn into cells.

Do you even know what is the physical properties of clay, the origin source of clay?

Clay originated from minerals of rocks. Rock that have broken down by weathering, to mineral grain, than broken down even further until the minerals have become powdery.

Basically, clay is soil type, and there are other types of soils - silt and sand (sandy soil). And each grain are also made of minerals, originally from rocks.

The mineral for clay is mica. While silt are made of minerals, either feldspar or quartz, and the mineral of sandy soil is quartz.

The points is that all 3 mineral, mica, feldspar and quartz are basically silicate. The most basic silicate is written as SiO4.

More specifically, the chemical composition of clay is aluminum phyllosilicates

Al2Si2O5​

Since clay would include water with silicates, the chemical compound be rewritten as (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) or hydrous aluminum phyllosilicates.

The punchline is this, LIIA, there are NO SILICATE in human body. If Adam was made from clay and water, then we as descendants of Adam, then our cells should contain silicates.

There are no clay in our physical makeup.

Clay is basically a non-living matters.

Didn't you say Abiogenesis contain non-living chemicals?
What do you clay and water are, LIIA? They are non-living matters.

The differences between Abiogenesis and Creationism, is that with Abiogenesis it only deal with natural physical processes and that would include chemical processes, not magic or miracles.

So no matters how you put it, no natural processes can turn clay & water into living cells of human being...not without supernatural or magical forces. Plus neither clay, nor water, are not organic compounds.

And there still the question of - "Where are the evidence for God"?

There are none. Scriptures (eg your Qur'an) are not evidence for anything, especially with the silly story of Adam's creation. Scriptures are just bunch of stories and some rules. They cannot be evidence for itself, because that relying on circular reasoning.

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 established through verifiable physical/logical evidence proves the supernatural realm that cannot be verified.

It’s not logical to expect the religious scriptures to address scientific details beyond the awareness of those who received the revelation (such as DNA and RNA) that doesn’t make any sense. Conceptual hints about the universe were provided and proven true (see #1450) but again it’s not provided neither expected to be provided in any specific scientific language but rather in a language that can be understood/accepted by those who received it. It’s not logical to approach humanity with a (scientific) language that they don’t understand. logically, it would only cause the rejection of the revelation that would lack the capacity of being understood or relevant to their lives.

Again, with respect to explanation/mechanisms, science doesn’t provide any (on a fundamental level). Science only observes existing influences, as I clarified many times never explanation/mechanisms. If you can understand/admit this concept/fact, you will get a chance to see why your overall perception of reality is false. We always know there is a cause and always search for it; but we never can know its intrinsic nature/mechanism. Never. How the understanding of God is different? Simply, God is the ultimate cause of all causes.

With respect to the argument about creation of man from clay, the accurate meaning can be easily lost in translations/interpretations. I explained the accurate meaning of the scripture (Quran) to my best ability in # 329

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

But simply and generally, Quran declares that everything alive was created from water. Man was created from earthly material and water. Now, we observe that decomposed physical bodies integrate back to earth or in a cremation process the water evaporates (along with other gases) and all what remains is dust that can easily integrate back to earth. The integration of physical body back to earth is an observed fact. Why do you think there is a contradiction? Did you ever see evidence for a dead body that cannot integrate back to earth?

 

[LIIA]

Abiogenesis does propose a mechanism; a familiar, chemical mechanism.

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 evolution. If a mechanism were known, abiogenisis would have been a scientific theory by now. See #1850 & #2484.

Abiogenisis is a speculation based on false oversimplification of life. A claim of a chemical mechanism is like claiming that the work of William Shakespeare is possible merely because the English language exists or the ingenious Sagrada Familia is possible because the building blocks exist. Mere availability of components or building blocks (if actually available) never explains the sophistication/functionality of the end product.

Even if chemistry explains the first life (which is not true) but what explains chemistry itself? Why matter interacts in a specific controlled way, what dictates that behavior of matter? What dictates order vs. randomness? I know for you it’s merely the norm. That is the way it is, or simply the typical answer “another random interaction of already existing components". It’s a fallacious infinite regression reasoning.

Creationism doesen't even propose mechanism, it's a "theory" of agency. "Godidit" pretty much sums it up.

Science never provides mechanisms. The declaration of observed norm is not an explanation. The behavior of matter is controlled by unknown causes that influence the observed behavior through unknown mechanisms. Your argument/view means that the influence of the dark energy on the behavior of entire galaxies is a theory of agency/magic. “The dark energy did it”. Can you point to a mechanism?

and it's a lot more conceivable that simple, self duplicating, proto-lifeforms will assemble, than large, complex, multicellular creatures.

Does it need to fit your perception/view to be true? So, is the unevidenced assumption that "a simple self-replicating strand of genetic material (RNA) evolved" is acceptable merely because it’s more conceivable to you but the evidenced facts that disprove the assumption are not acceptable? Shouldn’t the evidence take precedence over assumptions?

The virus is the closest example in nature to a relatively simpler genetic material but it’s not a living system (the complex requirements for life are irreducible), its structure gets very easily disrupted (regardless of its protective membrane) and can never self-replicate without the host cell. If this the case with the virus which is supposedly a product of billions of years of evolution and has a surrounding protective protein membrane, then how a much simpler genetic material at the very beginning stays intact and self-replicate successfully for generations to allow an accumulation of change? It’s simply not possible.

Regardless of what you think is conceivable, the fact of the real world is that the alleged first non-living strand of RNA is not possible to emerge in nature from non-living matter, not possible to keep its structure intact (without a protective membrane), not possible to self-replicate without any access to required nucleotides, not possible to acquire metabolic functions. It’s multiple layers of impossibilities; only one of them would render the assumption false but the combination of all of them render the assumption ridiculous.

There is no conceivable process by which complex, fully formed plants or animals could arise de novo -- and no, Goddidit is not a process, it's magic.

What is the conceivable process through which the entire universe and everything in our observed realm came to reality from absolutely nothing?

Creation is simply a causal influence beyond our knowledge or our understanding but it’s not a foreign concept to naturalism, on a fundamental level, all causal influences are essentially beyond our knowledge/understanding. No exception.

No, there is a gradient, from components of life, like amino acids, nucleic acid, membranes, lipids, and self-reproducing, cell-like structures, to actual living, respiring cells.

You are talking about physical components of life not a living system. Can a virus evolve or gets genetically engineered to be a living system? Maybe this is a difficult goal, how about genetically engineer a virus to merely have the ability of self-replication without the host cell? It's impossible, simply because required nucleotides that constitutes the essential building blocks for the replication process do not exist in nature outside of the living cell.

At what specific point a lifelike structure becomes life is pretty much an arbitrary call, like the point at which Latin becomes French.
[quoteYou prefer abiogenisis based on the hope that we would have explanation in the future, but such speculation is meaningless it may never happen.

We both believe in abiogenesis. I believe it happened by familiar chemistry, and began with very simple reactions. You believe complex, fully-formed organisms popped into being by magic.
Which seems more reasonable? Which are we familiar with?[/QUOTE]

Let alone life, but at what point can a virus self-replicate (without the host cell)? Is it even possible?

Your belief is contradictory to evidence; my belief doesn’t provide a mechanism for the causal influence but how is that concept foreign to naturalism? Naturalism rejects claims contradictory to evidence but doesn’t reject unknown causal influences.

If you believe an entire universe popped into being causeless from nothing, then logically the initiation of any simpler system than the universe can similarly come into being through unknown process. How is that different? As discussed before, the explanation of the absolute beginning of any system (universe, life) is beyond the scientific method.

Life always emerges from life, never from nonliving matter. You’re born from day one with necessary functions to be alive. You heart keeps beating nonstop, if it stops you die, if it changes rhythm or beat erratically you die, such perfection in performing the function is a necessity from day one, if it's not that perfect from the very beginning, no chance for life or future change wouldn’t be possible. If the organism cannot stay alive, it cannot evolve to acquire the vital systems for life. The same is true even for a single celled organism.

First, how did we come to debate NDEs, and what do they have to do with creationism? We don't yet understand them. We don't understand ordinary consciousness. That's not evidence for god. Goddidit never explains anything.

NDEs provided evidence that our consciousness, with the continuous experience of self, does not necessarily coincide with the functioning of our brain. The evidence showed that enhanced/non-local consciousness, with unaltered self-identity, could be experienced independently from the lifeless physical body.

A common characteristic of near-death experiences is an out-of-body experience (OBE). Unconscious/clinically dead persons accurately reported verified events from locations apart from the physical body at the exact time while being unconscious without any possible physical sensory awareness, yet they verifiably obtained accurate info that is not attainable through any physical means.

Even individuals, who were blind from birth, had verified visual experiences for the first time in their lives and accurately reported verified events and OBE experiences.

Consciousness with enhanced sensory skills and unaltered self-identity persist beyond the physical body. See line of evidence #2 and #3

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

The NDE studies provided evidence that our consciousness is not physical and can persist beyond the physical body.

Our consciousness is not physical; life is not merely configurations of physical matter. Life is not possible without the non-physical consciousness/self-awareness. Physical matter doesn’t give rise to the non-physical.

 

[LIIA]

Are you a prophet sent by God? How do you know what science will discover or will not be able to discover in future?

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 mechanisms. We never did and will never do. Science doesn’t provide mechanisms; science only observes unknown influences that are exerted by unknown forces.

The norm takes away the wonder. We think we know but we don’t.

1. Do you know what need God had to create the universe?

To be known. It’s not a need and God didn’t have to.

2. We have a fair idea. Only the details are to be filled up.

Not true, something causeless (the universe) from nothing is not a fair idea.

3. Science is investigating it.

Science observes what can be observed and logically infers the existence of causes that cannot be observed or understood. the inference that the cause exists doesn’t equal the cause is understood or known.

Do you feel that science should be ashamed of not knowing? Is 'Goddidit' any better than saying that we do not not know? At least science is not faking it up.

Science should not be ashamed of not knowing, science should be only ashamed of faking up/implying a false claim of knowing what we don’t. Science needs to distinguish and acknowledge the difference between what is knowable and what is not.

“The force of nature did it” is essentially equal to "God did it” with respect to the fact that neither the intrinsic nature of the force nor the mechanism through which it exerts influence on matter is known.

The notion/claim that “The force of nature did it” is a coherent explanation is nothing but an illusion. The natural force is an unknown cause with a given name, God is the ultimate cause of all causes, how is that different or difficult to understand?

4. Science is investigating it.
5. Science is investigating it.
6. Science is investigating it.

You should say that 'the actual mechanism is not known today.' It does not preclude what we may come to know in future.
Can't be understood today does not mean that we will never know.

I’m talking about the fact that causal influences at a fundamental level are unknowable. It’s a fact that many cannot grasp. You’re holding tight to false speculations of the future because you don’t understand the facts of today.

In that case kindly let us know the cause of existence of God?

The question is logically wrong. The first cause is not caused.

Observed entities are caused. The options are either the cause/effect chain keep regressing in an infinite regression or ends at a first cause (non-contingent being).

Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, it demands no beginning; there is always a predecessor then another predecessor with no end, if time stops the chain breaks. It can no longer continue, yet the entire chain remains a contingent entity since it has a beginning, i.e., didn’t always exist. As a contingent being, the instantiation of the chain in reality is necessarily dependent on a cause.

Since all observable entities within the entire chain of causally dependent entities are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), the chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence, i.e., a necessary being.

A non-contingent/absolute being must exist at the absolute end of the chain of causally dependent entities. At this juncture, no contingent being exists, not even time or space, the absolute being is ever-existing beyond any limits of time/space or any natural law of any kind. The typical question “what was the preceding cause before that first cause” doesn’t apply; the word “preceding” itself has no meaning given the absence of time (time is a contingent being).

The first cause is a necessary being of an unknown/non-physical nature that exists by virtue of its mere essence without any dependency on causality (no preceding cause) or any other entity.

The necessary being is not subject to causality, as we understand it within our physical realm, yet must exist to give rise to all (observable/unobservable) contingent beings of all kinds.

The nature of the necessary being is beyond any possible knowledge that can be attained from within the physical realm simply because the first cause is beyond that realm and not subject to its laws. The creation doesn’t encompass the creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You always lose track of the argument whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Please false claims about others is a personal attack. I did not lose track, you made a poor argument.

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 possibly seeded on earth by aliens from outer space simply to emphasize the lack of conclusive evidence about abiogenesis, which opened the door for such speculative/unevidenced claims by Dawkins or others.

Well that was rather foolish and ignorant on your part. You should have understood the source of that quote better. It does not help your case at all. Dawkins was saying the exact same thing that I was. You merely heard it from a dishonest source that edited what he said in a way to mislead the uneducated listeners.

Then you denied Dawkins claim and finally acknowledged it when you said, “so what”. The point was made. There is no other argument.

No, since you did not understand what Dawkins said and that is why you "lost track".

Sorry but this is an epic loss on your part.

Really? The article was written in English. The conclusion is clear.

Yes, the conclusion is clear. You cannot understand scientific articles.

Next.

That is rational!!

But you have never argued rationally here.

There is. The article clearly said, “The review will emphasize that THERE ARE—AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE—MANY MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS from the synthetic, mechanistic, and analytical perspectives.”

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)
View attachment 68322

So what? You simply do not understand what that says. And also how did we get on to abiogenesis? You do realize that discussing it in no way affects evolution so you have conceded the evolution argument.

I’m not.

I’m only asking those on the other side of the argument to be reasonable and acknowledge the facts when they see it. Don’t dwell in denial. If you can see it, just admit it. a rational argument would be appreciated.

LOL! Everyone has been rational except for you. You are now just grasping at straws. Change your attitude and I will explain the article that was beyond you.

 

[LIIA]

Amino acids, nucleobases, fatty acids, &c. can form under, natural conditions.

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.

With the fact that it happened? What alternative is there?

That is a flawed reasoning. It happened is neither an explanation nor a confirmation of how it happened. It’s a baseless claim of knowing what you don’t know.

You don’t know, you speculate. In addition, your speculation contradicts evidence.

The cause would be chemical evolution. Google.

Evolution again? Why can’t you understand that evolution requires prerequisites? Probabilities of any kind need prerequisites. If nothing exists, then nothing would give rise to probabilities.

You always assume that the interaction of what already exists (the prerequisites) is the cause, you keep demanding something to exist before to justify something after, but you cannot keep going backwards forever, Infinite regress is a logical fallacy. The sum of the contingent entities never constitutes a non-contingent. Do you understand?

I don't accept that. You jump to conclusions.

We discussed that before but even if you don’t, the consensus is that no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no time, and no space, existed beyond the Big Bang. Nothing existed, or more precisely “nothing we know/understand”.

I'm not demanding. I just expect biology to work the same way the rest of the world does. As for an absolute first cause, what would that be? God? Superstrings?
I think that at this absolute level, though, determinism no longer applies.

Everything in existence, has its roots in the absolute even consciousness /self-awareness. Everything, no exception.

What are the alternatives?
"God" is not a mechanism, it's an agent. God is not a necessary cause. It's a special pleading you seem to justigy by a false dichotome. Something not known or undersyood is not evidence for a god.

I said “life appeared” demands a cause but a cause ≠ abiogenesis. How is that a special pleading?

I never said abiogenesis is false hence God is true, on the other hand you are the one who said God is false hence abiogenesis is true (because you think that there are no possible alternatives). You’re essentially the one who is making a false dichotomy.

I’m not saying something not known or understood is evidence of God, I’m saying all fundamental causes of nature are not known/understood hence the understanding of God is not foreign to naturalism. In fact, the essence of naturalism demands the existence of God as the necessary causal influence for everything in existence including the natural forces. What controls the specific behavior of these natural forces? Why don’t we demand a causal influence to explain the existence/behavior of the natural forces itself?

None of the causal influences/ natural forces that you are referring to is a brute fact. Everything is relative. Without the absolute, no relative is possible. You say, “Chemistry did it”. Chemistry itself is a relative entity. Why chemistry or the interactions of matter must behave in one way or another? It’s all relative/contingent/caused. Without the absolute, no relative is possible.

I'm talking about reactions both in vitro and in vivo.

How is that relevant?

The question is the relevance of the experiments of abiogenesis to actual prebiotic conditions.

God is not observable, measurable, testable, predictive, or falsifiable. Our lack of understanding of a process does not necessitate a god.

You didn’t get it. Our lack of understanding is the norm, our inability to observe/test the causes itself is the norm. We never test the causes. We only test the effects. Causes are not tested. Causes are inferred. You cannot test the dark energy, you can only observe the behavior of the galaxies (the effect), then infer that the dark energy exist.

Again, lack of understanding ≠ Goddidit!

No, it doesn’t

Let's consider this question. If I ask you, how do you know whether the natural forces (dark energy, strong nuclear force, gravity, etc.) are individual forces or actually a single force that influences different physical entities in different ways (depending on the type of the entity)? Can you construct a valid argument that yields a coherent explanation to answer this question? If the intrinsic nature/mechanisms of these forces are not known or understood, how can you make any conclusion with any level of certainty?

Even if I claim that these forces that you name as “natural forces” are actually “supernatural”, how can you answer? How is something that cannot be observed or tested with a totally unknown nature that exerts its controlling power through unknown mechanism be natural vs. supernatural? If I replace your given name “natural forces” with “God”, how is that any different? You will say it's different in the sense it implies design/purpose of an agent, then the question becomes what are your basis to deny such design/purpose if the extreme fine-tuning of the universe confirms it? Is that merely because this is what you’re inclined to accept?

You convince yourself that it’s a matter of evidence, but it not; you want to see reality in one way or another. The absolute reality is not dependent on any relative view.

An uncaused cause. An unnecessary cause.

False, the first cause is an absolute prerequisite before any caused entity of any kind would be possible.

Whatever has a beginning, is contingent not a brute fact, without the non-contingent/brute fact, there is nothing to give rise to any contingent.

 

[LIIA]

I don't see why ordinary chemistry is such an incomprehensible mystery. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

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.

I agree that the physics underlying this is little understood, but most of what we know today was once little understood.

True but this is not the point.

The problem is the inability to differentiate between what is knowable vs. what is not. If the quality or state of being “unknowable” is an intrinsic characteristic of an entity, then it’s not subject to future change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hard to resolve, IOW, was not resolved can be very well evidence for a false premise.

How so? An inability to do advanced math by a student does not refute advanced math. It is merely a rather difficult problem.

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”.

Sorry, you did not find any evidence against it and you do not understand the concept of evidence since there is clear evidence for it.

Have you seen evidence against alien abductions/ UFOs? Have you seen evidence against Elon Musk’s mansion on Mars? Have you seen evidence against the flying hippopotamus in Tanzania? “Lack of evidence with” is “evidence against”.

No, it is not. It only means that the idea failed to meet the burden of proof. By your standards you just refuted your God since there is no reliable evidence for a God. Think about it.

So now we have established that you do not understand the concepts of evidence or the burden of proof.

As a scientific theory, abiogenesis is nonexistent. There is no need for evidence against something that doesn’t exist (i.e., a negative in that respect).

To be reasonable, in general, we can neither claim that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or false because it has not yet been proven true.

Nonexistent is a bit extreme since it is a well supported hypothesis. It is only not a theory because there are still some important unanswered problems.

What is magic? If magic is an effect without a cause, then I definitely don’t believe in magic. If the effect is observed, then the cause must exist but it’s perfectly acceptable that the cause can be of an unknown nature or can’t be understood.

Simply if there was nothing to cause/give rise to possibilities/contingent beings, then there are no possibilities of any kind. Every single contingent must be ultimately rooted in the absolute. There is no other way.

Every single contingent entity is evidence for the absolute. No exception. The evidence is extremely abundant to the point that it cannot be seen.

You just contradicted yourself and admitted to believing in magic.

 

[LIIA]

What do you think clay and water are made of? They are non-living matters.

Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. See # 2625

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. See # 2625

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

Near Death Experiences appear to be just a natural result of the brain shutting down.

 

[LIIA]

It is because:
There's no evidence of intention.

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 observed, the emergence of the universe and life wouldn’t have been possible. The conclusion that observed values cannot be a product of chance gave rise to the speculation of Multiverse, the unevidenced/unfalsifiable hypothesis of endless random universes which makes our fine-tuned universe merely a possibility among endless other random universes. (It’s exactly the same unevidenced concept that advantageous mutations emerge among endless of random mutations).

b) Living systems with functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man, even at a microbial level. Organisms such as Protozoa, Algae, Bacteria and Viruses are extremely complex structures that are capable of decision-making, problem-solving, quorum sensing, associative learning, adaptive behavior, cooperative behavior in populations. Live in its simplest form is always extremely complex.

c) Design/purpose is also found in nonliving matter in the intelligent non-random behavior at the atomic and molecular level. Atomic intelligence is measured/defined as inversely proportional to the entropy of a system. The lower the entropy, the less is the random behavior and the higher the ability to form molecules or compounds which constitutes internal intelligence at the fundamental level of atoms.

There's no need for intention. The processes are observed to operate automatically, by natural law.

It’s an oxymoron. Automatically would mean independently but it never means the absence of purpose/intention. It’s the other way around.

An automated process that yields a highly functional/complex end product is never evidence for the absence of purpose.

If intentional, the operator is a very incompetent engineer, judging by how poorly designed and haphazard his creations are.

This is a totally false claim. All evidence points to perfection in the universe, life and even in nonliving matter. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

The burden of proof is on you, to produce evidence of a creator. It's not up to science to disprove that for which there's neither evidence nor need.

Both the evidence and need exist logically and scientifically, it has been demonstrated, you fail to see it. see above.

 

[LIIA]

But yes, the ultimately unexplained thing is why there is something instead of nothing.

And it is likely that there is simply no answer to that question (there may not be a reason).

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.

 

[LIIA]

The chemical processes - the chemical reactions - can occur naturally and synthetically, whether the chemicals are organic and inorganic.

But if we’re to believe Adam was created from clay and water (as the Qur’an claimed), than a lot of silicates (clay minerals) should still exist in the modern human body.

No claim minerals were found in human molecular composition.

My point is that you cannot chemically turn clay minerals (silicates) into biological compounds like proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, because silicon is purely inorganic substance.

We do have numbers of different types of minerals, but not of the silicate varieties.

So, basically, the Quran creation narrative of Adam is pure myth.

See # 2624

 

[LIIA]

btw, @LIIA

LUCA is addressed in Evolution, which are concern with species of different taxon groups, such as within genus or within clade, which shared common physical traits between two or more species.

Abiogenesis don't concern itself with species or with speciation. Abiogenesis have to do with the origins of biological compounds or molecules before the formation of cells.

So Abiogenesis is more chemistry-oriented.

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 , The ToE starts with LUCA.

As explained in #2575, The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of escalated complexity to the final level which is the complex functionalities/live processes with the ability of self-sustenance/survival, lipids for cell membranes, metabolic functions and mechanisms of heredity reproduction.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions leading through these multiple levels and ending with the LUCA.

If LUCA is not possible, Abiogenesis fails, and evolution is not possible.

 

[LIIA]

Near Death Experiences appear to be just a natural result of the brain shutting down.

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)

 

[Subduction Zone]

False, all evidence points to intention/purpose. Randomness is your claim. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact.

No, it does not. In fact you will probably agree with me. Here is a simple question:

What possible test could show your beliefs to be wrong? The test needs to based upon predictions of your model, not claims of your model.

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 observed, the emergence of the universe and life wouldn’t have been possible. The conclusion that observed values cannot be a product of chance gave rise to the speculation of Multiverse, the unevidenced/unfalsifiable hypothesis of endless random universes which makes our fine-tuned universe merely a possibility among endless other random universes. (It’s exactly the same unevidenced concept that advantageous mutations emerge among endless of random mutations).

No, that is an assumption not a fact. People are making several errors in that claim. They are using a poorly defined term. They do not know whether the variables can even vary. If they cannot vary, then they are not fine tuned. Physicists could explain this far better than I can.

b) Living systems with functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man, even at a microbial level. Organisms such as Protozoa, Algae, Bacteria and Viruses are extremely complex structures that are capable of decision-making, problem-solving, quorum sensing, associative learning, adaptive behavior, cooperative behavior in populations. Live in its simplest form is always extremely complex.

This is just an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy. "I don't know how this happened" is not evidence for your beliefs.

c) Design/purpose is also found in nonliving matter in the intelligent non-random behavior at the atomic and molecular level. Atomic intelligence is measured/defined as inversely proportional to the entropy of a system. The lower the entropy, the less is the random behavior and the higher the ability to form molecules or compounds which constitutes internal intelligence at the fundamental level of atoms.

Really? How are these atoms acting intelligently? This appears to be a totally nonsensical throw away claim.

It’s an oxymoron. Automatically would mean independently but it never means the absence of purpose/intention. It’s the other way around.

Too bad that you do not have any evidence for your beliefs. And we do have evidence for ours. Also, you misused the word "oxymoron". How does it apply here?

An automated process that yields a highly functional/complex end product is never evidence for the absence of purpose.

But it does show that we do not appear to need a "purpose". Do you even know what is being cliamed?

This is a totally false claim. All evidence points to perfection in the universe, life and even in nonliving matter. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

Really? How would you know since you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence and have never posted any.

Both the evidence and need exist logically and scientifically, it has been demonstrated, you fail to see it. see above.

Not from you From us yes. Your ideas have been refuted logically and scientifically. You really need some education on the basics. Ask anyone here politely and try to learn and they will help you with those basics. Ask any of us.

 

[rational experiences]

Did oxygenated living water exist in humans past...before humans?

Yes.

Has nothing to do with chemistry not living in oxygenated water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)

How do you think that those are "evidence"? You do not understand the concept.

I really do not want to get into NDE's. but trust me, there does not appear to be anything special about them.

And once again, when someone has to go so far afield from the topic at hand it is an admission that you lost the debate. The subject is evolution. Even if your claim about NDE"s were true it would not refute evolution at all.

It is once again an argument that can be refuted by a "So what?"

You appear to be conflating evolution with atheism. That is a huge error on your part. Evolution is not out there to prove that God does not exist. It only proves that some of your beliefs about him are wrong. And not even the important parts of your beliefs. Why oppose it so vigorously? It is almost as if you know that your faith is wrong.