Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

[sayak83]

Well this begs the question, because we already know that in nature these natural circuits do exist, but that does not mean that they assembled by themselves. The argument is arguing that only is nature possesses or was guided by an intelligence can these circuits exist.

The design is the sign of intelligence.



You are just adding more evidence to my argument that such things evolvable chips or machines can only be designed by an intelligence.

Therefore, because we see that naturally occurring evolvable chips and machines, they indicate that nature possesses or is guided by an intelligence.

Here is an argument from Shankarcharya on the absurd notion that matter can self-build:

If matter could self-built, then atoms would either collide with one another and aggregate indefinitely to form useless composites and/or collide with one another and then collide into something else, disagregating, again forming nothing of use. Therefore, matter could never build itself into any useful composites.​

The idea that any kind of blind chaotic collisions could assemble itself into anything useful is an unproven fantasy of materialists. It is very easy to test, we can set up a supercomputer with a particle program with the same properties as elementary particles, and then have those particles randomly collide with one another, and see if that ever leads to any useful functional systems.

It is already obvious NOT. We intuitively know it will not happen, just as I have demonstrated with my thought experiment above. We know that complex functional systems require design they cannot just magically appear.

The processes of evolution are completely natural laws of biology and are fully tractable through mathematics and empericism. I want a clarification on what exactly you are saying:-
1) Are you saying that one requires more than the laws of chemistry, laws of biology and the laws of evolution to explain the emergence and functioning of living things and their parts. This is patently and demonstrably false.
2) Or are you saying that the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and evolution are such that they show that the laws have been crafted by some intelligence so that matter, following those laws can make complicated systems like life. This is not demonstrably false, but would require further arguments for plausibility/implausibility.

The idea of irreducible complexity attempts to support (1) but any competent biologist can easily refute it. If Sankaracharya was going for that argument then he was wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[sealchan]

My main thought here...One does not have to prove anything about God to speak about God.

Mystical knowledge is as much about the phenomenal experience of knowledge as it is about knowledge as such. The notion of Brahman-Atman is mystical knowledge. As such it is primarily of pedagogical value to invoke God in any description of the fundamental character of the Universe.

Really any attempt to speak about God is to address a mystery beyond the scope of proof...but there are always a rich plunder of metaphors to be had from mystical knowledge that can help us with the non-common sense aspects of the science and the beyond science questions that humans have always found mysterious and profoundly meaningful.

While science excels at proof, human beings require meaning in order to be psychologically satisfied. This OP is really about both but should not over-reaching the former.

Proof requires a rational structure to contextualize it. God, by His/Her/It's very nature is beyond rational structure and so does not play fair under the rules of proof.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The tool is not a refutation of what I said - it's just irrelevant. A system doesn't need to be a tool and a toll user is not somehow not a system because it uses one.

Of course intelligence is a complex system (and, of course including people) - it has to do all the things I listed and more - how do you think it does all that data processing without being a complex system? Why do you think your brain has 100 billion neurons - to keep your ears apart?

Again, you are using the term intelligence here in the sense of artificial intelligence and not real intelligence, like say human intelligence. It begs the question to say human intelligence is caused by the data processing of the brain. It is just as possible that human intelligence is outside of the brain.

Firstly, you've given no sensible reason why the universe might be in danger of said collapse without an intelligence. Secondly, intelligence itself quite obviously is a system for the reasons given above - and now you've given it a vast amount of data (all of it, actually) which it needs to act on - so even at the most basic level it has to contain data and process that data - that's a system.

No, you don't answer the question why should the universe remain stable at all? The universe happens to be in a fine-tuned configuration so that stars can arise, planets can arise, and life can arise on planets, and this configuration persists moment to moment, despite the fact that positions of atoms are constantly changing, so why should coherence always persist? Why does the universe seem to have a preference for a certain configuration.

The question extends to every level, including biological. Why should biological matter prefer certain configurations of molecules?

This is the problem with your argument your matter is blind and yet this blind matter just happens to get into a certain configuration so that it can remain stable, and then it just happens to configure itself so that it can form complex functional systems.

You believe in a fantasy.

No, omniscience itself entails an infinite regression - if it knows everything about itself, then it knows everything about its knowledge of everything, including itself - and how it is dealing with it at the time - which includes a knowledge of everything about its knowledge of everything, including itself - and how it is dealing with it at the time - which includes a knowledge...

I disagree omniscience simply means that I know everything that is taking place in my field of knowledge e.g. In my field of knowledge right now I know everything that is in my room. If my field of knowledge was greater I would know everything within that field. Similarly, if the entire universe is the in the field of that supervising intelligence or God if you like, then it knows everything that happens in the universe.

Don't you know how atoms came into being?

No, please enlighten me. Big bang? However, isn't it accepted in physics that there are elementary particles i.e., that have always existed, or did they come into being then? In that case what before them. You will have to terminate the regression somewhere and then declare that something always existed.

Anyway - yes you have to terminate somewhere - but we have no evidence for anything apart from the universe itself. Why that exists, I don't know - and neither do you or anybody else.

The problem is that you want (for religious reasons) to terminate with an intelligence - which is why you keep getting into infinite regress - because intelligence, according to all the evidence we have about it, needs order and complexity in order to exist - not the other way around.

No, because we cannot terminate at matter, because matter does not always exist(as you seem to be indirectly admitting above) It exists now, and the next moment it does not exist. There was a time when no matter, space, time, energy existed. Therefore something clearly existed that was other than space, time, matter and energy from which they came.

No but complex systems can and do evolve - we have the evidence that they did.

Sure, but the point of contention here is that did they just self-assemble by blind chance or were they designed. We know by common observation, complex functional systems NEVER assemble by themselves, they need to be designed by an intelligent entity.

Nobody today would assume that a cell was the start of evolution.

It is the first basic unit of life. It is where Darwin started his theory from.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

My main thought here...One does not have to prove anything about God to speak about God.

Mystical knowledge is as much about the phenomenal experience of knowledge as it is about knowledge as such. The notion of Brahman-Atman is mystical knowledge. As such it is primarily of pedagogical value to invoke God in any description of the fundamental character of the Universe.

Really any attempt to speak about God is to address a mystery beyond the scope of proof...but there are always a rich plunder of metaphors to be had from mystical knowledge that can help us with the non-common sense aspects of the science and the beyond science questions that humans have always found mysterious and profoundly meaningful.

While science excels at proof, human beings require meaning in order to be psychologically satisfied. This OP is really about both but should not over-reaching the former.

Proof requires a rational structure to contextualize it. God, by His/Her/It's very nature is beyond rational structure and so does not play fair under the rules of proof.

The problem with this argument is as soon as you speak of an entity called "God" you have already brought him into our rational universe, and then you have to justify this entity in our rational universe. This is why mystics should simply remain silent on something called "God" Otherwise, by saying anything about God, even "God is unknowable" you then have to answer to questions like "If God is unknowable, then how do you know there is a God"

The beauty of this enterprise called Philosophy is that it operates in a linguistic universe where all philosophy is just the logic of words. You have to show that your set of words are logical and consistent. Obviously it is not consistent to say, for example "God is omnipotent" and "God is helpless"

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

1) Are you saying that one requires more than the laws of chemistry, laws of biology and the laws of evolution to explain the emergence and functioning of living things and their parts. This is patently and demonstrably false.

Absolutely, laws require a maintainer for those laws. That is because all these laws interrelate with one another, laws of chemistry are not separate from laws of physics which are not separate from the laws of biology, all these laws interconnect so that life can exist.

2) Or are you saying that the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and evolution are such that they show that the laws have been crafted by some intelligence so that matter, following those laws can make complicated systems like life. This is not demonstrably false, but would require further arguments for plausibility/implausibility.

More this, the laws are finetuned for life to exist and thrive. First, they allow for matter to be stable, then they allow for matter to form stars, then it allows for matter to form planets, then it allows for matter to form life. It is demonstrated from the fact that if the laws were even slightly off by a minuscule amount, there would be no life. It should also be understood, that every moment, atoms change their positions, and yet despite this they remain always in dynamic equilibrium. In a system, nothing random can ever emerge, because then every other part of the system has to resolve to accommodate that emergence. This is a fatal flaw that reductionist thinking commits, by thinking that a random mutation can take place somewhere in the body, fails to see that it cannot take place, without the rest of the system resolving to accommodate it. In fact in a system nothing ever random can ever take place, hence emergence is impossible, because no single parts can function independently of the system.

The idea of irreducible complexity attempts to support (1) but any competent biologist can easily refute it. If Sankaracharya was going for that argument then he was wrong. Pure and simple.

No, Sankacharya is showing through the strength of pure argument that matter cannot self-assemble without being guided by an intelligence. As matter is blind, and because it is blind it does not know what to assemble, how to assemble it and why to keep it as it is if it does assemble anything. I have demonstrated this in my thought experiment. A blind person does not know what to do with the parts in front of them, how to connect those parts, and why to keep those parts as they are .... hence they could NEVER assemble a functioning kettle from the parts.
Similarly, even in a single cell, every single part is interconnected with every other part, so that it can function. It cannot just have been put together by blind matter. That is an absurd fantasy.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, you are using the term intelligence here in the sense of artificial intelligence and not real intelligence, like say human intelligence. It begs the question to say human intelligence is caused by the data processing of the brain. It is just as possible that human intelligence is outside of the brain.

No - human intelligence still has to be complex. I can't actually believe that I'm having to argue this. You have memories and you think and plan and modify plans and you have motivations and insights you can form hypotheses and test them... - the idea that human intelligence is not complex is daft in the extreme.

Again - why do you think you have 100 billion neurons?

No, you don't answer the question why should the universe remain stable at all? The universe happens to be in a fine-tuned configuration so that stars can arise, planets can arise, and life can arise on planets, and this configuration persists moment to moment, despite the fact that positions of atoms are constantly changing, so why should coherence always persist?

The laws of physics are quite sufficient to explain that.

No, please enlighten me. Big bang? However, isn't it accepted in physics that there are elementary particles i.e., that have always existed, or did they come into being then? In that case what before them. You will have to terminate the regression somewhere and then declare that something always existed.

Hydrogen and helium atoms (mostly) were formed shortly after the big bang - other elements in stars. There are what are considered to be elementary particles now, but even those may have resulted in 'symmetry breaking' in the very early universe. Before that we are into speculation.

No, because we cannot terminate at matter, because matter does not always exist(as you seem to be indirectly admitting above) It exists now, and the next moment it does not exist.

Matter isn't actually a well defined scientific term.

There was a time when no matter, space, time, energy existed.

That is self-contradictory. You can't have a time when there was no time.

Just as an example - if we take general relativity seriously, then time is just a direction in space-time - the entire universe exists as a four dimensional object that includes its entire history. Time would only have meaning inside it - asking what was before the big bang would be meaningless because "before the big bang" would not refer to a time. The whole 4-d object itself would just exist.

As you previously said that what exists can just exist - then (according to you) the whole thing requires no further explanation. If you think your 'intelligence' can just exist with no explanation, then why not a 4-d manifold?

It's only an example because whatever theory eventually unites general relativity with quantum field theory my well change this view - but if you are going to claim that this intelligence of yours can just exist - then something less complex, like that, is a better candidate because it is based on evidence.

Your 'intelligence' is contrary to the evidence because, as I said, according to all the evidence we have about it, intelligence needs order and complexity in order to exist - not the other way around.

It is the first basic unit of life. It is where Darwin started his theory from.

Nobody today seriously thinks the cell was the first unit of life. What Darwin thought is irrelevant.

 

[sayak83]

The idea that any kind of blind chaotic collisions could assemble itself into anything useful is an unproven fantasy of materialists. It is very easy to test, we can set up a supercomputer with a particle program with the same properties as elementary particles, and then have those particles randomly collide with one another, and see if that ever leads to any useful functional systems.

.

Then Sankaracharya has been refuted. Since no supercomputer today has the power to go all the way from elementary particles to biology, this is what is actually done in a step by step manner with the results of the previous step used as inputs to the next one.

1) Using qunatum mechanical laws of particles to model chemistry if molecules and atoms. This branch of science called quantum chemistry is my field and all the laws of chemistry and interactions thereof can be directly recovered from such first principle models.Indeed most of modern chemical industry relies on such detailed first principle models and derivations to develop new product and ascertain their properties. This include organic catalysts and molecules as well.
Here the several basic ways of doing this:-
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Electronic_Structure_Theory.pdf

What is found is that the laws of quantum mechanics do not lead to chaos at all, but to the emergence of regular laws and structures on which chemistry is built on.

2) Once the basic behavior of chemical systems are known through quantum chemistry, they are assembled and incorporated into larger programs that look into large chemical systems, whether they be macromolecules of biology or atmospheric chemistry or combustion processes. These programs, that use the emegent behaviors of stage 1 as their building blocks are built by the field of molecular dynamics.

Molecular dynamics - Wikipedia

The 2013 Nobel Prize was awarded to researchers who developed the computational schemes by which this could be done and applied them successfully to predict the behavior of bio-molecules

Modern more powerful computers can combine the two steps together at one go to create even more accurate and predictive models of biomolecules
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160714092223.htm

3) Finally, the simulation of the ENTIRE CELL in a computer is also underway. The first such whole-cell simulation is underway, and they would become more common as the computers increase in power,
Stanford and Venter Institute Simulate an Entire Organism With Software

Thus in a step-by-rigorous-step manner, the entire system from quantum behavior of elementary particles to a cell has been modeled in a computer.

Emergence is not only possible, but have been demonstrated from first principles at each and every stage.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Then Sankaracharya has been refuted. Since no supercomputer today has the power to go all the way from elementary particles to biology, this is what is actually done in a step by step manner with the results of the previous step used as inputs to the next one.

He has not been refuted, but you have not shown that any blind matter consisting of just particles reacting with one another could ever form complex functional systems.

<snip>

3) Finally, the simulation of the ENTIRE CELL in a computer is also underway. The first such whole-cell simulation is underway, and they would become more common as the computers increase in power,
Stanford and Venter Institute Simulate an Entire Organism With Software

Thus in a step-by-rigorous-step manner, the entire system from quantum behavior of elementary particles to a cell has been modeled in a computer.

Emergence is not only possible, but have been demonstrated from first principles at each and every stage.

Well this is akin to, in my thought experiment, taking the mans blind fold off and giving him a circuit diagram to follow to build the kettle. You are proving nothing here, other than scientists who already know how the cell works, are now simulating it on a computer by designing it from the first stage of particles to the second stage of biomolecules and finally to the third stage of cells. Which again, just proves my own argument, that you need an intelligent designer in the first place to arrange the particles etc into finally a functional cell.

What you need to prove is you can design an algorithm on a supercomputer that is BLIND that can then just through pure random collisions of the elementary particles end up with a functional cell. This is what my thought experiment conclusively demonstrated, a blind person wouldn't be able to see the parts, wouldn't know how to connect the parts, and wouldn't know which configurations of part to retain.

In other words it is simply impossible to design even a very basic functional system such as a kettle blindly. You would need the blind fold off and a circuit diagram in front of you to build it.

 

[viole]

I don't claim ownership of God.

All I have argued in the OP that a supervising intelligence necessarily exists, to maintain the universe so life can exist and thrive within it. That, is because the complexity of all natural processes so that life can exist is fine-tuned for just that. It is a consistent inference, if I find a complex functional system I always infer there is an intelligence behind it.
If I see a clock, a radio, a television, a computer I always infer an intelligence behind it. Likewise, I am forced to infer the same about so-called natural things like living cells, it is a complex functional system, therefore there must be an intelligence behind it.

Have you ever experienced complex things, like a clock, done by beings with a not complex brain?

If not, your piece of natural theology will become completely useless, when you think about it.

I think materialists believe in fantasies. How can they explain to me that a single cell already started of as a piece of perfect functioning nanomachinary? How can you explain this as a process of natural selection? Materialists refuse to admit that their paradigm has been reduced to absurdity.

Let''s use this as a starting point. Let's assume that the first cell is not the product of naturalistic processes. Do you agree that the more complex things that followed, could be?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

He is not been refuted, but you have not shown that any blind matter consisting of just particles reacting with one another could ever form complex functional systems.



Well this is akin to, in my thought experiment, taking the mans blind fold off and giving him a circuit diagram to follow to build the kettle. You are proving nothing here, other than scientists who already know how the cell works, are now simulating it on a computer by designing it from the first stage of particles to the second stage of biomolecules and finally to the third stage of cells. Which again, just proves my own argument, that you need an intelligent designer in the first place to arrange the particles etc into finally a functional cell.

What you need to prove is you can design an algorithm on a supercomputer that is BLIND that can then just through pure random collisions of the elementary particles end up with a functional cell. This is what my thought experiment conclusively demonstrated, a blind person wouldn't be able to see the parts, wouldn't know how to connect the parts, and wouldn't know which configurations of part to retain.

In other words it is simply impossible to design even a very basic functional system such as a kettle blindly. You would need the blind fold off and a circuit diagram in front of you to build it.

Only the laws of quantum mechanics that the elementary particles follow were the input to the models of quantum chemistry. In all simulations of quantum chemistry, the scientists add NOTHING ELSE. From the random interactions of elementary particles at the quantum level via the laws of quantum mechanics, the entire machinery of complex chemistry and its laws at atomic and molecular level emerge in the computer. Thus the simlulations prove that one needs nothing other than the elementary particles blindly following the laws of quantum mechanics to derive the entire rich structure and laws of atomic and molecular and organic chemistry. Since the scientists do not use any priori knowledge of what the laws at the large scale are supposed to be in their inputs, the final results definitely prove emergence. I know since I am a chemist who works on this field and know for certain what is being done. You will too, if you try and read a few books on the topic

http://www.kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/spectroscopy/Atkins05.pdf
https://www.wavefun.com/support/AGuidetoMM.pdf

Now that one has shown that the laws of chemistry do indeed emerge directly from quantum mechanics of elementary particles, one can use these laws of chemistry (with submodules for quantum chemistry where more detailed analysis is needed) as inputs to biomolecular interactions in cells. And once again it is seen that the basic cellular and enzymatic processes naturally emerge out as outputs from these computer simulations . Thus in both cases it has been proved conclusively that one needs nothing other than elementary particles and the laws of quantum mechanics to get to the behaviors seen in chemical systems and then biological systems.

Thus the test you proposed has already been done (and is being incessantly done in all modeling work that is so useful in chemistry and biology) and the results is:- Your contention is wrong.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Regarding the part I bolded above... what are you talking about? Why does that argument presuppose "many universes?" It only presupposes that the one universe in which we exist is capable of supporting our existence... which is, of course, a fact. It does not require that there be any other universe that may or may not be able to support life. This is one of the reasons why I have a hard time applying any credibility to your arguments - you make sweepingly inaccurate, assuming statements like this and just move on in your assumptions pretending as if you are speaking from a position that is untouchable.

Okay, the argument did not say there is more than one puddle, but then it argues that just because the puddle fits the hole, we cannot say the hole was fine-tuned for that puddle. If we assume there are many holes, then it means the puddle just take on the form of that hole. However, here the analogy fails. The OP, especially the article cited in the OP, shows there were many ways this one universe could have come into being, and he shows by testing various simulations by adjusting some basic factors that if such and such factor was x then stable matter would not arise, and if such such and such factor was y, then stars would not arise, and it goes through several such factors to show that even if one factor was off a miniscule amount life would not arise.

Hence, if we are not talking of many universes, we can talk of possible universes and it just happen to be that the universe we ended up with was fine-tuned for life.

Just because we exist does not mean that the universe was created for us.

Why is that so hard to accept? You feel you're too "special" to simply "exist" without some predefined purpose dreamt up by some super-entity? Why? Why do you feel this way? It is arrogance - a conceit deeply rooted within so many on this planet, believing they have to have been created for something more because they feel "oh so special" to themselves and they can't imagine that there isn't something out there that has some great plan for them, because they so desperately desire such a plan be played out for them.

These types of arguments where you accuse your opponent of emotional motive are useless arguments, because they are double edged sword. I could easily just throw it back at you and say "You do not want to feel special" this is why you argue against my position.

Stick to logical arguments.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Only the laws of quantum mechanics that the elementary particles follow were the input to the models of quantum chemistry. In all simulations of quantum chemistry, the scientists add NOTHING ELSE. From the random interactions of elementary particles at the quantum level via the laws of quantum mechanics, the entire machinery of complex chemistry and its laws at atomic and molecular level emerge in the computer. Thus the simlulations prove that one needs nothing other than the elementary particles blindly following the laws of quantum mechanics to derive the entire rich structure and laws of atomic and molecular and organic chemistry. Since the scientists do not use any priori knowledge of what the laws at the large scale are supposed to be in their inputs, the final results definitely prove emergence. I know since I am a chemist who works on this field and know for certain what is being done. You will too, if you try and read a few books on the topic

http://www.kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/spectroscopy/Atkins05.pdf
https://www.wavefun.com/support/AGuidetoMM.pdf

Now that one has shown that the laws of chemistry do indeed emerge directly from quantum mechanics of elementary particles, one can use these laws of chemistry (with submodules for quantum chemistry where more detailed analysis is needed) as inputs to biomolecular interactions in cells. And once again it is seen that the basic cellular and enzymatic processes naturally emerge out as outputs from these computer simulations . Thus in both cases it has been proved conclusively that one needs nothing other than elementary particles and the laws of quantum mechanics to get to the behaviors seen in chemical systems and then biological systems.

Thus the test you proposed has already been done (and is being incessantly done in all modeling work that is so useful in chemistry and biology) and the results is:- Your contention is wrong.

I find a lot of this hard to read because of all these word salads.

Are you telling me, that scientists have devised a simulation on a computer using random collisions of particles, where they ended up self-assembling into a a working cell with all its parts such as a membrane, a nucleus containing DNA, which sends instructions to millions of ribisomes which manufacture protein all arranged into a single functional unit?

I do not know of any such simulation or program where through any kind of random algorithm anything meaningful or useful has been generated. Forget a 3D object, can you even through random chance create a program that will paint a 2D Mona Lisa?

 

[sayak83]

I find a lot of this hard to read because of all these word salads.

Are you telling me, that scientists have devised a simulation on a computer using random collisions of particles, where they ended up self-assembling into a a working cell with all its parts such as a membrane, a nucleus containing DNA, which sends instructions to millions of ribisomes which manufacture protein all arranged into a single functional unit?

I do not know of any such simulation or program where through any kind of random algorithm anything meaningful or useful has been generated. Forget a 3D object, can you even through random chance create a program that will paint a 2D Mona Lisa?

Whenever you have difficulty in refuting what somebody else says, you discount it as word salad.

I have said:-
1) Using just elementary particles blindly following the laws of quantum mechanics, scientists have been able to generate all the complex laws of chemistry and reactive behavior of chemical molecules including biomolecules. Thus showing that the rich structure and laws of chemistry that molecules follow naturally emerge from first principles from elementary particles blindly following quantum mechanics.

Eg. Protein behavior directly modelled and predicted using fundamental quantum mechanical interactions at the subatomic level.
http://hjkgrp.mit.edu/sites/default/files/pub_reprints/15_jp307741u_sm.pdf

2) Now that the emergence of the laws of chemistry have been proved, the next set of simulations use these emergent laws as input to successfully output the behavior and processes going on in cells. Recently they have modeled the entire cells in such a manner. This shows that given the laws of chemistry, the biological behavior of cells emerge naturally from blind interaction of chemicals in cells.


Thus it has been proved by computer simulations based on first principles

a) Blind interactions of elementary particles through the laws of quantum mechanics causes the emergence of molecules and their laws of chemistry.
b) Blind interactions of molecules by the laws of chemistry caused the emergence of the biological processes in the cell, including the entire cell.

(a) and (b) jointly shows that elementary particles blindly interacting with each other is sufficient to explain the activity and property of living cells.


The assembly of a cell is done through evolutionary processes and abiogenesis in early earth (just as assembly of atoms occured via Big Bang and stellar evolution) and how cells assembled in their present structure is explained by the laws of chemistry acting in early earth environment. I have provided conclusive evidence for this in my first post. Repeating it, since you have difficulty understanding anything that goes against what you erroneously believe in.

It has often been supposed that basic processes of life are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved in early earth from standard chemical and physical processes. This assumption too has been falsified. Last two decades of research on abiogenesis has explained how the laws of physics and chemistry acting on elements in early earth created and assembled the parts of early life systems in good detail.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

It was also thought that the apparent handedness of life's molecules could not have evolved by natural processes. This too (the so-called chirality problem) has been debunked.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Thus again and again it has been shown that the laws of physics and chemistry and biology/evolution are completely adequate in accounting for the workings and development of complex systems like life etc.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Again I repeat:

Are you telling me, that scientists have devised a simulation on a computer using random collisions of particles, where they ended up self-assembling into a a working cell with all its parts such as a membrane, a nucleus containing DNA, which sends instructions to millions of ribisomes which manufacture protein all arranged into a single functional unit?

I do not know of any such simulation or program where through any kind of random algorithm anything meaningful or useful has been generated. Forget a 3D object, can you even through random chance create a program that will paint a 2D Mona Lisa?

 

[sayak83]

Again I repeat:

I will repeat my answer which is quite adequate.

1) Using just elementary particles blindly following the laws of quantum mechanics, scientists have been able to generate all the complex laws of chemistry and reactive behavior of chemical molecules including biomolecules. Thus showing that the rich structure and laws of chemistry that molecules follow naturally emerge from first principles from elementary particles blindly following quantum mechanics.

Eg. Protein behavior directly modelled and predicted using fundamental quantum mechanical interactions at the subatomic level.
http://hjkgrp.mit.edu/sites/default/files/pub_reprints/15_jp307741u_sm.pdf

2) Now that the emergence of the laws of chemistry have been proved, the next set of simulations use these emergent laws as input to successfully output the behavior and processes going on in cells. Recently they have modeled the entire cells in such a manner. This shows that given the laws of chemistry, the biological behavior of cells emerge naturally from blind interaction of chemicals in cells.


Thus it has been proved by computer simulations based on first principles

a) Blind interactions of elementary particles through the laws of quantum mechanics causes the emergence of molecules and their laws of chemistry.
b) Blind interactions of molecules by the laws of chemistry caused the emergence of the biological processes in the cell, including the entire cell.

(a) and (b) jointly shows that elementary particles blindly interacting with each other is sufficient to explain the activity and property of living cells.


The assembly of a cell or a protein is done through evolutionary processes and abiogenesis in early earth (just as assembly of atoms occured via Big Bang and stellar evolution) and how cells assembled in their present structure is explained by the laws of chemistry acting in early earth environment. I have provided conclusive evidence for this in my first post. Repeating it, since you have difficulty understanding anything that goes against what you erroneously believe in.

It has often been supposed that basic processes of life are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved in early earth from standard chemical and physical processes. This assumption too has been falsified. Last two decades of research on abiogenesis has explained how the laws of physics and chemistry acting on elements in early earth created and assembled the parts of early life systems in good detail.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

It was also thought that the apparent handedness of life's molecules could not have evolved by natural processes. This too (the so-called chirality problem) has been debunked.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Thus again and again it has been shown that the laws of physics and chemistry and biology/evolution are completely adequate in accounting for the workings and development of complex systems like life etc.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You've NOT proven anything. Send me a link to this alleged simulation where through blind collisions of particles they have produced a single cell.

 

[sayak83]

You've NOT proven anything. Send me a link to this alleged simulation where through blind collisions of particles they have produced a single cell.

I have refuted you completely. I have shown that neither the assembly of a cell is irreducibly complex (the links on abiogenesis) nor are the emergent laws and behavior of chemical and biological systems irreducibly complex as they emerge naturally from blind interaction of the subatomic molecules that constitute it, as proven by computer simulations. Nothing else is left. Whether you accept the refutation or not is of course up to you.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Have you ever experienced complex things, like a clock, done by beings with a not complex brain?

I don't get your argument? A clock etc requires an intelligent agent, in this case a clockmaker, to make it.

Let''s use this as a starting point. Let's assume that the first cell is not the product of naturalistic processes. Do you agree that the more complex things that followed, could be?

Ciao

- viole

As far as I know a cell is the most basic unit of life. Please enlighten me what is more basic, or are you referring to abiogenisis?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I have refuted you completely. I have shown that neither the assembly of a cell is irreducibly complex (the links on abiogenesis) nor are the emergent laws and behavior of chemical and biological systems irreducibly complex as they emerge naturally from blind interaction of the subatomic molecules that constitute it, as proven by computer simulations. Nothing else is left. Whether you accept the refutation or not is of course up to you.

Yes, as I expected, there is no such simulation which shows cells can be built by blind random collisions of particles. Nothing to see here. Moving on.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, as I expected, there is no such simulation which shows cells can be built by blind random collisions of particles. Nothing to see here. Moving on.

Whatever caused you to believe that early earth was a random distribution of particles? The conditions of early earth are the conditions that need to be simulated to see if living cells can assemble out of it through the laws of chemistry. All current evidence shows that indeed, the conditions of early earth in conjunction with the laws of chemistry are more than adequate to give rise to early cellular life,

Why would the scientists simulate starting from a random distribution of subatomic particles when there was NEVER a time in the past of the universe or earth when there was a random distribution of subatomic particles?