Proton decay Vs. Hitchens's razor

[leroy]

Well, we know there were such chemicals around 5 billion years ago. We know that they do, in fact, spontaneously assemble into the types of polymers found in living things.

We have no independent evidence for any intelligence around 5 billion years ago.

That makes the initial probability of the one far greater than the probability of the other.

Well lets say that you go to the planet Mars, and discover a bunch of tools, spears, knifes, pottery, pyramids etc.

Then you discover that this where made with rocks that exist in nature and that the pottery has drawings made with some ink, made from chemicals that excsit in the planet


What would be more imporibable

1 there is/was a population of Aliens, (there is no other indepedndent evidnece for Aliens)

2 nature did it

 

[Polymath257]

Well lets say that you go to the planet Mars, and discover a bunch of tools, spears, knifes, pottery, pyramids etc.

Then you discover that this where made with rocks that exist in nature and that the pottery has drawings made with some ink, made from chemicals that excsit in the planet


What would be more imporibable

1 there is/was a population of Aliens, (there is no other indepedndent evidnece for Aliens)

2 nature did it

Well, we are aware of the precise types of conditions required to firm such tools, at least on earth. And in all cases, those tools were formed by intelligent agents. So it would certainly be reasonable to hypothesized intelligent agents in this case.

But then, of course, your analogy fails. For the origin of life, we do not know the conditions for its formation. We do not have any examples of intelligent agents involved in such. And the types of things involved do NOT go beyond the known capabilities, either verified or suspected. Of the chemicals known to be there.

 

[leroy]

Well, we are aware of the precise types of conditions required to firm such tools, at least on earth. And in all cases, those tools were formed by intelligent agents. So it would certainly be reasonable to hypothesized intelligent agents in this case.

Sure, My point is that you don’t seem to have problems in postulating the existence of an intelligent designer, even if you have no prior evidence for the existence of those designers.

do not have any examples of intelligent agents involved in such

.
Well we do have examples of ID creating artificial proteins (for vaccines for example)……… I know that proteins are not life, but at least intelligent designers seem to be better than nature in creating proteins

And the types of things involved do NOT go beyond the known capabilities, either verified or suspected. Of the chemicals known to be there.

I´ll say the opposite is true, it really seems as if someone designed the laws of nature, in order for abiogenesis to look as absurd as it can possible be.

If we where in a universe where abiogenesis is impossible (given the laws of nature) I don’t see how that universe would be different form our universe.

Any step in the correct direction has been shown to be instable and likely to go back to the previous stage, before moving towards the next step.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, My point is that you don’t seem to have problems in postulating the existence of an intelligent designer, even if you have no prior evidence for the existence of those designers.

But there has to be very clear evidence based on previous knowledge of what nature can do and what requires an intelligence.

For example, if we change your martian example to have what we *suspect* might be tools (but are not sure), but where alternative natural mechanisms plausibly exist, we would not be nearly as likely to jump to the 'intelligent agent' conclusion.

Well we do have examples of ID creating artificial proteins (for vaccines for example)……… I know that proteins are not life, but at least intelligent designers seem to be better than nature in creating proteins

I'd question the claim of 'better'. And we also know the conditions under which this happened and it is nothing like anything we know about from 5 billion years ago.

I´ll say the opposite is true, it really seems as if someone designed the laws of nature, in order for abiogenesis to look as absurd as it can possible be.

Well, then we get into the fact that we don't know of *any* way to 'design laws of nature' and there is absolutely no evidence that it is even possible.

That puts this scenario way down the list in terms of probability.

If we where in a universe where abiogenesis is impossible (given the laws of nature) I don’t see how that universe would be different form our universe.

Any step in the correct direction has been shown to be instable and likely to go back to the previous stage, before moving towards the next step.

Well, a universe where amino acids don't form spontaneously, or where polymerization doesn't happen spontaneously, or where life is not based on chemical properties, or where chemistry is impossible (because of different constants), any of those would be places where abiogenesis is impossible. Those look nothing like our universe.

The instabilities you mention depend on a model that does not involve changing conditions over time (like repeated wetting and drying).

if you have a poor model, you will get poor conclusions.