What if science never discovers what made life?

[Raider5678]

Supernatural just means beyond scientific understanding. Lightning was once supernatural. It doesn't mean that something is beyond a process. If there is an all powerful god that entity still must do something to make life happen. Even if what a god does is manifest amino acid with its thoughts there is still something that happens. Still an assembling of atoms to molecules under specific conditions. The proof is undeniable because we are alive and are made of our biology. If we were made by god we had to have been of our biology by god.

 

As for where god comes from I understand many believe god always was. And that is fine. However if god always was than that means there has always been life which means life was never created. Humans were made, life on earth was made, but life in general has always existed if we accept that god always existed. Which would mean there simple is no answer to the question.

 

Attempting to answer the question however has been benefitial to society. Learning what we have about our biology and DNA has helped develop medicine, investigate crime, help families have children, and etc. So to answer your question regarding "what if science never discovers what made life" to journey has proven itself valuable. Nikola Tesla's quest for wireles engery transmission contributed to radio control and radar technologies. Much is achieved as byproduct of scientific research.

The sad part is that some people are against those helpful advancements.

 

And I agree, we should never stop searching for answers to questions we have.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Raider5678

[Itoero]

What if we're alone in the universe, and billions of years from now they still have no idea how life possibly began.

Would humans eventually just give up and say something or another made us, or would they still claim random coincidence?

 

I'm not trying to discuss the possibility of God here.

Just what conclusions humanity would come to if it encountered a mystery it couldn't solve.

What about abiogenesis? It's of course not proven but many things (like Miller-Urey and many others) point to the possibility.

I doubt we can ever prove abiogenesis (unless we learn to travel in time)but we will probably be able to prove it's possible.

[Raider5678]

What about abiogenesis? It's of course not proven but many things (like Miller-Urey and many others) point to the possibility.

I doubt we can ever prove abiogenesis (unless we learn to travel in time)but we will probably be able to prove it's possible.

If we prove it's possible I'll stop believing in God and immediately accept that's how life began.

Even if it's not proven that's how life began, the idea that it's possible simply destroys the concept of God.

So yeah, abiogenesis is still a theory. And theories can be proven. I think. Unless I'm wrong, proving it's possible proves that theory? Either way yeah. We'll see.

+1 for a good response.

[Prometheus]

If we prove it's possible I'll stop believing in God and immediately accept that's how life began.

 

So you won't accept abiogenesis until evidence is provided? Sounds reasonable. But why then believe God created life when there is no such evidence such a being even exists? Why is God created everything the default position instead of a simple 'don't know'?

[Raider5678]

 

So you won't accept abiogenesis until evidence is provided? Sounds reasonable. But why then believe God created life when there is no such evidence such a being even exists? Why is God created everything the default position instead of a simple 'don't know'?

Because I was raised believing in God, I've seen miracles, and I in my opinion thats enough evidence for me to believe in a God rather then believe in chance.

Terminal cancer doesn't disappear from a body overnight without a reason. According to science, that's impossible. So by listening to science, I know a dead man walking. Believe in God, I can believe God saved him. With out cause I simply choose to believe the one that contradicts my understanding the least.

And it's opinion.

Please don't start yelling to me that my opinion is wrong and should be rethought. You have your's, I respect that. You have a logical position, and in my opinion so do I. And that's not the point of this discussion. So if we continue with this I guarantee this will get off topic.

[Prometheus]

Fair enough, cultural narrative is a very common and strong reason to believe in anything: you seem like a reasonable person so just wanted to know.

[Itoero]

If we prove it's possible I'll stop believing in God and immediately accept that's how life began.

Even if it's not proven that's how life began, the idea that it's possible simply destroys the concept of God.

So yeah, abiogenesis is still a theory. And theories can be proven. I think. Unless I'm wrong, proving it's possible proves that theory? Either way yeah. We'll see.

+1 for a good response.

I don't want to 'strengthen' your faith but If God or something else created the universe then he might have made it possible for life to arise from non living matter. I don't think proving the possibility of abiogenesis says anything about the existence of God.

[goldglow]

Is it too simple to say that " God ", or whatever term is used in any faith or language, is but another way of saying " the source of all energy ", and just leave it at that?

Edited April 21, 2017 by goldglow

[Raider5678]

Is it too simple to say that " God ", or whatever term is used in any faith or language, is but another way of saying " the source of all energy ", and just leave it at that?

Yes.

[goldglow]

Thanks. I accept your reply unreservedly.In the absence of facts in this matter, we can only have opinions and yours are as good as mine and as good as anyone else's

[StringJunky]

I don't want to 'strengthen' your faith but If God or something else created the universe then he might have made it possible for life to arise from non living matter. I don't think proving the possibility of abiogenesis says anything about the existence of God.

This is correct because you can always put the deity just before what we know and, ultimately, say "Well, they wrote the algorithm that told everything how to behave."

[Raider5678]

This is correct because you can always put the deity just before what we know and, ultimately, say "Well, they wrote the algorithm that told everything how to behave."

Honestly the only reason I believe in a deity at all is because it's easier for me to believe there's a higher power that made the universe rather then the idea it came from nothing.

In the end, you can always ask "well where did that begin?" but if there's a deity, you can simply say "It made it."

As for what created the deity, you simply accept that it isn't in reality.

[StringJunky]

Honestly the only reason I believe in a deity at all is because it's easier for me to believe there's a higher power that made the universe rather then the idea it came from nothing.

In the end, you can always ask "well where did that begin?" but if there's a deity, you can simply say "It made it."

As for what created the deity, you simply accept that it isn't in reality.

There's plenty of scientists that believe in a deity but they don't let it interfere with their work.

[Itoero]

This is correct because you can always put the deity just before what we know and, ultimately, say "Well, they wrote the algorithm that told everything how to behave."

True, that's why I don't like it how scientists claim to find scientific evidence for god...it's imo pointless.

Mixing religion and science like that just doesn't work.

 

Hugh Ross, for example, is a Canadian astrophysicist which finds evidence for God in science. He does acknowledges that all versions of intelligent design are pseudoscience and finds it should not be taught in the classroom as science. He is honest...

[Ten oz]

True, that's why I don't like it how scientists claim to find scientific evidence for god...it's imo pointless.

Mixing religion and science like that just doesn't work.

 

Hugh Ross, for example, is a Canadian astrophysicist which finds evidence for God in science. He does acknowledges that all versions of intelligent design are pseudoscience and finds it should not be taught in the classroom as science. He is honest...

Pointless but lucrative. Mixing god and philosophy into any science discussion immediately makes that discussion more accessible to the average person. Scienctology, Astrology, Intelligent Design, Ancient Aliens, and etc are all wildly successful genres of pseudoscience that make those who promote them wealthy.

[quickquestion]

Let me quote myself:

 

In environment with the right conditions (presence of enough high and enough low temperature, presence of clouds and thunderbolts),

with the right chemical composition (CO2 or CO, CH4, H2O, N2 or NH3 or HCN),

there will be created amino acids, like in Miller-Urey experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MillerUrey_experiment

 

"Other experiments

This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]"

 

Two amino acids, join together through a peptide bond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

That is true, however I feel it works in reverse.

Consciousness spawns on Earth and this universe, because it goes to the first possible way of RNA molecules to form. Thus, RNA molecules necessarily form on primitive Earth, because of the millions of planets and universes Earth was the path of least resistance. And DNA was the easiest and first form of code, code a form of memory, which is necessary for evolution.

[jfoldbar]

i wonder if i may but in on this thread. i asked a question very similar to this on another science forum but was informed by the mods that i was not allowed to discuss this subject. so glad to see it being discussed here.

 

i take it the general idea of this thread is how far human knowledge could go in the future. and what that would mean.

 

something i wonder is, lets say if god or some entity exists, is he made of something?

 

correct me if im wrong. we can see as small as an atom. we have evidence of things as small as quarks. but smaller than that is still just theory at this stage? i really like this htwins.net/scale/

 

so in the future if we can prove every part of the smallest building blocks would this mean we know everything? but that still leaves other questions, like

what if we still cant see god, or ghost or entity.

how do we know that what we can see is the smallest building blocks.

[Raider5678]

i wonder if i may but in on this thread. i asked a question very similar to this on another science forum but was informed by the mods that i was not allowed to discuss this subject. so glad to see it being discussed here.

 

i take it the general idea of this thread is how far human knowledge could go in the future. and what that would mean.

 

something i wonder is, lets say if god or some entity exists, is he made of something?

 

correct me if im wrong. we can see as small as an atom. we have evidence of things as small as quarks. but smaller than that is still just theory at this stage? i really like this htwins.net/scale/

 

so in the future if we can prove every part of the smallest building blocks would this mean we know everything? but that still leaves other questions, like

what if we still cant see god, or ghost or entity.

how do we know that what we can see is the smallest building blocks.

Hence the term, supernatural.

[jfoldbar]

but surely even something that is supernatural must be made up of "something". how can something be made up of "nothing"?

 

since it must be made of something does it stand to reason that eventually we would be able to see it or verify it?

[Raider5678]

but surely even something that is supernatural must be made up of "something". how can something be made up of "nothing"?

 

since it must be made of something does it stand to reason that eventually we would be able to see it or verify it?

Super natural. As in not natural. Something that's not natural doesn't need to follow any rules.

[jfoldbar]

not natural = man made, does it not?

[Raider5678]

not natural = man made, does it not?

No.

Could be alien made.

Or, as the idea states, what ever it is made this universe.

Therefore, it doesn't follow any of the rules it made.

[jfoldbar]

but if something is alien made, then this 'something' ,and said 'aliens' would have to consist of something. they could not consist of nothing at all.

granted, they could consist of nothing as we know of, but they would still have to consist of something.

just because we dont know what they may consist of, that doesnt change that they would have to consist of something

[zapatos]

If something is 'natural', it is simply part of the physical universe. Both humans and aliens are part of the universe, and thus anything made by us is natural.

 

Supernatural is something that is not part of the physical universe, and by definition, outside the scope of science. Therefore science can have nothing to say about God.

[iNow]

Therefore science can have nothing to say about God.

Psychology and related social sciences actually can...