What if god...

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness.

This is absurd. Science has been brilliantly successful at understanding life. Just take a course in biology, biochemistry or even medicine and you will see how much we know. 

Consciousness is another story altogether, as there is no consensus as to what "consciousness" means in a scientific sense. There is a good article about the issue here, by Massimo Pigliucci, whom I have found to be an exceptionally clear thinker who has no time for bullshit: https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief . We could have a discussion about that, but it would need a separate thread. So let's not muddy the waters by bundling that together with life. They are distinct topics.

What science has not yet succeeded in doing is to produce a model for the origin of life.  That is not, to anyone who understands a bit of biology or biochemistry, remotely a surprise. It is very complicated and the sequence of events involved took place over 3 billion years ago, leaving no fossil trace. So all we have to go on is what we can presume about the conditions on the prebiotic Earth and what we can see are the common biochemical features of all life today, from which we can make inferences about ancestral biochemistry.  

You have no basis for believing there is some fundamental difficulty in principle for science in understanding this. It is simply a hard problem, for the reasons I have just outlined.  So it will take time. In fact there may never be a definitive resolution, just a set of alternative possible models.

It is clear you have some kind of metaphysical bee in your bonnet about the limitations of science in understanding the world. I would quite agree there seems to be more to human experience than the physical world. This is the realm of the arts,  religion and (parts of) philosophy and I do not dismiss their value. But you make a huge error in arbitrarily picking out one feature of the physical world, life, to claim it is uniquely impossible to explain through science. There is just no basis for such a belief.

This error is identical to the one creationists make - and to the deliberately deceptive arguments that intelligent cdesign proponentsists promote. I think it was Cardinal Newman who, in the c.19th,  pointed out that the Christian who bases his faith on things in the physical world that science cannot explain is doomed to have it shattered as science progresses. Whether you are a Christian or not I do not know, but the argument applies. Do not look to features of the physical world to justify a belief in impenetrable mysteries beyond science. 

(P.S. To be strictly fair I should acknowledge that the reason, if any, why there is order in the cosmos, which we express through our "laws of nature", does seem destined to remain a mystery to science.)

Edited 11 hours ago by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

Labeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

Overconfidence in science is not a strength but a weakness of character. While science has made significant strides in understanding life—focusing on cellular processes, genetics, and other aspects—it has yet to answer some of the most fundamental questions. Specifically, how life emerges from matter or how a collection of cells generates consciousness remain unresolved. In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

Furthermore, the relationship between life and consciousness is complex, and understanding one may shed light on the other. Dismissing their interconnection could slow our progress.

Coming bach to abiogensis, the absence of a unified model on this matter may not be merely due to complexity or time, but could point to something fundamental we have yet to grasp. This is why, I believe, that scientists are exploring diverse avenues of inquiry. This assertion of a possible something else needs to be investigated before being outright ignored. Isn't questioning an integral part of science?

Metaphysical concerns are often unfairly dismissed as distractions, but they raise legitimate questions about the limits of scientific inquiry. While science has made impressive advances, it is reasonable to ask whether some aspects of life or consciousness lie beyond its explanatory reach. This should not be trivialized as a "metaphysical bees in your bonnet." Philosophical discussions about the nature of explanation and the limits of scientific knowledge are essential and should not be dismissed with catchphrases. Ignoring metaphysical concerns overlooks the complexity of epistemological debates on what can and cannot be known.

Not all critics of current scientific models of life’s origin are invoking religious or supernatural explanations. Many question the gaps and limitations in our current understanding. Unfortunately, views that challenge scientific orthodoxy are too often dismissed as creationist or anti-science, which oversimplifies the issue. Such dismissals ignore the nuanced perspectives of those advocating for a more expansive view of science. For instance, science, by its nature, does not address subjective experience, yet it often claims a comprehensive understanding of reality—an assertion that seems problematic.

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

Edited 6 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

abeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

So why are you seeking validation from the other side???

Don't you trust your own thoughts???

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, dimreepr said:

So why are you seeking validation from the other side???

Don't you trust your own thoughts???

Not about validation, but about sharing!

Most of the time, I’m wrong, but every now and then, I’m right!

 

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Labeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

Overconfidence in science is not a strength but a weakness of character. While science has made significant strides in understanding life—focusing on cellular processes, genetics, and other aspects—it has yet to answer some of the most fundamental questions. Specifically, how life emerges from matter or how a collection of cells generates consciousness remain unresolved. In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

Furthermore, the relationship between life and consciousness is complex, and understanding one may shed light on the other. Dismissing their interconnection could slow our progress.

Coming bach to abiogensis, the absence of a unified model on this matter may not be merely due to complexity or time, but could point to something fundamental we have yet to grasp. This is why, I believe, that scientists are exploring diverse avenues of inquiry. This assertion of a possible something else needs to be investigated before being outright ignored.

Metaphysical concerns are often unfairly dismissed as distractions, but they raise legitimate questions about the limits of scientific inquiry. While science has made impressive advances, it is reasonable to ask whether some aspects of life or consciousness lie beyond its explanatory reach. This should not be trivialized as a "metaphysical bees in your bonnet." Philosophical discussions about the nature of explanation and the limits of scientific knowledge are essential and should not be dismissed with catchphrases. Ignoring metaphysical concerns overlooks the complexity of epistemological debates on what can and cannot be known.

Not all critics of current scientific models of life’s origin are invoking religious or supernatural explanations. Many question the gaps and limitations in our current understanding. Unfortunately, views that challenge scientific orthodoxy are too often dismissed as creationist or anti-science, which oversimplifies the issue. Such dismissals ignore the nuanced perspectives of those advocating for a more expansive view of science. For instance, science, by its nature, does not address subjective experience, yet it often claims a comprehensive understanding of reality—an assertion that seems problematic.

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

When you have something concrete to contribute to the understanding of abiogenesis, I and others here will be delighted to discuss it with you. So far all you have put forward is misrepresentation and meaningless waffle.

It is not overconfidence in science that makes me criticise you for this, it is merely the ability to think straight and not be bamboozled with buzzwords.

Edited 6 hours ago by exchemist

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

Indeed and not demand a correctness that's undiserved, like my dad did by thumping the TV in a vain attempt to fix it; then claiming victory bc a quantum happened and the picture re-appears.

In conlusion, shit happens and more than half of the population imagine they are responsible... 

Guess which half???

[Luc Turpin]

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

When you have something concrete to contribute to the understanding of abiogenesis, I and others here will be delighted to discuss it with you. So far all you have put forward is misrepresentation and meaningless waffle.

It is not overconfidence in science that makes me criticise you for this, it is merely the ability to think straight and not be bamboozled with buzzwords.

We seem to be talking past each other, both bringing preconceived notions to the table. As such, I’ll respectfully decline your offer to continue this discussion unless I have something concrete to contribute as you say. I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that my contributions have been misunderstood or dismissed as meaningless waffle, without being properly considered.

Edited 6 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that what I’ve offered has been misunderstood or dismissed as meaningles waffle, before even consideration.

Well, you aren't the first creationist to hide behind that piece of garbage argument. Before consideration?! Because you don't understand the science you're deriding, you don't recognize when others have carefully considered your waffle and found it lacking, even when they point out exactly what they mean. Crackpots often claim they're being dismissed out of hand, without consideration, just because they're challenging preconceived notions. 

But those preconceived notions are theories with mountains of evidence behind them. That's what's being taken into consideration when we read your posts. It's bizarre that you think your scratchings hurt the theories involved, when you have such a hurdle to overcome but don't bother to actually study the science. You prefer to pick what feels right to you, then quote mine anything that seems to support what you're saying. That's part of why you don't recognize that a LOT of consideration is being applied to your posts. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We seem to be talking past each other, both bringing preconceived notions to the table. As such, I’ll respectfully decline your offer to continue this discussion unless II have something concrete to contribute as you say. I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that what I’ve offered has been misunderstood or dismissed.

You have an excellent opportunity to actually learn something, from people who are actually learned (not me BTW, see my signature); so, stop thumping the TV FFS and listen.

No-one is talking past you, you just refuse to listen to things you don't understand.

TBH I'm not sure why your still here, I've been suspended for less...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

There have been people on street corners preaching that the end is nigh for a long time. And yes, they were invariably wrong, but THIS TIME, I assure you, the prediction is right.

That’s what this sounds like.

What has the approach you lobby for ever produced?