What if god...

[CharonY]

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it:

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research

As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things.

To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

[Luc Turpin]

Based on the available evidence, the leading hypothesis is that life originated from matter. However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. While it is not the leading theory, it remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed at this point in time.

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it:

As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things.

To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. 

That is why I asked @Luc Turpin to agree abiogenesis is a fact, something he refused to do. 

Edited 9 hours ago by exchemist

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. 

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However,

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter.

this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However,

this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural  principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural  principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it. 

Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis."

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter

What in the fuck are you talking about? Look up the definition of 'life'. Any version of the definition you wish to use does not include the possibility that life can exist without matter. I cannot believe you are this clueless. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

a natural principle [does] not involve matter

For example ...?

[Gees]

On 1/29/2025 at 10:57 AM, swansont said:

Put another way - we’ve seen this behavior long before ChatGPT came along. 

Blaming stuff on bots is kinda lazy. 

The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. Otherwise, life had to originate at some point, and that’s abiogenesis. Since science’s domain does not cover magic/mysticism, and that avenue was expressly rejected by the author, and also that we can pretty safely rule out life existing on the proto-earth, it’s what we’re left with.

IOW, abiogenesis must be accepted. What’s not yet been shown are the mechanisms and steps of that process.

Swansont,

Do you have any idea of how many times the words "supernatural", "magic", and "mysticism" have been used in this thread? The interesting part is that the words are always used by "science" people.

So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? It is no wonder that Luc and I are having trouble in this thread, as we don't think either of those things happened.

I didn't think this thread was about abiogenesis, but then maybe it is.

Gee

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Gees said:

the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? 

Another option is that you seem to struggle with reading comprehension 

[Gees]

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

I revisited my earlier comments on abiogenesis to assess where I may have misrepresented the concept, and I reached the same conclusion as you. I would ask exchemist to clarify where the misrepresentation occurred, but unfortunately, as others, he has withdrawn from the discussion.

Asking would be a waste of time. After 12 pages, you should realize that nobody cares. I have watched members in the religion forum abuse every idea that is presented in this religion section, whether it is good or bad -- for years. They pretend interest, then gradually change the conversation to be about science, then ridicule anyone who does not agree with them. This thread was never about abiogenesis -- it is about the "God" concept, which none of the members study or understand. The members here are reasonably intelligent and capable of reading and following a thought process, so this is a bait and switch tactic.  Entertainment for the forum members.

Normally I would not even respond to a thread in this forum, but when you noted that there is a difference between the spiritual and religion, and you made that comment without regard to any religion or practice, I thought that you might be worth talking to.

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Additionally, my statement that 'although there is strong evidence suggesting life could have originated from simple molecules under specific conditions, it remains a plausible concept rather than an established fact' more accurately reflects the current state of scientific understanding, as opposed to claiming that 'abiogenesis is an objective fact.'"

If you google abiogenesis, you are informed that the Oxford dictionary calls abiogenesis a theory.

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Science can study the mental indirectly, but not directly.

Science can study it, but they don't. They study the brain, or they study behavior, or they study societies. They do not study the mental and barely study consciousness.

I have been studying consciousness off and on for decades and have come to the conclusion that some aspects of consciousness can interact with the physical. Some aspects of consciousness may actually be physical. I have asked members in other forums if they can tell me the properties of mental aspects, and they have no answer. Some aspects of the mental do have properties.

But I must tell you that I have been fighting MS (multiple sclerosis), which slows me down, for about 50 years, and now I have cancer to fight also. I start my radiation treatment next week, which I have been told will make me even more tired, so I have no desire to provide entertainment for the masses. 

I sent you a PM with my email address so that we could continue this conversation if you are interested. I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread. It is just too hard and serves no purpose.

Gee

 

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, Gees said:

I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread.

Who cares? You are not participating in this thread anyway. Every Single Post you've made consists of you bitching and moaning about this site and the people here (with the exception of your crush on Luc) . Be gone already.