James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, July 06, 2009, 08:32 (5401 days ago) @ George Jelliss

BBella wrote: All life could be ever existing and ever evolving, couldn't it? Life from non-life would be a real jump of evolution, wouldn't it? Some-thing from no-thing? - David wrote: If life is common through the universe that would be evidence for atheism, as it would tell us that origin of life is an easy step. - George wrote: I don't see what this has to do with either atheism or theism. - This whole discussion has everything to do with belief, i.e. with what seems plausible to us. In answer to BBella, I can only say that I would not dare to argue against the theory of the Big Bang, which is as far back as we can ever go. This has to mark a beginning, and the Earth has to have had a beginning, and so life on Earth has to have had a beginning. But of course "ever existing" and "ever evolving" can't be disproved, just as God can't be disproved. - Life from non-life remains my problem, and again we come to plausibility. George believes that life is the result of an accident, and said earlier (June 26) that it is likely to have occurred elsewhere in the universe. This suggests that if conditions are right, there are natural laws which will produce life, and then evolution, from non-life. David and I are sceptical that such (unknown) laws exist, because of the complexity of the only life we know. However, if life and evolution turned out to be commonplace in the universe, I ... and presumably David too ... would feel obliged to reconsider the possibility of such laws. George is right that committed theists would still find a place for their God, but for those of us who are not bound to a rigid dogma, there would inevitably be a rethink. Perhaps the Georgian equivalent would be an out-of-body experience. However, we need the evidence first!