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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 12, 2009, 19:31 (5611 days ago) @ David Turell

Dr. Turell,
> 
> Right on! Here we are full agreement. But: we will never know 'for sure' how life originated. We can find methods in the lab that may mimic it, but that will be by the intelligent design of the scientists, and may not be the actual historical method. We cannot know the original method with certainty.
> - 
Though I'm jumping in the middle--this paragraph right here. Lets think about this. - Does it really matter if we don't discover the actual and historical method? - Think of the implications of what you're saying... - If there is more than one possible chemical pathway that leads to the scientific theory of abiogenesis--much of your theological argument here is weakened. Each pathway found and correctly verified increases the likelihood of life arising without any interference or design whatsoever. (Doesn't disprove a creator, mind.) It means that creating life isn't as difficult as we would think. This is part of the reason that I find very few metaphysical positions that support a creator. - Actually some of what you say reminds me an awful lot of what is suggested in "The Kybalion," a small book from 1912 that was written by one of the originators of the "new thought" movement. Most people here would write it off as occultist tripe, but its freely available online and gives a very intuitional approach to what amounts to a panentheistic metaphysic. It's interesting anyway if you enjoy theology.