Theoretical origin of life; God of the Gaps doesn't apply (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, November 12, 2018, 18:43 (1983 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "So I say to my atheist/materialist friends in general and to Professor Jerry Coyne in particular: Our argument is not based on foolish truisms like God of the Gaps. It is based on common sense, universally observed laws of nature, and fundamental laws of physics and mathematical probability. It is supported by the writings and analysis of world class scientists. If you find that despite everything I have written here you are unable to rationally confront and respond to the points being raised; if you find yourself unable to resist the compulsion to mindlessly chant “God of the Gaps”, I have a great opportunity that I would like to share with you. I know of a mechanical engineer who is determined to build a perpetual motion machine and he’s looking for investors………"

DAVID’s comment: Just pure logic which dhw loves.

dhw: Yes, I do, but as is always the case with people who have strong views, this is only one side of the logical argument. Starting point: how did life originate? Theory: by chance. Nope, can’t believe it. Theory: because although life and consciousness must have been designed, there is an unknown, hidden form of life and consciousness, a single mind that did not have to be designed, has simply been there for ever, is capable of creating a universe, knows everything... etc. Nope, can’t believe it.

I am reminded of the conclusion (16. A Mad World) to my “brief guide”:

"Let me, however, conclude with our starting-point of agnosticism, and offer you two alternative forms of madness: 1) countless numbers of people, sums of money, buildings, institutions, wars, miseries, joys, works of art have been devoted to or have sprung from human worship of something that never existed; 2) the designer’s creations are just beginning to understand, after centuries of conscious endeavour, how life functions, but they are still unable to design an organism like themselves that can spring from inanimate matter into living existence, reproduce itself, adapt to a changing environment, invent new mechanisms, and pass on its adaptations and innovations to the organisms it engenders. They believe, however, that if they ever can consciously and deliberately design such an organism, it will prove that they themselves were not designed.

Take your pick."

I would point out that the creation of life by humans, according to current research, involves humans tailoring existing life, and nothing more. The Miller-Urey sparks in the bottle experiment dates to the mid 1950's and we have learned nothing from ensuing research about how life started. It is still we must use life to alter life. I suspect that will never change, as life is too complex to start up a new form of it from scratch by humans.