Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature

From	"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups	alt.atheism
Subject	Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature
Date	2016-06-10 10:01 +1000
Message-ID	<druea4F6subU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <hlwdjsd2-49B418.06014408062016@news.giganews.com> <9d5b4dd6-732c-484d-abe5-a85e22f13098@googlegroups.com> <6rfglbhgntu0a8fij6ef7418p6ajuu2l37@4ax.com> <77068fae-6083-49f2-9d1c-ea829aef11bf@googlegroups.com> <fd4jlbpvftel8vvog5g6d216ggm2arn4i6@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/06/2016 01:58, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>>> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>>>>> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
>>>>>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>>>>>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that is true for this planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>>>>>> higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>>>>>> second generation stars went supernove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>>>>>> higher  ones when it went supernova,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>>>>>> bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>>>>>> down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>>>>>> _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note =
>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>> but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which
>>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>>> no room for a creation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking
>>>>>>> at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of
>>>>>>> stardust.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>>>>>> what, if anything, there was prior to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning
>>>>> to "before".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence speculation about
>>>>>> multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>>>>>> crunch, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>>>>>> in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires
>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need
>>>>>>>> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't
>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually
>>>>>>>> constitute life? I don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that
>>>>> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my
>>>>> breath.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing
>>>> explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
>>>
>>> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
>>
>> Therefore we can speculate.
>
> About something totally unjustified?
>
> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
>
> So there's nothing to speculate about.
>

I would quibble with the limitation to "a few religions".  From what I 
can tell, all religions incorporate the concept.

Moreover, even non-theist philosophies have been known to accept the 
existence of a soul, most notably Socrates.

There is one secular definition of "soul" I have come across which I 
find  quite attractive: "soul is a word to designate an idea we invented 
to represent the sensation of being inhabited by an existence, by a 
conscience" (Cyrille Barrette).  As such, it is of course entirely 
unprovable.  What it does, however, is to demonstrate the attractiveness 
and near-ubiquity of the belief in a soul: it encapsulates our view of 
ourselves as unique individuals, the totality of our person as thinking, 
dreaming, feeling beings.

Thread

abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-06 22:07 -0400
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:10 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:29 -0400
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:29 -0500
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 23:32 -0400
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:27 -0400
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:44 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:09 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:08 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:16 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:14 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 00:13 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:17 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:46 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:25 -0400
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:42 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:28 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:24 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:57 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:14 -0500
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:05 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:43 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Don Kresch <no@spam.org> - 2016-06-07 07:16 -0500
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:12 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 12:08 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-07 15:54 -0600
        Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:34 -0700
        Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:46 -0700
          Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:54 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:06 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:44 -0700
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:55 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-07 08:52 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:20 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 05:58 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-08 06:01 -0700
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 10:53 -0500
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:50 -0700
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-09 10:58 -0500
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-10 10:01 +1000
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 04:13 -0700
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-10 06:17 -0500
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 06:01 -0700
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-10 08:49 -0500
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 07:19 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:55 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:48 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-10 05:41 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-09 17:42 -0500
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 10:52 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:34 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-07 09:07 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:30 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-08 12:38 +1000
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 06:25 -0500
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:41 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:47 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-09 18:08 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 18:23 -0700
  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-16 18:53 -0400

csiph-web