Life Comes From Life, Abiogenesis is not Verifiable. So in conclusion an eternal being must exist.
Debate Rounds (3)
There is no EVIDENCE, that confirms abiogensis.
There are only supporting arguments, with evidence that suggests it's plausibility,
Equally there is no evidence for the existence of God.
Only supporting arguments that suggest God MUST exist, and is more likely than not.
For example, Life comes from Life, The law of Bio genesis.
The only evidence we have, of life occurring, is from a pre-existing life, Without question.
This must imply with regress, that either,
1, Life arose naturally from in-animate matter
2, That an eternal existing uncreated life, exists.
Since we only have evidence that life come from life, and no evidence that in-animate matter creates life, then is it more reasonable to accept, that God exists and must be necessarily uncaused.
Just like the many sages declare.
This my second debate here and hope to do well, many thanks.
Have you watched it?
If yes than good, if no then I'll try my best to paraphrase it, but then do a much better job than me.
You brought up the law of bio genesis and throughout history it has been debated whether that law is true and what it applies to. It is a fact that the law of bio genesis applies to complicated life forms, but whether it applies to bacteria or not is undetermined. In a closed system with organisms could not come from non organisms, but in an open system life can come from seemingly non life. As explained in the video we have to change our definition of nothing because of the advancements of science and because of the different meaning of nothing it is possible for something to come from "nothing" (just not the way we've thought about it before). The video explains the difficulties of accepting this and more of the facts behind it, so I highly recommend that you watch it.
If God is a being beyond out imagination and he does not need a creator, why then can't the formation of life be similar. I'm not saying that it was supernatural, but at this time it is impossible, with our level of knowledge, to comprehend how something came from nothing. Whether you call it God or the formation of matter it's almost the same thing depending on what type of god you are arguing for. Could you please clarify what rules govern your God. i.e. does he come from a certain scripture or is he a deistic/pantheistic God?
Also, your argument is based solely on the assumption that lack of evidence for thing 1 is evidence for thing 2. Imagine this situation:
There is a investigation concerning the murder of a young girl. There are two men who are main suspects: one blond and one brunette. The chief of police pulls DNA from the crime scene and tries to match it to the blonde. It comes up negative. The chief then declares the brunette guilty of the crime because it couldn't be the blonde.
Is this the right thing to do?
Could the DNA from the brunette not match?
Could it be a third option?
This is the same problem we run into when you say that there's no evidence for life coming from non-life so it must be god. Just because we don't currently understand it doesn't make it logical or right to turn to a supernatural explanation with just as little evidence.
I will start by addressing the link with Richard Dawkins an Lawrence Krauss, that Con offers.
The Video claims, that in physics, that Nothing is a physical quality,
Lets make this clear, They claim, Nothing, is actually Something.
It actually has a physical quality, They state in this video that NOTHING, is actually Virtual particles and Chemicals.
They then claim that this 'Nothing' Or Virtual particle's, are the chemical composition for life. They state Darwin's theory of the chemicals bubbling around in a warm little pond, which then created the first self replicating molecule.
Even if this was the case, I doubt it, because there is no proof that life is a chemical composition,
If life can simply emerge or be created materially or chemically, then the scientist's should demonstrate this by mixing the right chemical compositions together, and create Life.
They are not able to do this, But my challenge still stands.
But even if it were possible, Which I doubt.
We must bring into question the immense information needed for the first self replicating molecule to have emerged.
I will refer to a once prominent atheist and Champion Philosopher, now turned Deist, Anthony Flew.
and "I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He blamed his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter." His 2007 book revisited the question, however, and questioned contemporary models: "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done."]
He added: "The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."
So even by natural terms, the immense amount of information required for the first living cell to emerge, With Coded Chemistry, is no longer in the realms of biology, but something quite different altogether. A creator perhaps.
Or by chance.
We know that even with all the intelligence of science, they are not able to combine any type of chemicals that can create a living organism. even though they have the exact chemical composition of what a living thing is compiled of. This would suggest that life is simply not only material, but there is an un-identified aspect to life.
I believe it is a spiritual particle which is elusive to all types of scientific testing, Let me make this clear, Spirit is NOT a material substance, that's why science is unable to detect it. But by way of study and reasoning we can determine that, it seems more likely than not, that all living entities are Spiritual beings inhabiting a material body.
I would like to note, that my position in this matter is to give analysis of how there is good reason to believe we are spiritual beings. based on philosophy and science, which I will offer more reason for in my next round
I would also like to note, that my opponents position is to give reason, that life is able to arise from non-living material.
That said, I offer some more by way of life not being material and in the next round try to convey as to why I think it is Spiritual.
Srila Prabhupada. [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter now? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Krsna consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past--began.
Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense.
Karandhara. They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future.
Srila Prabhupada. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?
Dr. Singh. They are assuming
Srila Prabhupada. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is God. That also can be proved. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter.]
Karandhara. The scientists say that they can now formulate acids, amino acids, that are almost like one-celled living organisms. They say that because these acids so closely resemble living beings, there must be just one missing link needed before they can create life.
Srila Prabhupada. Nonsense I'll challenge them to their face!
A.C Bhaktivendata Swami Prabhupada.
I thank my opponent.
The argument that you are using is called "God of the gaps" which I saw mentioned in the comments, and you can look at this if you have any misunderstanding of the meaning of God of the gaps.
It is true that at the present we do not know everything about the universe. We have no concrete knowledge of its creation and the debate we are having now is purely speculation based on the evidence that we do have, but unless you have actual evidence that God must be the filler that plugs up these gaps then it is not accurate to assert that God must be the "only" explanation.
For a very long time, the God of the gaps argument was used by people who rejected the theory of evolution before the theory of evolution even existed. Before Darwin, scientists speculated that humans and all complex life came from simpler life forms, but since they had no idea how we went from simple cells to complex life forms theists claimed that it must have been God. Later on it was proved that evolution was the way that we went from simple to complex, and before you say that evolution is "Just a theory" know that gravity is also a theory but you probably believe in that one.
You also bring up a false dichotomy in this last post which is a logical fallacy. You say that the choices are only a creator or by chance, but you fail to mention the possibility of a third option. In this debate I am not going to be able to prove that I am right or prove that you're wrong. It is only my intention to make it clear that it's more logical to wait for a solid explanation than to use our lack of knowledge to say "it's God".
We also don't know how to create life from matter yet. That's true, but again it's not a good reason to just say "it's God".
You are also laying the burden or proof on me when I am making no claims. It is a long standing legal rule of thumb that the "party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition shall prove it". Since you are the one who is claiming to know the answer to this problem I suggest that you prove it with evidence, not just "It doesn't make since any other way".
I also have this conversation to further support my claims:
John Smith. [casting Reverend Brown as a theist]. All right, reverend, why is God not creating new life now? You rascal. Why isn't God creating life now? Actually such theists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from God, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our free thinking movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they get God to create life immediately? In the past, they say, life was created by God; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will get God to create more life. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life came from God. This refers to the past--began.
Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense.
Katherine. They say that life was created by God in the past and that they will make God create life this way in the future.
John Smith. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life is created by God in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?
Reverend Brown. They are assuming
John Smith. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. They cannot actually prove that life comes from God. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter.]
Katherine. The theists say that they can pray for people to be brought from the dead. They say that they have come very close and because they've come so close there must be just one missing link needed before they can convince God to create life.
John Smith. Nonsense I'll challenge them to their face!
Wait... doesn't that sound really familiar? Oh yeah it's just your story with the words matter and God changed. Funny how things like that can work. It seems like neither of us really know what's going on... Hmmm... I guess I'm going to have to think about that...
I look forward to your reply. ;)
Although, I will also briefly mention, my opponent gives no account for my input of a once prominent atheist turned Diest, Anthony Flew. or to my rebuttal of Dawkins and Krauss, But my opponent does openly admit in the previous round,
"We also don't know how to create life from matter yet. That's true" So I take this as a concession, That abiogenesis is not verifiable.
But my opponent seems to include the word YET at the end of her statement. as if stating that it will most certainly be possible in the future.
Whereas, I suggest a more honest approach, would suggest, " As of yet, we do not know IF life arose from in-animate matter."
This approach leaves other options available as well as that of abiogenesis.
I continue this round by mentioning, that both me and Con agree, the answer to the question, 'How did life arise',
remains out of our grasp. it is a mystery to the both of us, we declare that it is not known to mainstream science and is speculated by religions as well as by science.
I think it would be unfair, for Con to actually have to prove that life arose from inanimate matter, as we all know that can not be verified. Although that is the topic of my debate, Abiogenesis is not verifiable, is my fist claim.
It seems Con is in agreement with me on this, as it is obviously not verifiable at present, but will it be sometime in the future,? Who knows. My opponent seem confident when she mentions, they haven't worked out how to make life from matter YET. I, on the other hand remain dubious, and am of the opinion that life is not solely material, and conclude that life has an elusive aspect, which is Spirit.
At the same time, I would think it is rather un-fair, that I have to prove life arose by way of a creator, as we all know, that can not be verified, although I do mention in my debate, that life must come from God. I am taking a position of the most likely outcome. As we have no evidence of 'Life' being a solely material substance, we can assume this elusive aspect to life, The spirit, might possibly exist.
So since we know, that life is not able to be created from any type of chemical composition, Even though they have the exact chemical composition of a living entity, they are unable to compile the exact chemical compositions together and replicate life.
But lets look at how we know how life occurs.
Life comes from life, We have evidence of how life occurs daily, and it only occurs from a pre-existing life. which when we regress, must come to a point of the first living thing.
I argue that our original ancestor is an eternal living being, obviously something must have always existed to be able to give life to other entities. this is the conclusion, I have evidence that life comes from a pre-existing life, I have evidence for that, In-fact it is the only evidence we have, for life to occur, a pre-existing life must exist, so if life can only come from a pre-existing life, it seems evident, a pre-existing life, ie God, must have always existed. which fits in perfectly with an attribute of God, to be neither created, or destroyed.
My evidence is, that life occurs from life, and that is he only evidence we have of life occurring, We can assume that life is solely material, but we have no evidence for it, only supporting arguments. but may I mention, that to find the secret of life has been one of the greatest quests of humanity, sought out by rulers and Kings, and the greatest minds throughout history, it is not just a topic that has been swept under the rug, and the fact is, the secret remains elusive. so maybe there is some strength to my argument, that life is not solely material, there are also strong supporting arguments of life having a spiritual aspect and the spirit existing.
While Con determines, life occurring has nothing to do with God and is not necessarily by chance, Con introduces a third option, which she did not mention. but states we should not jump to conclusions, and invoke a supernatural being, God.
So we can determine by way of analysis, that life has not been discovered to be material, Simply it's not hard to work out. All the atoms that make up my body, are all replaced every so often, so in actuality, we take on a new body, the old body no longer exists, it is destroyed, but I am still existing, even though the old body no longer exists, I still exist. also the source of consciousness or the mind is not located in any material part of our brains, and remains elusive as to weather the mind, does reside in the brain .A recent discovery suggests not.
From New Scientist,
Where does the mind reside? It's a question that's occupied the best brains for thousands of years. Now, a patient who is self-aware, despite lacking three regions of the brain thought to be essential for self-awareness" demonstrates that the mind remains as elusive as ever.
One half of the world believes that our original ancestor was a tiny simple single celled organism, that self assembled itself which included an immense amount of information in it's coded chemistry, and the other half believes our original ancestor to be an ever existing powerfully intelligent supreme being. God.
I would like to thank my opponent and express my deepest regret for shorting the debate to three rounds before I started, I fee I could have offered a lot more to the debate.
ThePrincesska25 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.