Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

The likelihood of abiogenesis is irrelevant

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?

I completely disagree that the likelihood is irrelevant, and that worse odds changes nothing. I would also like to know what ice berg you are talking about.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:38:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?

On this planet, the likelyhood is 1, it happened.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:51:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?

No. If the likelihood were nonexistent, then it would be significant. Also, could you elucidate the meaning of your second statement?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:26:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:51:00 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?

No. If the likelihood were nonexistent, then it would be significant. Also, could you elucidate the meaning of your second statement?

The iceberg is all of potential life. The tip is us (life), the rest is all the non-life. Essentially, no one is aware if they are never born, so only life ever "happens"
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:37:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.

You don't even have to believe that life formed out of nothing to understand my point that, if you believe life has the possibility of forming, even if it's literally 10 to the 100000th power, you should accept the fact that life WILL form, and that only life will know it formed. So it really isn't that amazing that we aren't alive, because if we weren't alive, we wouldn't have the slightest clue.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:43:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:37:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.

You don't even have to believe that life formed out of nothing to understand my point that, if you believe life has the possibility of forming, even if it's literally 10 to the 100000th power, you should accept the fact that life WILL form, and that only life will know it formed. So it really isn't that amazing that we aren't alive, because if we weren't alive, we wouldn't have the slightest clue.

I've heard similar points made against the fine tuning argument. If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:46:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:43:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:37:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.

You don't even have to believe that life formed out of nothing to understand my point that, if you believe life has the possibility of forming, even if it's literally 10 to the 100000th power, you should accept the fact that life WILL form, and that only life will know it formed. So it really isn't that amazing that we aren't alive, because if we weren't alive, we wouldn't have the slightest clue.

I've heard similar points made against the fine tuning argument. If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it.

"If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it."

Exactly.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 11:14:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The folks who make that argument always seem deluded to me. As though they're trying to convince a lottery winner he couldn't have REALLY won, because the odds were so stacked against him.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 11:32:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 11:14:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The folks who make that argument always seem deluded to me. As though they're trying to convince a lottery winner he couldn't have REALLY won, because the odds were so stacked against him.

haha, I like that analogy.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:56:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:38:05 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The likelihood is irrelevant because the chance of life forming throughout the universe could be a TRILLION times less likely, and it still wouldn't effect anything. Life and consciousness only tells us about the very tip of the iceberg. Do you agree?

On this planet, the likelyhood is 1, it happened.

^
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:46:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:43:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:37:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.

You don't even have to believe that life formed out of nothing to understand my point that, if you believe life has the possibility of forming, even if it's literally 10 to the 100000th power, you should accept the fact that life WILL form, and that only life will know it formed. So it really isn't that amazing that we aren't alive, because if we weren't alive, we wouldn't have the slightest clue.

I've heard similar points made against the fine tuning argument. If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it.

"If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it."

Exactly.

As much as I'm inclined to agree that abiogenesis happened, this type of anthropic response to either the improbability of life or the various constants in the FT argument does not remotely solve the problem. Not only does it blatantly beg the question, but it also could be used to explain anything away.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

Life didn"t form out of nothing, it formed out of a intrinsic tendency of matter for the creation of self-organizing wholes to form. In the inorganic world we observe it, complexity has increased over time, there is clearly a progressive development of matter to achieve greater complexity. We only have one planet that we can really observe and life did indeed start here, as part of that natural progression towards greater complexity. There is no justification for the argument that the development of life in unlikely, from what we can observe, it appears to be inevitable.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:32:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:38:58 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:46:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:43:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:37:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:31:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 10:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What I'm getting at is the fact that many people find it hard to believe that life is so complex and formed out of nothing.

I would find that hard to believe as well, because life didn't form out of nothing.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, because only consciousness (life) will be aware, and all the times that life didn't happen, no one is aware. Thus, there is the illusion that we need a creator. Sorry, it's not the hard to understand once you understand it, so it's hard to explain it to people because it's so obvious.

I think I might understand what you're getting at here.

You don't even have to believe that life formed out of nothing to understand my point that, if you believe life has the possibility of forming, even if it's literally 10 to the 100000th power, you should accept the fact that life WILL form, and that only life will know it formed. So it really isn't that amazing that we aren't alive, because if we weren't alive, we wouldn't have the slightest clue.

I've heard similar points made against the fine tuning argument. If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it.

"If the universe was in a state that couldn't form life, we wouldn't be around to know about it."

Exactly.

As much as I'm inclined to agree that abiogenesis happened, this type of anthropic response to either the improbability of life or the various constants in the FT argument does not remotely solve the problem. Not only does it blatantly beg the question, but it also could be used to explain anything away.

What does that even mean? The point here is that the odds are irrelevant, since it happened.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Considering that it did happen, likelihood is in fact irrelevant. The likelihood might be the smallest percentage that the human mind could imagine; that wouldn't change the fact that it did actually occur.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."