Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[Baruch]

There aren't any laws of physics, unless you agree that G-d wrote physics (as early scientists assumed).

I'll bite.  How does agreeing that God wrote physics make them laws?

In Abrahamic religion ... G-d is all tree branches of divine government.  Hence the Last Judgement.  And this judge is not only omnipotent and omniscient, this judge is an asshole.

People use words incorrectly.  Law is man-made, given that there is no G-d or if G-d is more like Bernie Sanders.  He would be Jewish after all ;-)

In the law there are rules you cannot disobey, by your own nature.  And there are laws you can disobey, but still punishable.  The recent thread on the nature of pedophilia is an example that this is, and always will be, a hot topic.  If it is your nature to be a pedophile, then logically we can't go over-board punishing it ... it would be like punishing people for breathing ... though the Bible god would be good with that ;-(

[Baruch]

In our experience, things require makers - but who says our experience is all encompassing? Why do things - or at least all things - require makers? It remains possible that some things do not require makers - the Universe might be just such a thing. We cannot know - nor can we assume. To assume that there simply had to be a maker of the Universe and then make up a maker is - silly. A maker that nobody can see, nobody can hear, that nobody can touch (at least nobody who is not in a rubber room on meds) does not count. Produce God - I do not care if he/she/it is no bigger than a flea: I want to see this necessary maker. Otherwise, there is no such being.

Yes, but now we are speaking of philosophy or theology, not science.

[marom1963]

Yes, but now we are speaking of philosophy or theology, not science.

What do you mean?

[aitm]

I have come to the conclusion that science cannot answer this question. 

Impatience thus ignorance wins? We don't know right now thus lets make shit up? I want an answer and I want it know and if I don't get it I will make some bull shit up?

Yeah..that certainly has all the hallmarks of a well reasoned, intelligent stance.

Meanwhile some people think that a god could create the complexity of life but be baffled by the female menstrual cycle to the point he banishes them from society for a week every month. Ah, one can only scratch their head at shear stupidity posing as intellect.

[u196533]

This is an false dichotomy.  Either people are natural or they are not.  If people are not natural, then science can't explain them  If people are natural, then there is no problem.  Most people here choose the second, and I choose the first.

I was stating that abiogenesis could not happen naturally;  I made no statement about people.
When you state you believe people are not natural, what exactly do you mean?

[u196533]

Impatience thus ignorance wins? We don't know right now thus lets make shit up? I want an answer and I want it know and if I don't get it I will make some bull shit up?
Yeah..that certainly has all the hallmarks of a well reasoned, intelligent stance.

I described how at some point in the process abiogenesis must have violated the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.  That is a supernatural evens that, by definition, science cannot explain.

Rather rather than attack my logic or argument, you attack me.  That is not the hallmark of a well reasoned, intelligent person.

[Baruch]

This is an false dichotomy.  Either people are natural or they are not.  If people are not natural, then science can't explain them  If people are natural, then there is no problem.  Most people here choose the second, and I choose the first.

I was stating that abiogenesis could not happen naturally;  I made no statement about people.
When you state you believe people are not natural, what exactly do you mean?

1. I was being hypothetical ... and stating something either/or when maybe it isn't.

2. Personally, I think the meme of "natural" has been extraordinary successful.  But people usually either include or exclude people in that category.  You clearly hold two opposing beliefs (aka irrational) that this bothers you.  You can either get comfortable with the irrationality, or discover your conflict and drop one of the offending beliefs.

3. Aside from rhetoric (which is made to reveal, not obfuscate) my holistic POV is that deep down, nothing is natural (in the way most people mean it).  It was Thales and Pythagoras who came up with the red pill/blue pill of natural vs supernatural.  These two Greeks from 2500 years ago, have countless unconscious followers today.  I reject both pills, reject false dichotomies.  Similarly nothing is rational ... but enough of human experience can use this tool with good effect, that most rationalists and Vulcans are convinced.  Again, a false dichotomy that I reject.

4. Stories about past life forms, are stories.  They may have more or less evidence.  Clearly we have evidence for dinosaurs and old earth chronology.  But what we can say about distant past times, without further evidence, is sketchy.  So wait until we have explored multiple extra-solar system planets ... or speculate.

5. Be nice or I will have to send both of you to your bedrooms without supper ;-)

[Baruch]

What do you mean?

Either you have empirical evidence or you do not.  Speculation on abiogenesis at this point, won't get very far.  At this point it is akin to philosophy or theology ... systems that are rational, but are lacking in empirical evidence.

[trdsf]

This is presupposing intent on behalf of a molecule, or even a bacterium, or even multicelled but not sentient creatures.
You are missing the critical point I have been trying to make.  Bear with me as I break it down even further.

And you're missing the fundamental points that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are statistical processes.  Localized decreases in entropy and increases in heat differential are entirely possible, just not particularly likely.

But when you have the sorts of big numbers I've been talking about in the prebiotic ocean, and the outcome is just a molecule (not specifically DNA or even RNA) that can self-replicate and carry data, you are in no way stretching the bounds of credulity to imagine a localized inversion happened a few times.

Even with that being the case, you're still thinking closed system.  Energy was pouring into the prebiotic oceans from outside: sunlight primarily, the odd lightning strike, heat from volcanic vents (abyssal or near the surface).  This is all energy available to power chemical reactions, even if entropy and the second law were absolute rather than statistical.

All anything needs to be is a better replicator than any other competing molecule/organism that comes along.
I don’t think the idea that a replicator molecule emerged and evolved over time to create RNA/DNA is held with high hopes anymore.  The research that was conducted over decades since it was proposed is completely un-supportive of that claim.  I don’t think a naturally occurring replicator molecule has been discovered outside of a cell.  The ones that have been synthesized have been small.  Under perfect laboratory conditions, they replicate a few times and cease.  Most critically, when they are modified slightly (simulate mutation), they lose the ability to replicate.  Given that is the result of decades of research, it is hard to imagine a replicator molecule that morphed over eons to form RNA/DNA.

This is just flat wrong.  There are several strong theories that explain the abiotic creation of RNA and DNA.  None of them are confirmed yet, that's all.

You're dangerously close to the fundamental flaws in ID/creationism here: basically what you're saying is "Since no one has explained it yet, it can't be explained" and "I can't see how it works, therefore no one else can or ever will".  In no way does current research imply that the question of the origin of life is beyond science.  There are multiple competing theories; of course, trying to look back over three billion years makes it difficult to nail one down, but it does not make it impossible to explain.

And the lack of a current incontrovertible explanation does not mean that there can be no incontrovertible explanation.  There are several competing theories for the rise of replicating molecules, none of which have been ruled out by the known laws of science, each of which has their strengths and weaknesses.  Here, let me Wiki that for you.

Of course, trying to look back over three billion years makes it difficult to nail one down, but it does not make it impossible to explain.  At worst, we may never be able to explain with finality, and be left with a small number of strong theories, any one of which can account for how simple replicating molecules self-assembled in the environment understood to then exist.

[marom1963]

And you're missing the fundamental points that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are statistical processes.  Localized decreases in entropy and increases in heat differential are entirely possible, just not particularly likely.

But when you have the sorts of big numbers I've been talking about in the prebiotic ocean, and the outcome is just a molecule (not specifically DNA or even RNA) that can self-replicate and carry data, you are in no way stretching the bounds of credulity to imagine a localized inversion happened a few times.

Even with that being the case, you're still thinking closed system.  Energy was pouring into the prebiotic oceans from outside: sunlight primarily, the odd lightning strike, heat from volcanic vents (abyssal or near the surface).  This is all energy available to power chemical reactions, even if entropy and the second law were absolute rather than statistical.
This is just flat wrong.  There are several strong theories that explain the abiotic creation of RNA and DNA.  None of them are confirmed yet, that's all.

You're dangerously close to the fundamental flaws in ID/creationism here: basically what you're saying is "Since no one has explained it yet, it can't be explained" and "I can't see how it works, therefore no one else can or ever will".  In no way does current research imply that the question of the origin of life is beyond science.  There are multiple competing theories; of course, trying to look back over three billion years makes it difficult to nail one down, but it does not make it impossible to explain.

And the lack of a current incontrovertible explanation does not mean that there can be no incontrovertible explanation.  There are several competing theories for the rise of replicating molecules, none of which have been ruled out by the known laws of science, each of which has their strengths and weaknesses.  Here, let me Wiki that for you.

Of course, trying to look back over three billion years makes it difficult to nail one down, but it does not make it impossible to explain.  At worst, we may never be able to explain with finality, and be left with a small number of strong theories, any one of which can account for how simple replicating molecules self-assembled in the environment understood to then exist.

To state the simplest case - science does not require a final answer but is content w/a working hypothesis - content in the sense that it is willing to keep working toward a final answer, even knowing that it may never have one. Religion requires a final answer - NOW. That is the essential difference. Religion demands what is not to be had and is willing to make up what is not there to get what it wants. Thereafter, it's all about carving up the power and the goodies, to hell w/anybody's welfare or peace of mind.

[trdsf]

To state the simplest case - science does not require a final answer but is content w/a working hypothesis - content in the sense that it is willing to keep working toward a final answer, even knowing that it may never have one. Religion requires a final answer - NOW. That is the essential difference. Religion demands what is not to be had and is willing to make up what is not there to get what it wants. Thereafter, it's all about carving up the power and the goodies, to hell w/anybody's welfare or peace of mind.

Pretty much.  Sometimes the answer is "No one knows."  It's like asking whether the number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is odd or even.  It's certainly one or the other, but what it would take to answer that question is entirely unfeasible and technologically impossible for the foreseeable future.  There is a real world physical answer, and no one knows it, and that doesn't imbue that state with any mystical properties.  It just is.

Now, the religious answer is that god knows... but doesn't want to tell us for mysterious reasons.

[marom1963]

Pretty much.  Sometimes the answer is "No one knows."  It's like asking whether the number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is odd or even.  It's certainly one or the other, but what it would take to answer that question is entirely unfeasible and technologically impossible for the foreseeable future.  There is a real world physical answer, and no one knows it, and that doesn't imbue that state with any mystical properties.  It just is.

Now, the religious answer is that god knows... but doesn't want to tell us for mysterious reasons.

What has always amazed me about God is that he goes out of his way to create this imperfect creature - man - then spends all eternity blaming man for being imperfect. "I'm bored. So, I'm going to make a broken toy - then I'm going to punish that toy for being broken - I'm going to make that toy grovel before me, beg for my forgiveness, &, if it doesn't grovel before me & beg for my forgiveness, I'll toss it into the fire forever - w/another of my broken toys, Satan".

[u196533]

And you're missing the fundamental points that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are statistical processes.  Localized decreases in entropy and increases in heat differential are entirely possible, just not particularly likely.

Even with that being the case, you're still thinking closed system

I am discussing something taking on energy to lower entropy, therefore I am clearly thinking about an open system.

I understand that given the statistical nature of chemical thermodynamics, some reactions will move in the reverse direction away from equilibrium.  However, it didn’t just happen once.  It MUST have occurred so frequently as to become the default mode. 
The process of going from replicator molecule to some primitive life form prior to photosynthesis was an uphill battle against entropy.  Sure some links in the chain may have been thermodynamically favorable.  But overall these reactions would not have been favorable since the final endpoint is clearly in a lower state of entropy and a higher state of energy than a the starting point of a simple replicator molecule.
The process would have taken millions of years, and involved billions or trillions of reactions.  I can imagine a Goldilocks environment for some period of time.  Enough heat to facilitate the reactions, but not enough to destabilize the molecules, coupled with the perfect stew of chemicals to drive these reactions.  (The perfect stew would need to change in concert as the molecules evolved.)   However, Goldilocks could not have been maintained for millions of years.  At some point, those chemicals would need to consistently seek energy in order to lower their energy as living things do.

Pointing to the sun (or hydro-thermal vents) is naïve.  Sure the heat would have been a necessary component without which endothermic reactions could not occur.  However, the presence of energy/heat does not mean that they WILL occur.  Actually if you spend a minute looking at the Gibbs Free energy equation you will realize that increasing the temp actually impedes a reaction in which the entropy is lowered.  (E.g. Adding heat energy makes it harder to compress balloon.) When  applied, the heat would have been an enabler, not a driving force. 
If you really think through the process that would have occurred over millions of years, it is not plausible for all of those reactions that consistently lowed entropy to have occurred without consistently taking on energy.  That has never been observed outside of life. 

[Baruch]

You are treating sub-sea vents and sub-sea vent life ... as different things.  The vents are alive and the life vents.  It would be like thinking that the left foot and the right foot are separate and not connected.  False dichotomy.

[widdershins]

The conclusion that you should have come to is that science "has not answered" this question, not that it "can not answer" this question

I was trying to be subtle and ask questions, but that didn't work, so I'll be more direct. 
I was originally responding to a post from someone who was stating that abiogenesis is easy.  (Add water, chemicals, heat, still occasionally for a million years and Life.)  I think that person was mindlessly parroting something from Dawkins from 40 years ago before we knew anything about micro-biology.  It was so absurd, I had to comment.

In addition to pointing out that the scientific research does not support that claim, I also wanted to point out a huge flaw in that proposal.  Consider what I had previously stated as facts without any objection from anyone:  that at some point in the origin of life, primitive chemical systems had to seek out food.

Those "facts" have not been disputed because the terms you used are completely undefined.  When you say "primitive chemical systems", are you talking about life forms or the precursors?  When you say "food", are you talking about simply chemical energy or complex organic materials?  When you say, "seek out" do you mean make a primal or conscious effort or simply "run across it or die"?

You keep pretending that if all the non-chemists here can't answer the chemistry questions you pose using completely undefined terms, that means these are facts.  Just because we don't know it's not true doesn't make it true.  It is not a "fact" just because we are not versed enough in chemistry to dispute it.  At some point, yes, primitive life forms had to seek out food.  At what state that happened depends on at what point you call them "life forms" and not just "replicator molecules", whether you consider "food" to be, as it is for us, organic compounds or, as it is for some bacteria, simple elements or even energy and whether you consider to "seek out" means to follow a primal instinct, even if it's just at the level of a single-celled organism or whether you mean some more fundamental chemical attraction.

Now, I believe it is assumed that the first life forms which were something we would recognize as life were single-celled plants.  A tree certainly doesn't "seek out food".  The "food" comes to the tree or the tree dies.  But since there are a lot of living trees out there I would say that the tree has evolved rather well to use whatever "food" comes to it.  While some plankton use flagella to "seek out food", other species float on the current and let the "food" come to them.  Given that today we have single celled life far more complex than any "replicator molecule" which very much does not "seek out food" I would have to assume, not being a chemist, that the precursors to that life also did not have a need to "seek out food".  But again, I simply don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion.

So your "facts" are not unchallenged simply because they are so damned factual, they are challenged because we don't know enough about the subject to challenge them.  But that doesn't make them "facts" at all.  Which leads me right back to why I try to avoid these pointless conversations.  You can "sound smart" all you want, maybe even convince someone that you actually know what you're talking about, but in the end it really doesn't matter because unless you have degrees in biology and chemistry then, really, you're likely just making it up as you go along.