What if science never discovers what made life?

[zapatos]

Psychology and related social sciences actually can...

 

I assume you mean they can have something to say about people and their belief in God.

[jfoldbar]

there are hundreds, mayby thousands examples of things that used to be supernatural, that are now 100% explained by science.

'not knowing' something (yet) is not the definition of it not existing.

and humans throughout history have often used the word 'supernatural' when we couldnt explain it.

[Raider5678]

there are hundreds, mayby thousands examples of things that used to be supernatural, that are now 100% explained by science.

'not knowing' something (yet) is not the definition of it not existing.

and humans throughout history have often used the word 'supernatural' when we couldnt explain it.

IF there's a God, I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit what you think he should be able to be detected by.

[zapatos]

there are hundreds, mayby thousands examples of things that used to be supernatural, that are now 100% explained by science.

If they are now explained by science, they were never supernatural, no matter what people called it at the time.

 

'not knowing' something (yet) is not the definition of it not existing.

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.

 

and humans throughout history have often used the word 'supernatural' when we couldnt explain it.

I'm sure they have.

[jfoldbar]

i dont know how to quote a quote of 2 separate posts. so just typing it.

 

 

 

 

raider.

 

yes, i agree with your statement.

however that doesnt change that if there is a god, then he must compose of something? whether that is something that we know/dont know is a different story.

to simply say that is is 'supernatural' therefore it composes of nothing does not make any sense.

this is just a cheapskate way of explaining something we dont understand, as humanity has always done.

 

 

 

zapatos

 

not sure what your getting at.

1. by definition this would mean its possible there is no such thing a 'supernatural'

there is only 'we dont understand yet'

 

2 saying 'something is supernatural therefore it consists of nothing' is like saying 'because i cant feel air it does not exist'

 

3.

in the past when they used the word supernatural to explain something they didnt understand, and if we use it now, what is the difference?

[iNow]

I assume you mean they can have something to say about people and their belief in God.

Until evidence of existence is provided they're essentially the same thing, functionally and practically equivalent (god and peoples belief in god).

[zapatos]

not sure what your getting at.

Not getting at anything really. Just responding to your statements.

 

1. by definition this would mean its possible there is no such thing a 'supernatural'

there is only 'we dont understand yet'

Correct. And that is what I and many others believe to be the case. Of course we cannot 'prove' there is no supernatural, because, as I said, the supernatural, not being part of nature, would not be subject to science.

 

2 saying 'something is supernatural therefore it consists of nothing' is like saying 'because i cant feel air it does not exist'

Other than the fact that you can feel air, I agree with you.

As far as I can tell, no one has claimed the supernatural consists of nothing. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

 

3.

in the past when they used the word supernatural to explain something they didnt understand, and if we use it now, what is the difference?

It seems likely to me that there is absolutely no difference at all. I believe all things are ultimately 'knowable'.

In the example you gave previously, you said that there were many things said to be supernatural that were later determined to have a natural explanation. In those cases, they were misclassified. That was very common prior to the age of science and reason. Nowadays there aren't many things other than God that people say are supernatural.

 

The thing about most definitions of God though is that He is supernatural according to the people who believe Him to exist. According to the Christian religion, it is not possible to understand or test God. They are not saying we cannot do it yet. They are saying we cannot do it ever. It is impossible as God is not of this world. And if it is impossible and we cannot do it ever because He is not subject to the laws of nature, then He is supernatural. And if He is supernatural there is no test we can perform to determine if He exists or not.

[jfoldbar]

it seems you are mixing a belief in god, together with science

 

'supernatural' is defined as

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

 

or another definition

 

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

 

i think the keyword here is "scientific understanding"

what is the benchmark for our understanding of the future?

to say with 100% certainty that we can never understand implies you know the future

what is the benchmark for "observable universe" in the future?

just because we cant see something now, that doesnt default to a meaning of 'we can never see it'.

 

 

 

quote "As far as I can tell, no one has claimed the supernatural consists of nothing. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up"

 

are you then saying that supernatural consists of something?

 

 

 

 

quote " I believe all things are ultimately 'knowable'"

"They are saying we cannot do it ever"

 

is this your own contradiction, or is this what you think/believe, or think others believe. or 2 separate statements.

 

things that were classified to be supernatural in the past but were later explained were only misclassified because of hindsight, nothing more.

 

people believing in their god to be not of nature does not constitute proof that he consists of something 'out of this world'. and their book saying it is so is like me saying 'im right because im right'.

 

but i do see your argument from the last paragraph.

so lets say, for example, if the Christian god is real as portrayed in the bible. never knowing him would imply that no matter how much our knowledge progressed, even in 1 million years when string and quantum stuff is everyday knowledge, there would always be something smaller that is out of our grasp. and we would always be trying to get there.

but, if we can determine that there is nothing else to discover(if this is even possible), what does that mean?

does that mean we can dismiss all gods as false?

[zapatos]

it seems you are mixing a belief in god, together with science

I don't think I am mixing the two. They seem very distinct to me, which is what I've been trying to convey.

 

'supernatural' is defined as

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."[/size]

 

or another definition[/size]

 

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"[/size]

 

i think the keyword here is "scientific understanding"

what is the benchmark for our understanding of the future?

to say with 100% certainty that we can never understand implies you know the future

what is the benchmark for "observable universe" in the future?

just because we cant see something now, that doesnt default to a meaning of 'we can never see it'.

First look at your definition of 'supernatural'. -- "Beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

Because of the definition of 'supernatural', I can say with 100% certainty I will never be able to scientifically understand the supernatural.

Something being supernatural DOES mean we will never see it (in a scientific sense).

 

quote "As far as I can tell, no one has claimed the supernatural consists of nothing. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up"

 

are you then saying that supernatural consists of something?

No. I am saying that the supernatural is unknowable. I cannot say it exists of something, or nothing, or pink marshmallows. I have no idea. It is unknowable.

 

quote " I believe all things are ultimately 'knowable'"

"They are saying we cannot do it ever"

 

is this your own contradiction, or is this what you think/believe, or think others believe. or 2 separate statements.

I believe all things are ultimately knowable.

Others believe there are some things that are unknowable, i.e. God and other supernatural beings.

I disagree with those who believe in the supernatural.

 

things that were classified to be supernatural in the past but were later explained were only misclassified because of hindsight, nothing more.

No. They were misclassified because they were not supernatural. We may not have known that till later, but they were misclassified because they were not supernatural. Nothing more.

 

people believing in their god to be not of nature does not constitute proof that he consists of something 'out of this world'.

Yes, that is what I said. There is no proof of anything supernatural.

 

and their book saying it is so is like me saying 'im right because im right'.

Glad to see we agree 100% on something.

 

but i do see your argument from the last paragraph.

so lets say, for example, if the Christian god is real as portrayed in the bible. never knowing him would imply that no matter how much our knowledge progressed, even in 1 million years when string and quantum stuff is everyday knowledge, there would always be something smaller that is out of our grasp. and we would always be trying to get there.

Not something 'smaller'. If it was simply smaller then perhaps we could one day see it. It is something that by definition can NEVER bee seen or understood.

 

but, if we can determine that there is nothing else to discover(if this is even possible), what does that mean?

does that mean we can dismiss all gods as false?

No. Definitely not.

You don't seem to be grasping what supernatural means. We can only discover what is natural. Even if we've discovered everything 'natural', we've not touched anything that is supernatural.

Therefore, when we know everything we are capable of knowing, we can still make no claims with certainty that god does or does not exist, because we cannot examine the supernatural.

While I certainly believe there is no god, I cannot claim with certainty there is no God. It is not possible for me to do so.

[jfoldbar]

well. while we do agree on some things. most of the topics he we disagree on. and that is the basis of a forum.

 

we seam to be going around in circles here. so i will end my discussion in this thread. peacefully.

[Raider5678]

well. while we do agree on some things. most of the topics he we disagree on. and that is the basis of a forum.

 

we seam to be going around in circles here. so i will end my discussion in this thread. peacefully.

You seem to disagree with the plain idea of what "NOT MADE OF ANYTHING" means.

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

It's an interesting question. I posed something similar on another site:

 

How many years of failures must the abiogenesis position go through before it's even considered a possibility that it's wrong?

Edited May 31, 2017 by DoYouEvenScienceBro

[zapatos]

It's an interesting question. I posed something similar on another site:

 

How many years of failures must the abiogenesis position go through before it's even considered a possibility that it's wrong?

 

Unless you believe in magic or that life always existed, what options do we have but to believe life originated from inanimate material?

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

 

Unless you believe in magic or that life always existed, what options do we have but to believe life originated from inanimate material?

 

You believe intelligence is magic.

 

That's . . . that's weird.

[zapatos]

 

You believe intelligence is magic.

 

That's . . . that's weird.

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?

[StringJunky]

 

Unless you believe in magic or that life always existed, what options do we have but to believe life originated from inanimate material?

That sums it up well.

[Raider5678]

That sums it up well.

Who said magic?

[StringJunky]

Who said magic?

Do you not understand what Zapatos posted?

[koti]

 

Unless you believe in magic or that life always existed, what options do we have but to believe life originated from inanimate material?

 

+1

[Yhwh]

I think you just gotta check this site : advertising link deleted

Edited May 31, 2017 by Phi for All
no advertising, please

[beecee]

 

Unless you believe in magic or that life always existed, what options do we have but to believe life originated from inanimate material?

Bingo! Abiogenisis is really the only scientific answer available to explain the origins of life in the Universe.

I favour Panspermia for the seeding of life on Earth, even though as yet we do not have evidence supporting this.

[beecee]

Bingo! Abiogenisis is really the only scientific answer available to explain the origins of life in the Universe.

I favour Panspermia for the seeding of life on Earth, even though as yet we do not have evidence supporting this.

The following article and discovery seems to support the idea that the potential for life was/is widespread throughout the universe.

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-prebiotic-atmosphere-accretion-disk-baby.html

 

An international research team, led by Chin-Fei Lee of the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASIAA, Taiwan), has used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to detect complex organic molecules for the first time in the atmosphere of an accretion disk around a very young protostar. These molecules play a crucial role in producing the rich organic chemistry needed for life. The discovery suggests that the building blocks of life are produced in such disks at the very beginning of star formation and that they are available to be incorporated into planets that form in the disk subsequently. It could help us understand how life came to be on Earth.

 

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-prebiotic-atmosphere-accretion-disk-baby.html#jCp

 

The paper......

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa7757/meta;jsessionid=49EEAE1716F89340D9241B645FD1C954.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

 

Formation and Atmosphere of Complex Organic Molecules of the HH 212 Protostellar Disk

 

Abstract

HH 212 is a nearby (400 pc) Class 0 protostellar system recently found to host a "hamburger"-shaped dusty disk with a radius of ~60 au, deeply embedded in an infalling-rotating flattened envelope. We have spatially resolved this envelope-disk system with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array at up to ~16 au (004) resolution. The envelope is detected in HCO+ J = 4–3 down to the dusty disk. Complex organic molecules (COMs) and doubly deuterated formaldehyde (D2CO) are detected above and below the dusty disk within ~40 au of the central protostar. The COMs are methanol (CH3OH), deuterated methanol (CH2DOH), methyl mercaptan (CH3SH), and formamide (NH2CHO, a prebiotic precursor). We have modeled the gas kinematics in HCO+ and COMs and found a centrifugal barrier (CB) at a radius of ~44 au, within which a Keplerian rotating disk is formed. This indicates that HCO+ traces the infalling-rotating envelope down to the CB and COMs trace the atmosphere of a Keplerian rotating disk within the CB. The COMs are spatially resolved for the first time, both radially and vertically, in the atmosphere of a disk in the earliest, Class 0 phase of star formation. Our spatially resolved observations of COMs favor their formation in the disk rather than a rapidly infalling (warm) inner envelope. The abundances and spatial distributions of the COMs provide strong constraints on models of their formation and transport in low-mass star formation.