Theory of Everything? (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I just find it to be too simple for the topic...which is funny because that is what is usually said about the religious side of this debate.I've argued this before around here years ago and it is the primary reason for the line in my sig, "the truth is the truth no matter what anyone says does or believes and nothing can change that". Occum's razor is a cute theory, but what does it matter if its wrong? In the pursuit of truth it is a stupid box to put around things, IMO.

On a side note, one thing that always gets me is the complete absolute certainty some people (not saying you, as we haven't discussed this) in abiogenesis when there isn't even a valid working theory around about how life came from non-life. Literally some of the brightest scientists of our day believe life was planted here on crystals from elsewhere. That is the best we have to work with. I think having abiogenesis as such an unknown variable, makes this a much more even debate then many atheists give it credit for. For too many people in the scientific community, it is a forgone conclusion without having actually settled anything.

It is the best theory we have right now. If another theory comes along which fits better, we'll change, right? There are no other proposed theories with a shred of evidence behind them.

Nobody's theory on the origin of life has a shred of evidence. We are all in the same boat here.

I wouldn't say that. amino acids have been created. I'd call that a "shred".

Yeah, tough to say there isn't evidence. We know all the requirements were there, we just don't know the final step. That is more than any other 'theory' even though it is not complete.

 

[Jayrod]

Yeah, tough to say there isn't evidence. We know all the requirements were there, we just don't know the final step. That is more than any other 'theory' even though it is not complete.

But that is the WHOLE POINT. How does life come from non-life? We can make a guess at what mixture of elements/molecules/amino acids have to be present, but we can't make them live. No idea how. You don't find that lacking? That is the most important step, IMO.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yeah, tough to say there isn't evidence. We know all the requirements were there, we just don't know the final step. That is more than any other 'theory' even though it is not complete.

But that is the WHOLE POINT. How does life come from non-life? We can make a guess at what mixture of elements/molecules/amino acids have to be present, but we can't make them live. No idea how. You don't find that lacking? That is the most important step, IMO.

Sure, I agree it is lacking/incomplete but it is the best we have. Bringing creators, which there is zero proof of, into the discussion just opens up a whole new can of worms.Panspermia may be true, but that doesn't change the discussion at all. It just changes the starting point from Earth to anyone of the other trillions of trillions of planets out there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I realize this thread is about the theory itself but last night I saw the movie "Theory of Everything." I was a little disappointed because I thought the movie would be more about the science and really about Hawking's "Brief History" and his work and ideas but actually it was about his wife, Jane.