Life from non-life

[Willum]

So one of the biggest issues in a world without God is that we do not observe life from non-life. We have no examples of abiogenesis, andit is a difficult concept to envision for most.

"How did the first life arise?" so the argument goes, "and only God could create life."

I believe I have solved the problem.

God does not fit into any definition of life, or being alive.

God is not alive, even under the most broad interpretation of life, therefore, even assuming that life must come from life, God is a non-living thing that must generate it.

So, the argument that only life can produce life, falls flat even allowing that God created it.

Here is a refresher for those who don't remember what it is to live:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Special thanks to "DrNoGods" for inspiring this post.

[benchwarmer]

So one of the biggest issues in a world without God is that we do not observe life from non-life.

Well, we don't observe life from gods, or even gods for that matter either.

Saying life originated from a god does not really answer anything. It just moves the problem somewhere else. It also stops inquiry into where life did actually come from. After all, once you have an answer, what point is there in pursuing different answers if 'goddidit' is sufficient?

We can already observe that life is made up of non living material. Clearly it's possible somehow. Picking your favorite fairy tale and claiming that's how it was done is, frankly, lazy IMHO.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
Well, let us define the important term: What is "life"?
I would call it a subset of chemistry. It follows the same laws of thermodynamics. It is not, for instance, a product of "elan vital". It is just chemistry.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

I believe I have solved the problem.

God does not fit into any definition of life, or being alive.

My definition of GOD re my theology is that GOD is Consciousness.

My definition of life is the same.

Thus, my definition of GOD = life. Being alive.

We cannot even say for sure that the death of the body is the end of an individuals subjective experience. They may yet be alive in an alternate reality, as per 'life after death'.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by William]

I am afraid that life does not equal consciousness.
Life has a few definitions, many descriptions, but none of them include either consciousness or God.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by TSGracchus]

Absolutely the point.
Life reproduces, respirates, has chemical processes and so on. God does not share any properties with anything alive, and so the argument about only life can produce life is a theological non-sequitur.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Willum]

Just goes to show how subjective definitions can be eh.

Tell me - without consciousness, would life know it was living? Would it be able to define?

No it would not. So what is life without the ability to define itself as living? What is existence without consciousness being able to acknowledge it as existing?

Life is that which experiences rather than that which can be experienced.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 7 by William]
"Tell me - without consciousness, would life know it was living? Would it be able to define?
No it would not. So what is life without the ability to define itself as living? What is existence without consciousness being able to acknowledge it as existing?"

Life is chemistry. Consciousness is neural feedback, where the internal model of memory includes a memory of "sensation" as part of the perceived sensory input. Note that the model is incomplete and inaccurate. What is perceived as "I" is actually trillions of cells, and in fact an ecosystem that includes bacteria and other symbionts. "Self" is an illusion "I" am not who "I" was. "I" is a construct of memory.
Life is the thermodynamic flow of energy from source to sink, a turbulent flow with eddies, loops and feedbacks, in the occasion, a self-catylizing replication.
Think of "life" as ripples in a stream, not separate from the hydrologic cycle. Such a ripple, is a process, reflecting a more or less distorted picture of the world, making a bit of noise and then lapsing into other ripples.
"I" am stardust, aware of itself.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 4 by William]
"My definition of GOD re my theology is that GOD is Consciousness.'

Then you could just say "consciousness". No need for the term "God".

"My definition of life is the same. Thus, my definition of GOD = life. Being alive. "

Again, there would then be no need for a new term. But as has been mentioned not all life is conscious.

"We cannot even say for sure that the death of the body is the end of an individuals subjective experience. They may yet be alive in an alternate reality, as per 'life after death'."

And maybe in an "alternate reality", pigs can fly to the moon by blowing flatulence through their curly tails. Maybe... but it would be hard to demonstrate. It is from such unsupported speculations that "theology" is generated.
Consider that for the pantheist, reality is "God" and the only proper language of "theology" is mathematics.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 9 by TSGracchus]


"Consider that for the pantheist, reality is "God" and the only proper language of "theology" is mathematics."

And the Divine Mathematician put it into use
which we see all around us.