I take it that you are not suggesting that the whole of human scientific knowledge is ‘made up’ or a fiction.  Yet abiogenesis is wholly compatible with it.  The point I have been making is precisely that: it is a conjecture (an unproven theory) that is coherent given our other knowledge: it gives a set of conditions that can falsify it – as in any scientific theory: it implies a research program that can be pursued to prove or disprove it:  it unifies diverse areas of knowledge (actually, non-organic/organic chemistry is unified – abiogenesis searches to explain this).   

The “spark of life” conjecture is not even a theory.  It is not an explanation.  It is not even descriptive.    A well-known tale used in philosophy circles quotes a 17th century play (can’t remember who – sounds like Moliere) where an uneducated man wants to become ‘learned’ and is taken up by two shysters.  He asks ‘why does opium make us sleep?’  they reply ‘because it has the virtus dormativa’.  He is immensely impressed.   (But virtus dormativa simply means the sleep-making property)   So, here we have  ‘what makes life?’…  ‘the vital spark’.   

You may want to emphasize that “proclaiming life comes from material is equally fiction.....”  but it I simply wrong.  The two theories are in no way equal: one has a good case to make that connects directly with our understanding of reality; the other has no argument beyond table-thumping.  If you feel otherwise, and evaluate the relative merits of the theories differently, please come and explain what criteria you are using on the ‘account for things’ thread.


I note you rhetorically challenge for a demonstrable proof.  We are all aware there is none, for either theory.  It is a simple case of pursuing the better explanation.  Prove that the Earth is nearer 5 billion years old than 6 thousand... why would the one theory seem immeasurably better than the other?

I note also that the FULL quote from me should have included  ‘what have you to offer?’  You seem to be falling into the bad habits of some of your co-theists, by ignoring a request for an account while throwing an extreme version back.   Please note that I haven't demanded that you support your theory by proving that god exists, just to give an account of how we can establish how the "spark of life"  came about and operates, where does it fit in with all else we know, which theories does it reinforce or challenge (well, we know the answer to that)...

I am sure you will not agree with any of my responses – but at least do us the favour of stating the standards you are applying.

I am ignoring most of your post which is just assertion.   However, if you read careful I stated openly that neither theory is demonstrable.   The concluion is that we should pursue the better explanation.  PART of hat determines a good explanation is how coherent it is with ones 'world view', but there are a number of other criteria.  Do come and discuss them...


You assert that your theory is 'equal' to the materialist.  That implies that either you have evaluated both and found them equally supported and worthy of pursuit, or you are merely blustering with no justifiable basis for your statement.   I cannot believe the latter of you, so await your reasons for this perception of 'equality'.   A proposed set of headings for an evaluation is given in the 'accounting for things' thread.  Feel free to add any.

Same response - this is an unsupported assertion... until you share with us your valuation, how can we accept your blunt assertion.?  So which one is it - just bluster or judged equal in some way (and how did you judge them)?

……What characteristics make an explanation 'good'? Here's a list from Peter Carruthers - maybe you can think of more:

Accuracy - predicting all or most of the data to be explained and explaining away the rest - i.e. showing where there may be errors of data collection or interpretation.

Consistency - that there are no contradictions within the theory or model.

Coherence - with surrounding beliefs and theories which are not to be superseded by the new, or at least consistency with them.

Simplicity - being expressible as economically as possible, with the fewest commitments to distinct kinds of fact and process.

Fecundity - making new predictions and suggesting new lines of enquiry.

Scope - unifying a diverse range of data.


Come on over to the 'Accounting for things'  thread.  Making judgements is something we all do 'automatically', its part of human mentality.  Knowing the factors that could or should influence our judgments can only help in improving them.   Pooling our views on our introspections can improve our knowledge of those factors.

 
I see you are over on the other thread.   

RF  at the point where you have returned to this thread, your port is in response to my urging Patton to come join the what-does-it-mean-to-account-for-something thread.  I have accepted that there is no demonstrable proof for the evolutionary arguments.  I am simply asking how Patton can take one of his arguments as 'equal to' (I'm sure you would argue 'better') a non-theist view.  In other words your demanding absolute proofs is not a goer (yet!  )


You have in the past chid me for introducing new topics.  Returned.    In fact, if you go to the Afterlife thread then you will see that one of my questions to you concerns human mentality.  You can put forward your (I suspect, from previous discussions on this) rather incoherent views on what 'thinking' is, there.    Sadly my next job is starting this week so I'll be absent for a while (back mid-Feb I hope), and won't be able to proceed with the Socratean dialogue I had hoped for.