Replies

Exclusivity cannot be supported only falsified. TRUE.
Any such instances in the future, if and when they occur, will serve to either support my assertion or falsify it. TRUE AGAIN.

Not remotely. Not until you remove the word "only" from your assertion. Intelligent assembly may be A way in which life can form. Human-created life will support that.

Exactly the way the exclusivity of the law of gravity is only falsifiable not supportable, my statement is true.

Gravity makes no exclusive statement. It is universally INCLUSIVE. Gravity deals with a property, not a process.

Until some other way is found, your assertion is true.

I disagree. Does the truth of a statement depend on the knowledge of the individual making the statement?

If we eventually have thousands of instances wherein life is intelligently assembled from lifeless matter, and we have no instances of life self assembling, will you be prepared to concede that your standard has been met?

It depends on the qualities of the created instances of life and the intelligences doing the creating. If we are attempting to learn something about the initial appearance of life on earth (as I assume we are), then at least one instance of creation should be performed by a non-earth-type intelligence. Would you agree?

"Not until you remove the word 'only' from your assertion. Intelligent assembly may be A way in which life can form. Human-created life will support that."

Newton: "Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force directed along the line connecting the two."

Do you want to remove "every" from the law of gravity? The support you mentioned earlier for this law does not lend itself to the exclusivity of words like "every" and "only". That is why falsification is a sufficient standard for exclusive (or, if you prefer, universal) claims. Why do you consider Newton's law to be logically valid, but turn around and say it is not allowed to say, "every instance of life originating has an intelligent cause"? Instances of gravity working support the law of gravity even if they do not support the exclusive aspect particularly. Likewise, instances of intelligent assembly will support my assertion in general even if the exclusive aspect can only be falsified.

This issue needs no further debate. It is settled. You need to get over it.

"Gravity makes no exclusive statement. It is universally INCLUSIVE."

Universal statements have both aspects. What is inclusive is what is included. What is exclusive is what is excluded. My assertion is inclusive in the same sense. Your argument is purely semantic. As I said above, use "universal" as the desciption if you prefer.

"Gravity deals with a property, not a process."

This is a separate issue from the one that proceeds it. They do not belong together as one argument.

You are incorrect. The law of gravity encompasses both property and process. Matter possesses a property that results in a process. Mass and momentum are properties. Acceleration and motion are consequent processes.

Intelligence has properties (e.g. intent). Life has properties (e.g. complexity and interdependence). The formation of life would be a process. My assertion assumes a connection between them.

"Does the truth of a statement depend on the knowledge of the individual making the statement?"

Scientifically it does. In science, truth is validity. Scientific truth is not absolute truth. It is always subject to change. It is logically valid. When something is scientifically true, there is an unspoken and understood agreement that it is true as long as the underlying assumptions are true. This is the implied contract of science.

"If we are attempting to learn something about the initial appearance of life on earth (as I assume we are), then at least one instance of creation should be performed by a non-earth-type intelligence. Would you agree?"

That is purely philosophical. What exactly would constitute a non-earth-type intelligence? I think an agreed definition or measurement of intelligence and life are necessary in order to evaluate the outcome of the tests. As far as I am concerned, the life does not need to be a duplicate of known life forms, and the intelligence does not need to be human.

I think animal intelligence is more unlikely to be able to guide the process of life assembly because they are not intelligent enough. It is unclear if human intelligence will be sufficient, but it possibly may be. If artificial intelligence does the job, that could work too. But AI is far from such accomplishments presently.

As far as a non-earth-type, faith of the spiritual kind indicates the existence of God, angels and other non-earth intelligences. But these are not scientifically measurable.