IOW, if the question is the “origin of life” then one must first have an understanding of what life is.
This is the epistemological failure of the biological sciences (Pattee). Physics and math do not make this error and thus have asked the question and answered that “life” is information (Shannon paraphrased, successful communication).
It's quite possible that asking what life is and what non- life is, is equivalent to asking what a clock is, as opposed to a non-clock.
Is there some minimum list of attributes for clockness? Is a stick in the ground a clock?
There are two positions being presented on this thread. One is the traditional scientific model, which argues that life is an emergent property of matter, and the traditional dualistic model, which posits the requirement of a vital force in addition to matter.
I would argue, as I have consistently on these threads, that arguing for a vital force makes unwarranted assumptions about the limitations of matter. I think we are abit beyond the age of billiard ball determinism. What age we are actually in is a bit of a mystery, but simply dismissing "materialism" as something limited in scope in, in my opinion, shortsighted.