Comment: Indeed it can be

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It sounds like (see in situ)

Indeed it can be

Indeed it can be controversial to call them "life," depending which you're referring to.

I did some googling to refresh, and, missing the typical wiki entry, skipped to the first promising result, which you plagiarized!!

"...the very simplest forms of life: the subcellular life forms. They are so simple, in fact, that even calling them "alive" can be controversial. They lack many of the usual features of life. They don't have cell walls, most of them don't metabolize, and they are all parasitic, depending on other organisms for their ability to reproduce! Some of them even have no genetic code! Many of them cause diseases, but others are crucial to the well-being of their host, and many are so well integrated with their host that it becomes difficult to decide whether they are part of the host or a separate entity..."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/subcellular.html

The wording is changed slightly, but any committee tasked with the job would call that plagiarism.

Anywho, you also cut out from your copying the little point that they are all parasitic, depending on cellular life to replicate themselves (viruses), and always lose complexity with time, rather than gain it. This is not a sure fire, slam dunk evidence that cellular life forms emerged from such viruses and other subceullar organisms.

At the next link I followed,
As subcellular life forms are obligate parasitic organisms, their physiology is strictly dependent on host cell biology and so often on their pathogenicity.

Look, I'm not an expert on chemical evolution, and know that while there are many models, there's no consensus or understanding regarding the issue. I don't deny the possibility of a complete evolutionary model that includes the evolution of life from non-life, although I think strong arguments have been made casting doubt on the possibility of the information necessary for life to be randomly generated. But we can leave that alone, I'm agnostic on the issue.

I appreciate the rest of your reply, but it is riddled with problems.

There is nothing self contradictory in the classical concept of god. The supposed paradox of self limitation (can he make a rock he cant lift) is answered in one of two ways. If we hold to formal logic, than nothing logically impossible can happen. If we abandon formal logic, then yes, God can do logically impossible things. It's a silly objection for kids, I remembered it as a kid it was fun but for adults its not of much interest.

Your objection "who created the creator" is just an appeal to the infinite regress of explanations. But if there is any final explanation, a final condition that is necessary in itself, and capable of causing the succeeding conditions, then that explanation is God. That is almost the classical philosophical definition of God.

If there is no termination to the infinite regress of explanations, you are not really much better off logically than with some kind of Mind as precursor to all other contingent physical and mental realities. Neither one is really has the jump on the other for logical-ness and soundness. As far as the empirical or scientific theoretic evidence, the present consensus at least has a seeming beginning, to this world, which is the only universe we can observe and the only one we have a right to claim exists.

I understand you don't "like" your image of the Biblical god, and so don't want there to be a God, but you don't have any logical or explanatory advantage with your belief in an infinite regress of physical explanations ad infinitum. Either way you're in a position of believing something that feels kind of absurd and can't be proven.

It really doesn't matter how much time you allow... "trillions of years" ... There are different theories of time, but the perception of fastness of slowness seems to be attached to the beholder. The millions of years that seems long to us could be compressed to a point, and the only question is whether or not highly complex, ordered information can emerge from random material.

Beyond that, you still have to account for the immensity of the material and energy at the beginning, as well as the origin of time and space, the constants and "laws" of physics, which are not just random or akin to Nothingness.

You have an uphill battle explaining how these, even if taken as 'given,' should compose themselves into the complexity of a human being, no matter how much time you allow.

And if you do shoulder that burden, as I recognize is possible, you are still stuck accounting for Why Anything Exists At All, How an infinity of anything can exist, How the universe began, Why the initial conditions of the observed universe are fine tuned for galaxies, stars, planets, chemical elements, compounds, organic processes, life, consciousness, intelligence, etc.

You might offer any number of naturalistic explanations, but in the end they aren't superior logically or in explanatory ability to God.

Saying that mind is the product of material rather than material contingent upon a fundamental mind (God) is a philosophical argument, and no answer will be satisfying on the level of "proof." Some beliefs are just "basic" in the sense that they can't be justified by other beliefs or proofs, we just have to take them as given. It is never going to make sense to us and will always beyond the reach of observable science. And supposing God did show up one day, we could never be sure he wasn't an imposter.

I sympathize with your skepticism of religion as well as God, and I share it, I just challenge your assumption that metaphysical naturalism is any more sensible or intellectually satisfying than some model where consciousness and mind are fundamental and not the product of conspiring materials. These are not scientific questions, they're philosophical questions.