If we assume that the universe goes back to infinite past (which assumption I am happy with), and we assume that god did not create organisms, then they must have generated by no design and by matter forming by itself. — god must be atheist

I see no reason to accord matter by itself any special privilege to be a precursor for organism. If matter has been in existence since the beginning why can't organism have been with us since the beginning? In an infinite reality that would mean they both have always existed.

So we don't know at all how God created organisms. Do we. No, we don't. — god must be atheist

Another good question! Organisms could only be created by a force (God) intervening in a way that would be arbitrary. That is why I reject that line of reasoning. Neither deism nor pandeism works with that constraint. However if the universe, unified with this force as in pandeism, instead goes infinitely back in time, the problem of creation disappears, leaving a different though lesser issue to deal with.

Didn't I explain there is no randomness in chemistry or biology? H and O will always produce H2O, and never H4O3 or HO5. Chemical formulas are deterministic like 1+1=2, you know? So what odds are you talking about? — Zelebg

Yes, but randomness applies to chemical action in a solution, colloid, and perhaps a mixture, how the particles come in contact in order to get to the point where they can interact. Think Brownian motion.

I would venture to say that to your mind Deism comes immediately, no matter what the topic of discussion or contention is.

Deism is a valid, albeit useless belief. You can do nothing with it, except having it come to your mind. — god must be atheist

I am not a Deist. I do find pandeism to have certain attractive aspects, but am not a pandeist either. I do think that if you take pandeism and change the age of the world from finite to infinite on both ends, a lot of very attractive things can fall into place as with organism. Many but the most committed materialists might find such a philosophy interesting.

As for usefulness, I don't think metaphysics is about usefulness. To me it is about curiosity. I just want to know what this is all about.

I would ask you what is the value of knowing the age of the universe? This estimate has come about as a result of considerable scientific effort.

"You are misrepresenting the math, that's all, or you have been lead astray by someone else who also does not understand the power and actual meaning of RANDOM. "

You left off the most probable alternative, I simply don't know what I'm talking about!
The problem with the argument that regardless of how improbable something is, "it can always happen on the first try" is that in some situations like this it is always going to be a "correct argument". If i were to add in degradation of the DNA and the primordial pools and then the probability of producing proteins and other necessary precursors of life I suspect no matter how long the odds became from having necessary concurrent and successive processes in place your answer would be the same.

The problem with that type of argument is that it becomes much more probable that in this case an argument for the most theistic God is a lot more probable.

Perhaps instead of just telling me of my deficiencies in understanding natural sciences you can explain what made you reach that conclusion?

I would love to hear also how I can understand "organism qua organism" better? Perhaps you can start by explaining what "organism qua organism" means to you?

"" In general I agree you are correct, but just by good fortune there is very specific biological information that can set limits on metaphysical issues relating to origin of life. — Barry Z""

"Cool. Such as?"

Here is a good example of the value of input from biology on metaphysical thought.

In examining the question of whether life can develop from purely physical matter the first thing is to state the means by how this could happen. In a physical world without organisms this could only occur by matter acting in a way that obeys all the physical and chemical laws. We know from physics and chemistry that matter will organize itself into elements and molecules. It does this without purpose through random action, based on the properties of atoms, the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. For atoms to become molecules somewhat similar chemical forces cause their formation. All without purpose. This takes place by random action of atoms and molecules.

In a pre-life environment the only way for molecules to be formed is through random process. All organic compounds which are necessary for life must be assembled by a random process. One of the key organic molecules central to all life is the DNA molecule. It contains the code for everything necessary for life from the production of proteins to the metabolism of the organism. The DNA molecule is a polymer, that is a chain molecule made up of individual monomers known as nucleotides. There are four different nucleotide molecules designated A C G and T. These monomers due to their chemical structures are naturally prone to form chains of DNA. With a single nucleotide substitution polymers of RNA can also be formed. The chains that are formed by these monomers provide a more or less equal attraction to potential additions to the chain. If this were not true DNA would not be a good vehicle to store the code for life.

Strands of DNA range from about 160,000 base pairs (of monomers) for the most basic one celled organism to approx. 3 billion for higher organisms like humans. The probability to produce a particular human DNA chain would be 4^3 billion. Of course lots of other human beings could be produced with the same size DNA strand, but that only reduces the probability to something like 4^2.99 billion a number that is similar to 10^1.799 billion to put in a base ten frame of reference.

So for the smallest presently known one celled life form: each base pair has a one in four chance of being produced by random process. The odds of each successive base pair in the polymer is 1 in 4. So multiplying ¼ 160,000 times yields a probability of 1 in 4^160,000 or 1 in 10^96,000 a very large number. Using a similar kind of argument as originally used by Fred Hoyle, when you compare this to the fact there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe it can be seen by inspection that it will take an extremely long time to produce such a DNA strand by random process. Even allowing for the fact that there could be a trillion or more sustainable life forms that could come from reaching a chain of 160,000 pairs. The end result is it will take many orders of magnitude more time than the 14 billion years old the universe is currently estimated to be for life to originate from a pre life environment. From this point it can be shown that not only should a much older finite universe be considered, but an infinite aged universe should be considered as well. This demonstrates the impact that empirical biological information could have on metaphysical thought.

"But with reference to Metaphysics, a general (multi-discipline) concept of information would be more useful than an understanding of biological (or any other type of) information."

In general I agree you are correct, but just by good fortune there is very specific biological information that can set limits on metaphysical issues relating to origin of life.

I probably should have been more precise. Deism and God are part of a larger set of concepts that may better be called simply a force, of some kind . Maybe a natural force, or cosmic force? Would you accept an explanation that is more than simply life arising from physical matter? If so perhaps we can reach agreement? If not I am happy to engage in that debate.

I think Deism comes to mind immediately when exploring a philosophy of organism, though other conceptions of God are not all excluded. The idea of organism on a cosmic scale and its relation to organisms familiar to us on a microcosmic scale was explored by Plato and studied widely through the Middle Ages. Do not know why this line of inquiry was abandoned, but Whitehead picked up on it again in the late 1920’s.

I don't think it's necessary to go back to a solipsistic beginning to make statements about organisms. I'm not even saying that starting with organism is the only way to proceed. What I am saying is there are practical advantages when developing a theory of reality to start with organism.

I would actually be very interested to hear your reasons for disagreeing with the original statement?