Would this Origin of life model work?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5 I feel I should take a moment to make clear that I am criticizing your hypothesis and not your belief. Those things are independent in my mind. It is NOT my intent to mock you.

@Meerkat_SK5

Instead, the question is whether chemical or biological evolution was a guided or unguided process by a DIVINE designer. I am not trying to disprove evolution or poke holes nor have I ever tried on here with some exception. I made this very clear beforehand.

Unchanged. A divine designer should not be definable or falsifiable in a material sense. If it is, then I do not understand how you are defining “divine”.

@Meerkat_SK5

Well, I explained this to everyone already here why this is the case but I have not seen you respond to it yet:

But I did respond, and you replied. My emphasis …

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Didn’t we just go through all this?

Keep in mind, I merely conceded your point that the God hypothesis was not testable based on the question or experiment I proposed within that particular topic. Under this topic, the experimental procedure would be sufficient in establishing testability for the hypothesis. For example…

@Puck_Mendelssohn

What you can do is test some set of hypotheticals. And your results will be applicable to the set of hypotheticals you test, but not to other possible scenarios and certainly not to all possible worlds.

As Puck alluded , we can test some set of hypotheticals and the results would be applicable to the set of hypotheticals you test, but not to other possible scenarios and certainly not to all possible worlds.

In the previous topic, I made the statement that the “intelligent designer must exist in all possible possible natural worlds or conditions” in order to prove a Divine designer exists.

Now, I changed the statement to this: “An intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth”.

This is falsifiable because “Here is an experiment showing a possible situation where life could have evolved by an unguided process” would contradict it. How can you say this is still unfalsifiable now that I changed the set of hypotheticals to a particular instance in nature?

I can still say it is unfalsifiable because the essential problem remains. If we demonstrate a particular random evolutionary pathway, how are we to know the designer did not use this same pathway as the means of design? This is what I mean by …

… you cannot falsify design by demonstrating evolution.

You have changed a few words in your hypothesis, but not addressed how it can ever be falsified, even theoretically.

Now, I changed the statement to this: “An intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth”.

AND if the designer is guiding evolution, then design will be forever untestable. If I didn’t reply to this is May, it’s because I didn’t see any reason to reiterate a point I had just finished making in an earlier discussion.

Now if you changed your hypothesis to “a (divine) designer would not create by means of evolution,” then it might be falsified as you describe. It may also open whole new can of worms about discerning the motives of a divine creator, but that’s another topic.