Arguments About Life On Other Planets And Abiogenesis Claims Are Parroted And Fallacious

 Naturalists all parrot the same arguments. They're all pretty popular.

One of them goes like this; "given there are millions of habitable planets it's certain there is life".

This is called a reverse conditional implication. What that means is you take a true conditional implication and think the reverse of it is correct.

Here is a correct conditional implication;

"if there is life then it follows there is a habitable place for it." (always true, because if there wasn't a habitable place then life would not be there)

But atheists/naturalists instead argue the reverse which is a logical error;

"If there is a habitable place then there is life."

This is wrong because the consequent does not follow the antecedent, and also, they PRESUME that "habitable places" are the cause of life. 

There isn't any science to show that just having a habitable planet will make life then exist on it. This argument SKIPS the fact you have to prove abiogenesis first.

Here is another example of the error, but first we start with the correct conditional;

"If you have sand castles, then there must be sand."

But if we were to argue that all you need to get sand castles is the winds and waves, and there are millions of planets and you just need the ones with wind and waves, then I would incorrectly have argued the reverse of the implication;

"If you have sand then you will find sand castles".

This argument is wrong for the same reason as the one about abiogenesis is wrong, it SKIPS over what the true cause of sand-castles actually is by pretending you just need the right materials and circumstances to get them when in fact what you really need is design. 

Another popular argument about life elsewhere in the universe is circular reasoning that goes like this;

"Well life must have came from non-life because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened."

But the correct conclusion is that if life is not eternal then it must have a cause, but it doesn't follow that our being here tells us which specific cause that is.

Such circular reasoning could "work" if you replaced abiogenesis with potatoes.

"Well life must have came from potatoes because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened by potatoes somehow or we wouldn't be here!"

Another argument is the presumption that abiogenesis is something that is scientific, as though asking science people their opinions about alien life has some sort of special veracity that makes their beliefs more accurate because they are scientists.

This doesn't work because basically it is ad-verecundiam (an appeal to authority). In fact nobody on earth is an expert in how life came to be since technically it is a total mystery, so if a scientists has an unhealthy snack like you do, the snack does not become healthy just because he is a scientist and has an opinion that it is healthy. 

Sophistry is a clever use of rhetorical persuasion to make certain arguments look like they must be true and valid because they make tremendous sense but their fault is that they are not sound arguments as they don't obey logical rules. That is what a lot of naturalism is argued as, sophistry that is predicated on nothing more than a belief not in scientific things, but in naturalism. (The ideology which believes everything is caused naturally without proof of the concept).

Methodological naturalism in fact is only valid with operational science but with historical theories there is no way to test if it applies. The truth is that the scientific community simply believe by faith that everything came to be by natural magic. Truly looking into these things and picking them apart reveals there really isn't anything in them. If anything the only way they have proven you get complex molecules is by having chemists deliberately string polymers together such as with synthetics like nylon. (polymerisation). If you compare that to attempts to create life naturally, there is NOTHING for abiogenesis.

If it is a matter of abiogenesis-experiments versus trying to get complex molecules from design, then design has won hand over fist, because drugs, synthetics, polymers, compounds. All these things only came to use by deliberately designing them by picking the right molecules and monomers. 

But experiments for abiogenesis don't get you these things. These manmade things are simpler than life, but abiogenesis couldn't even create something on the manmade level. Why doesn't nature create nylon for example? After all if nature is all that exists then nature has no goals, no prescience, so it should be able to create something that is less sophisticated than life, let alone life itself.