A probability of one.

A probability of one.

I was thinking about the belief some have that given enough time abiogenesis would happen, making the equation 100% certainty given enough time. I don't recall the odds on someone accurately predicting the order of a deck of cards after the deck was thoroughly shuffled. I could work it out, but don't care enough. I know the odds are very high against that from occurring, but given enough time that would occur is the argument. There are only 52 cards, unlike all of the variables that have to be right for life, so the cards are a small little test of can something happens that needs to be given enough time.

With the cards we know when they are shuffled there are 52 cards, the choices are limited to just that nothing else. The first being 1/52, the second being 1/51, and on and on. Now I have heard someone once say (not here) the deck is always going to have a sequence no matter what we say it is going to be in some order and that order is there period so the odds are 100%, but that isn't the question. Shuffling the cards will always put them in order but it doesn't mean someone can predict or guess that order, they may read it if cards are face-up, but that is ID in the query and has nothing to do with guessing the order.

Moving through time with a chance to get it right with a new start each time there is a failure will not increase the odds of getting it right. You can flip a coin twice looking for heads two times in a row, but each coin flip no matter what the odds are getting it right never changes from 50, 50. It is much easier to get two heads than predicting 52 cards. Life is much more complex, more things have to be right for a chance to even make the attempt on getting all of the material in the right order let alone anything else.

Another thing in with Abiogenesis is having all the right material, that isn't a certainty if we are only looking at odds because chemical reactions are always taking place, what might be required could arrive somewhere with the proper reaction but it could turn into something else a moment later or get contaminated with something not friendly to life.

Time doesn't help, having lots of time doesn't help, having it all possible at a moment somewhere at some time is the only thing that matters and that is just when we can legitimately say we can see that the dice are thrown for just an opportunity at life, without all of the variables in place at the same time, in the same place there is no opportunity for it to occur at all.

Since we don't know what the precise conditions required for life to start are, simple humility if nothing else should guide us to admit we don't know.

There may well be features of the natural processes involved in abiogenesis that have yet to be discovered, so let's not be so arrogant as to claim we know all there is to know?

You don't have to know all there is to know; simply understanding the limitations because of what we do know builds a formable picture.

And that is another thing.

Not only do we not know exactly how Abiogenesis might have happened. We don't even know where.

It was long assumed it must have happened on Earth. But now,we are seeing a growing possibility it may have happened on another planet. Or possibly even in a radioactive region of space. And those biologic compounds arrived here, frozen in an asteroid.

No matter where it began, here, there, else where first life has the same issues.

Quite a deep understanding of a subject is necessary to be able to be sure about what's not possible. I'm not sure we're at that point when it comes to abiogenesis.

No matter the probability someone can always look for something yet unknown or unseen. Therefore no one can be forced to conclude anything they do not want, it doesn't matter what we know we will always not know what is unknown.

But this is not correct - do you mean "we will always not know what is unknowable"?

Consider the many things that were previously not known but are now understood - the nature of gravity, the order of the Solar System, that a multitude of other galaxies exist. That's a very long list of things that were not known to our distant forefathers.

He means you do not know what you do not know, as he said. You can not sit down and make a list of things you do not know. By the nature of the list it would forever be incomplete.

I'll add this post again; no one will ever have to come to admit we have enough to know if it is true or not if they don't want to. It doesn't matter how much is known if you wish to reject something, either way, it is an escape clause that can be played forever. We still don't know enough to be sure.

But that's not quite what he said. He stated:-

"it doesn't matter what we know we will always not know what is unknown"

At any one point in time it's true by definition that what is unknown is unknown. But what is currently unknown may not be so at some time in the future. If it's intended to say that what must always be unknown will always be unknown, it's clearer I think to phrase it like this:-

"it doesn't matter what we know, we will always not know what is unknowable"

It is an excuse that can be played for eternity since the conditions are always the same.

What is 'an excuse'?

But it's about expressing what we mean in a logically correct way. The original statement was not logically correct.

There is always going to be the unknown, no matter what is now known, no matter how much more we come to know, so it can be said eternally as far as we are concerned.