Does Only One Set Of Physics Permit Life?

While there are many particular branches and sub-branches of science, they are merely different categories of physics, the one science that contains all of the others [1].  Biology itself is merely applied physics when one is not focusing on its phenomenological aspects; it is still the study of how matter behaves, though the focus is on living matter instead of on inanimate particles.  It is obvious that biology can quickly become a complicated subject, but theists often draw grand metaphysical conclusions from this complexity that cannot be established by either biology or physics as a whole.

Theists who appreciate the complexity of living organisms are prone to commit the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, assuming that any complexity is by default evidence (or, God forbid, even proof) for the existence of God.  In an effort to persuade someone that some variation of the design argument for God is valid, they might go much further.  They might go so far as to imply or outright state that no physics other than that which governs our universe could possibly permit life.  As soon as one recognizes the blatant distinction between logical possibility/impossibility and scientific probability/improbability, it becomes clear, however, that this is a laughable claim.

In fact, there are two reasons why this is an asinine belief.  The first is that scientific laws, unlike the laws of logic, could spontaneously change without any warning, and yet life might still persist.  I do not mean that any scientific laws would presently allow for the existence of life, but that it is entirely possible, though perhaps seemingly unlikely, for another set of physics to permit it.  Secondly, no matter how much observational evidence there is for a correlation, no one is justified in actually believing that it is complete proof of an exact causal relationship.  Thus, no being with my limitations actually knows in an ultimate sense precisely which scientific factors allow for life in this universe.

It follows from the first of these two points that there is no single set of physics that is intrinsically required for the basic existence of living organisms in the sense that it is logically possible for other physics to accomplish the same results.  The continuation of the laws of physics as we perceive them is not a matter of logical certainty or necessity.  Scientific uniformitarianism is nothing but an assumed idea, as it is not verifiable.  When this is acknowledged alongside the fact that physics cannot establish exact causal relationships to begin with, it becomes clear that there is not one set of scientific laws that is logically compatible with the presence of life.

As a theist, I find it frustrating how many times I have to demonstrate that the design argument for God's existence is unsound and fallacious.  Its conclusion is built upon a facade of assumed premises, non sequiturs, and the confusion of logical impossibility for scientific improbability, and yet many theists insist that it is a wonderful proof for the existence of God.  As I have affirmed numerous times here, there is only way to prove that God exists [2], and all other arguments for God's existence are manifestations of invalid sophistry.  In order to prove that biology is the result of explicit design, one must first prove that a designer exists--and therefore pointing to seeming design as confirmation of a designer is merely circular reasoning [3].  Design arguments are doomed from the start.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/physics-supreme-science.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html