Perhaps? I'm not really sure. Obviously flowering plants would be tricky, there'd be nothing to pollinate them. Also I assume algae also exist?

No. Second law of thermodynamics. Nothing that isn't a helium atom will survive forever.

Define survive... Do you simply mean the persistence of life? Defining survival by any other metric is tricky. Counting the number of species or number of living organisms is not a good indicator, as over time these fluctuate wildly due to evolution and mass extinction events.

Surely, despite the upset to interdependent species and ecosystems, many species would survive without any problems if not thrive. In the long-term, life would persist and adapt, and ultimately re-diversify through evolution. Perhaps, the largest threat to the indefinite persistence of life would be either the eventual destruction of earth as it is consumed by an expanding and dying sun, or that intelligent life may once again rise, develop fearsome weapons/technology, and accidentally annihilate all life on earth.

When I say fearsome weapons, I'm not just talking about nuclear weapons. While the current world stockpile of nuclear weapons is capable of rendering the earth uninhabitable for humans and nearly all animals, we are still unable to eradicate ALL life on earth. There are too many organisms populating every corner of the world and the depths of its oceans, not even to speak of completely isolated ecosystems on the bottom of the oceans that derive all of their energy from geothermal vents. It would take weapons or accidents of proportions that are infeasible by today's technological understanding of physics to destroy all of life on earth.

Ok, with that digression aside, the return of intelligent life is also the best shot for life on earth to persist beyond the lifetime of this planet and its sun. The possibility that intelligent life might be able to colonize other worlds would be the best chance for life originating from earth to sustain itself beyond the death of the sun.

I like smiley's comment. In the end, all life is doomed to be eroded away by entropy, or face the the big crush or the heat death of the universe, whichever of those happen first.

But as for the question of oxygen/CO2 balance...
1) CO2 comes from many other sources: decomposition of organic matter (microorganisms), wild fires, volcanoes, etc.
2) the balance of gases will eventually change, as it has wildly done over throughout the history, plants, and life in general, will adapt and evolve.

Also plants still have cells and still have mitochondria. They still undergo cellular respiration. The larger the plant is the more the ratio of oxygen to CO2 changes. Large trees actually consume more oxygen than they produce, and generate more CO2 than they consume.

To answer the question it must be taken back to when the first cellular life originated. Cells originally ate each other and other organic molecules in the ocean for sustenance, and the process of photosynthesis evolved due to the lack of nutrients and over-competition for existing resources. Then the photosynthetic cells provide food for the other cells and the ecosystem is build. So technically they might be able to survive, but they would not be the same plants that we know today. But scientifically speaking, the likely-hood of it occurring is very slim.

A planet like ours, assuming life gets hold of it, is likely to evolve a similar sort of life to what you find on Earth (i.e plants and animals of various shapes and sizes).

If you allow various differences between this planet and Earth however (I'm thinking levels of ozone in the atmosphere, orbital stability etc) you may well find conditions that slow down or stop the evolution of complex animals, leading to the vegetable dominated planet you're imagining. These plants however will lack the attractive and exciting features Earth plants have developed in order to make use of or defend against passing animals, so the green world of your imagination is likely to be extremely dull.

Sorry...

If you have microbes you can have anything.

The atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere are closely connected and intertwined with positive and negative feedback loops (pretty uncontroversial). These largely maintain a static environment in the short- to medium-term, although over the longer term this stasis can change (somewhat controversial). In essence this points to the fact that cooperation may be considered every bit, if not more, significant a driver as competition (very controversial). The latter view requires that those who take an interest in science lift themselves from ''greedy reductionism''.

In passing such an approach may also help in answering the thread here entitled - ''Can anyone defend socialism.''

*correction*

The BIOSPHERE, atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere...................

cryosphere too