The naturalist, in terms of people who believe in a prime mover, more or less assigns "prime mover" status to nature itself: rather than an intentional, intelligent cause with a reason for existence we arose out of a chaotic, blind process which we just happen to get to be a part of, and whatever that is that's nature. — Moliere

In contrast to aristotles prime mover then.

If life is purely a cosmic naturalistic fluke that happened without any divine intervention to kick start it, it quickly developed intelligent self awareness such as us. I guess that’s the power of evolution and adaptation to environment.

I think it’s magnificent either way divine intervention or completely naturalistic. Despite the Uray abiogenesis experiment there are so many leaps going from amino acids to rna replication to dna etc that it would be like winning the lottery multiple times in a row and I don’t think this was pure chance alone but some helping hand to get things started then let evolution do its thing.

It would entail providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen at earliest stage and then let evolution do the rest.

By unstable I mean the universe would simply collapse after only existing for a brief amount of time.

Neither is anything special unless we decide that they are for our own reasons. Those reasons are not the universe’s reasons — T Clark

Well they’re special because only some universes would support life and not others.

You can’t say something can never be explained. That claim can’t be demonstrated. At best, all you can show is that this is where the inferences lead you — Tom Storm

There are some things science will never be able to explain such as what existed before the big bang. It’s just physically impossible because that’s when time and space began. Before that science cannot know.

It is possible that god was there all along (though I can’t prove it) and possibly gave rise to the big bang. Like you I’m not a scientist and I don’t know where the universe came from best I know is that there was some big bang and here we are. Before that we will never know not through science anyway.

Does there need to be an explanation? Doesn't explantion eventually reach a terminus?

I'd put it that the theist is satisfied with the logical terminus of God, and the naturalist is satisfied with the logical terminus of nature.

But both are consistent with the science so science doesn't really rule one way or the other.

What is wrong with believing in god or god and science ?
— kindred

Nothing.

At least insofar that we recognize that this isn't where the science leads one, but is rather something we bring to the science. — Moliere

The issue I have with the naturalistic position is that while it’s good to how things work and to some extent why. For example why is there life ? The naturalist would say because of chemical reactions created primitive organic matter which created single cell organism and so on.

Yet some whys it cannot answer why did two such atoms or molecules interact in such and such a way rather than remaining inert. Where did the properties of such atoms come from to enable such interactions between different atoms or molecules to allow for chemistry to happen and why do chemical reactions happen. Because each element is set in such a way that when conditions are right it will react with another element to produce something completely different. But why ? Haha I realise this comes across as the inquiry of a 5 year old where why’s never end but it shows that we don’t know the answer to every why but that does not necessarily lead to god either. Just that it’s likely that if there’s a god then it probably kickstarted life. If not then life started by itself. No god required.

No problem either way

I see this problem as related to the question of where did everything come from. Big bang would say the naturalist without speculating any further of what existed before time and space and though there are scientific theories they cannot be proven ( such as cyclical universe, multiverse etc)

The theist would say something along the lines of god was before time and space alpha and omega etc. and it was the cause of the universe, prime mover etc.

Not sure what the naturalist would make of the prime mover argument.

Yet, if a naturalism falls short of explaining certain phenomena such as the emergence of life and the only logical explanation is god would you not be swayed by it or remain in the I don’t know camp. Phenomena fall into two categories the explained and the yet to be explained.

If the yet to be explained can never be explained because it would be outside the remit of science but the god did it explanation you would reject on the basis that you don’t believe in god ? I find this argument unsatisfactory because god could exist and it could be the reason for the emergence of life.

I don’t think science and god are mutually exclusive. I’m not saying everything that science can’t explain should be argued that god did it. But god should not be ruled out.

The point of the argument is to prove that god exists by way of understanding the artefacts of creation such as life and intelligence. If we can’t truly explain something by way of science then god becomes more plausible and because the emergence of life is one of such mysteries then I see nothing wrong with using god as explanatory power.

What is wrong with believing in god or god and science ?

One thing that the science does not do, however, is rule out a creator. It just has no need of one because we can synthesize the molecules of life in a lab so it doesn't seem to add anything to the explanation when chemistry will do to explain how the molecules of life formed — Moliere

One issue remains with this and it’s regarding the properties of different atoms and the glue that holds the protons in the nucleus. For example hydrogen got 1, helium 2 etc. ignoring the life argument for a second why would there be a physical rule that says two protons must give rise to different properties of such atoms. Sure that certain physical law is called the strong nuclear force but why are these laws there in the first place … does this not imply a lawmaker to you ?

If there were no laws to dictate how atoms behave what would there be ? Nothing I assume, well at least no matter but I’m no physicist.

Why would there be a fundamental forces of nature such as these in the universe in the first place ? Again this to me seems to point towards divinity.

No I don’t need god to account for the orderliness and stability of the universe. Yet if one constant in the universe was off by the tiniest margin then the universe would be unstable. What or who do you think fine tuned those constants in the fabric of this universe. I assume you will say it’s chance and I say those chances are pretty low.

The way I see it there are two explanations, the naturalistic one and the divine one. And the fact that life emerged into this lifeless universe enforces my view of the latter.

Does that represent intelligent order? Are you saying that any order is intelligent order? Any pattern at all requires intentional action? — T Clark

It does not represent order but a rule. And it there’s rules there gotta be a rule maker right ?

I was not aware of that. I think the point remains though … of course the experiment cannot be carried out because of the timescales involved in the emergence of life which took place over millions of years, yet that experiment hints at how non organic matter can produce amino acids given the right initial conditions.

But so what to think that this organic matter could walk and talk leads me to think that naturalistic explanations are not sufficient on the grounds that the manifestation of ever increasing sophistication and intelligence would imply a pre existing intelligence in the first place or in other words divinity.

Just boom, voila life seems a bit … well unbelievable to happen. And without any divinity it would be a magnificent deed indeed for life to emerge unaided. With divinity as explanatory power then not so much.

Perhaps I’m trying to prove God here and to me the emergence of life from non life seems to be an appealing argument.

If it’s not random then there’s an intelligent order in the universe. The ability for the universe to organise itself would imply as much. Then it’s not a stretch to assume that there’s divinity behind it - for what else could account for the orderliness of the universe ? Or is it perhaps the way it is and we do not need to invoke the divine just because there’s order in it. Well there’s chaos too.

Whether the laws of physics or nature imply a divinity is a question worth raising because after all would that not explain the orderliness in the world ?

The question of life is not merely a how (science is pretty good at how’s) but why too. Why did the universe not remain lifeless … it is far easier for that to have occurred rather than the improbable which is life.

Implying that complexity cannot be the result of physical processes without at least a divine spark or push to give what does not have life some sort of complexity-forming ability that it did not previously have — Moliere

It’s not just a matter of complexity but of function too, from single celled organisms to fully fledged human beings. I do not discount evolution at all. Although if there’s a divine creator I cannot discount that man was one of its many intended end products. Since I cannot probe the mind of such divinity I will not enter that arena of speculation for now.

As intelligent and creative species that we are the question of how life emerged up to this pinnacle of function must not be discounted. Abiogenesis is not an exact science and scientists have been unable to replicate the emergence of life from non life but that is not to say that it will not happen someday. This means that we’re left with naturalistic explanations that life did somehow emerge from non life through natural hit and miss chance or that there was a divine spark that set things in motion to begin with. For now the case remains wide open due to science having no answers yet in terms of replicating the jump of life from non life.

I think what happened was special in a sense, from inanimate rocks to intelligent beings. To think it happened by chance is a bit like winning the lottery 100 times in a row with different numbers each time. However long those odds are.

Of course statistically speaking it would be easier for inanimate objects to have remained inanimate but the fact they didn’t just proves that some form of intelligence probably predated the intelligence that we currently manifest.

I’m inferring evidence from the exhibits such as life and intelligence. Though naturalistic processes can give rise to life and intelligence the universe appears fine tuned via various constants to support it.

Although not impossible the chances of life arising from non life are astronomically low something like finding a specific grain of sand in all the beaches of earth blind folded. But tiny chance does not mean impossible right ?

I think the right to private life is a basic human right which should not be denied. It’s probably not too improbable to have devices in the future where we can see read each others minds and thoughts.

I would opt for privacy at the risk of injustice because sometimes good or neutral deeds can be open to misinterpretation. Although transparency is trust as well because if all intention could be inferred from the beginning crime rates would dramatically drop.

As a side note. And assuming no creator or divine force present on the initial jump from non-life to life I’m faced with the inevitable question of complexity and the manifestation of great intelligence in the shape of us as human beings. Why intelligence and not simplicity as in life ever remaining worm like, to me this screams that we are not the first intelligent life to emerge into the world but rather that our intelligence is product of a pre-existing divinity in the world.@Outlander

What is curious is that life arose from a basic form to ever higher levels of complexity and up to exhibiting intelligence. The question in my mind is the world could have continued to be lifeless yet here we are. I’m not sure if speculating regarding the origins of divinity is helpful but as a starting point and as explanation of why there is life it helps some
what. Of course it’s the elephant in the room of what or who created this divinity so whilst speculation would be interesting I think it would be beyond the scope of reason to understand where it came from and the motives and intentions of such divinity. For example why would it create life in the first place ? There would be many reasons of course and I can’t pretend to know it’s mind however it at least must be curios to have other life forms emerge in the world and not just itself. Maybe to see see how we think and feel about all this.

The number of things that don’t exist are higher than things that exist for we could imagine more of the latter which don’t exist. I’d say that things that don’t exist are infinite and things that do are finite.

Would you say the chair someone is sat on would stop existing once all consciousness is extinguished? Sure we can’t make any statements or propositions about the world without consciousness but the world exists as a state of affairs despite consciousness. There is a difference between the table existing and the proposition of the “the table exists”.

I agree with you though that propositions don’t exist without consciousness but objects earth, dinosaurs etc do. Consciousness only serves to observe already existing phenomena and does not in anyway affect whether they exist or not.

This can be tricky however because to exist is to be perceived is not true. I know that I exist despite no one perceiving me as my consciousness tells me so. Yet a rock who does not posses consciousness exists independently of me perceiving it. So I think this type of idealism fails to account for continued existence of object after conscious perception of them ceases.

Who knows … life could be infinitely unique and we could be the only lifeforms in the whole galaxy. We still don’t know what the odds of abiogenesis occurring are here.

If there were other life forms however they’d face the same technical challenges we do when it comes to interstellar travel. And if they had mastered ftl travel our lifeforms to them would appear primitive just like bacteria appear to us

Language is more than a tool for mapping descriptions to the external world. In as far as it’s used to communicate ideas, feelings and even sensations it can only be compressed based on the familiarity with which the circle is acquainted with one another. Think of in jokes for example to ones outside the circle it might not make sense yet to the inner circle it does without context being supplied. I think this is the essence of compressed language the idea of an in language as in an in joke between the parties partaking in communication with each other.

There’s no meaning but I think we’re here to enjoy life and learn from the experiences we go through. The question is why though … why do we accumulate countless experiences if we can’t take it with us when we die ?

From a theistic point of view though we’re a product of gods creative energy and there must be a reason why we’re here.

I think life is a big test and we’re here to test ourselves.

Sure I know that different cultures and epochs have different conceptions of God and the various mythologising that goes around the creation of life or creation stories. I’m a theist by nature (and former atheist) but only believe in a higher power or architect of the universe rather than follow any established religion although I agree with a few moral teachings especially the golden rule espoused by Christianity of “do unto others…”

The point I’m trying to make is that life in its various guises exhibits various levels intelligence in implementation and I therefore consider this manifestation in nature to be a sign of a higher intelligence which preceded life on earth.

This would make the alien seeding theory moot as the same explanation of how life emerged would apply to them too as to how their life emerged from abiogenesis. I guess you could apply this to God too … in terms of asking what created him/it/she.

Although I prefer to believe that god has always been and is vastly different to created life forms.

abiogenesis is poorly understood for as to how life can come from non life I think the naturalistic and supernatural explanation would be equally valid although I prefer the theistic or supernatural explanation because even simple life like plants utilise and exhibit extremely intelligent design in being able to sustain and reproduce themselves which would imply a pre existing intelligence.

Yeah that’s cultural bias, the experience I had was not encountering such things but I simply heard a voice in my head say a certain phrase which was very rare only for it to be said by a family member a few minutes later. Obviously the shocking thing was to hear something in my head in the first place almost like a loud voice and not the usual internal monologue, to have this exact phrase repeated by a family member truly shocked me which is why I believe that there’s a higher power, for what else could explain it. For the record I’m not a schizophrenic and the scenario I’ve just described has only happened once but that’s all it took to convince me.

the perspective you have here is vastly different from the one you’ll hold in base reality. From here, our view is limited. — Sam26

So we willingly suppress the memories and perspectives of the base reality in order to gain a new perspectives adding to the collective experience of the base reality and in effect enriching it somehow or for us to further evolve as spiritual beings ? Wouldn’t the stunting of our former perspective mitigate any meaningful gains of experience in this reality? Especially if we had encountered such toil by the collective consciousness in the base reality … this it would seem to be a bit pointless as higher more evolved beings that we are in the base reality. If this is true when does this simulation end ? To what end ?

Sure the life struggles that i experience are unique to me and upon death these are shared and disseminated in the base reality for others to perhaps not to undergo the same journey that i have as my journey is now part of the collective knowledge in base reality at what point does this experiential acquisition stop? Once I’m back in base reality would I choose to incarnate again to try out a new experience/life ? I guess this question can’t be answered but of course we’re in the realm of speculation here and all we can do is speculate from our limited vantage point in this reality …

Your theory is very interesting and different. Perhaps we are all one consciousness in base reality but we somehow seem to be separated in different bodies/persons here. And perhaps in previous incarnations I’ve been everyone, everything from a peasant to a king etc.

Most religious revelation/prophecy is probably bs and I say that as someone who believes in a higher power. To much outdated inconsistencies. Nothing wrong with personal revelation but when it becomes preachy that’s when I lose interest. Even as someone who does believe in god I do not know his true nature or attributes and i certainly won’t take it from a man written book. I used to be an atheist up to my early twenties but as a grew older I had some personal experiences which swayed me rather than scripture which I never found convincing to begin with.

That’s an interesting argument and I assume your conception of the afterlife is that’s it’s some sort of utopia. I guess being born in this reality helps one appreciate the realm of where we come from a bit more. Personally had I known the things that would happen in my life whilst being here I’d probably choose a life where my wishes were granted rather than the noble struggle. But apart from giving me a different perspective which I of course value gained from my struggles I’d preferred an easier life, as would most people such as riches in the materialistic sense and non materialistic sense such as the love of your life etc. Yet human existence sometimes consists of misery hardship and dreams unfulfilled, so it would make more sense for us to choose a more fulfilling life experience rather than one of misery which is what a lot of people go through. But I guess we already have that in the afterlife so we’ve deliberately opted for this type of existence. But as you speculate that we probably have everything that we want/need where we originally came from then it makes sense to try a place where we lack such things such as here where we get to experience true desire perhaps whether or not these become fulfilled…

It’s actually an appealing theory Sam, I’m just sceptical as to why a consciousness that is already on a realm where all is love would decide to incarnate in this reality … a reality filled with all sorts of struggles. Ok I understand some of the reasons to be gained from the earthly experience but why would they decide for example as per my last post to incarnate during a genocide for example where the infants life is ended prematurely before the chance for them to gain anything meaningful from the experience of incarnating here? That doesn’t quite make sense to me … I’m just looking for some clarification really that’s all.

One of the most significant implications of this framework concerns the classical problem of evil: how can ultimate reality be fundamentally loving while permitting extreme suffering? My understanding suggests a resolution based on the distinction between the human person and our core consciousness.
At our essential level, consciousness cannot be harmed. What we fundamentally are, the aware, loving, creative activity that constitutes our deepest identity, remains invulnerable regardless of what happens to the temporary human persona. This means that all suffering, no matter how intense, occurs at the experiential rather than ontological level. The human character suffers, but the conscious being playing that character remains fundamentally unharmed.

This distinction transforms our understanding of suffering entirely. Rather than being evidence against a loving reality, suffering becomes compatible with ultimate care because nothing truly destructive happens to what we essentially are. It's analogous to an actor playing a tragic role; the character may experience extreme hardship, but the actor remains safe throughout the performance — Sam26

I assume it’s this passage that you’re referring to. Still I’m not buying it. How could a soul/consciousness deliberately choose (and I assume it’s a deliberate choice) to be born into such horrendous circumstances. What about consciousness that are cut short by death early in life due to famine, wars etc ? Where is the learning experience to be gained by that ?

Just a question, if the underlying reality consists of love, why would consciousness decide to incarnate in this reality, what would be the motives behind it? Given that this reality can be harsh to a majority of beings, kids facing famine, wars and malnourishment I highly doubt they would decide to incarnate here in such circumstances.

saying that me and you are not just part of the One, but there is One thing which you could call a "soul" , and yes I can explain why and how as well.
If you are interested of course? Would you like quotes that support my arguments? — Illuminati

Yes please, what is a soul in relation to the one ? Is there one universal soul or seperate souls, according to your philosophy ?

So the one is a singularity? is that your point ? What happened to the one after the Big Bang occurred ? I understand that it divided from one to many yet my question is what is the significance of this ?

The issue with religion causing division (and wars) amongst people is because when ideology or dogma cannot be defended by reason it’s defended by weapons. It’s an inherent issue with any ideology because they’re rigid in their structure and do not evolve with the times.

I’m still trying to wrap my head what the one is. Is it just the totality of all things? Consciousness and matter? What of it is … so what ? Is it god ? Or do you not give it such a name ?

I’m still trying to see the relevance of your pH explanation and what it’s trying to prove. Are you saying the map is not the territory or something else ?

I’m not easily offended, however you seem to be resulting to personal insults rather than explain what is asked of you. Shows a lack charity and intellect.

You're basically like "1 +1 = 2, water is 2 particles hydrogen one oxygen, oh and by the way there's this crazy one singularity that has nothing to do with any of that, but it somehow does, for some reason, but i can't or otherwise refuse to prove it. Therefore, logic!"

It's just not good form, dude. It's just not good form — Outlander

Pretty much sums up the OP, but when confronted on it he seems to get angry.

The gist of it from what I’m able to make sense is something about the alpha and the omega, the one and its infinite. The rest appears to be unpolished gibberish.

@Illuminati can you condense and summarise the main points of what you’re trying to say ?

Isn't t that a false dilemma fallacy? How did you rule out other possibilities? — Tom Storm

What other possibilities are there ?

In any case do you believe that the universe contains order in it ?

The universe possesses a certain orderliness to it which exists independently of our descriptive language used to describe it. This is the crux of the issue I believe and so far in this thread we don’t know where this orderliness came from but that things just happen to be orderly. Whether this answer is satisfactory or not I do not know however there are two answers that I can think of either it just is the way it is for no apparent reason or there’s an intelligence in the cosmos a god who created these laws.

For the fact that the orderliness exhibits some intelligence then it’s that intelligence that has imbued this order into the universe rather than it just being happenstance.