Just wondering where intelligence and life came from in the universe. — kindred

Intelligence? Life? I've been here quite a while and, thus far, I've yet to see anything of the sort. :grin:

Jokes aside, it's a fair question. But quite one-dimensional, unfortunately. It's a binary dynamic. It either "is" or "isn't." Sure, the ramifications of either could fill an entire library, several even. But inevitably we all seem to return to the same talking points and implications, do we not?

Of course, assuming your assumptions are correct, it leads to greater questions still. Who or what created said divine force? This is echoed in many other forms of religious philosophy, the idea of no beginning and therefore no end. It's a bit hard to truly grasp, despite most believing they do by simple fact of understanding elementary level words and conjunction.

As I'm sure you're aware, no known science has been able to create this "jump" as you refer to it between the inanimate and the animate. But I feel we're depriving ourselves of a much more robust debate, that is to say by focusing on the question of "whether given enough time, with enough possibility, enough unknowns, enough what have you and what not, could a hypothetical and alleged 'primordial soup' devoid of life one day spring forth such?" we side-skirt the rational and regardless as far as what such really implies to those curious. Wouldn't you say? :smile:

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.

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

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

I find it even more improbable that a completely nonevident "divine push" got "things started".

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 just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

Your implausibility is based upon:

As in the emergence or jump from inanimate matter to living things (abiogenesis) could not happen by chance alone. But then we’re inevitably drawn into the argument of probability to which I’d say that the complexity of life’s building blocks such as DNA and RNA is astronomically high. — kindred

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.

This reminds me of the argument for intelligent design due to specified complexity. Here's a philosophy now article going over it., but it's different from what you're arguing though related (just a resource to think through your question).



What I think: Incredulity isn't a reason to accept a premise or reject a premise. At one point that there are irrational numbers was thought incredulous, yet it's been demonstrated that there are such numbers. Much of our discoveries were thought unbelievable -- until demonstrated that they had to be believed due to such and such evidence or argument.

Also, complexity isn't something unique to life. Computers are complicated, and inanimate. Cars are complicated and inanimate. M. C. Escher drawings are complicated and yet only drawings. The path a river follows is complicated, and the result of natural forces.

So it seems to me that complexity does not explain the "jump", or difference, between life and not-life.


Of course the creationist will point to the order of a river and human creation as ultimately deriving from the structure God imbues in creation.

The naturlaist will say: But it is, indeed, possible for order to arise out of meaningless chaos. Just look at evolution!

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.

The universe organizes itself— emergence, self catalysis, evolution, self organization. It’s not random. Some pathways have a much higher probability than others. Read up more on abiogenesis. Here’s one book that might be of interest—“What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology,” by Pross. Kind of pop sci. but made me think differently.

Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s not there to be got.

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. — kindred

Have you heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment ?

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.

f 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. — kindred

If I climb a ladder with a ball, and I drop the ball from the top of the ladder, and it falls to the ground, I would call that non-random behavior. Does that represent intelligent order? Are you saying that any order is intelligent order? Any pattern at all requires intentional action?

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.

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 ?

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

A rule says how things have to behave. A pattern says how things do behave. The world doesn’t have to behave in any particular way, but it does behave in a particular way. I don’t see why you need a god for that.

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. — kindred

Sure it's unbelievable, on its face. Why else would it take so much effort to demonstrate, and even after such demonstrations people's beliefs often persist?

It seems like it's designed. But I think this appearance is deceiving, and somewhat cherry-picked. If we look at the totality of all the universe we see that life does, in fact, seem rare. If abiogensis is unlikely we'd predict to see a universe devoid of life, and that's what most of the universe is: without life.

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

It's definitely appealing. Kant ranked it as the most natural argument for the existence of God.

But just like incredulity is not a reason to draw an inference an argument can be appealing and yet lead one to believe something false.

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.

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.

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.

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

I think the most sensible answer to this is that we don’t know as yet. A “God of the gaps” explanation, or an appeal to magic, while understandable, seems primitive and comes with its own problems. Since the idea of God is largely unknowable and arguably incoherent (depending on which of the many models one adopts), God has no real explanatory power. What does it actually mean to say “God did it”? It seems less like an explanation and more like an inscrutable placeholder that stops inquiry rather than advancing it.

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 ?

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. — kindred

I think this gets an understanding of scientific laws backwards: it isn't that there are laws to which we are approximating but rather we crave certainty and so law-like structures are appealing to us so we set out to find the law-like patterns that have arisen out of the chaos.

But they do not necessarily have to be this way, and we could in fact have them wrong. They aren't laws of the universe which particles must obey, but regularities we've observed so far which could turn out to be wrong.

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. — kindred

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.

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

You tell me.

The point of the argument is to prove that god exists by way of understanding the artefacts of creation such as life and intelligence. — kindred

For my money, the argument proves nothing, for the reasons I’ve already given. God is not really an explanation for anything. An explanation explains, by showing how or why something occurs. Saying “God did it” merely replaces the question with a supernatural label. It amounts to saying that a supernatural power, or magic, did it, which adds no explanatory content.

I imagine that the argument might work if you already believe gods are real.

The best you can say is "don't know." I am as suspicious of god being thrown into explanatory gaps as I am of the overreliance on evolution made it. Although evolution at least has an evidential basis.

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 underlying and always already existing pattern is to postulate the Devine as the final answer to what we are currently unable to answer. So even if the currently unanswerable question is eventually answered, we will then have a different unanswerable question to which the Devine will again be proposed as the final answer. And all of this is premised upon the notion that there must be a final answer, and we are capable of ascertaining that final answer. But if in fact we are not capable of ascertaining the final answer, then the Devine simply serves as a term attached to what we cannot answer and that in and of itself seems to drain the term of any real meaning. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

So wherein is the value of the Devine as answer?

I'm not a science guy. But I have never 'ruled in' god as a candidate explanation since it is bereft. The idea is incoherent and usually gets a work out when people don't know answers.

We can't rule out a natural cause of life and since there is pretty much zero evidence of supernatural entities, a natural cause seems more likely to me. But "don't know" are two words that should be used more often by more people.

If the yet to be explained can never be explained because it would be outside the remit of science — kindred

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, but that largely reflects a belief you already hold.

I would not say there is no god, because that claim can’t be demonstrated either.

But this question isn’t about god. It’s about whether life can, in principle, be explained by natural processes. At present, we simply don’t know, but lack of explanation now is not evidence of impossibility. And none of us here have any expertise on the lates scientific research into this matter.

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 one constant in the universe was off by the tiniest margin then the universe would be unstable. — kindred

What does that mean—unstable? A universe with different properties would be a different universe, not an unstable one. I don’t know how the underlying principles of our universe get established, but they had to be something, right? If I deal from a deck of cards, some hand has to come up. A royal straight flush in spades is exactly as likely as a two of clubs, seven of diamonds, queen of diamonds, five of hearts, and nine of spades. Neither is anything special unless we decide that they are for our own reasons. Those reasons are not the universe’s reasons.

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. — kindred

As I see it, this is a complete non-sequitur.

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.

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.

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) — kindred

A bit. Though I ought note that scientists have already ventured beyond "the big bang" in terms of physics and such.

Scientists don't stop.

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.

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.

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

You need to define what divine push is, and list the range of actions he/she can/does perform.