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

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.

I think it’s magnificent either way divine intervention or completely naturalistic — kindred

Oh, yes. Definitely. I love science because of this magnificence.

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. — kindred

I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm sure you're surprised ;)

Yes, it is like winning the lottery multiple times in a row. That's improbable and possible. And such is life from my perspective -- though there is a physics theory I've run across that tries to demonstrate that life is inevitable (even if it's rare).

Given an infinite universe the unbelievably unlikely will happen at least one time, though. (and if it's truly infinite, it will happen an infinite number of times)

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

So, what is the nature and origin of some sort of divine who pushed to get things started i.e. where does the divine itself come from, and how did he find out the right conditions and chemistry for life? What was the divine's intention / motive for providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen?

If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive?

If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive? — Corvus

Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process.

Given an infinite universe the unbelievably unlikely will happen at least one time, though. (and if it's truly infinite, it will happen an infinite number of times) — Moliere

Everything that happens was once almost infinitely unlikely. What are the odds of a flipped coin coming up heads 10,000 times in a row? If you flip a coin 10,000 times, whatever sequence of heads and tails occurs was equally unlikely before the first flip. But some sequence will always occur.

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

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

Can you explain how you know this is true. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

The OP is trying to say, intelligence and life originally was started by a pre-existing intelligent life. Internally illogical.

A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it’s possible to even form atoms. Yet not only has our Universe neither recollapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/19/the-universe-really-is-fine-tuned-and-our-existence-is-the-proof/

If you read the article it says something along the lines of what I am saying

Either that or life and intelligence developed by itself unaided. Does not appear feasible given the odds of going from non life to life. A helping hand in the form of a pre existing intelligence would explain why intelligence exists today.

Life could not have developed at all which leads me to think it had a helping hand to get it kickstarted.

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

Ok, we can start here. Where did you learn about the idea of a divine intelligence? From a book right? But it was a book written by people that didn't have any knowledge of anatomy beyond the basics, no modern medicine, no electricity, no university system, etc. Why do you think that book has any authority? Because it said it did? Think about that for a minute.

Now, lets look at the modern theory of evolution. Its backed by carefully recorded observations and countless tests. It even invites you to doubt it. It does not assert, "Evolution is real, and you are evil for doubting it." It says, "Here's the evidence, check it out and see if it holds up." Have you read and understood the modern theory of evolution beyond the basic high school introduction? Read up on it, understand it, and even challenge it here. Then we'll see if you still hold onto the belief that its improbable.

There are (I guess) a nearly infinite number of configurations a universe could take on. Each one would be (I guess) just as likely as any other. We just happen to live in a Royal straight flush of a universe, i.e. one where human life could evolve. If it hadn’t worked out that way, there’d be nobody around to wonder, or at least nobody like us.

As for the article you linked, my understanding of what it said is that, although the universe is fine tuned, it was not tuned by something from the outside. It was tuned by itself.

But begs an explanation of the origin story of the divine hand.

Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process. — Ecurb

If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. If evolution were true, humans should have wings to fly around the cities and some other physical features combating environmental pollution. No such things can be noticed.

Life could not have developed at all which leads me to think it had a helping hand to get it kickstarted. — kindred

You need to define what intelligent life is. You also need to clarify the origin and nature of the divine being who pushed intelligent life into being.

If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. — Corvus

Here in the U.S., we've become fatter.

Here in the U.S., we've become fatter. — Ecurb

I appreciate what you mean. But it is not a result of evolution. Could it be the effect of bad diet, no exercise and too much television watching?

Just wondering where intelligence and life came from in the universe. I hold to the theory that it evolved in the natural world on its own however I believe it was given an initial push or spark by a divine force. — kindred

The theory of Creation, from a supernatural source, is older than Genesis. But since the 17th century, most secular scientists have assumed, without evidence, that our Nature, our world, is eternal. Yet in the 20th century, a few astronomers & cosmologists set out to turn-back the clock of Nature as far as it would go. The result of that empirical experiment, and others since, indicated that the Cosmic Clock mysteriously started ticking at Time Zero, about 14billion earth-years ago . . . for no apparent reason. Which raised two questions : a> who or what wound-up and started the clock, and b> what existed in the time-before-time?

There are two non-supernatural answers : a> No-one and b> Nothing. Empirical Science cannot function without physical evidence. And the available evidence does not provide any support, beyond the so-called Big Bang Barrier to research, for the functional mathematical concepts of Eternity or Infinity. Hence, your Scientific curiosity should not extend beyond the physical evidence of Nature. And, in the absence of physical cycles, the notion of Time is non-sense.

However, Philosophical curiosity has never been solely about Concrete Physical Reality, but also about Meta-Physical Ideality, where only Abstract Ideas and Platonic Forms exist. So, thought-experiments can go where empirical Science cannot. And your conjectural hypothesis, of an initial spark-like initial condition, is just as valid as any other. For example, the Bang Theory presupposes both Causal Energy (low entropy) and Limiting Laws (information & principles). Such hypotheses are supported not by physical evidence, but by rational argument, such as necessity. And, as we see on this forum, philosophical arguments can go on forever : "time without end, amen".

I too, assume, without hard evidence, that Life & Mind evolved naturally in our cyclical time-bound world. But philosophers, as far back as 10,000 years (Hinduism) reasoned that our cycling Life & Death planet must have some more stable eternal foundation. So, they imagined and postulated a timeless ultimate-reality underlying all phenomena. For them, "Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality".

Of course, there is no empirical evidence to be found within physical Nature for such a Super-natural "divine force". So, you will have to accept that theory on Faith, not in God or Bible, but in your own Powers of Reason. And others can reject it, on the same basis. But, the notion of Abiogenesis is more accessible to empirical evidence. And we can discuss that in another post. :smile: