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.