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:

I do not deny evolution at all. I just believe that the emergence of intelligence in this universe has a precedent, that is a prior intelligence was what set the initial conditions for life to emerge then from that moment onwards evolution occurred. I think it’s worth pointing out that a lot of things had to be right for the first chemicals to react and combine with each other to enable ever increasing complexity when it came to the creation of life.


The alternative is that intelligent life has no prior precedent and is in fact the first time it has emerged in the world. I find this difficult to accept because it would in fact be easier to posit a pre-existing intelligence (divine) from which the current one sprang from.

Ok, we can start here. Where did you learn about the idea of a divine intelligence?

Just personal intuition but I do not believe in scripture or holy books as they have no godly authority having been written by man.

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. — Corvus

Intelligent life is that which is aware, can adapt, problem solve and make choices.

@LuckyR
Nature of the divine on the other hand would only lead me to speculate but it closely resembles the definition of God. As for the origin of god it has no inception or origin as those are mostly mortal terms but something eternal having no past or beginning.

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: — Gnomon

You’re right there isn’t but nature exhibits intelligence in its design so this constitute evidence of a higher power.

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) — Moliere

Is proof not in the pudding though, by analogy if there’s a pudding does that not entail a pudding maker ? Or do you hold to the idea that pudding just resulted from a random combination of ingredients in just the right way.

I’m of the idea that life was created by a prior life force or at least initially then evolution was afterwards let to run its course creating all sorts of varieties of life.

If you were to discover a watch on a sandy beach would you not assume that watch had a watchmaker? In fact it’s easier to accept a watchmaker rather than the watch being assembled on its own.

Or do you hold to the idea that pudding just resulted from a random combination of ingredients in just the right way. — kindred

Something along those lines though I don't want to put the onus on "ingredients" as if there's a material world with powers invested in it and these powers manifest due to particular combinations of atoms. That strikes me as being too close to an essence which matter possesses. It does appear to me that life is not like a watch, though. The evidence thus far indicates that most life dies out and the lucky winners -- if they are in fact lucky and not miserable -- are selected by environmental pressures beyond our abilities.

So rather than looking at nature as if it has powers or structures or even causes I see it as absurd, uncaring, and without intrinsic meaning. We draw patterns on the arising chaos because we are the meaning-makers of this environment. By finding patterns our species has gone into overshoot -- so we are soon to see if this capacity for creating meaning will, in fact, be as advantageous to our evolutionary future as we tend to believe or if it will be our downfall.

If you were to discover a watch on a sandy beach would you not assume that watch had a watchmaker? In fact it’s easier to accept a watchmaker rather than the watch being assembled on its own. — kindred

I think once you start getting down into the details of life it becomes difficult to believe species were "designed" for anything at all. There are absurd cruelties all throughout nature which explain why we see the diversity of life that we do.

I think life is like a song and wherever there’s a song there must have been a singer. That is my views on life… with the singer being the divine force. You don’t necessarily have to assume one with the other though nor does it point to the cause as being the divine force. Your view is that the melody or song just happened to have manifest and no singer is required.

I understand this point of view. It is credible but incredible for a song to exist without a singer.

I guess this comes down to the teleological argument of which I’m a proponent of here. Sure nature is capable of creating wonders blindly and beautiful birdsong too. But the orders of magnitude of non organic matter to the emergence of a human being with eyes ears and other senses able to navigate its environment just screams towards a divinity of some sort. I think that’s what it would take to animate matter to life … nature on its own without any prior divine spark wouldn’t be able to create this … the world would have just remained lifeless but the fact that it hasn’t points toward the divine.

In my eyes this is a strong and compelling argument towards the existence of god whose nature I can only speculate.

You’re right there isn’t but nature exhibits intelligence in its design so this constitute evidence of a higher power. — kindred

Intelligent Design*1 is a touchy subject on this forum, and is often denigrated as Pseudoscience. But I prefer to label the hypothesis of a pre-Bang Creator as Idealistic Philosophy. For thousands of years, philosophers have postulated an eternal source to explain our temporal world : e.g Brahman*2. And philosophy is based not on physical evidence, but on logical consistency.

For those who infer evidence of Natural Laws, a supernatural lawmaker is a logical corollary. But some view the randomness of Entropy as evidence of "undirected natural processes". And yet, there is no scientific theory to explain how random events could accidentally produce such anti-entropy effects as Life & Mind in the time (less than infinity) allowed by cosmological evidence. That's why some thinkers reject BB theory, and propose their own eternal Multiverse theories, unsupported by empirical evidence.

So, for now, we have a stand-off between contradictory non-empirical conclusions based on abstract reasoning. Such discrepancies guide some thinkers to the perceived necessity for a direct revelation from that "higher power". Hence, we have a plethora of divine scriptures*3a, and personal communications*3b from the higher power. Clearly, the notion of Intelligent Design has a muddled history, and contradictory beliefs & practices.

I suppose that's why another kind of intelligent process has become popular, even among some secular scientists : various forms of Panpsychism*4 and Pantheism. Therefore, as a philosopher, you can take your pick-of-the-crop of "Higher Powers" to serve as your favorite creator or "designer". Those who chose one-or-the-other of these may be considered as Kindred Spirits. Consider me confused. But I do have my own private hypothesis to explain the emergence of intelligence in our little corner of the universe. :smile:



*1. Intelligent Design (ID) is the pseudoscientific concept that certain features of the universe and living things are too complex to have arisen by undirected natural processes like evolution, instead requiring an "intelligent cause," often implying a supernatural creator, though ID proponents typically avoid naming the designer,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intelligent+design

*2. Brahman is described as the unchanging "primordial reality" that creates, sustains, and ultimately withdraws the universe within itself, the final element in a dialectical process which cannot be eliminated or annihilated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

*3a. Divine scriptures are sacred texts revered as the word of God or foundational spiritual wisdom across various religions, including the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), Torah (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Quran (Islam). [you may add Book of Mormon, and many others to this short list]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=list+of+divine+scriptures
*3b. Note --- Even within each of those ancient traditions, there are off-shoot scriptures (Mormon) and Mystical practices that "prioritize direct, personal experiences of ultimate reality, inner intuition, or ecstatic visions over established religious texts or dogmas".

*4. Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness, mind, or soul is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of all physical matter, rather than a unique product of complex brains.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Panpsychism

Intelligent life is that which is aware, can adapt, problem solve and make choices. — kindred

Amoebas can be aware of the type of water and depth of water they are in, can adapt for different temperatures of the water, and can solve problems in their navigating to different places in the water making choices which way to move to. Are Amoebas intelligent life?

The alternative is that intelligent life has no prior precedent and is in fact the first time it has emerged in the world. I find this difficult to accept because it would in fact be easier to posit a pre-existing intelligence (divine) from which the current one sprang from. — kindred

Why would it be easier? If there's a prior intelligence that had to evolve, it would face the same exact problems we would if it was us who were first. And is a view point that makes a problem easier more important that what's more accurate and true?

I just believe that the emergence of intelligence in this universe has a precedent, that is a prior intelligence was what set the initial conditions for life to emerge then from that moment onwards evolution occurred. — kindred

If a prior intelligence existed, then it would be life. Unless you're talking about an unliving intelligence, which doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe the universe had chat GPT before life, but that seems even less likely. :)

I think it’s worth pointing out that a lot of things had to be right for the first chemicals to react and combine with each other to enable ever increasing complexity when it came to the creation of life. — kindred

Correct, but you're missing the fact that that intelligence that emerged would have the same difficulties. It would have to be alive too.

Just personal intuition but I do not believe in scripture or holy books as they have no godly authority having been written by man. — kindred

And it would be ok if you did. I don't hold any animosity to faith or different ideas about the universe. Is intuition alone enough to stake a claim on though? Or do we need something rational to back our intuition so we don't fall into a mistaken conclusion? There is nothing wrong with having an intuition, but can you rationally conclude anything beyond that intuition that makes it more likely that there was a prior intelligence that set up today's modern day intelligences?