Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: NickK3
How intelligent life or consciousness came from an inorganic universe has always been a tough question.

But then life at the sublevels are inorganic processes, so once again humans invented the term organic to describe something that falls within the lines of what we call life, but then so does a match when you light it. We also need to understand that at one time humans had 100s of Gods to answer those old tough questions we once had. But but our God today is different... OK

Some modern quantum physics experiments may have started to show us that it didn't happen that way... Read Robert Lanza books on "Biocentrism", it is beginning to look like consciousness came first and created the inorganic universe for its own reasons... Actually makes more sense and is what religions have been telling us from the beginning of time...

I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying is in what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. I agree each of us create our own view of the universe within what we call consciousness, and when we die our universe ceases to exists for us.

Seven principles form the core of biocentrism. The first principle of biocentrism is based on the premise that what we observe is dependent on the observer, and says that what we perceive as reality is “a process that involves our consciousness.” The second and third principles state that “our external and internal perceptions are intertwined” and that the behavior of particles “is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer,” respectively. The fourth principle suggests that consciousness must exist and that without it “matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability.” The fifth principle points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life. Finally, the sixth and seventh principles state that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.”

Then again - the dichotomy of inorganic universe vs. organic biological life may be fallacious.

It is 'possible' that we as biological Humans perceive the universe as inorganic

- But the Universe may not as iorganic as it appears.

The Universe may possess biological elements that we have yet to perceive.

Organic life forms may be a natural part of a living Universe, inherint to the nature of the Universe

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: NickK3
How intelligent life or consciousness came from an inorganic universe has always been a tough question.

But then life at the sublevels are inorganic processes, so once again humans invented the term organic to describe something that falls within the lines of what we call life, but then so does a match when you light it. We also need to understand that at one time humans had 100s of Gods to answer those old tough questions we once had. But but our God today is different... OK

Some modern quantum physics experiments may have started to show us that it didn't happen that way... Read Robert Lanza books on "Biocentrism", it is beginning to look like consciousness came first and created the inorganic universe for its own reasons... Actually makes more sense and is what religions have been telling us from the beginning of time...

I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying is in what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. I agree each of us create our own view of the universe within what we call consciousness, and when we die our universe ceases to exists for us.

Seven principles form the core of biocentrism. The first principle of biocentrism is based on the premise that what we observe is dependent on the observer, and says that what we perceive as reality is “a process that involves our consciousness.” The second and third principles state that “our external and internal perceptions are intertwined” and that the behavior of particles “is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer,” respectively. The fourth principle suggests that consciousness must exist and that without it “matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability.” The fifth principle points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life. Finally, the sixth and seventh principles state that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.”

Yes, poor choice of words on my part as "came first" make little sense outside of time.

But as you say, "space and time are forms of animal sense perception" (consciousness) then it begs the question :

How did something (space and time) forms of perception (consciousness) create perception (consciousness)?

a reply to: NickK3

Stoned ape theory is generally the simplest answer to that puzzle.

originally posted by: NickK3


But as you say, "space and time are forms of animal sense perception" (consciousness) then it begs the question :

How did something (space and time) forms of perception (consciousness) create perception (consciousness)?

Very good point. It makes more sense that a conscious being made space and time as it’s material interface, rather than the space-time interface randomly generating a conscious entity to inhabit it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NickK3


But as you say, "space and time are forms of animal sense perception" (consciousness) then it begs the question :

How did something (space and time) forms of perception (consciousness) create perception (consciousness)?

Very good point. It makes more sense that a conscious being made space and time as it’s material interface, rather than the space-time interface randomly generating a conscious entity to inhabit it.

Exactly, you would like Robert Lanza'a "Biocentrism : how life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe"

It turns out that the famous "Double Slit" Quantum physics experiment and a later discovery that shows atoms that we know are always moving, Stop when directly observed... All seem to suggest that our observation is the "thing" that makes our universe solid or real at all, fascinating stuff, especially since the oldest religions on Earth seem to suggest the same thing!

It's available as a free pdf download....

originally posted by: AlienView
Give one reason, any reason, for the occurrence of biological life in a universe that shows no signs of organic life in its infrastructure.

Please don't take the easy way out and say random chance occurrence - Unless you can show how a random chance occurrence can produce
an organic life form that can breathe and reproduce,

Let me make clear this is a 'I want to know' post - I have no particular agenda and am not trying to advocate a Creationist or Evolutionary viewpoint.

So please use facts and not wishfull thinking.

If you start with a physical Universe that does not have biological or organic lfe in it - What are the odds of living, breathing, breeding
biological life forms occurring

the way i see it life is just a consequence of energy interacting, all we are is energy consumers that use the energy we consume to make more energy until eventually that energy damages us too much to keep functioning, that's why we reproduce, so we can keep consuming energy to make energy, everything we do creates and consumes energy until it burns us out, creating dysfunction that eventually overwhelms us, after dying that energy that is feelings, instinct, thoughts, etc, which life creates is then consumed by the universe, i argue the universe is organic as can be.

a reply to: NickK3

Yeah they’ve consistently tried to falsify the double slit experiment but it holds up and has been proven that consciousness is the variable that can determine a probabilistic waveform. “We are the light of the world”.

Also the cosmic microwave background is symmetric around our solar plane, further demonstrating the idea of biocentrism on the macro scale. We are the center of the observable universe because the observable universe is oriented around consciousness! Reminds me of something Jesus is recorded saying in the gnostic texts:

“Oh blessed Thomas, of course this visible light shines on your behalf, not that you may stay here.. but so you may come forth. And when all the elect abandon materiality the light will bring them into its essence.”

originally posted by: NickK3

How did something (space and time) forms of perception (consciousness) create perception (consciousness)?

What is the consciousness of a tree or a single-cell organism? Once again we are just faking ourselves out making something seem bigger than it is. A good book to read is called The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Our perception of the universe and everything in it is created within our brain that fakes us out most of the time due to the limitations we have.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

What is the consciousness of a tree or a single-cell organism? Once again we are just faking ourselves out making something seem bigger than it is.

Trees provide food and clean air for conscious beings. They are an important part of the creation.

Single-cellled organisms are also necessary for proper biological function as well as decomposition of dead organisms back into a usable form

Perhaps you're faking yourself into thinking you're irrelevant when in fact you do have a purpose.

originally posted by: cooperton

Trees provide food and clean air for conscious beings. They are an important part of the creation.

Single-cellled organisms are also necessary for proper biological function as well as decomposition of dead organisms back into a usable form

Perhaps you're faking yourself into thinking you're irrelevant when in fact you do have a purpose.

Everything has a purpose in an eco system, that is how things evolve. All life is related at many levels in that evolutionary process. If life wasn't related then I would say intelligent design, because life would not have evolved and so would have been just created without millions of years of all cohabitating within a system.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Everything has a purpose in an eco system, that is how things evolve. All life is related at many levels in that evolutionary process. If life wasn't related then I would say intelligent design, because life would not have evolved and so would have been just created without millions of years of all cohabitating within a system.

All life is related in the sense that we were created to cohabit the environment designed for each organism. Fish are perfectly designed for the ocean. birds are perfectly designed for flight.

The detail that is required for their genomes to function and create the proper biochemistry in these organisms is a masterful work of organic code that could not have happened by random chance. It would be more likely for an apple computer and the entire iOS operating system to generate itself from scratch by random chance. It's impossible. Living organisms are far more complex than our computer coding.

originally posted by: cooperton

All life is related in the sense that we were created to cohabit the environment designed for each organism. Fish are perfectly designed for the ocean. birds are perfectly designed for flight.

That is like the most BS statement I have ever read to suggest intelligent design...lol Your answer to it all is "that is how God wanted it to be" end of story while we could write a lifetime of volumes on why life evolves as it does.

It's impossible. Living organisms are far more complex than our computer coding.

So says someone who doesn't understand how it can be possible. Complexity has got to be the poorest proof of God, sorry to say. We have used 100s of Gods in the past based on the same thing of explaining complexity. Today we know a lot more now so we have just a few Gods so to speak to continue to pile the unknown into their bucket.

a reply to: cooperton

All life is related in the sense that we were created to cohabit the environment designed for each organism. Fish are perfectly designed for the ocean. birds are perfectly designed for flight.

Interesting premise.

The detail that is required for their genomes to function and create the proper biochemistry in these organisms is a masterful work of organic code that could not have happened by random chance. It would be more likely for an apple computer and the entire iOS operating system to generate itself from scratch by random chance. It's impossible. Living organisms are far more complex than our computer coding.

“According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.”

originally posted by: TzarChasm

“According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.”

The biggest issue I see with the intelligent design hypothesis is that everything is looked at its end state to start and then looked backwards saying it is impossible. As example, what are the chances of humans being are here today? If we made that prediction 4 billion years ago then yes I would say the odds are so great that only something like intelligent design would make it possible.

But that really isn't the case or how we should look at things. If instead of looking at current life backwards we need to look from 4 billion years ago forwards and say life will be there in 4 billion years, but we will not dictate to what that life will be. Now the odds are greatly in favor of happening and life will be what life becomes. Humans just happened to be one of those billions of species that have come and gone on our planet and we too one day will go just as all species end up doing unless we can break the cycle and do our own thing outside of evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

“According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.”

Don't know who you're quoting but stating a rather obvious myth/false story and falsehood as if it's a fact/reality/truth in one's argument or point doesn't really drive home the point very well. Nor does it help your case for philosophical naturalism and believing in the impossible (including that which has already been conclusively proven to be impossible). See video below, no need to watch beyond 5:16 (and you can skip the first 22 seconds):

Talking about the ingenious design of the bumblebee's flight control:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The biggest issue I see with the intelligent design hypothesis is that everything is looked at its end state to start and then looked backwards saying it is impossible.

According to known thermodynamic laws, we do know it is not possible for DNA monomers to polymerize into chains in water without enzymatic catalysis. Thermodynamically, It is as absurd as supposing fire will not ignite gasoline.

Unless you want to make an appeal that thermodynamic laws worked oppositely long ago, there is no physically possible way for DNA, RNA, or amino acid monomers to polymerize in water

As example, what are the chances of humans being are here today? If we made that prediction 4 billion years ago then yes I would say the odds are so great that only something like intelligent design would make it possible.

The odds of intelligent life existing due to random chances is astronomically less likely than it existing due to an intelligent creator. If I see a computer I know an intelligent mind designed it, I would never think it must have emerged from random chance.

originally posted by: cooperton


According to known thermodynamic laws, we do know it is not possible for DNA monomers to polymerize into chains in water without enzymatic catalysis. Thermodynamically, It is as absurd as supposing fire will not ignite gasoline.

Unless you want to make an appeal that thermodynamic laws worked oppositely long ago, there is no physically possible way for DNA, RNA, or amino acid monomers to polymerize in water

No appeal is needed. There are many articles out there that provide pathways to the type of watery solutions that would allow for polymerization. So yes dumping it all in normal H2O you can not get polymerization, but that isn't what anyone but you and a few creationism articles talk about. Your impossibility is only based on that you can not accept it.

This all goes back to my point of 100s of Gods with 1 created for everything we didn't understand, and now you have 1 for the same purpose.

The odds of intelligent life existing due to random chances is astronomically less likely than it existing due to an intelligent creator. If I see a computer I know an intelligent mind designed it, I would never think it must have emerged from random chance.

Once again we are back to odds, and no matter how I explain it you just do not get it, or maybe you just ignore it all since it doesn't fit your narrative. We see a wide range of intelligence in life and so a few would be at the top no matter how dumb they may be. Its like suggesting because the Cheetah is the fastest then its because of God and the fact is there will always be the fastest and also the smartest. The funny part is maybe we are the smartest in our little puddle we call earth but throw us in the vast oceans we call the universe and we might be compared to a bug as other intelligent life looks at us, and the Cheetah might be their Sloth, or are you suggesting we are where it all stops.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

No appeal is needed. There are many articles out there that provide pathways to the type of watery solutions that would allow for polymerization. So yes dumping it all in normal H2O you can not get polymerization, but that isn't what anyone but you and a few creationism articles talk about. Your impossibility is only based on that you can not accept it.

The impossibility is due to thermodynamic laws, that's why there's no experiment that shows this leap being possible. Even in an acidic environment where polymerization is more favorable, this same acidity will denature the resulting protein rendering it useless. There's no way around it, these polymers need enzymatic catalysis. This is not to mention that many of the major proteins need to be properly folded in a chaperone protein even after they're properly polymerized

Sure you can hope that one day they find a way around it, and that is some strong faith you have. It is sadly faith in a dead-end nihilist theory

Once again we are back to odds, and no matter how I explain it you just do not get it, or maybe you just ignore it all since it doesn't fit your narrative.

you're going to argue that organized systems are more likely to have come by random chance than intelligent design? Take a motor for example. ATP synthase is a biological protein that acts like a motor... surely one can assume, just as you would if you saw a car motor, that it did not come to be by random chance.

The only reason you believe against the odds that biological motors came to be by random chance is because you were raised in a society that propagandizes evolutionary theory and abiogenesis to the masses. Evolutionary theory is not based in science, otherwise you could show the empirical data that demonstrates a population of an organism can change into something distinctly new, or empirical data that shows life emerging from non-living monomers. There is no data to lucidly show this is possible. It is faith-based and quite a worthless theory in terms of ontological benefit

originally posted by: cooperton
The impossibility is due to thermodynamic laws

So the one thing on our universe that is impossible is this thing we call life, but here it is and most likely in abundance when conditions are right. But hey, we need the finger of God to make it happen... We have no clue to what that even means too. Some magical force to wish life into existence. For you it is even a worst scenario in you believe all life magically appeared in their current forms as if God just plays around and splashes life where ever he feels like it. So when was the last time some form of new life just popped into existence? We will also need at least a minimum viable population amount to prevent all kinds of nasty events. I'm waiting for a new herd of like 1000 animals of a total new species to magically appear on the plains of Africa.

you're going to argue that organized systems are more likely to have come by random chance than intelligent design?

It is not random chance as much as the end result is not predetermined. If we ran the last billion years on earth we would have 1 billion different scenarios of life here and humans would only be in one of them. Chemical processes are not random, but the direction of where life goes is.