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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

You all keep adding what we humans think to it all, not what it all actually is. We make crap up and think it is for some reason physical reality. We think things are complex because we want to think that, when the reality is everything is complex whether intelligent design, or random.

Humans are organic supercomputers capable of self-awareness, logic, emotions, self-repair, replication, encephalization, and so on. So yeah we're not just carbon. Coal is mostly just carbon. Humans are wayy different.

We already think things are complex, and yet we still have barely brushed the surface of biological mechanisms.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Respectfully, that kind of power is a pestilence regardless of who wields it and for what purpose.

It's not a pestilence if the One who possesses that power is perfect and omniscient.

a reply to: cooperton

One of the classic signs of pestilence is claiming to be perfect and omniscient. It is a disease of the mind, often accompanied with violent temper and impulsive behavior because there's no punishment for being wrong. That's what zero accountability gets you.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

One of the classic signs of pestilence is claiming to be perfect and omniscient. It is a disease of the mind, often accompanied with violent temper and impulsive behavior because there's no punishment for being wrong. That's what zero accountability gets you.

If there is no idealism then there is no objective. If there is no objective then there's no point in wasting your time debating anything

This is why these conversations with you always become a merry-go-round

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

To be clear from the start: I'm an atheist. However, EVERYTHING was created by some form of intelligence. None of this is randomly occurring. To get a solid picture of this, I'd start with 3 books:

The Simulation Hypothesis and The Simulated Universe by Rizwan Virk
Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen C. Meyer

Something is, or at least was, at the helm of creation. I do not believe that there is a god in the religious sense -- i.e. one that cares for us, punishes us, sets forth rules. Being a creator doesn't mean that he/she/it is a benevolent, loving being. BUT, the science is undeniable that none of this could exist without a creator. It's possible that "god" is the being who programmed all of this, which would then explain every paranormal phenomenon.

On a humorous side-note that has nothing to do with your question, I ordered the first 2 by amazon. They were delivered to my front door (the driver posted a picture), I later got home and the package had been stolen. Two days later, the box was returned opened and clearly "reviewed" with the 2 books on simulation theory unharmed. LOL.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

One of the classic signs of pestilence is claiming to be perfect and omniscient. It is a disease of the mind, often accompanied with violent temper and impulsive behavior because there's no punishment for being wrong. That's what zero accountability gets you.

If there is no idealism then there is no objective. If there is no objective then there's no point in wasting your time debating anything

Perfection and omiscience are not ideals, they are vices, typically because those are "at any cost" qualities. That's a premise worthy of debate.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

Stay tuned - I'm planing on starting a post on "Evolutionary Intelligent Design" - You may like it, most of the regualars on this subject will not. They can't seem to grasp a higher intelligence without saying it needs to be a god.

Also, both Albert Einstein and Max Planck [Relativity and Quantum Mechanics] were both sort of Agnostic
- They didn't believe in a god in a religious sesnse but in their philosophical writings seem to accept a sort of higher order of intelligence.

In that case, shouldn't we be asking who created the creators?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
In that case, shouldn't we be asking who created the creators?

God is unbegotten, meaning He never needed to be created because He always existed. This Is what Alpha-Omega means.

a reply to: Kreeate

Or supreme beings, I’ve often wondered about the simulation hypothesis. It could be our reality is the result of more than one entity, a whole civilisation of them perhaps. It’s scary to think creation could have simply been an alien child powering on his latest gadget.

Our mythical tales might not be as far away from the truth as we think. Certainly no human being can claim with any certainty the answer to the question regarding the existence of God. We do however have the right and obligation to ask it, the greatest of all enduring mysteries.

a reply to: Grenade


I think trying to Understand God would be like having a floppy disk worth available memory trying to cram a super computers zigabytes of memory

We may get pack man, But GTA33 is a nono

Inconceivable

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Visiting ESB

Stay tuned - I'm planing on starting a post on "Evolutionary Intelligent Design" - You may like it, most of the regualars on this subject will not. They can't seem to grasp a higher intelligence without saying it needs to be a god.

Also, both Albert Einstein and Max Planck [Relativity and Quantum Mechanics] were both sort of Agnostic
- They didn't believe in a god in a religious sesnse but in their philosophical writings seem to accept a sort of higher order of intelligence.

How did this higher intelligence develop? Did some other intelligence design them? If so, then where did that other intelligence come from?

Pretty soon one of these turtles will be standing up on their own (i.e., develop on their own) without being on the back of another turtle.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
In that case, shouldn't we be asking who created the creators?

God is unbegotten, meaning He never needed to be created because He always existed. This Is what Alpha-Omega means.

A car has to be assembled, but tornadoes don't just accidentally pick up a scrap yard and drop a functional Lamborghini so they built a robot that assembles cars. But the robot couldn't build itself same way a car can't, so they needed an engineer to design it. But humans don't just mutate from primate predecessors, so they have to be created. So God couldn't just spawn or "perpetually exist" for the same reason as cars and assembly robots and humans. He either follows the rule of intelligent creation or he is proof that intelligent creation isn't the rule.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
In that case, shouldn't we be asking who created the creators?

God is unbegotten, meaning He never needed to be created because He always existed. This Is what Alpha-Omega means.

Why do you not question that logic as much as you do anything natural? Or, to put it another way, why is the supernatural unquestionable fact in your eyes?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

A car has to be assembled, but tornadoes don't just accidentally pick up a scrap yard and drop a functional Lamborghini so they built a robot that assembles cars. But the robot couldn't build itself same way a car can't, so they needed an engineer to design it. But humans don't just mutate from primate predecessors, so they have to be created. So God couldn't just spawn or "perpetually exist" for the same reason as cars and assembly robots and humans. He either follows the rule of intelligent creation or he is proof that intelligent creation isn't the rule.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Why do you not question that logic as much as you do anything natural? Or, to put it another way, why is the supernatural unquestionable fact in your eyes?

The source creator being unbegotten, meaning He was never created, surpasses the something-from-nothing paradox as well. Since something cannot come from nothing, then something must have always existed. These Divine beings are above temporal limitations. It's also the best explanation I can think of that would explain the source of intelligent constructs. Plato came to the same conclusion and has a very convincing dialogue on the matter if you're interested.

originally posted by: wdkirk
Organic life is a virus in an otherwise sterile environment.

Going to the heart of the question, yep. How dey do dat lol

Molten hot spinning ball becoming home to organic life.

All the building blocks would have had to be present, or at least in a form that could be compounded into a usable form. Slow step by slow step.

A planet devoid of "Soil". Where do you get soil? Where do you get seed? step by step.

But first, you need the information packets delivered to the barren planet. Information packets known as DNA. How does it get here? The short answer, inspiration.

Planets, are the fruit of the galaxy, and life, the nekter.

You can basically rule out physical craft making the journey here, though, short trips might be possible, but when the distances are measured in hundreds or even thousands of light years away from the source, impractical. Though, just on the other side of this physical reality is that spiritual domain, we know virtually nothing of. To our human mind it is incomprehensible but at the same time, would be the logical answer, as to where those "Packets" came from. And, it would only take a "Touch" "Inspiration, to get the ball rolling. A touch, from the source.....

You crazy WLo's lol

The universe is infinite , the table of elements is present everywhere.

Uniquely organic life has emerged on Planet Earth , therefore life can emerge anywhere in the Universe if the necessary conditions are present.

Organic life is a condition of physical compositions of interacting elements .

Humans and their Gods have no part in it .

to: AlienView

originally posted by: Protein
Uniquely organic life has emerged on Planet Earth , therefore life can emerge anywhere in the Universe if the necessary conditions are present.

I've often wondered why those who wish to believe that "life has emerged on Planet Earth" by chance and the forces of nature exclusively, do not seem to recognize the circular reasoning in that argument (and I'm not talking about those who have been most succesful in promoting this argument and convincing their flocks that it's a good argument, or solid reasoning; cause I think these are quite aware of what they're doing and using here, once your audience is there to have their ears tickled as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4, they don't really recognize any flaws in the argumentation, even the obvious ones, it's the same way with desperate people being sold snake-oil as a cure, they want to believe the arguments are sound, so they are more easily tricked because of their desperation for a cure for whatever ails them). Perhaps it helps if you include the cause for this emergence in the argument so that it becomes more obvious.

You claim that life can emerge anywhere in the universe by chance and as an effect of the forces of nature acting upon matter and energy over time (if the necessary conditions are present), because you believe (and claim) that that's the way it happened on earth (the shorter less detailed way to describe that idea is to say that life emerged spontaneously, a.k.a. "spontaneous generation", others have used descriptions such as 'life emerged by itself'). But there is no evidence that that's the way it happened on earth (our mere existence is simply not evidence that it happened this particular way, by these causal factors that I added now to the argument for clarity), so it's a circular argument to say that it can happen that way anywhere in the universe if the right confitions are present because according to you it happened that way on earth (while the evidence from the fields of chemistry, biology, geology and physics actually shows that it could not happen that way on earth or anywhere else in the universe*; but besides that, the burden of proof that it is even possible is on the one claiming or arguing that it happened that way, and should not be simply shrugged off by arguing that if given enough time, anything can happen, which also isn't true and has never been proven to be true, it's just a blind belief and a desperate claim in support of impossible fantasies). To extend your argument to the rest of the universe you first have to prove that it happened that way on earth, rather than arguing as if those who hear your argument will just go along with that assumption (of course those who want to believe that the emergence of life by chance and the forces of nature exclusively is not only possible but even the inevitable result of how the forces of nature operate, would not object or point this out; and that's where this circular argument comes from).

*: the evidence from the fields of chemistry, biology, geology and physics that I was talking about is discussed here:

Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance?

Can Life Arise by Chance?

...

IMPOSSIBILITIES NO DETERRENT

There are literally thousands of pitfalls for the evolutionary theory, en route from a primitive atmosphere, bombarded by lightning or radiation, to a one-celled living organism able to reproduce itself. Every competent scientist knows this. He knows that the many speculations advanced to evade these pitfalls are inadequate. Laws governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous generation of life. Mathematical laws of probability doom its chances.

The simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. However, some contend that, theoretically, one might get by with 124 such proteins. What are the chances of one of these proteins of 400 “left-handed” amino acids forming from a mixture of both “right-” and “left-handed” ones? One chance in 10^120 (1 followed by 120 zeros). [whereislogic: it's actually 0 if you consider all the obstacles that need to be overcome, but their granting a bit of leeway to the story of spontaneous generation, a.k.a. the chemical evolution of life by chance, here. As they do in the rest of the evaluation of this storyline. Cause for example, functional proteins are not going to form from amino acids without the necessary machinery for both assembly and folding them in the right shape so they do not malfunction in terms of the preservation of life and maintaining homeostasis in a living cell. Incorrectly folded proteins will aggregate and cause major malfunctions (in living organisms resulting in disease and cell death).]

However, for this nonexistent cell 124 proteins are needed. What are the chances of spontaneously forming that many, all from “left-handed” molecules? One chance in 10^14,880. But these amino acids cannot be tied together just indiscriminately; they must be in the right sequence. To get these 124 proteins, averaging 400 “left-handed” amino acids each, with the acids in the correct sequence, the chances are 1 in 10^79,360. If we wrote out this last number in full (1 followed by 79,360 zeros), it would take about 20 pages of this magazine to do it! Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed. And that number could be written in less than two of these lines.

Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that ‘existing terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory for sound chemical reasons,’ and that ‘life did not originate on earth itself but, rather, on comets.’ Others grit their teeth and believe in spite of the lack of evidence. Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald stated: “One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are​—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation.” [whereislogic: notice the circular reasoning again, because his beliefs demand that it happened that way, he uses our mere existence as his reason for believing that's how we got here, not because it's an actual possibility or even that the evidence is pointing in that direction.] On his own admission, he believes in the impossible. This kind of reasoning is comparable to that of an earlier biologist, D. H. Watson, who said that evolution was “universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

ARE YOU GULLIBLE OR LOGICAL?

Having no other foundation, writers on evolution stoop to the tyranny of authority: ‘All scientists of consequence believe it; no reputable biologist doubts it; informed persons don’t question it; all intelligent persons accept it; only those with religious prejudice reject it; it has been proved many times over; no further proof is needed now.’ So, on and on go the pressuring and the brainwashing.

You, however, should investigate it for yourself. Then, decide for yourself. Your life could depend on your decision. And consider this: You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously! Do not count on that either!

...

And that's why I added a reminder that the chance is actually 0, there where the article is discussing the odds. So that there is no misunderstanding here.

originally posted by: Protein


Organic life is a condition of physical compositions of interacting elements .

The thing is, all the thermodynamic laws tend to destroy biological organisms. For this reason, once an organism dies it begins to decay. Evolution and abiogenesis theorize the opposite of this thermodynamic law, and insists ordered biological systems will emerge by random chance. Not much different than supposing a skeleton in a grave could emerge as a fully functioning human being given enough time. Thats the absurdity of supposing order emerged out of the given physical laws of the universe. Just like a universe that is cooling off insists that the universe was once hot, so too does a universe tending towards disorder imply, or rather, demand that Order existed in the beginning. We humans, cosmological orbits, and the rest of biological life are a testament to this primordial order.

Whatever the force is, the "elan vital", or the life force that perpetuates an ordered biological organism is a testament to the order-generating Engineer that designed the whole system. For ordered systems to persist despite entropic law insisting that they don't, shows that biological life is even more wondrous than the physical laws themselves.

When is comes to the creation of the known universe, no physicists say it came from nothing.

This is the theists false premise and assertion.

The big bang cosmology says in the beginning, there was a singularity. Everything that is now was compressed into a tiny ball of super hot plasma. Then it inflated and 13 billion years later the inflated singularity is the universe we see today.

Nobody but an ignorant theist argues the something came from nothing fallacy.

originally posted by: Skyfox81

Nobody but an ignorant theist argues the something came from nothing fallacy.

something coming from nothing is as absurd as intelligence emerging from non-intelligence. Yet atheists love clinging to that baseless premise.