The Argument "For" and "Against" Creative Intelligence (Human or Divine)

[AndromedaRXJ]

If these resources are present, they can be used, regardless of what other lifeforms use them.

Of course they can be used. It's just that the life forms that are already here are the ones readily adept to use them.

According to you, abiogenesis happens elsewhere.

Well I wouldn't say that with any degree of certainty. Earth is the only confirmed place where life has happened.

We haven't observed any creation/generation of life in this vastness, so claiming either of them is just as mute as each other.

We know as we look back in time, life becomes more and more basic and primitive. We can look at current organisms and see what basic parts make up it's complexity (such as amino acids, nucleotides, etc... ) And as stated, some of those basic parts have been found in space. Though not confirmed, abiogenesis is postulated from that.

God comes from the inability to account for the surrounding phenomenon and is used to fill in the gaps of ignorance. So one is not nearly as "moot" as the other.

I hope you're aware that I said it like that for a reason.

I'm sure. I just don't know what that reason is.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, yes, yes .. 'watchmaker anology' & subjectivity etc. etc.

But you avoided my question:

I didn't avoid your question. Previously, you asked: "HOW can somebody NOT see creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe, then?!?" And I explained HOW somebody might not see any creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe. That explanation was adumbrated in the "first" argument I made in the OP of this thread.

Do you think that people have 'creative intelligence' or not?!?

I believe human beings exhibit creative intelligence. But I also believe they exhibit destructive stupidity because a random factor appears to be at play in human nature. (Of course, creativity and destructivity may be a matter of perspective.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Of course they can be used. It's just that the life forms that are already here are the ones readily adept to use them.

Why would this mean an abiogenerated being can't use these same resources? The only way that makes sense is if these resources were limited in stock to only creatures that are alive now.

Well I wouldn't say that with any degree of certainty. Earth is the only confirmed place where life has happened.

We know as we look back in time, life becomes more and more basic and primitive. We can look at current organisms and see what basic parts make up it's complexity (such as amino acids, nucleotides, etc... ) And as stated, some of those basic parts have been found in space. Though not confirmed, abiogenesis is postulated from that.

But nonetheless still an assumption. Actually, the line I highlighted red was exactly what I'm trying to say on this point.

God comes from the inability to account for the surrounding phenomenon and is used to fill in the gaps of ignorance. So one is not nearly as "moot" as the other.

Not in all cases.

I do believe all of this could have happened without God, or any conscious guidance in general, it'd just be very coincidental. But I'm convinced there is something pulling the strings, that it was formed from conscious guidance.

God doesn't fill a gap. I believe that the world is rational as a stand alone. The way science shows how things work is how God works it. Not a poof from the lift of a finger, but through these complex patterns of chemistry, physics, etc.

I'm sure. I just don't know what that reason is.

Because it's impossible to comprehend the lack of time. It wasn't a time, no, it was the lack of time. I simply put it in terms of our human perspective.

To be honest, though, the "nothingness" that was "previous" to existence is a very difficult concept to talk about, and is rather meaningless as well. I think we can all agree that at some point there was chaos.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not talking about a second one. If there were multiple abiogenesis's the question still applies why we haven't observed one lately.

Of course you are talking about a second one, otherwise we would not be here to observe it. And without more than very tentative means of observing other planets, the only real choice is Earth itself.

How exactly do lifeforms tie up the biomass?

By being made of it. And to a degree, by consuming it.

Where do these "random floating organic molecules" come from?

Chemical reactions, of course, like any others. If you are asking whether I know how they formed exactly, of course I'm not really sure. We are talking about a whole planet (or at least its surface and oceans) during a history of billions of years. Geography alone may have created quite a variety of environments.

Certainly there must be more from where it came from?

There used to be, but those pesky lifeforms took it and began to have offspring, taking possession of an impressive number of them.

You did not understand what I said previously, did you?

That's not really like it at all. The way lifeforms create other lifeforms isn't like taking parts and putting them together.

Of course it is. Are we not made of this planet's matter?

There hasn't been any sort of example throughout history, and we are a global species. Plenty of time in all of this space but we haven't found one single example.

Of course. It would be very surprising indeed to find one when our very existence basically destroys the necessary conditions.

What?

I won't try to clarify before establishing that we have a common understanding of the basics of this matter. It is apparent that we have not quite managed that yet.

 

[LuisDantas]

The conditions must be just right, very deterministic. On a planet that first has conditions to create life and then conditions to preserve it

I just don't know why you think so. There is no evidence pointing towards that, far as I am aware.

 

[Thief]

Saw documentary some years ago about coincidence and likelihood.
A demo and study of occurrence and the odds about all of this.

Seems the complexity and exactness of our life and living ......
indicates....Something Greater is behind all of this.

 

[Sapiens]

Saw documentary some years ago about coincidence and likelihood.
A demo and study of occurrence and the odds about all of this.

Be more interesting if you could reference it, all of the documentaries I've seen and postings on the subject that I've read are easily falsifiable.

 

[Thief]

Naw...sorry....long time ago....

But it was simple and straight forward.
For all of the items we need in place and chained in the exact manner as they are.....
The odds are beyond numbers.

What we have here in this life is simply not a coincidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

My friend, I'm not trying to say the universe is fine tuned for life. All that I'm arguing is: The universe is well aware of what it is doing.

We are alive because God, the universe, intended us to be. As much so as it intended the creation of non-living things.

Ah. Explanation accepted.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Of course you are talking about a second one, otherwise we would not be here to observe it. And without more than very tentative means of observing other planets, the only real choice is Earth itself.

I don't want to be specific to say a second abiogenesis, because by that view there could have been more abiogenesis in the past around the time the one you specify occurred. Nobody knows for sure how many genesis's could've happened in the time between the first one and the first time humans advanced in understanding biology. I'm only saying there hasn't been any signs of one happening currently.

By being made of it. And to a degree, by consuming it.

I'm assuming you mean cells by organic matter?

Cells do attach and are consumed by living creatures, yes. But cells detach, they also divide. There are plenty of cells around. Not to mention, if cells were spontaneous (abiogenesis) there'd be plenty more being created from nonliving things, but the only thing we've ever observed cells come from is from other cells.

Chemical reactions, of course, like any others. If you are asking whether I know how they formed exactly, of course I'm not really sure. We are talking about a whole planet (or at least its surface and oceans) during a history of billions of years. Geography alone may have created quite a variety of environments.

There have been experiments trying to replicate these chemical reactions to create life, using chemicals that scientists imagine were present in early earth. None have been successful yet so far. I believe it can be done, but the fact conscious creatures are doing it refutes the point.

There is one specific series of chemicals that creates life, but nature hasn't found any other method of creating life by mere accident. Why is that?

There used to be, but those pesky lifeforms took it and began to have offspring, taking possession of an impressive number of them.

You did not understand what I said previously, did you?

No more of this organic matter can be produced today? Why?

Of course it is. Are we not made of this planet's matter?

Yes, but that's not the process we use. Our process is mating, using matter that's already inside of us.

Of course. It would be very surprising indeed to find one when our very existence basically destroys the necessary conditions.



I won't try to clarify before establishing that we have a common understanding of the basics of this matter. It is apparent that we have not quite managed that yet.

Actually I can see where you are coming from. But might as well post this since it's all typed out. My question is answered.

Nonetheless, I still feel it's too coincidental to accept that this all worked out on its own, life forming completely on accident, and becoming what we are today. Especially when you consider that the experiments to reenact abiogenesis failed, that just goes to show it's a complicated process. Not only does it have to be the right chemicals, it must be a certain condition, a certain response to chemicals, and a specific mix of chemicals and the specific amounts. If man can't do it on purpose, what is the likeliness of nature doing it on accident?

I totally agree that our process of creation was natural, but with divine intervention. I admit, though, I haven't proven anything. My best reason to thinking the creation of life was guided is simply based on probability. The complex and rare creation of life that needs very specific ingredients, getting us to where we are today discussing this creation... How can you accept it as just a coincidence?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I just don't know why you think so. There is no evidence pointing towards that, far as I am aware.

Pointing towards what?

The wicked conditions of early earth (able to create life)? The conditions of present (able to preserve life and not be harsh enough to wipe it out but calm enough so life can adapt to it)?

 

[LuisDantas]

Pointing towards what?

That the conditions necessary for life to develop spontaneously or to remain viable are particularly strict and deterministic.

The example of our own planet shows otherwise. Lifeforms exist in an impressive variety of environments, and develop in ways that are often very self-destructive. Life often only exists at the expense of other forms of life,

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That the conditions necessary for life to develop spontaneously or to remain viable are particularly strict and deterministic.

The example of our own planet shows otherwise. Lifeforms exist in an impressive variety of environments, and develop in ways that are often very self-destructive. Life often only exists at the expense of other forms of life,

That's part of the process of natural selection.

It's true we are simply adapting to the environment, but at the same time the environment could've destroyed us immediately if it wanted to. Earth cooled into what it is now, which isn't too harsh for creatures. It's harsh, but not harsh enough to boil us alive before we even had a chance to adapt. Evolution takes places, but it didn't have to.

Heck, even after a meteor crashed into earth and wiped the dinosaurs to extinction, life survived and carried on.This rock has been very nice to us

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't want to be specific to say a second abiogenesis, because by that view there could have been more abiogenesis in the past around the time the one you specify occurred. Nobody knows for sure how many genesis's could've happened in the time between the first one and the first time humans advanced in understanding biology. I'm only saying there hasn't been any signs of one happening currently.

But a second abiogenesis would be exceedingly unlikely, even alongside billions of years, precisely because the biologically viable matter would be tied up on existing lifeforms.

It would take the destruction of all or nearly all life on Earth before reasonable conditions for a second abiogenesis event to begin to develop. And of course, that would mean that we would not be around to witness it.

That may happen yet, if we do not make the planet inviable at some point. But we will not be there to know of it.

I'm assuming you mean cells by organic matter? Cells do attach and are consumed by living creatures, yes. But cells detach, they also divide. There are plenty of cells around. Not to mention, if cells were spontaneous (abiogenesis) there'd be plenty more being created from nonliving things, but the only thing we've ever observed cells come from is from other cells.

This is just so confused.

Cells are matter. By being part of living beings, that matter becomes unavailable for abiogenesis events. For a long time now nearly all organic matter in the planet is thus tied up.

There have been experiments trying to replicate these chemical reactions to create life, using chemicals that scientists imagine were present in early earth. None have been successful yet so far. I believe it can be done, but the fact conscious creatures are doing it refutes the point.

Are you aware of coacervates? I don't think we are nearly as far from replicating abiogenesis as you think.

Sure, there are conscious beings directing those experiments. But their experimentation mass is not planet-wide, either. Chaos has a way of organizing itself, and if you have a whole planet of chaos experimenting with itself for billions of years under a variety of geological environments...

There is one specific series of chemicals that creates life, but nature hasn't found any other method of creating life by mere accident. Why is that?

Mostly because we are clogging up the queue with our current existence.

No more of this organic matter can be produced today? Why?

Not in the scale necessary for a second abiogenesis in anything resembling an observable timeline, certainly. Both because we are taking up the resources needed and because our presence contaminates the experimenting field.

It would be nearly inimaginable for a second abiogenesis to happen before our own existence ended.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's part of the process of natural selection.

It's true we are simply adapting to the environment, but at the same time the environment could've destroyed us immediately if it wanted to.

Not sure what you mean. That Earth is not Cthulhu?

Earth cooled into what it is now, which isn't too harsh for creatures. It's harsh, but not harsh enough to boil us alive before we even had a chance to adapt. Evolution takes places, but it didn't have to.

Actually, it basically did have to, given the proper conditions. And again, we are talking about a whole planet during a story of billions of years. In an universe that has untold billions over billions of solar systems. In a way, it would be most surprising if life did not develop somewhere.

Heck, even after a meteor crashed into earth and wiped the dinosaurs to extinction, life survived and carried on.This rock has been very nice to us

I guess I just disagree.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not sure what you mean. That Earth is not Cthulhu?

No. Earth's environment was full of chemicals that were suitable to create life (but certainly not to sustain it), and after that, the environment had the right chemicals needed for species to survive. It just so happened to have a condition to make life and then have the condition to sustain it rather than destroy it before it has a chance. Earth's air could have CO2 in its place if things were set up or happened differently. Instead, on this lonely planet in a solar system without any sign of air elsewhere in the solar system, air came to be so species could survive. Plenty of good water is on earth instead of it being molten lava etc.

Actually, it basically did have to, given the proper conditions.

Sure it did, it played out that way so it's obvious that it had to. The fact evolution even had a chance is miraculous. Earth's environment didn't turn out like Venus's environment for example. It has a unique environment that allows these creatures (accidentally, supposedly) to continue onward.

And again, we are talking about a whole planet during a story of billions of years. In an universe that has untold billions over billions of solar systems. In a way, it would be most surprising if life did not develop somewhere.

I never said otherwise. In fact I have always agreed to that. I don't see how that relates to anything I said.

I guess I just disagree.

That is fine. The universe hidden its meaning so well that maybe we're supposed to believe otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. Earth's environment was full of chemicals that were suitable to create life (but certainly not to sustain it),

Uh? What do you mean here? Why would those chemicals that served to originate life not be suitable to sustain it?

and after that, the environment had the right chemicals needed for species to survive. It just so happened to have a condition to make life and then have the condition to sustain it rather than destroy it before it has a chance.

I don't think life was quite as delicate and transient as you make it to be.

Earth's air could have CO2 in its place if things were set up or happened differently.

Earth's air does indeed have CO2, but it would be a very long time between the origin of life and it having much of a particular need for either CO2 or atmospheric oxygen.

Instead, on this lonely planet in a solar system without any sign of air elsewhere in the solar system, air came to be so species could survive.

Human-respirable air came a long time after life originated in this planet.

Plenty of good water is on earth instead of it being molten lava etc.

Not instead, besides. Or after, depending on the referencial.

Sure it did, it played out that way so it's obvious that it had to.

The mathematical chance made it so. That things turned that way was a consequence, not a cause.

The fact evolution even had a chance is miraculous. Earth's environment didn't turn out like Venus's environment for example. It has a unique environment that allows these creatures (accidentally, supposedly) to continue onward.

You seem quite impressed, I am not sure why. We are naturally biased towards witnessing environments where life did develop, among who know how many trillions of others that do exist.

That is fine. The universe hidden its meaning so well that maybe we're supposed to believe otherwise.

"Meaning"?

 

[Sapiens]

And there are two perspectives: You either see no creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe or you see it everywhere.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

I don't see any counterargument.

Then I suggest you check your imaginator ... I think it's stuck.

I still don't see any counterargument from you. You claimed that I created a false dichotomy. But you failed to explain why the dichotomy was false. Either the Darwinian principles of random variation and natural selection explain how creative intelligence works or there is no creative intelligence in the universe. Because the Darwinian principles have been employed not only to explain the apparent design we see in biological organisms but also the apparent design we see in human artifacts and even the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. So, either this apparent creativity is just that...apparent...or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

The dichotomy is false because there are more than two possible answers ... that is the usual reason. The dichotomy is also false because you are misrepresenting a very complex treatise by Blackmore with a quote mined snippet and and oversimplified generalization.

If abiogenesis happened before, why hasn't there been any recent cases of a living creature being created from a nonliving thing?

There are a number of hypothesis covering this question, I favor a combination of these two:

• Immediately after the first spontaneous abiogenesis, environmental conditions on Earth changed dramatically in large part due to biological processes, making a repeat impossible.
• The first organisms that arose consumed or out competed any subsequent organisms that came into being.

Doesn't it seem a little too coincidental that consciousness appears in things that deal with genes and reproduction so that not only will there be something to admire this universe, but to guarantee that there will be more?

No, unless you think that it was a conspiracy.

You apparently didn't bother to read the OP of this thread.

I read it, I'd say that LuisD is spot on, "There is no good argument for Intelligent Design."

I've already explained how. Read the OP of this thread. The Darwinian principles (of random variation and natural selection) not only can be employed to explain the apparent design we see in biological organisms (e.g. eyeballs), but it can also be employed (and has been employed) to explain the apparent design we see in human artifacts (e.g. pocket watches).

Actually that's rather obviously false, all you need to do to see that is to apply the now discredited IDers arguments about cillia or eyeballs, called irreducible complexity. The argument that falsifies irreducible complexity when it comes to biological systems becomes a bit spacey, but is still useful when applied to memes and falls apart (I feel) when applied to physical objects.

My friend, I'm not trying to say the universe is fine tuned for life. All that I'm arguing is: The universe is well aware of what it is doing.

We are alive because God, the universe, intended us to be. As much so as it intended the creation of non-living things.

Rather more likely that the universe, such as it is, has fine tuned us to live in it, I think that this is aptly demonstrated by the lichens that are now growing on the Chernobyl sarcophagus, living on the energy from the gamma radiation and the entire ecosystems that exist in the deep sea thermal vents and the hot springs in Yellowstone. These are hardly environs that are fine tuned to life, yet there it is, well adapted and flourishing.

 

[Willamena]

The conditions must be just right, very deterministic.

There's that banana again. What I said was about us, not fate.

 

[Sapiens]

Naw...sorry....long time ago....

But it was simple and straight forward.
For all of the items we need in place and chained in the exact manner as they are.....
The odds are beyond numbers.

What we have here in this life is simply not a coincidence.

The point is that that is not true. Retrospective statistics of that sort are BS because there are actually two possible values, 100% for what actually happened and 0% for all other possibilities.