Is "life" bound to happen?

I just found this statement "When you have a virtually infinite number of molecules in the universe and billions of years of random mixing and interactions the NATURAL occurrence of "life" is bound to happen no matter how great the odds."

Why is this statement considered by so many to be true?

What if we live in a universe that is life sustaining but is not now nor has ever been a life making universe?

What if the Universe is like a giant bowl of an infinite number of dice all numbered 1 to 6 and you have an infinite amount time to roll those dice. Now suppose that to get life you have to get one die to roll a seven not a combination of dice but one die to roll a seven.

Is that bound to happen? No matter what the odds. No matter how much time you have. Will a seven ever be rolled?

The truth is Mankind does not have a clue what it would take for the "NATURAL occurrence of "life" to happen" and so has no idea if there are any circumstances that would ever allow for the "NATURAL occurrence of "life" to happen".

Usually, the answer I get is life is here now, so the "NATURAL occurrence of "life" must have happened" and so the circumstances for it to have it happened, must have happened. Which, to me, is circular reasoning. But if there is no God then this is as good as any.

But what if it was more like the illustration above? Then the only way for life to occur would be that "someone" took one of the dies and changed it and added a seven to it, so life would occur. That “someone” made life, because there never would be circumstances where it would make itself, and then placed that life in the life sustaining universe.

That "someone" would be God.

Now I know that many will say; “you’re making a lot of suppositions” but that’s the point aren’t evolutionists, when they say; “it’s bound to happen” making suppositions themselves?

 

What if all matter is conscious?

 

Interesting, perhaps you should start your own thread and ask it there.

 

It speaks directly to the question is life bound to happen, Unless by life you mean strictly "biological" phenomena.

Then are we sure at what precise point geological becomes biological?

Who knows why so many consider the statement to be true. How can we as individuals determine the extent of the considerations of "the many"?

Your dice example has an odd sampling in it. You have two coordinates infinite and one coordinate finite. Simply doesn't compute. Your the one that changed the die.

I know these are not the usual comments you receive.

Are you seeking comments or are you seeking to educate?

 

Please, elucidate.

Personally, I do not believe geological becomes biological, thus to me it has no precise point.

I do not know either, that is why I directed the question to those who believe it, so they say may why they do?

Once again please, elucidate.

I did not change the die, because I did not create life.

You have no idea what the usual comments I receive are.

Why do you ask?

 

I mean life for us has a biological component as well as a geological component as well as an ontological component.

.

Comparing infinite and finite is of the apple to orange nature.

You described the "usual comment you receive in your thread starter.

[/QUOTE] Why do you ask?[/QUOTE]

Because you immediately wanted to turn me away at my first reply.

 

First of all number of atoms (not molecules) in whole Universe is finite and has been calculated already.

Second, billions of years of inetractions did result in occurence of life at least in one observable and known instance (on planet Earth).

The question is what mechanism was responsible for finite number of atoms to interact in the way that made occurence of life possible.
Even darwinists don't claim to have theory in regards to that.

That "what if" can be a good source of inspiration to write a book akin to Alice in Wonderland.

What we know for fact is that there is Life in this Universe.
Any scientific attempt to explain how it emerged (let alone how it evolved) had failed so far.

Problem is not that there is a number to be rolled that doesn't exist on the side of the die.
The problem is that there are thousands of dice and each has thousands of sides and when you multiply 1000 in magnitute of 1000 you get a number with million of zeroes. That's 1 with million of zeroes to follow. If you write down such number with size of fonts you see on your comp. calculator, you would need 2 kilometers of space.
Now imagine it to be the number of possible variations. And only number in so many is functional or "fit" to be selected. Now , if such number was to be produced by mere random chance, how many attempts it would require?
Our Earth is 5 billion years old. Is the time passed since emergence of Earth into existence to our own day enough for such occurence to take place if the only mechanism responsible is random chance and natural selection?

Agreed.

Don't bring God into it. God is as much a product of our own projection and imagination as any other explanation where we lack real evidence , knowledge and intellectual capacity to give observed phenomena scientifically accurate explanation.

Except the evidence to support such idea exist nowhere other than in the imagination of Creationists. Just as the case with Evolutionary Biologists.

They do. And therefore you are both in error.

The only difference between Creationist and Darwinist is that the first admit that the idea originates in their religious beliefs.

Such admission pretty much ends the dispute as it is commonly understood that people have freedom of religious expression and latter has nothing to do with scientific arguments or science per se.

What amazes me is how these hoax perpetrating darwinists have audacity to claim that their belief has strictly scientific grounds, while they present absolutely nothing but wishful fantasies deeply rooted in their own imagination to support such assertion.

 

wouldnt this just mean that, you could put all the elements in a atom smasher and collide them all .. and POW, you get life..

 

Okay but that still does indicate why your comment "speaks directly to the question is life bound to happen", would you care to comment futher?

I did not compare infinite and finite. In my illustration, time was infinite, although some may say it's not and the number of ways life could originate are finite and so I used a finite number to show that.

I did not describe the usual comments I receive and did not say that this is the usual comment I get, in fact don't believe I even it was a comment that I had ever gotten but did say it was a statement many believed.

Actually my statement was; "Interesting, perhaps you should start your own thread and ask it there. " and I only said that because it was an interesting thought but you did not then and even after asking how you thought it applied to the thread at hand, still have not explained why you think the comment has any thing to do with the topic at hand. In fact I'm still asking.

Where you got the idea I was trying to "turn you away" I don't know, at most it was an attempt to get you to stop being obscure and actually carry on a conversation.

 

I think it means that with the number of molecules bouncing around and randomly colliding that sooner or later they would eventually have to mix in such a way to produce some kind of living creature.

 

Yep.

Did it? Let me try another illustration. Take two aquariums and put all the elements necessary to sustain life into both making sure that no life is put in either and then close them and let them sit for billions of years and then because neither has developed life, put life into one aquarium then come back a billion years later and one aquarium is teeming with life and the other nothing. Does that mean because life “occurred” in the one aquarium, that life will of necessity occur in the other, it just needs more time? Wouldn't that then prove, not that life "naturally occurred" but that life needs "outside" help to occur?

My only “theory” is that the Universe couldn’t do it alone and need “outside” help.

And that same “what if” is how Einstein came up with his scientific discoveries.

Yep.

Yep and believe will continue to fail, as long as God is left out of the equation.

What I’m questioning is not that the probability is so small it couldn’t have happened but if there is any probability at all that it could happen.

Sorry I do.

Well, although I believe in creation, I’m not a “creationist” and there is evidence, I just disagree with the conclusions that some draw from the evidence.

There is no error in making suppositions the error is in denying that they are or could be suppositions.

 

God created the consciousness that is the universe in the form that it is in, life occurs naturally in all of the universe because that consciousness that is created is constantly evolving, the universe in the dimention we know it as is a constantly evolving consciousness because consciousness is the way that the universe is put together at the smallest and largest levels. This consciousness some would say is God, it truly isn't its just a part of God, the manifestation of our self creation.

Self creation. God created consciousness but your the one who has to evolve it by creating self. The more you go into the light, and merging with the source of it you find your place in that light and find that your apart of it.
The closer you move (create) into the dark then you create disintegration.
This battle between good and evil that has been talked about for ages starts in the mind, and in the mind is where it must be won by creating self.

 

I can't close aquariums and wait for billions of years to see what happens.
I can observe for a fact that life exists in our planet (i have no idea if it exists anywhere else).
I have no idea how life occured in the first place to argue whether it could or could not occur anywhere else in as long or longer period of time. But i would not rule out the possibility of occurance of life somewhere else given the fact that it could occur here.
And the fact that life exists here and now is in no way a proof to me that "outside help" was necessary for it's occurence.
In fact I fail to grasp what "outside" would mean in the context.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But what I know for fact is that Life exists. We know that it exists within Universe. And we have no evidence of anything "outside" of Universe.
I have no theory as to what mechanism has caused the Life to come into existence.

Einstein was looking at empirically observable data , studying the laws of interaction of matter and then asking "what if" questions to come up wit theories and explanations.

There is no evidence whatsoever to point to the idea that Universe is life sustaining yet not life making Universe.

What we don't know is how the Life emerged into existence out of non-living, non-organic Universe.
But it's not an evidence of Life emerging from anywhere else but from within Universe.

You don't dictate the Nature how it operates.
It operates the way it does.
You either are capable of comprehending it or not.
You don't force your antropomorphic ideas into it and then declare it the
only way it could possibly operate.

When odds are impossibly long you can confidently state that it didn't happen by chance.
If you go to sleep and wake up with a book of Shakespeare placed next to your pillow you can't say it was probably randomly typed and left there by monkeys overnight. You know that odds of such occurence are impossibly long (though not equal to zero but extremely close to it).

Don't be sorry. I didn't mean to tell you what you should do. But what I mean is that if you bring the God into equation then you are in effect substituting the knowledge and scientific explanation with product of your own projection and imagination . You may very well do that but you can't expect it to be accepted as scientific explanation based on observable evidence.

This is self-contradictory statement.

I disagree with much of it as well. Both Creationists and Darwinists are merely projecting their own wishful thoughts and arbitrary conclusions into the mechanisms governing certain processess in Universe.
To me it sounds like the ancient philosophers attempts to explain what distant stars and planets were.

The error is in projecting your own antropomorphic ideas into things unknown to you and then claiming that those are principles governing it.

 

You keep using the word “occurred” which in the context of what we are talking about, means that life just happened by randomly combining chemicals.

What I’ve been saying is that evolutionists say that the existence of life now, means that life “occurred” and that is an assumption not necessarily a fact.

I never said it was, again all I’ve been saying is that the existence of life does not prove how life got here and yet evolutionists continue say that the fact life exists proves that the “occurance of life”, that life happened by randomly combing chemicals has to happen.

Obviously, God.

You mean you have no proof.

You don’t have to.

It has taken years to acquire empirically observable data to prove Einstein’s theories, so no, he was not always looking at empirically observable data to arrive at his theories.

Again, I never said there was but evolutionists continue to believe that we have to be living in a “life sustaining life making Universe” and I all I’m pointing out that that there is a possibility that we are living in a “life sustaining yet not life making Universe” and that the only way life could exist is that God made it and placed it in that Universe.

Exactly.

I don’t believe I said it was

No, I don’t, never said I did.

Yep.

Yep.

I don’t, as I pointed out, I’m only pointing out that there are other possibilities that aren’t being considered.

As others have pointed out, that ain’t necessarily so. Just because the odds that I will ever win the lottery are impossibly long, doesn’t mean that no one ever wins the lottery.

Likewise, the trouble with probability is that no matter how impossibly long the odds are on something happening, as long as the probability is not zero, then the chance of it happening the first time you try it is the same as the last time you do it. In fact it could happen the first ten times you try it but I wouldn't bet on it.

Only if God happens to be a product of my own projection and imagination, if he is not then knowledge and science is a product of his own projection and imagination.

Actually, no it isn’t. “creationism” is a fairly well established system of belief that goes well beyond just a belief in creation, thus one can believe in creation but not in “creationism”.

Once again, if God doesn’t exist then perhaps you are right but if God exists then perhaps you are incorrect.

 

No, to confirm the fact that life occured is not to imply the knowledge of mechanism resposible for such occurence.

We know that Life exists. We know that at some point in past it didn't. So it must have occured at some point.

Both you, Creationists and Darwinists claim to know something that upon critical analysis I find to be unknown: the HOW of occurence.
You believe it was created with assitance of outer source, darwinists believe it was possible due to some lucky random shuffling of interacting atoms.

None of you actually know HOW, you all just project.

I don't do what you do. I simply say "Life exists. At some point in past it didn't. So it must have occured at such point, one way or another. And I don't know HOW."

Simple as that.

They don't just say it occured. If they did, I would agree with them.
But what they say is that it evolved from most primitive to most complex by means of random chance and natural selection.
It is this part of their assertion that i doubt and they fail to back up.

Of course you did, read your own posts

You are smarter than that. I have read your posts on other threads in responce to other posters. I know you can write clearly (even though I disagree with what you say as far as factually unsupported statements concerned).

So, you must be writing this self-cntradicting nonsense in order to confuse me (in which case you are underestimating my intelligence) or for some other reason.

In any event, I have read what you wrote and responded to it already. Don't say you wrote something you didn't or that you didn't write what you did.

And I say there is no evidence to scientifically argue in support of your theory.

What is known is that we don't know how Life emerged.
And there is no scientific theory in existence to account for it (even darwinists don't clam to know answer to that one).

No evidence of anything outside of Universe.

I didn't say I have to

No, it took time to empirically test some of his theories because at the time he came up with those the means of observation were not as advanced as his predictions turned to be.

But he didn't dream theories out of the blue! He observed what could have been observed and using his analytical abilities he sort of decoded and saw beyond what was apparent at the moment.

He used empirical data , what was known and observed at the time in order to reach conclusions that could only be tested years later when means of doing so were acquired.

It's fact that our Universe is Life sustaining. It's also fact that Life came into existence within this Universe. We have no evidence of Life coming into existence from out of the Universe.
It's not a matter of "have to be" or "he said she said".
It's a matter of fact and evidence, as far as we know.

What evidence youhave to support your theory? You just said you never said there is such evidence. Then where does your supposition come from?

Again, there is no evidence for that.

Read your own post.

Yes, you do, just as darwinists do.
They say "it must be random chance because otherwise it's God".
You say "It must be God because it's impossible to be otherwise".

In essence you two are saying the same thing, following the same logic, just switch the "God" with "Random Chance" respectively.
In effect you both dictate Nature how it must operate.

I am not so arrogant as to speak of matters I am not aware of in affirmative, nor do I project my wishful fantasies into Nature and dictate how it must operate.

I don't know if God exists or doesn't. I don't even know what word "God" exactly means, all I know is that it's man made concept to express variety of ideas ranging from most primitive and antropomorphic all the way to most abstract, metaphorical ideas about order of things in Universe or randomness of Quantum phenomena as contemplated by Einstein or Bohr.

I will never be incorrect in certain sense since I never make a Positive Assertion without actual knowledge to back it up.

It's too late, I am going to sleep now.

Have a good one now.

 

If all matter is conscious then there is no bound to happen, it is extant from the beginning. In demonstration this certainly appears to be the case and the case demonstration is gravity or intent.

???

 

As explained in some detail early in the thread, "Evolutuion is a valid scientific theory", yes. life is inevitable.

Unquestionably so.

Based on the empirical evidence at hand, a universe in which life is not "bound to happen" is an oxymoron.

 

No. but if you put the proper atoms in the naturally occuring environment that we call the "Universe", POW, you get life.

 

Not mere chance. there is a pre-disposition to do so, dictated by the Physical laws.

 

The problem with the OP is he can't get over his theist supernatural believing mindset.

Say a 6 sided die represents all the intrinsic natural properties of energy, matter and the universe. The number 7 then represents the imaginary and supernatural. If the universe itself can't roll a 7 it must be beyond natural, beyond the universe. But the universe by definition is everything. How did the six sides come together? Because 7 did it! How did 7 come together? because 8 did it... Talk about circular logic!? Not only is it circular logic it is ass backwards logic that goes against all evidence that indicate that COMPLEXITY is a product of time and energy. Step one is not infinite supernatural omnipotence. Step 2 is not intelligent finite consciousness. Step 3 is not primitive animals.... God must be on a mission to work backwards to the point of nothingness.

The universe was built simple to complex NOT supernatural infinitely complex and omnipotent to ignorantly simple. 1, energy 2, atoms 3, eliments 4, molecules 5, complex molecules 6, cellular life 7, multicellular life....

Life is either natural or supernatural. Supernatural has NEVER been proven, EVER, in fact constantly disproven and debunked. Therefore it is only rational and logical to accept for now that life occurs NATURALLY, within the limitations of NATURAL laws. Science has empirical evidence to support much of how life evolved, only the ignorant choose to ignore or disbelieve the truth. Oh but fantasy and faith are so much more appealing than brutal facts and logic aren't they?

If the Supernatural were ass common and natural as creationists want to believe then why is there no evidence beyond fantasy and imagination. Why would the supernatural great number 7 hide like a fucking coward from the lowly laws of nature abiding empirical 6?