Is "life" bound to happen?

Definitely, I'm in agreement with you. Honestly, no scientist can explain to me that what I felt and experienced wasn't real. Scientists once felt that it was ok to kill babies if they were disabled before a certain age because 'they aren't aware', but it turns out that they are more aware than adults, 3 fold, in fact. Scientists are just people, I'll trust myself more. That's not to say that I can't accept facts when it presents itself.

Science just ends up explaining what we have always intuitively known to be true. I know that I'll get a lot of beef for that, but oh well.

 

kitsuni and ashtrays could also be added to that equasion, except that everything it, except god, is defined to some degree by a presumed physical appearance, while god or a god, requires none.

 

Naive? How is it naive to recognize that those three examples are not equal in value?

Idle or hidden thoughts? I don't really understand what you mean.

 

True, which brings up the whole 'invisible pink unicorn' that is brought into argument sometimes; It creates an appearance that isn't attributed to God, so it ends up changing its attributes to suit the argument to suggest that it's describing the same value.

 

The universe does appear to favor life more than we thought in earlier years. The elements favorable for (earth-like) life appear to be relatively common.

The phenomenon of existence is this: given enough time, the universe emerges increasing layers of intricacy, and complexity. Eventually this would lead to consciousness, human beings, and civilizations. Even we appear to be subject to this phenomenon (civilization being more complex than ever before, global/planetary civilization). A few cool philosophers on this subject: Whitehead and "process philosophy," Koestler's "holon," (Janus), and Teilhard's "Law of Complexity/Consciousness."

Some other contemporaries... Ray Kurzweil. He looks at this phenomenon through the lens of technology: "the law of accelerated returns."

I think it's a wondrous place to be. We live in a universe that appears to be unfinished, ever-emergent. We are a part of that unfolding, but towards what? God? Omega point? Singularity? Pointless emergent complexity?

I think this is beyond the narrow scope of analysis and current scientific data. When we can begin to gather synthesis, then perhaps we'll discover some very mystical connotations to the universe....

 

People are antagonistic to reality creatures and may be so by default.
Yesterday it was mythology and religions invented to explain unknown.
Today it's philosophers and most of the pseudo-scientists who do the same , with the exception of physicists perhaps who still stay loyal to maxims of scientific method.

 

But then how was god created? If an explanation is not needed for that then why is it farfetched that life would emerge on its own without intervention?

 

Maybe

 

There is also balance between everything. There is creation and destruction, then creation and destruction, and through this process, things become more intricate and delicate in design. It seems like everything is moving towards a more simplistic kind of complexity if that makes sense.

Look at life forms. Each life form appears to be engineered. Take flies for example:
When I look at this little guy, you know what I think? I think a biological computer; A microrobot designed by some kind of Japanese electronics company as a toy but to the millionth degree - but it's so much more than that. This tiny creature is capable of so much for possessing such a tiny brain. The intricacies of its behaviors are so astounding for such a tiny creature that I have my doubts that this was all an act of probabilities. I suppose it can be, but taking into account the whole picture leaves me with many doubts.

 

Thanks for your comment but the question is why does; "given enough time, the universe emerges increasing layers of intricacy, and complexity. Eventually this would lead to consciousness, human beings, and civilizations." seem true to you.

As I've mentioned before there are various complex molecules that can not and will not occur naturally, perhaps RNA and DNA are two of them. If that is the case, you could give it forever and RNA and DNA would never occur naturally. So until there is some proof that DNA can occur naturally, saying it is bound to happen or that eventually it would is speculation and not a proven fact.

 

As the story goes, God was not created and has always existed, unlike the Universe that they say had a beginning.

Also I have never said that it was farfetched that "life would emerge on its own without intervention" it "might could" have happened but the point of this thread is not to deny that it could have happened but to question those who say it had to happen.

When they say that, they are making an assumption about what happened without facts and I'm wondering why they don't just own up to it and say yes it's an assumption, instead of getting all huffy, calling me (fill in the blank) and then just demand I believe it's a fact.

 

If we know the why, well, yes that is the question. Why?

But the philosophers I mentioned try to answer that. To Teilhard the phenomenon is explained in consciousness... there is some ultimate reality which is slowly and surely manifesting, the universe is a mirror, reflecting the divine more and more. All physical stuff has an inherent "within," or some proto-consciousness... compelled to draw closer...

That may be speculation, sure, also interpretation of the data... for instance, the same question: why on earth is anyone conscious at all? humans are themselves unique creatures, just as life appears to be a novel emergence. The why IS speculation right now... but there are some wonderful speculations...

"Facts" are far from actualizing... the phenomenon is what we have, I hope scientists start to engage that more in this century...

def zeppelin --- I agree with you. It all makes you really, really wonder how this is supposed to be probability... A divine reality is often what mystics speak of across the world's religions. In my heart I'm inclined to agree... but I think as OlderWaterBrother says, we still search for why, that is both spiritual and scientific.

 

Well, again interesting, seeing as I've always enjoyed Philosophy.

But this OP is more about the actual physical potential of life occurring naturally from the elements at hand and the demand of some that it had to happen, even though there is no actual proof that it could.

 

I dissagree that there is no proof that it could. Although DNA forming randomly is extremely improbable, autocatlytic sets of molecules evolving through replication and natural selection is a probable way that DNA could have been created. I'm not sure if you've looked into this or not.

More information about it is under 9.4 of this link if you are interested.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/13/comp...s-like-proteins-and-dna-emerge-spontaneously/

 

Heres a paragraph from the article:
Thus, in this so-called primordial soup, namely a fluid in contact with rocks of various types, there existed small molecules of amino acids, sugars etc. Given enough time, some of them must have undergone random polymerization reactions of various types, producing short polymers. It is entirely possible that at least some of these end-products, with some side chains and branches hanging around, acted as catalysts for facilitating the production of other molecules which may also be catalysts for another chemical reaction. Thus: A facilitates the production of B, and B does the same job for C, and so on. Given enough time, and a large enough pool containing all sorts of molecules, it is quite probable that, at some stage a molecule, say Z, will get formed (aided by catalytic reactions of various types), which would be a catalyst for the formation of the catalyst molecule A we started with.

Sorry, this doesn't sound so much like proof as it sounds like maybe coulda shoulda. But maybe this is the answer to how life started but with all the given enough times, must haves, possibles, may alsos and big enough pools, I don't think I'd bet the farm on it quite just yet.

 

Oh, I know it's still up in the air and there are lots of ifs. My point was regarding your statement that DNA couldn't have emerged through natual processes. I'm simply pointing out that autocatalytic sets of molecules evolving as a system is much more probable than DNA being created by random collisions which I agree with you is pretty much nill.

 

I don't believe that I have ever said that "DNA couldn't have emerged through natural processes", what I've been trying to say is that it is a possibility that DNA couldn't have emerged through natural processes and that without proof that it could, saying that it did and was bound to happen, is merely an assumption and not a fact.

 

I think all of the reasons you've said are valid.

Assuming existence is an infinite process / cycle, everything will happen at least once.

And life is hear, so how could the conditions of life not have existed? This isn't circular logic, the proof is in the pudding. Life can only exist if it is possible for life to exist........ Everything that happens is a "natural process", existence / nature is the same thing.......and your analogy of a 6-sided dice rolling a 7 is plain stupid.... because then the term "6-sided die" wouldn't be applied towards the apparatus.

 

You didn't say DNA, but still....

I have no beef with this. I would argue evolving autocatlytic sets show that it is possible or atleast it's something we can sink our teeth into and work with.

 

Let me ask you a question.

We know that the complex molecule LSD exists thus it is possible for LSD to exist but do you think it is possible for LSD to be naturally occurring?

Because if you think it is possible for LSD to occur naturally, you probably could make a fortune selling that to illegal drug labs.