# The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Spirituality 24 Apr '16 07:47
1. 24 Apr '16 07:47
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
2. Fetchmyjunk
Garbage disposal
24 Apr '16 08:45
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
Not sure how you would calculate the probability to start off with. But if smart intelligent scientists cannot use their intelligence to create life in the lab, what makes you think life can create itself without intelligent intervention?
3. 24 Apr '16 10:26
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Not sure how you would calculate the probability to start off with. But if smart intelligent scientists cannot use their intelligence to create life in the lab, what makes you think life can create itself without intelligent intervention?
sorry to break it to you, but scientists have created life in labs.
4. 24 Apr '16 10:29
Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to break it to you, but scientists have created life in labs.
5. Fetchmyjunk
Garbage disposal
24 Apr '16 10:311 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to break it to you, but scientists have created life in labs.
Lets pretend for a moment they were able to do it.... Wouldn't that support the idea that life came from a form of intelligent intervention?
6. DeepThought
24 Apr '16 10:52
Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to break it to you, but scientists have created life in labs.
This isn't quite true. They've created completely synthetic genomes that have been put into host cells see [1][2]. Unless there's more recent work, which I think would have been publicised, I don't think they can be said to have created life from scratch yet. However, it's easy for me to be wrong as my search wasn't thorough, I just followed a link from the Wikipedia page on synthetic life [3].

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7500/full/nature13314.html
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=127010591
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology
7. 24 Apr '16 10:53
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Not sure how you would calculate the probability to start off with. But if smart intelligent scientists cannot use their intelligence to create life in the lab, what makes you think life can create itself without intelligent intervention?
Life exists, and no evidence for "intelligent intervention" has been found.
8. 24 Apr '16 11:37
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Life exists, and no evidence for "intelligent intervention" has been found.
Meaning there's not enough intelligence in the life that exists to know how it came into existence? ðŸ˜•
9. 24 Apr '16 11:46
Originally posted by josephw
Meaning there's not enough intelligence in the life that exists to know how it came into existence? ðŸ˜•
Perhaps if there had been an intelligent designer, he could've made humans smart enough to figure out there was one. As it stands, no trace of an intelligent designer has been found.
10. 24 Apr '16 11:531 edit
Originally posted by DeepThought
This isn't quite true. They've created completely synthetic genomes that have been put into host cells see [1][2]. Unless there's more recent work, which I think would have been publicised, I don't think they can be said to have created life from scratch yet. However, it's easy for me to be wrong as my search wasn't thorough, I just followed a link fr ...[text shortened]... transcript/transcript.php?storyId=127010591
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology
i think you are referring to the same thing i was alluding to, craig venter created synthetic life in a lab (he did use organic host cells though) still, synthetic life was made and it was made in a lab.

have read about the work of martin hanczyc, its a bit more controversial, but there is an argument that he created an organic life form (depending how you define 'life' ). his ted talk is worth a watch

https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life?language=en
11. 24 Apr '16 11:58
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
God is the cause for "life occurring", not the "aid" of it.

There is no probability that life could have "occurred" randomly. That's where the nonsense is. The idea that intelligent life can occur without intelligence is unintelligent. Randomness as a cause for the existence of life is a meaningless illusion. The idea that the "probability" of a random occurrence of an infinite number of possibilities could bring into existence life from nothing is an absolute delusion.
12. 24 Apr '16 12:03
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps if there had been an intelligent designer, he could've made humans smart enough to figure out there was one. As it stands, no trace of an intelligent designer has been found.
Not by you that is. ðŸ˜‰

The very fact of the existence of life is all the evidence one needs to know that life exists because of an intelligent designer.

Knowing the designer personally is another matter altogether.
13. 24 Apr '16 12:06
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Lets pretend for a moment they were able to do it.... Wouldn't that support the idea that life came from a form of intelligent intervention?
no, it would prove the opposite.
14. 24 Apr '16 12:09
Originally posted by josephw
God is the cause for "life occurring", not the "aid" of it.

There is no probability that life could have "occurred" randomly. That's where the nonsense is. The idea that intelligent life can occur without intelligence is unintelligent. Randomness as a cause for the existence of life is a meaningless illusion. The idea that the "probability" of a random oc ...[text shortened]... te number of possibilities could bring into existence life from nothing is an absolute delusion.
what is your basic prerequisite for intelligence? when can an organism be identified as intelligent?
15. 24 Apr '16 12:16
Originally posted by josephw
Not by you that is. ðŸ˜‰

The very fact of the existence of life is all the evidence one needs to know that life exists because of an intelligent designer.

Knowing the designer personally is another matter altogether.
I see. Well, one could equally say that the existence of life is all the evidence one needs to know that life exists because it was pooped out by a pink elephant. Unfortunately, both assertions are not backed up by evidence.