Karma

[Greetings]

Think how massive the universe is. I don't find it at all surprising that life has come to be. As Monkey has pointed out (I think), life isn't anything more than a complex combination of molecules and an evolutionary process. And given the size of the universe, it's bound to happen somewhere and possibly in millions of other places as well. I believe that the probability there are more humans in the universe closely resembling us is very probable, after all what we accomplish now is very much the result of us being physically able to use tools and also having brains capable of logical thought.

This sort of brings me onto karma. There are so many things happening around us every day that the probability of an event taking place that appears to be the result of a previous unrelated event is pretty high. Like the story posted by the OP, helped an old lady across the street, won 500 quid later on. I'm fairly sure that even if he didn't help the old lady across the street, he still would have won. Another example - left a generous tip at the restaurant and got laid later that day. Not the result of a generous tip. It's because your girlfriend wanted to have sex with you, and you didn't oppose.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Greetings

[1a2bcio8]

Yeah fair enough. Debate is fun sometimes

You're essentially agreeing with my point to begin with when you ask about what precedes the building blocks that are crucial to forming life. However, existence has always contained the potential for life otherwise life could not come to be. Similarly liquid water contains the potential to become gas prior to becoming gas. On that analogy I would critique your use of the 'random' (freak occurrence) myth that is so often applied to life which you wouldn't apply to a liquid changing to a gas. Interestingly, in this sense, 'intention' wouldn't be an appropriate term either. So life is neither random nor intended but rather is the result of the structure of existence and the potential contained within that structure.

I wasn't arguing against evolution which I subscribe to. I was just describing what I think its actual nature is. It's not a cause and its description is limited. It highlights the relationship between factors involved in the shaping of animals but it never states what allows for those factors to be and to shape in the way that they do. They relate to a much deeper underlying cause that we are currently unable to understand. Perhaps we won't ever understand. There's certainly something awesome about it all being a mystery rather than a concept.

edit: Unless by freak occurrence you are trying to say that our presence is inexplicable?

Because that is all the idea of life being 'random' can really mean. To say we are random is to say that the statistical chances of our occurrence cannot be predicted from our point of view. It really only refers to our inability to understand and says nothing about the nature of the thing we call 'random'.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Ben Rowlands

[JT!]

Not really because what underpins the evolutionary process is existence in general regardless of whether we have some mystical insight into it or not. Evolution follows from the movement of existence (we can simplify existence into matter if that's easier) into varying material forms which eventually become what we call life. It's from the point where 'life' has begun, continues and changes that evolution refers to. Evolution says nothing about what allowed for life to become what it is from matter that was not life.

In other words, the factors of evolution have played a role in the shape of life at present but they didn't set the ground or potential for life which clearly came from something beforehand. I'm not trying to suggest God here. What I am trying to say is that existence is fundamentally rigged to create life; the potential has always been there but evolution has nothing to say about this because evolution is about the adaptation of life not the transfer of life from that which isn't life. I can't say why existence is set to be that way but I don't think we need the Christian concept of God to describe it although I wouldn't want to entirely rule it out.

Furthermore and this might seem pedantic but it's an important point. Evolution could never be a cause; it's a general theory that tries to explain some of the causes involved in the changing of life over time - i.e. tall trees influencing the length of a giraffes neck. It doesn't indicate how it is possible for a giraffe to adapt to a tall tree only that when there is a tall tree and it is of benefit to reach it then adaptation occurs. Citing evolution as the cause is to suggest that evolution is a 'thing' that effects matter but it is only a theory. We do this with so much language though including, I think, the concept of God whereby we initially use the term to describe something about reality but then the word takes on a life of its own. So really from the theory of evolution we don't know either the primary cause of adaptation or the primary cause of life itself. They are probably of the same central (sufficient) cause but I don't think anybody really knows what that is.

I hope that last point makes sense. It headf**ks me just trying to explain it because it's so easy to 'reify' or make concrete terms that are only abstract. A theory is inescapably abstract though.

Evolution explains everything post-abiogenesis. We know about genetic mutations, we know how animals adapt, we know why they adapt, we know by what means they adapt and mutate. If you want to say we don't know everything about how non life became life then fair enough, but we have a relatively complete understanding of everything after that. So to say we know how a tall tree can influence a giraffes neck to be longer, but we don't know by what means that adaptation occurs shows a ignorance to the theory of evolution (or me misinterpretation what you're saying). But really that has nothing to do with the original point which was that evolution has shaped our entire actions as human beings.

Also, when you say "but it is only a theory" what definition are you using for the word theory? Theory that is derived from 'theorem', or an abstract thought?