The Student Room Group

How can inanimate matter become self aware without a god force?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by imtelling
Like I say I am not religious. But, no matter how irrational and illogical the idea of a higher intelligence, or god, may seem, it's still more rational and logical than the idea that a universe of energy, which is governed by highly ordered and structured laws, can just magically pop into existence one day.


"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that." - Bertrand Russell in "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)

An argument that supposes an infinitely complex supernatural hyperbeing is always a more complicated answer than one that does not.
If God did indeed exist then he/she has wonderful powers. The question though is who created him/her ? For such a being to be created spontaneously would be even more astonishing than the Big Bang.
Reply 62
Original post by imtelling
Let's presume that the big bang theory is correct and inanimate matter magically appeared one day from absolute nothingness.

This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.

Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.

I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.

There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.

Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.


The answer is that we do not currently know.

If you're idiotic enough to fill any gaps in our knowledge with a god then that's your fault.

God must have been behind lightning before we had a scientific explanation for it? It's just a caveman mindset. You would make a perfect case in point as to the evolution of religion: a gap in knowledge - therefore - God.
Original post by imtelling
Like I say I am not religious. But, no matter how irrational and illogical the idea of a higher intelligence, or god, may seem, it's still more rational and logical than the idea that a universe of energy, which is governed by highly ordered and structured laws, can just magically pop into existence one day.


Imagine something before the universe, that is not intelligent, for example a bit of empty space like ours. As unintuitive as it is it is inevitable that a universe would come into existance at some point. It's like rolling a billion dice at once, and keep doing this for eternity. eventually you will get all 6's.
Reply 64
Original post by imtelling
Like I say I am not religious. But, no matter how irrational and illogical the idea of a higher intelligence, or god, may seem, it's still more rational and logical than the idea that a universe of energy, which is governed by highly ordered and structured laws, can just magically pop into existence one day.


Just because you lack the ability to conceive of something does not mean it did not happen. Just because you possess the ability to conceive of something does not make it more likely.

I'm sorry to say it but you are just about as petulant as can be.
Reply 65
Original post by betaglucowhat
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that." - Bertrand Russell in "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)

An argument that supposes an infinitely complex supernatural hyperbeing is always a more complicated answer than one that does not.


Human beings have the power of creation, and yet, no one is saying that our creations just magically appeared from nothing.

Why is it necessary to explain the creators, creator?

For example, human beings create AI. One day, that AI may ask itself where it came from, and the answer will be humans -- to AI, humans will literally be God.

Is it therefore logical for the AI to say to itself: 'well, we don't know who created the humans, therefore, humans don't exist'
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by imtelling
Human beings have the power of creation, and yet, no one is saying that our creations just magically appeared from nothing.

Why is it necessary to explain the creators, creator?

For example, human beings create AI. One day, that AI may ask itself where it came from, and the answer will be humans -- to AI, humans will literally be God.

Is it therefore logical for the AI to say to itself: 'well, we don't know who created the humans, therefore, humans don't exist'


So you've taken the "suppose we change the subject" approach, then.
Original post by imtelling
Let's presume that the big bang theory is correct and inanimate matter magically appeared one day from absolute nothingness.

This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.

Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.

I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.

There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.

Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.


You're using the argument from ignorance, just because we do not fully understand the science behind our exact origins does not mean we need a supernatural force to fill the void.

If 'God(s)' is/are what is used to fill the voids in our scientific knowledge then the supernatural is a receding pocket of our ignorance.
We don't know, and it's obviously likely to be a long and gradual continuum rather than an on/off consciousness - likely that less advanced animals than us experience a gradually lower and lower amount of conscious awareness, sentience, sensory perception etc depending on the decreasing complexity of their nervous systems. So it's probably impossible to define the exact point at which an animal becomes self aware
Original post by Old_Simon
If God did indeed exist then he/she has wonderful powers. The question though is who created him/her ? For such a being to be created spontaneously would be even more astonishing than the Big Bang.


It is entirely possible that whatever the first thing was, whether be god or just space and energy, always existed. Which means it was never created, because it always existed. You might fight this incredibly difficult to believe but as it stands, our universe will exist forever, so if it can exist in the positive direction forever, it isn't so hard to believe that it has existed in the negative direction forever.

When typically think of god as being the creator of all things, but it is feasible to suggest that the entity which we refer to as god does have unimaginable power, created Earth, animals and mankind but did not create the universe. God is simply the most evolved thing the universe has produced so far. Imagine if mankind existed without extinction for the next 6billion years... Imagine how stupidly powerful we would be.

6billion years of constant technological advances and natural evolution, it's safe to say there probably wouldn't be much we couldn't do and to a normal intelligent civilisation, we would be perceived as gods with godlike powers.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by imtelling
What he is saying, is that the spark that created the universe happened because of the laws of physics, and specifically because of gravity.

Let me put it another way to you: If you think the laws of physics only exist because matter exists, then what was the spark which created the universe if nothing existed before then? Surely you can't believe that the spark just came from absolute nothing?

Obviously, something must have created the spark; Hawkins is saying the spark was gravity.

He is saying that before the universe existed, there were laws which existed. This at least makes logical sense because the idea that something can come from nothing is truly absurd. But, it raises the question of where did the highly ordered laws actually come from in the first place?

I've already mentioned a couple of times that the laws of physics cover more than just matter- I mentioned the example of light earlier. I've also never suggested that the laws of physics 'come from' matter- I said that it makes no sense to talk about matter/energy/space-time without physics because physics is the behaviour of the universe.

He isn't saying 'before the universe existed, there were laws'. In the quote I provided in my previous post he was quite clear that talking about a time before the universe doesn't even make sense. It's like asking 'what's on a tape before the beginning of the tape?'. It's not that there's nothing on the tape before the beginning of the tape, there simply isn't any tape. The question doesn't make sense. Similarly, asking 'what existed before the universe' doesn't make sense- it's not that 'absolute nothingness' existed before the universe. There simply isn't a 'before' that you can talk about.

If you want to ask about why the laws of physics are the way they are, or why there is something at all, that's an interesting question, but it's not one that can be solved by positing another thing, or another force, that causes them- that just continues the infinite regress, rather than bringing it to an end.
Reply 71
The number of IDIOTS on this page is quite amazing.
Original post by imtelling
Let's presume that the big bang theory is correct and inanimate matter magically appeared one day from absolute nothingness.

This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.

Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.

I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.

There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.

Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.


Are you seriously suggesting some extraneous force caused life on our tiny rock, just because contemporary science cannot prove how life started. The stupid generalisation that grains of sand transform into Human beings is laughable, we are not silicon based animals, but carbon based. As long as carbon is available, then life as we know it is possible. There may be silicon lifeforms, but I have never heard of one, every lifeform on this rock is definitely carbon based, therefore as life is apparent, if you have carbon, life can exist.
Original post by imtelling
Human beings have the power of creation, and yet, no one is saying that our creations just magically appeared from nothing.

Why is it necessary to explain the creators, creator?

For example, human beings create AI. One day, that AI may ask itself where it came from, and the answer will be humans -- to AI, humans will literally be God.

Is it therefore logical for the AI to say to itself: 'well, we don't know who created the humans, therefore, humans don't exist'


So do dogs, rats, mushrooms and bacteria, all of which takes some complicated form of reproduction. This is not any metaphysical magical trick, it is well understood how we create, we don't ascribe the sexual act to god.

I am worried by your continual use of nothing, nothing does not exist, if it did you would not exist. You ought to forget philosophy and learn a little science.
Original post by imtelling
Human beings have the power of creation, and yet, no one is saying that our creations just magically appeared from nothing.

Why is it necessary to explain the creators, creator?

For example, human beings create AI. One day, that AI may ask itself where it came from, and the answer will be humans -- to AI, humans will literally be God.

Is it therefore logical for the AI to say to itself: 'well, we don't know who created the humans, therefore, humans don't exist'


This is a bit of an odd argument because in such a scenario the AI will be aware of the scientific theory of evolution and thus aware of the origin of humans.

The point is not that we do not know who or what created the creator, but that we have no scientific explanation as to how a creator came into being and how that creator can violate the known laws of physics. Also, there is no scientific model of the universe that requires that creator's existance in any way. This is very different to your scenario, where the existance of humans as creators of AI is within a scientific understanding of the universe.

Of course, philosophers and theologians argue that the above is tantamount to an argument from ignorance and I would agree if it is used as a justification for strong atheism (as it is often), but these scholars are also guilt themselves of constructing an ad hoc notion of a creator. This is an anathema to scientific thought, hence why there is a deep issue between a directly intervening God and science.
Reply 75
It's highly probable that many of us will die never knowing the answer. With that in mind, who the **** cares?
Original post by imtelling
Human beings have the power of creation, and yet, no one is saying that our creations just magically appeared from nothing.

Why is it necessary to explain the creators, creator?

For example, human beings create AI. One day, that AI may ask itself where it came from, and the answer will be humans -- to AI, humans will literally be God.

Is it therefore logical for the AI to say to itself: 'well, we don't know who created the humans, therefore, humans don't exist'


That's a false analogy. Presumably the AI will remember the humans creating it, or indeed be able ask a human if it was created by humans. We who have no hard evidence of a deity's existence are forced to posit one without evidence to explain our existence, but for your AI, humanity's existence would be plain, visible fact.
The participatory anthropic principle suggests that a universe can only be 'real' if there is intelligent life observing it already present, otherwise there would be no way to confirm whether pr not the universe exists.

It makes sense that conditions may seem to be fine tuned in order to allow life to develop simply because we are here today. It doesn't mean that there's any mystical forces behind it.
Original post by imtelling
Let's presume that the big bang theory is correct and inanimate matter magically appeared one day from absolute nothingness.

This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.

Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.

I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.

There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.

Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.


The infinity principle.
If anywhere near as many people who claim to believe in God actually do why don't they act like they do?

To be Godly, you'd invite many people in to your house, you'd give them much of your time, you'd personally seek to understand the psychology / the life history of why people do bad- or at least unusual- things rather than just leaving it up to them, alone, to work out how to make sense of a world that , on the one hand, glorifies criminality in films, and simply by putting criminals on the news (infamy- a curious turn on for some women)- and on the other hand deems certain crimes beyond the pale. Well I have news for you- the 10 Commandments doesn't necessarily regard murder as worse than coveting. So if you do believe in God you must get rid of your barriers that say that it's alright to spend your life seeking material pleasures but not alright to try to annoy people out of being so material (e.g. by coveting their possessions).

People deem what is beneficial to them as being acceptable kinds of crimes.

Isn't it somewhat criminal to you to lead a life of some pleasure whilst you know that your elderly neighbour, a person you could grudgingly admit is lovely, rarely has any visitors and lacks the confidence, outlets- and most importantly 'audience' - to make the most of their quiet inner abilities?

It's criminal to me.

If modern life encourages individuals to just do their own thing more or less at a whim why should they be surprised when some people who haven't been given easy starts in life feel aggrieved that the 'normal, common sense majority' (who I daresay are less normal by the day in their cossetted, fat, compensation culture, child benefit kind of lives with more money than ever before in the value of their houses and more complaining that they have 'no money') seem not to care that they exist?

Green Day once sang 'The innocent can never last'. If this was a Godly world the innocent WOULD last. Is having sex itself a loss of innocence? If so, why would anyone who claims to believe in God do it? Well, because religion also says that having a family is a good. But Christianity actually doesn't say that to have a family is the best thing- that is a misconception. To be a virtuous virgin is, in fact, regarded as the pinnacle of Christianity. But so many so called 'Christians' choose to overlook that. Oh no- to them to have a 2.4 children with at least 2.4 holidays a year and a middle class life is the ideal of Christianity. Oh no it isn't. If you bring dependents in to a world that already has abandoned children who could use your care you are not squeezing out your selfishness to the best of your abilities.

There are so many more ways I could go on to down to the seemingly simple fact of people not smiling at each other. Tensions like this are not Godly. Sometimes they might be politeness, a display of humbleness in some cultures not to smile. But there is such a vast difference in personalities and intellects and drives and histories and customs that it often seems underhand to me to speak of a 'human race' at all. It's more meaningful to me to speak of similar personalities.

And if we can't speak of a true human race that has sufficient emotional and intellectual connections how can we speak of us being formed in the image of God?

It seems more consistent to me that we're stuff- chemicals, nerves, memories, hopes, fears. But how much comfort God brings- or should bring- is another question. I don't know about you but Nietzsche tends to bring me more comfort, tends to make more sense of the course of my life and how others have impacted me and how I seem to have impacted them regardless of how good I was trying to be to them.

The saying 'Fortune favours the brave' might choose to neglect to say 'Fortune favours those who don't care about either their own or other people's emotions'.

After all, if you get in to the history books and don't get tried as a war criminal for unleashing 2 nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians during World War 2 because it is argued that what you did was more a good than an evil then 'Fortune favours those who don't care about either their own or other people's emotions'. No-one who cared about the emotions of 'mankind' en masse could surely have unleashed those things. They unleashed stuff that changed the chemistry of people from being living people to being dead ones.

If God is somewhere in this picture can you see what a strange picture it is. To spend centuries looking at people inflicted with plague, wars, people kept in pits as punishment, hanged or burned as witches, then to spend a shorter amount of time looking at societies that might have swung too far the other way - ultra liberal, making up its own rules in the absence of clear cut moral guidance. But it's all OK apparently- seek forgiveness - not even from the person you harmed but from God- and all's OK with the world! Even if it means you make a species or a way of life extinct in the process!
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply