Gap between life and non-life (split from What if god...)

[Khanzhoren]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:58 AM, LuckyR said:

A better question would be, if there actually are gods, are they among the 10,000 gods invented by humans, or some as yet to be thought of gods?

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings . But how can we define "power"  when talking about gods? Anyway, If other more mysterious (higher?) beings than human exist, there must eventually exist more mysterious (higher ?) attributes  that distinguish them. A question that can arises is the following: Are humans the pinnacle of self-consciousness and intelligence? Are there "things" deeper (higher ?)  than "human consciousness" and "human intelligence"? Indeed, it seems that these are the main attributes that distinguish humans from other living beings, just as life distinguishes living beings from non-living things. But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Khanzhoren said:

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings

And if there's more than one?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

One way to look at this is solar efficiency. Organic or living matter can much more efficiently absorb and dissipate sunlight as heat than inorganic matter or non-living matter can. A rock is very durable, but it has limited ways to disperse the heat it collects. Life is just better at that.

As for comparing intelligences, that's not as meaningful. We're more than big brains. Human intelligence is different in a large part because we have lots of compatible features other animals don't, even animals with bigger brains. They don't walk upright to free up their hands, their thumbs can't oppose their fingers for gripping, and they can't communicate as well so they can't cooperate as well when they need help.

Any gap is purely perspective and context, and not a mystery at all. Birds gave up a lot for flight, just like we gave up a lot for bigger brains. Sharks are incredibly evolutionarily stable, and our brains would be of little use if a human and a shark were tossed together in the middle of the ocean.

[Khanzhoren]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

And if there's more than one?

Can there be more than one 'most powerful'? Even if there are several possible gods, there must be one who is the strongest? The God of gods ? the top of the pyramid ?

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

One way to look at this is solar efficiency. Organic or living matter can much more efficiently absorb and dissipate sunlight as heat than inorganic matter or non-living matter can. A rock is very durable, but it has limited ways to disperse the heat it collects. Life is just better at that.

As for comparing intelligences, that's not as meaningful. We're more than big brains. Human intelligence is different in a large part because we have lots of compatible features other animals don't, even animals with bigger brains. They don't walk upright to free up their hands, their thumbs can't oppose their fingers for gripping, and they can't communicate as well so they can't cooperate as well when they need help.

Any gap is purely perspective and context, and not a mystery at all. Birds gave up a lot for flight, just like we gave up a lot for bigger brains. Sharks are incredibly evolutionarily stable, and our brains would be of little use if a human and a shark were tossed together in the middle of the ocean.

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example? And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

Edited January 15 by Khanzhoren

[LuckyR]

11 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings . But how can we define "power"  when talking about gods? Anyway, If other more mysterious (higher?) beings than human exist, there must eventually exist more mysterious (higher ?) attributes  that distinguish them. A question that can arises is the following: Are humans the pinnacle of self-consciousness and intelligence? Are there "things" deeper (higher ?)  than "human consciousness" and "human intelligence"? Indeed, it seems that these are the main attributes that distinguish humans from other living beings, just as life distinguishes living beings from non-living things. But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

Well originally the definition of gods were that they had superhuman powers, it was only when Modern (monotheistic) religions were invented that gods were required to be omnipotent. So your focus on "most powerful" while common currently, was not a requirement back when the concept of gods was invented.

[Luc Turpin]

 

6 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example? And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

The question of how life emerged from simple molecules remains unresolved. Various theories, such as prebiotic chemistry, the RNA world hypothesis, and protocell formation, offer some insights, yet the exact pathway from non-living matter to living organisms remains elusive.

Great apes, dolphins, elephants, and certain birds like the magpie have passed the mirror test, indicating a level of cognitive self-recognition. Also, elephants, dolphins, great apes, crows, dogs, and whales display mourning behaviors, suggesting an emotional understanding of death. And animal intelligence spans a wide range of cognitive abilities, including tool use, problem solving, communication, and social intelligence.

Therefore, while there is a clear gap between the non-living and the living, the cognitive divide between humans and other animals may not be as vast as often assumed.

Edited January 15 by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Can there be more than one 'most powerful'? Even if there are several possible gods, there must be one who is the strongest? The God of gods ? the top of the pyramid ?

Precisely. They can’t all be most powerful. So in that case “if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings” can’t be a true statement

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example?

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/20%3A_The_Origins_of_Life/20.03%3A_Formation_of_Organic_Molecules_in_an_Earthly_Reducing_Atmosphere

https://ebrary.net/70968/education/conversion_inorganic_materials_organic_matter_through_series_complex_reactions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1093669

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

8 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

Of course it's remarkable. But so is an animal that can fly because it's given up just about everything that doesn't aid flying. Birds don't even have the muscles to swallow water. Their evolution focused so much on wing muscles that now birds have to hold water in their mouths and then thrust their heads forward to force the water down their throats. Just about every species has something quite remarkable about it. Our remarkableness seems more relevant to us, for obvious reasons, but nature is full of remarkable species.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began. They contend that new insights are crucial to fully explain life's origins. The main challenges remain replicating the complex processes that lead to the creation of living matter, producing stable molecules under prebiotic conditions, explaining how DNA or RNA could arise from simple molecules, and understanding how simple protocells might evolve into fully functional living cells. Additionally, the difficulty of having random events occur naturally to result in life adds another layer of complexity. In summary, creating life from non-living matter remains an extraordinarily difficult challenge, with many unanswered questions regarding the necessary conditions and processes.

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis

On the RNA world:

The undreamt-of breakthrough of molecular biology has made the problem of the origin of life a greater riddle than it was before: we have acquired new and deeper problems. — Karl R. Popper

It goes without saying that the emergence of this RNA world and the transition to a DNA world imply an impressive number of stages, each more improbable than the previous one — François Jacob, 

There is no remnant or trace evidence of precellular life anywhere today. That it ever existed is entirely conjectural. Although its emergence from nonliving matter is hard to conceive, precellular life must have appeared almost immediately. There was almost no time for precellular life to evolve into the simplest bacterial cells. Precellular life has never been created in a lab. In spite of the RNA world, there is no consensus on the model for precellular life - Brig Klyce

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example?

So you are literally making a god-of-the-gaps argument.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began.

The member I responded to didn't ask that question, so I didn't respond to it. They asked for proof rather than supportive evidence, but I gave some supportive evidence that we know of ways inorganic matter could react in an early Earth environment to form the building blocks of what we define as life. There is an understandable amount of debate and argument over which way it happened.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began.

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

The statement seemed to suggest that we were on the verge of resolving the issue, which is not the case.

While it's true that unanswered questions in science do not serve as evidence for the existence of a supreme being, they may indicate "gaps" in our understanding of life itself.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 While it's true that unanswered questions in science do not serve as evidence for the existence of a supreme being, they may indicate "gaps" in our understanding of life itself.

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

[Luc Turpin]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

Agree!

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

I think a basic wrong assumption many folks are making is science claims to explain everything (like religions does). Rather, science is a methodology that aims to improve our understanding. After all, the job of scientists is predominantly working on the cutting edge of current knowledge, rather than blithely perpetuate existing knowledge (outside of teaching that is).

[Luc Turpin]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think a basic wrong assumption many folks are making is science claims to explain everything (like religions does). Rather, science is a methodology that aims to improve our understanding. After all, the job of scientists is predominantly working on the cutting edge of current knowledge, rather than blithely perpetuate existing knowledge (outside of teaching that is).

The belief that science will "explain everything" helps explain why some think it already has, or will soon, provide answers to all questions about existence. The Theory of Everything, for instance, rests on the idea that uncovering universal laws will explain all phenomena. However, to achieve this ambitious goal, science requires more than just a reductionist approach. Emergent properties and the unpredictability of complex systems present significant challenges. A more holistic approach, one that accounts for subjective experience, might bring us closer to understanding reality, but it too may never fully achieve this ultimate goal.

In contrast, religion embraces the existence of mysteries that transcend human comprehension, such as: Why are we here? What is the soul? What happens after death? The nature of the Divine — all remain profound mysteries of life. Rather than striving to fully understand these mysteries, religion regards them as central to existence, meant to be revered and accepted. By acknowledging these mysteries, religion fosters humility, recognizing that some parts of reality are beyond human grasp.

Edited January 17 by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The belief that science will "explain everything" helps explain why some think it already has, or will soon, provide answers to all questions about existence. The Theory of Everything, for instance, rests on the idea that uncovering universal laws will explain all phenomena. However, to achieve this ambitious goal, science requires more than just a reductionist approach. Emergent properties and the unpredictability of complex systems present significant challenges. A more holistic approach, one that accounts for subjective experience, might bring us closer to understanding reality, but it too may never fully achieve this ultimate goal.

In contrast, religion embraces the existence of mysteries that transcend human comprehension, such as: Why are we here? What is the soul? What happens after death? The nature of the Divine — all remain profound mysteries of life. Rather than striving to fully understand these mysteries, religion regards them as central to existence, meant to be revered and accepted. By acknowledging these mysteries, religion fosters humility, recognizing that some parts of reality are beyond human grasp.

And we know religion gives us wrong answers, because there is more than one religion, and some of the answers are in conflict.

We don’t know what’s beyond our grasp unless we try to find out. And we keep expanding our knowledge.

[Luc Turpin]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

And we know religion gives us wrong answers, because there is more than one religion, and some of the answers are in conflict.

We don’t know what’s beyond our grasp unless we try to find out. And we keep expanding our knowledge.

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything, while religion acknowledges the mysteries that remain beyond our comprehension. Both religion and science have their shortcomings — religion has its failings, and science has its limitations.

Moreover, the pursuit of knowledge beyond our current understanding is a virtuous endeavor. However, assuming that we will ultimately know everything may be presumptuous, as some aspects of reality may always elude our grasp.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything, while religion acknowledges the mysteries that remain beyond our comprehension. Both religion and science have their shortcomings — religion has its failings, and science has its limitations.

Moreover, the pursuit of knowledge beyond our current understanding is a virtuous endeavor. However, assuming that we will ultimately know everything may be presumptuous, as some aspects of reality may always elude our grasp.

We don’t know some of these limitations of science without testing.

Of what practical use is a religious answer if we don’t know it’s correct? The notion that some god is looking out for you might provide comfort, but it’s not going to do much in determining if the bridge ahead is safe.

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We don’t know some of these limitations of science without testing.

Of what practical use is a religious answer if we don’t know it’s correct? The notion that some god is looking out for you might provide comfort, but it’s not going to do much in determining if the bridge ahead is safe.

I agree on both points, but believe it’s spirituality, not religion, that keeps us humble. Spirituality allows a personal connection to the unknown, accepting mystery without needing rigid answers to life's uncertainties.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything,

No, science is a methodology that a) is focused on the physical world and b) acknowledges that is a journey. A scientist seeks new knowledge which implicitly assumes that there is no fixed end. If everything is understood, the job of a scientist is done and ends. And while I have heard many confident answers about the world from religious folks, I have not yet met a scientist who is confident that one day we will know everything there is to know. There is a type of humility in science (though not to be confused with personality of certain scientists...)  which folks don't see due to limited interactions with it. Almost all scientists I know and talk to (excluding hotshot youngsters who still believe that they alone will change the world), know that we know little of the world and that each of us will only contribute a tiny bit throughout our career. Thinking that at one point we know everything is akin to the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, theoretically if it goes on forever, there is the possibility that we will have explored everything (at which point the world might be a very boring place) but it a very theoretical consideration.

The key element in your sentence is "seek". It is a journey we do not expect to end.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I agree on both points, but believe it’s spirituality, not religion, that keeps us humble. Spirituality allows a personal connection to the unknown, accepting mystery without needing rigid answers to life's uncertainties.

So tell us the difference between religion and this quasi-religion you call "spirituality"? Please also tell us what is humble about accepting someone else's unsupported explanation about a phenomena without questioning it first? That doesn't fit my definition of humble. It's more like "naive" or "gullible". It describes someone who thinks blind faith in anything is a strong and admirable stance. It's definitely unscientific. 

I'm often humbled (in the real sense) when I read about scientific advancements or some new knowledge about life on this planet. I'm humbled to think that all life we've found in the universe seems to be clustered on the surface of this planet, but it's the life itself I observe that humbles me, not some imagined mystery involving things I can NEVER observe.

What if gods are just mental laziness on the part of otherwise intelligent humans?

[Luc Turpin]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No, science is a methodology that a) is focused on the physical world and b) acknowledges that is a journey. A scientist seeks new knowledge which implicitly assumes that there is no fixed end. If everything is understood, the job of a scientist is done and ends. And while I have heard many confident answers about the world from religious folks, I have not yet met a scientist who is confident that one day we will know everything there is to know. There is a type of humility in science (though not to be confused with personality of certain scientists...)  which folks don't see due to limited interactions with it. Almost all scientists I know and talk to (excluding hotshot youngsters who still believe that they alone will change the world), know that we know little of the world and that each of us will only contribute a tiny bit throughout our career. Thinking that at one point we know everything is akin to the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, theoretically if it goes on forever, there is the possibility that we will have explored everything (at which point the world might be a very boring place) but it a very theoretical consideration.

The key element in your sentence is "seek". It is a journey we do not expect to end.

My understanding of science is that it is more than just a method; it’s also a growing body of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. New discoveries constantly expand our understanding, making science an ongoing journey that raises more questions than provides answers.

However, claiming that science doesn’t consider an endpoint overlooks some views in the field. Many theoretical physicists believe that a complete understanding, like a Theory of Everything, could be a potential "end point." The search for fundamental particles, a key pursuit in modern physics as well, could also be seen as aiming for an endpoint. For me, though, this search for fundamental particles has shown that science is an evolving journey rather than a fixed destination.

Additionally, claiming that religion knows everything is misleading. Most religious traditions embrace mystery and faith, recognizing that some truths are beyond human comprehension.

In summary, saying that science avoids an endpoint oversimplifies the issue, while suggesting that religion knows everything misrepresents most religious traditions, which embrace mystery, faith, and uncertainty.

[iNow]

I'd say it a different way: Science is a process to systematically remove bias from what we believe. Religion is a tool that codifies that bias and ends the search.