The fundamental principle of evolution is development of species through natural selection.

Natural Selection is based on the notion that favours survival of the fittest.

Creatures supposedly develop features over time that enable them to survive competitively within the natural world.

Thus Evolution and natural selection tend firmly towards life and survival.

This in itself clearly presupposes that nature is life-driven - as it continuously hones its creatures towards life.

Perhaps the question should be asked: why is this? Why is nature interested in the furtherance of life?

It is paradoxical as a strictly material universe surely could not be bothered about furthering life.

It thus emerges that the very principle of natural selection which operates to further life is compelling evidence that the entire system we live in is life-driven and grows towars the furtherance of life.

Why is this?

A good answer to my mind would be the existence of God - Ultimate Life, as it were.

Because it is glaring that if LIFE by itself were not a living pulsating reality, nature could just as easily have tended towards death or annihilation.

Evolution proves the existence of God!

I see evolution as a paralysed theory because we all have to agree that no matter what humans and plants evolved from there is someone that created those things

We only know of life in a very very very very very very very small part of the universe,  To say all of the universe is geared towards the existence of life on earth is kinda gutsy IMO.

And that there is life on earth does not mean that is what nature is "geared" toward. Could be that certain conditions just happen to permit life.

I think your theory falls apart in the first couple of lines 

Perhaps the poster of this topic simply does not understand the meaning of either evolution or creation. HOW has evolution "proven" creation in this cyclical cacophony?

That something tends towards life DOES not tell you anything about the origin of LIFE or even anything about existence in the first place! Once again, I'm afraid you're taking very huge jumps to very hasty conclusions.

@ Krayola - Be careful in reading my words.

I said natural selection as a theory posits a a process that furthers life.

This is a scientific fact that you cannot deny.

The question you need to ask yourself is - WHY?

Why is there supposedly that inbuilt mechanism to develop competive features that enhance survival chances?

Why is it not simply that creatures rather than mutate or develop, just die off as a whole?

Why is the process driven by survival? ? ?

What actuates survival? ? ?

Why is there the need for anything to survive? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Why is it not simply that creatures rather than mutate or develop, just die off as a whole?

Ever heard of extinction?

Why is there the need for anything to survive? ? ?

How does the need for survival "prove" either evolution or creation?
Which of the two between evolution and creation is 'the need for anything to survive' pointing to?

Viaro -

Its been a while. How are you doing?

Extinction does occur. But when some species go extinct, other species go on to survive.

Indeed natural selection as a theory is based on the very extinction of species that were unable to survive.

The theory which states that some species change and develop competitive features which enhance survival begs the question -

What actuates the development of such features?

Survival.

Why the need to survive? What is the Earth's/ Nature's/ the universe's (whichever you choose) interest in survival, such that creatures are impelled to develop features that enhance survival?

Does this not point to a propelling element furthering life?

Can you tell me what actuates the need to survive?

At this stage i must introduce a question on the subject that i think is pertinent -

When supposed mutations occur that enhance the ability of a creature to competitively survive -

1. Does the creature consciously "think" that it requires the mutation and therby begins to stimulate its brain to derive the mutation over generations or -

2. Does the supposed mutation occur over generations unconsciously, without the awareness of the creature.

The first supposition is eminently false and a farce - just a joke really.

The second supposition is the correct supposition and shows that biological elements are at work improving "survivability" even when the creature is totally unaware of the activity of such elements.

What are these elements?

What actuates the elements to derive developments in the biological make-up of the creature which further its survivability and thereby furthers life?

Amico mio, viaro is doing well, thanks. And you?

The thing here is that your presentation is not helping the topic of your thread, nor helping us to see that you have a grasp of what you're trying to present. I'm not an expert on either evolution or creation - but I'm really curious about what you're saying, which is neither here nor there. Let's see a few examples:

Deep Sight:

Extinction does occur. But when some species go extinct, other species go on to survive.

Extinction answers your question earlier - to show that creatures die off completely.

Indeed natural selection as a theory is based on the very extinction of species that were unable to survive.

I don't know if that is what natural selection - as a theory - is based on. Perhaps, those who are versed in paleobiology would claim that field as theirs proper.

The theory which states that some species change and develop competitive features which enhance survival begs the question -

What actuates the development of such features?

Survival.

But what does 'survival' point to - that was what I'd wanted you to show. Your answer would throw us again to the initial question of "how" evolution proves anything about creation.

Why the need to survive? What is the Earth's/ Nature's/ the universe's (whichever you choose) interest in survival, such that creatures are impelled to develop features that enhance survival?

I'm not actually gonna play the devil's advocate here - but I don't think that cosmological sciences deem that the interest of the Universe (however you may term that) is 'survival' as such - and it all depends on what reference point you're approaching your subject from. Point is, not all systems within the cosmos from a naturalistic perspective are interested in either their own survival or the survival of other systems. Elements within systems may tend to seem like they are "interested" in survival - but that is far fetched outside of biological life and other assumed/hypothesised intelligences.

Does this not point to a propelling element furthering life?

No. At least, we know that diseases for instance do not tend to fit that descriptive element.

Can you tell me what actuates the need to survive?

I cannot tell you everything, because I don't know. I could only point to some - which again would not be descriptive of all such 'need to survive'. However, neither survival nor evolution "proves" anything about creation - which is what I think is more weighty here as a concern that you should show.

Deep Sight:

What actuates the elements to derive developments in the biological make-up of the creature which further its survivability and thereby furthers life?

But hey, you often make reference to the idea of something that "furthers life" - but furthering life is one thing, and the origin of life is quite another. The point here is for you to solve the gap between these great leaps by showing HOW evolution "proves" creation.

Great points Viaro - I am off for some Guiness Stout now and will revert comprehensively later.

But for now let me just drop a few notes -

On Dieseases -
1. The very same biological systems which prompt supposed mutations also develop antibodies to deal with dieseases. Many creatures become immune to most forms of infection after a sustained period of dealing with such infections. Why does the body develop such antibodies and immunities? Why are bodies not made such that they do not resist infection and death? Why the resistance? Survival again. What is actuating this? A propelling factor towards life, perhaps?

On Extinctions -
2. Is it not the case that many extinctions require a disruption to nature beforehand? Such as a meteorite hitting the Earth, or mankind's industrial activity, etc etc. In other words that such extinctions are actually not within the natural order?

3. That said, there are some extinctions that actually pave the way for new life and a new cycle of creatures. . . but the very fact that biological systems independently struggle towards survival (whether or not they actually give way to extinction eventually) is indicative of the forward pressure of nature in favour of LIFE. . .What actuates this?

Be right back. . _{.(maybe with a hangover, in the morning)}

Deep Sight:

Great points Viaro - I am off for some Guiness Stout now and will revert comprehensively later.

Enjoy, amico mio. . enjoy _{i woulda tagged along, but my e-jailor (nuclearboy) would be on the lookout!}

But for now let me just drop a few notes -

On Dieseases -
1. The very same biological systems which prompt supposed mutations also develop antibodies to deal with dieseases. Many creatures become immune to most forms of infection after a sustained period of dealing with such infections. Why does the body develop such antibodies and immunities? Why are bodies not made such that they do not resist infection and death? Why the resistance? Survival again. What is actuating this? A propelling factor towards life, perhaps?

That does not address diseases - it rather tries to defend the biological systems which try to develop resistance, but not the diseases in themselves. Would you say that the diseases are a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack?

On Extinctions -
2. Is it not the case that many extinctions require a disruption to nature beforehand? Such as a meteorite hitting the Earth, or mankind's industrial activity, etc etc. In other words that such extinctions are actually not within the natural order?

Nope, the meteorite thingy is arguably hypothetical - and 'extinction' is not limited to meteorites hittng the earth.

3. That said, there are some extinctions that actually pave the way for new life and a new cycle of creatures. . .

Such as. . ??

but the very fact that biological systems independently struggle towards survival (whether or not they actually give way to extinction eventually) is indicative of the forward pressure of nature in favour of LIFE. . .What actuates this?

But just what is "nature" here? And again, how does this 'survival' determine the proof that the topic set out to accomplish?

Viaro how far, how body two days? Hope you are good out there? Best wishes. . . . . . .

mazaje bro, I've been trying to relax for more than two days. . but doing good all the same. And you??

viaro:

Enjoy, amico mio. . enjoy _{i woulda tagged along, but my e-jailor (nuclearboy) would be on the lookout!}
That does not address diseases - it rather tries to defend the biological systems which try to develop resistance, but not the diseases in themselves. Would you say that the diseases are a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack?
Nope, the meteorite thingy is arguably hypothetical - and 'extinction' is not limited to meteorites hittng the earth.
Such as. . ??
But just what is "nature" here? And again, how does this 'survival' determine the proof that the topic set out to accomplish?

Nature is chaotic and disorganised, and indifferent. The purpose of life is reduced to survival and all life strive for it including man. Diseases are not organisms but effects of parasites who strive for survival also. Mutation always does not occur to exactly fit a particular environment.

Kay 17:

Nature is chaotic and disorganised, and indifferent. The purpose of life is reduced to survival and all life strive for it including man. Diseases are not organisms but effects of parasites who strive for survival also. Mutation always does not occur to exactly fit a particular environment.

I don't know what you mean by nature being 'disorganised'. There could be chaotic systems in nature; but not that nature is therefore chaotic and disorganised. As to whether nature is indifferent, that does not say anything about what 'nature' is, or how you employ that term here.

As regards diseases, I don't think it was used in my comments earlier to mean organisms. If you look again, I first mentioned it (I suppose) as a response to DeepSight's idea of a propelling element for survival (not a propelling organism). As a "factor" in biological systems, I was of the mind that diseases are NOT a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack.

viaro:

I don't know what you mean by nature being 'disorganised'. There could be chaotic systems in nature; but not that nature is therefore chaotic and disorganised. As to whether nature is indifferent, that does not say anything about what 'nature' is, or how you employ that term here.

As regards diseases, I don't think it was used in my comments earlier to mean organisms. If you look again, I first mentioned it (I suppose) as a response to DeepSight's idea of a propelling element for survival (not a propelling organism). As a "factor" in biological systems, I was of the mind that diseases are NOT a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack.

the discussion was primarily on the struggle of every organism to survive. that in itself proves the chaotic character of nature, NOT on some systems.

Kay 17:

the discussion was primarily on the struggle of every organism to survive. that in itself proves the chaotic character of nature, NOT on some systems.

No worries, I understood the discussion and tried to contain my comments within the concerns of the thread. What is yet to come to light is how 'evolution "proves" creation' - and 'the struggle of every organism to survive' does not bring us any closer to 'proving' anything about the title/topic of the thread.

karo93:

I see evolution as a paralysed theory because we all have to agree that no matter what humans and plants evolved from there is someone that created those things

about half the people who agree with evolution also agree there is a "creator" the two ideas are not mutualy exclusive. a "god" can creat the basic building blocks of life (ie the elements) and evolution can then shape those elements into all there is today.

And where is Viaro? We never finished with this. I see my hangover may have lasted some months, Lol.

I have to say it was scary reading your first post. You use too many big adjectives that have too many meanings. Keep it simple and people will understand you better. Now go fetch Viaro. I want to club him over the head, I mean, pick his brain.

someone thinking along my line >>> finally !!!!!!

^^^ As per?

Deep Sight:

The fundamental principle of evolution is development of species through natural selection.

Natural Selection is based on the notion that favours survival of the fittest.

Creatures supposedly develop features over time that enable them to survive competitively within the natural world.

Thus Evolution and natural selection tend firmly towards life and survival.

This in itself clearly presupposes that nature is life-driven - as it continuously hones its creatures towards life.

Perhaps the question should be asked: why is this? Why is nature interested in the furtherance of life?

It is paradoxical as a strictly material universe surely could not be bothered about furthering life.

It thus emerges that the very principle of natural selection which operates to further life is compelling evidence that the entire system we live in is life-driven and grows towars the furtherance of life.

Why is this?

A good answer to my mind would be the existence of God - Ultimate Life, as it were.

Because it is glaring that if LIFE by itself were not a living pulsating reality, nature could just as easily have tended towards death or annihilation.

Evolution proves the existence of God!

Quick response:

There's not much logic involved in your argument. Further, if findings so far in our solar system and galaxy are an indication of the universe as a whole, then it would be more likely that life is a rarity.

There's also a simpler explanation for the will to life: it is those species that strive to survive that get to survive. Those species that didn't want to or could not try to live didn't pass that on. Evolution at work. Nature does have a balance between life and death.

I don't think there's anything philosophically wrong with his logic, scientifically maybe, but definitely not philosophically.

Most extinctions, cuz I have a feeling that's what you're alluding to, occur as a result of one species adapting so well at the expense of another or simply because the other species failed to properly adapt to some other new stimuli. But their success or failure is not the point. The point is why do they try at all. If the dynamics that sparked life were so random, it ought to equally randomly fall apart. I believe in evolution in the sense that species hone their skills and shed unnecessary attributes to better cope in a habitat. Mind you, evolution, natural selection etc are the best explanations we have for everything but they're not exhaustive or conclusive. It gets more bizarre as we go back in time and life gets more primitive.

Here's another thing I'm thinking. So that I can be lucid I'll use an illustration. Imagine having to complete a jigsaw puzzle as big as a football field and the rules are that you have to pick the pieces from a box and place on the board correctly and in precisely ONE order from beginning to end and any mistake you make will cause you to start again AND you do not have the ability to learn from your mistakes so theoretically it is possible to make the same mistake again and again forever. This is a similar and I'm sure a vastly understated task with the unlikely event of life being brewed from the primordial soup that is always been proposed. This is where I find people like Dawkins, Hawkings and co. to believe in a 'truth' that is stranger than fiction. The odds are too long and mathematically non-additive. I even forgot to add the time factor for as the primordial soup is cooking variations in conditions suitable for life will occur. Imagine! These are just the odds for probably the first amino-acids occuring and it'll probably 'die' before another.

Scientists like quote the sheer number of planets in the universe and the sheer amount of time that has elapsed since the big bang as probable evidence that anything could've happened since then. I actually agree with this somewhat but that's scientifically weak logic even though it appeals to one's romantic side. In this sort of thing, I find atheistic romantism almost the same with a theist in defending God. Anyways, if I had the facility, I'd attempt to calculate the probability of life spontaneously occuring AND sustained within the time range of the birth of the universe and the amount of planets in the universes we have that have conditions suitable for life namely: a star or sun close enough and far enough, water, etc. I can bet my left foot that the odds will be exhausted. It is common saying that there are more water molecules in a cup of water than there are cups of water on earth. In order words, atoms are damned small things.

Another thing, almost certainly, the first forms of life would exist in the water and they'll be able to get their energy through inorganic means. Why would they evolve to start feeding on scarce resources (a carnivorous lifestlye) and not keep feeding on whatever it is they were feeding on before. It's like human beings abandoning unlimited sea water as fuel and opting for the limited fossil fuel.

There are a lot of other reasons why I believe in what I believe (which is too little) and disbelieve in stuff I disbelieve (which is a lot)

I think the incentive to live is in life itself, There is the reluctance to be extinguished. Besides compulsive suicidal traits would be discouraged.
besides there is no purpose to live, just like there is no purpose for the wide largely empty universe,

I'm sorry I do not understand you at all

vescucci:

I don't think there's anything philosophically wrong with his logic, scientifically maybe, but definitely not philosophically.

There was plenty wrong philosophically with his logic.

Most extinctions, cuz I have a feeling that's what you're alluding to, occur as a result of one species adapting so well at the expense of another or simply because the other species failed to properly adapt to some other new stimuli.

I wasn't referring to extinctions, I was referring to selection in general.

But their success or failure is not the point. The point is why do they try at all. If the dynamics that sparked life were so random, it ought to equally randomly fall apart. I believe in evolution in the sense that species hone their skills and shed unnecessary attributes to better cope in a habitat. Mind you, evolution, natural selection etc are the best explanations we have for everything but they're not exhaustive or conclusive. It gets more bizarre as we go back in time and life gets more primitive.

Why do they try at all? Because surviving becomes a trait of its own that has gotten selected. Like I said previously, any organisms without the will to live and/or unable to reproduce, will be trumped by other organisms that can do those things. I don;t see why it would "randomly fall apart", as selection ends up minimising the random aspect.

What do you mean by it gets more bizarre? I'm not disagreeing on it being bizarre, just curious.

Here's another thing I'm thinking. So that I can be lucid I'll use an illustration. Imagine having to complete a jigsaw puzzle as big as a football field and the rules are that you have to pick the pieces from a box and place on the board correctly and in precisely ONE order from beginning to end and any mistake you make will cause you to start again AND you do not have the ability to learn from your mistakes so theoretically it is possible to make the same mistake again and again forever. This is a similar and I'm sure a vastly understated task with the unlikely event of life being brewed from the primordial soup that is always been proposed. This is where I find people like Dawkins, Hawkings and co. to believe in a 'truth' that is stranger than fiction. The odds are too long and mathematically non-additive. I even forgot to add the time factor for as the primordial soup is cooking variations in conditions suitable for life will occur. Imagine! These are just the odds for probably the first amino-acids occuring and it'll probably 'die' before another.

Except it's more like having thousands or millions of people all trying to solve the jigsaw puzzle and many of the pieces can fit or be made to fit in so many different ways. Oh, and I'd argue that contrary to what you've claimed, in the analogy, the jigsaw fitters can learn from their mistakes and even build on the mistakes making a complete picture of . . .well, something. The odds become better then.

Scientists like quote the sheer number of planets in the universe and the sheer amount of time that has elapsed since the big bang as probable evidence that anything could've happened since then. I actually agree with this somewhat but that's scientifically weak logic even though it appeals to one's romantic side.

You see, here, I disagree that it's weak logic. Some have even gone as far as to represent the argument analytically. More, there are some strong hypotheses to support the argument for a natural incidence of life on our planet.

In this sort of thing, I find atheistic romantism almost the same with a theist in defending God. Anyways, if I had the facility, I'd attempt to calculate the probability of life spontaneously occuring AND sustained within the time range of the birth of the universe and the amount of planets in the universes we have that have conditions suitable for life namely: a star or sun close enough and far enough, water, etc. I can bet my left foot that the odds will be exhausted.

The odds are 1.

It is common saying that there are more water molecules in a cup of water than there are cups of water on earth. In order words, atoms are damned small things. Another thing, almost certainly, the first forms of life would exist in the water and they'll be able to get their energy through inorganic means. Why would they evolve to start feeding on scarce resources (a carnivorous lifestlye) and not keep feeding on whatever it is they were feeding on before. It's like human beings abandoning unlimited sea water as fuel and opting for the limited fossil fuel.

From the bottom up: humans did abandon sea water as fuel and still use the proceeds of fossils for fuel. Why? Because the output - i.e. benefits - of one far outweighs the other, to the point that it's deemed a necessary risk to swap one for the other.

In any case, you've skipped whole swarthes of the evolution of life and competition between organisms by jumping from feeding on the inorganic to carnivores. However, consuming prey tends to provide more nutrients, etc therefore, more energy.

There are a lot of other reasons why I believe in what I believe (which is too little) and disbelieve in stuff I disbelieve (which is a lot)

Reasons are goof things to have.

Lol, KAG. You're certainly a man of few words. I'm afraid I do not like quoting.

Well selection presupposes extinction, no?

What I meant about it getting more bizarre is that we make the mistake of treating evolution as an arithmetic progression whereas to me, it's more like a geometric progression. What I mean is we get more suited to evolving as we get more complex. We have more tools to create more tools for survival. Working backwards, such feats as the development of a nervous system would seem more bizarre than say humans developing faculties to see IR and UV light. I'll come back to this later.

The odds I speak of, though I may be out of my depth, are too high. It is estimated that there are about a thousand billion billion or so planets. And this is supposed to be conservative and I agree. In fact, I do not really dispute the emergence of life as much as I dispute the sustenance of it. Lemme just ask something else, hypothetically, instead of making too many key strokes. Do you believe there is space station somewhere in the universe just existing because the odds are mathematically viable? I don't know what the most basic and uncomplicated living organism is on earth but I'm pretty sure it will be some sort of plankton. Do you realise how complex even that is? How many atoms make up the cell?

I'm glad you said that I jumped whole swarthes of evolution to make a point. That only shows I'm oversimplifying things which sort of makes my point. Anyways, most of all I say is uneducated speculation and I'm still studying the whole thing. But I don't think I can be convinced of life just spontaneously desiring anything let alone simply being. Think of the multitude of organisms just going thru life consuming fuel, making waste continuously just so that they can do it all over again tomorrow. Perhaps, evolution is God

KAG:

Quick response:

There's not much logic involved in your argument. Further, if findings so far in our solar system and galaxy are an indication of the universe as a whole, then it would be more likely that life is a rarity.

There's also a simpler explanation for the will to life: it is those species that strive to survive that get to survive. Those species that didn't want to or could not try to live didn't pass that on. Evolution at work. Nature does have a balance between life and death.

I am afraid you have made a statement without supporting it in the least - you term this a weak argument - and yet you do not show why it is so.

What you need to demonstrate is this -

Why do creatures develop traits that enable them to survive?

What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this - even if it occurs only in some creatures?

Is there any reaosn why the material universe should be concerned about survival?

There is no reason that you can proffer for this phenomenon if you work with the concept of a strictly material universe.

Perhaps I should also ask you the more subtle and fundamental question: what do you consider the universe to be? It is this vast system of various energies in constant motion and expansion. Do you think that this vast system contains any energies or elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure? Following on this - what is the relevance of the energies of living things within the overall super structure.

I positively assert to you that within your materialist world-view, you can advance no possible logical relevance of living things to the universe's superstructure: and this presents you with an unavoidable incongruity - to wit - if the universe does not contain energies or systems irrelevant to its super structure, why then does it contain living things.

And worse - sentient living things.

And worst: sentient living beings that developed their bodies through a process of adaptation that gradually ensured that they remain able to survive within the superstructure.

Yet again, I ask - "What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this."

In assessing the bolded in red within this post, please take a moment to reflect on this with regard to the universe:

1. It is absolutely impossible for a pure illogicality to exist.

2. Within the super structure that the universe is, every element therefore has its cause and consequence - which defines its relevance.

3. What is the relevance of living things to the universe?

Sorry for the delay.

vescucci:

Lol, KAG. You're certainly a man of few words. I'm afraid I do not like quoting.

That's fair enough.

Well selection presupposes extinction, no?

Not necessarily. Selection presupposes fitter organisms and sometimes, especially with isolation, speciation

What I meant about it getting more bizarre is that we make the mistake of treating evolution as an arithmetic progression whereas to me, it's more like a geometric progression. What I mean is we get more suited to evolving as we get more complex. We have more tools to create more tools for survival. Working backwards, such feats as the development of a nervous system would seem more bizarre than say humans developing faculties to see IR and UV light. I'll come back to this later.

I see what you mean. I'd say, though, that it's not quite right to think of evolution as a geometric progression either. Better to think of it as bush with many entangled branches and parts, than something that shows a clear progression. Also, I don't think organisms get more suited to evolving the more complex they get. "Simpler" organisms evolve quicker and easier than humans, for instance, will.

The odds I speak of, though I may be out of my depth, are too high. It is estimated that there are about a thousand billion billion or so planets. And this is supposed to be conservative and I agree. In fact, I do not really dispute the emergence of life as much as I dispute the sustenance of it. Lemme just ask something else, hypothetically, instead of making too many key strokes. Do you believe there is space station somewhere in the universe just existing because the odds are mathematically viable?

Yes. I know there's a space station somewhere in the universe just existing. The odds for it are, again, 1.

I don't know what the most basic and uncomplicated living organism is on earth but I'm pretty sure it will be some sort of plankton. Do you realise how complex even that is? How many atoms make up the cell?

Yes, I can imagine how complex even the most basic of plankton must be, but that's understandable when one considers the huge amount of time in which the species, genus, family, has evolved. I'm not sure the number of atoms are an indication of anything other than a testament to the atoms contained in the ecology and atmosphere in their habitat.

I'm glad you said that I jumped whole swarthes of evolution to make a point. That only shows I'm oversimplifying things which sort of makes my point. Anyways, most of all I say is uneducated speculation and I'm still studying the whole thing. But I don't think I can be convinced of life just spontaneously desiring anything let alone simply being. Think of the multitude of organisms just going thru life consuming fuel, making waste continuously just so that they can do it all over again tomorrow.

I see what you mean. But, while, you may have thought you were simplifying things by jumping a big chunk of evolution, I think you ended up making it more complicated that it was. It's easier to understand the progress of consumption and nutrition if it is viewed in lieu of a series of small changes and the advantages organisms derive from preying.

I can understand not wanting to think of life as just living for it's own sake. I appreciate that

Perhaps, evolution is God

It is to some. On the other hand, perhaps evolution made gods. Or not.

Deep Sight:

I am afraid you have made a statement without supporting it in the least - you term this a weak argument - and yet you do not show why it is so.

Okay, that's fair enough. Here are the reasons it's poor logic:

1. Ignoring the paucity of life in the Universe (as far as can be told, life is a rare phenomenon in the universe), you claim the will to survive is evidence of a god, without any internally consistent or following argument to support the conclusion. This, in turn, ensures that the conclusion involves special pleading.

2. You ignore parsimony. While on the surface reaching for a god might seemingly simplify things, it actually is an extra, complicated element in the argument. There are more sensible logical answers that don't require that extra step

3. The personification of nature means that rather than building an argument to reach a conclusion, you were using your conclusion to pretend there was a disinterested syllogism being presented. Essentially, your a priori - that nature has a goal and interests - means that your argument is based on unfounded ideas and predictably leads to a fallacy of necessity.

4. If life is evidence of a god, then non-life is evidence of . . .? Well, you can see where that could go, especially if one remembers there are non-living things capable of reproduction. Is that rudimentary continuance of non-life evidence of anything other than replication?

There could be more, but that's as far as I got.

What you need to demonstrate is this -

Why do creatures develop traits that enable them to survive?

What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this - even if it occurs only in some creatures?

Self replication. More specifically, for the most successful replicators: imperfect replication.

Is there any reaosn why the material universe should be concerned about survival?

There is no reason that you can proffer for this phenomenon if you work with the concept of a strictly material universe.

It isn't. Only beings are consciously concerned about survival.

Perhaps I should also ask you the more subtle and fundamental question: what do you consider the universe to be? It is this vast system of various energies in constant motion and expansion. Do you think that this vast system contains any energies or elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure? Following on this - what is the relevance of the energies of living things within the overall super structure.

The Universe is perhaps all there is. It holds both energy, motion, time, space, length, depth and matter. I wouldn't know if it contains elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure. No one can say that with any certainty, either. Anyone claiming to have that knowledge is peddling religion or bunkum (is there a difference?).

Are living things relevant to the universe? If a tree falls in a forest would its fall be notable if no one observes it? Depends I suppose. In any case, living organisms needn't be useful to the universe to exist, any more than a pebble on Uranus be relevant to the biscuit I ate a moment ago.

I positively assert to you that within your materialist world-view, you can advance no possible logical relevance of living things to the universe's superstructure: and this presents you with an unavoidable incongruity - to wit - if the universe does not contain energies or systems irrelevant to its super structure, why then does it contain living things.

And worse - sentient living things.

And worst: sentient living beings that developed their bodies through a process of adaptation that gradually ensured that they remain able to survive within the superstructure.

Again with the bad logic. Urrgh! A priori[/i]s and personifications do not an argument make. So, I take it that when you ask questions, it's just a formality as you're going to answer them in the same post containing the question, yes?

In any case, how would you possibly know that the universe doesn't contain things that are irrelevant, etc?

Yet again, I ask - [i]"What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this."

Yet again, self replication.

In assessing the bolded in red within this post, please take a moment to reflect on this with regard to the universe:

1. It is absolutely impossible for a pure illogicality to exist.

Why? What makes the irrelevance of something(s) in the universe illogical?

2. Within the super structure that the universe is, every element therefore has its cause and consequence - which defines its relevance.

Really? What causes virtual particles?

3. What is the relevance of living things to the universe?

See above.