Qualities of the original source

[Eddy Daze]

A question really for atheists.But any answers welcome.

If we consider human intelligence and life itself , these would have had to have been present in the original source of everything otherwise how can they be here?

 

[Seven]

I would agree that the potential for intelligent life to evolve must have always been present, otherwise it would not exist.
What do you mean by the original source?

 

[Eddy Daze]

Well if I was talking about a river then you could consider a spring the original source, but in reality the river is only a part of a cycle, but all parts of that cycle have or share similar qualities, we know the clouds contain water, but instead of having to examine them we may speculate upon their make up , due to knowing the river, also if we are unable to make the effort to find the spring we can deduce its qualities from the mouth of the river.

 

[Seven]

I see. I would love to have knowledge of the original source. I study math and physics for this very reason. Alas a lifetime isn't long enough to come to an understanding of such things, but I will work towards it nonetheless.

So without knowing for sure I can only speculate on the answer to the OP.
The phenomenon of evolution shows us how over incomprehensible time simplicity can beget staggering complexity. I think life and human intelligence is an example of such complexity.

So no I don't think they had to be fully present in the original source. All that was needed was the potential for them to evolve.

 

[painted wolf]

Wouldn't the source be the Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms that make the molecule water?

Or the subatomic particles that make up the atoms?

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A question really for atheists.But any answers welcome.

If we consider human intelligence and life itself , these would have had to have been present in the original source of everything otherwise how can they be here?

I talked about this before in another thread:

The fact that a property emerged from something else does not mean that the prior thing had that property in any way whatsoever. While I feel silly having to point this out, blue-green algae cannot speak Norwegian. This is despite the fact that all of humanity, including Norwegians, are likely the descendants of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae does not speak Norwegian at all. Not even a little bit.

The fact that a property developed from a prior thing, whether the property in question is Norwegian language ability, intelligence or consciousness, does not imply that the prior thing had these properties itself. There are intelligent, conscious Norwegian-speakers in the universe; this does not mean that the root causes of those intelligent, conscious Norwegian-speakers, whether blue-green algae or some nebulous first cause of the universe, posess intelligence, consciousness or the ability to speak Norwegian themselves.

Why do the things you mentioned have to come from an original source, but other things don't?

What about feathers? How is it any less valid than your claim to say that because there are things that grow feathers in the universe, the original first cause of everything must have grown feathers as well?

 

[Sunstone]

A question really for atheists.But any answers welcome.

If we consider human intelligence and life itself , these would have had to have been present in the original source of everything otherwise how can they be here?

You are not taking into account emergent properties.

 

[rockondon]

If we consider human intelligence and life itself , these would have had to have been present in the original source of everything otherwise how can they be here?

Our life and intelligence are a result of the combination of molecules that we are composed of. These molecules were plentiful in the early earth.

The fossil record shows that the earliest forms of life were very simple, and gradually became more complex over time. So your idea that intelligence having to be present in the 'original source' is definately false.

Accumulation of mutations in our DNA account for our increasing complexity and intelligence.

 

[Eddy Daze]

I dont know about that Rocky, even in the smallest seeds there has to be bundles of data for it to develope, think about human created fractal patters also they need base numbers to develope from and a recognisabley seperate from each other, if we matched the similarities in individuals we would build up a false idea/map of their evolution

 

[Eddy Daze]

Wouldn't the source be the Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms that make the molecule water?

Or the subatomic particles that make up the atoms?

wa:do

That would be one part of the source but these particles form recognisable units so from where does the form come?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know about that Rocky, even in the smallest seeds there has to be bundles of data for it to develope,

Yes, but the seed is not the adult plant.

think about human created fractal patters also they need base numbers to develope from and a recognisabley seperate from each other,

Yes, but the base numbers are not the fractal pattern.

if we matched the similarities in individuals we would build up a false idea/map of their evolution

Not sure what you mean by this bit.

 

[Eddy Daze]

I know the seed is not the adult plant but the info is there to build an adult plant from, similarily like the info in a birds head to build a nest.

Regarding fractals if we did not know from where the came, i do not think we would twig that they are seperate individual patterns and would try to find one original source by matching similarities in seperate individuals to theorise a starting point .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah. So the blue-green algae from which we are descended did know how to speak Norwegian. Did it also know how to play ping-pong and do a valve job on a Stutz Bearcat?

And if all the properties of my descendants are embodied in me, what things can I do that I don't already know about? Telekinesis, maybe? Because that would be really cool.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

I know the seed is not the adult plant but the info is there to build an adult plant from, similarily like the info in a birds head to build a nest.

The seed contains DNA to make a tree, but it does not contain a miniature tree.

It appears you are trying to draw a parallel where there is none that we can see or measure, to accommodate intelligent design of some kind. (I might be wrong about this assumption?)

Scientists have not found a unifying theory for the universe, yet, if there even is one to be found. At the same time, one can speak of evolutionary cosmology, but it is not the same thing as what we think of as evolution on earth (descent with modification, etc).

 

[Seven]

I know the seed is not the adult plant but the info is there to build an adult plant from, similarily like the info in a birds head to build a nest.

True, but the info you speak of is in the form of molecular arrangements. the trees molecules themselves don't have some kind of essence of tree in them, they are the same molecules that form all life, and even non living organic matter.

In the case of intelligence, there is no single intelligence gene. Intelligence arises from complex interactions between many different genes, each of which may influence several different characteristics themselves. So in this sense intelligence could arise without ever having existed before.

I guess Intelligence is one of those things where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

 

[Eddy Daze]

A simple next step is to realise that the seed will produce a tree therfore proving that itself was produced by a tree

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A simple next step is to realise that the seed will produce a tree therfore proving that itself was produced by a tree

By the same logic, realizing that God produces mankind "proves" that God was produced by mankind.