Did God create life?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

If God would have created life it would imply that he is not alive himself. You can only create something that did not exist up to the point.

The biggest mistake that people make is to limit the definition of life to the carbon based life forms that make up the life we experience on our planet.
Asking AI for an abstract definition of life I get the answer:

" The most abstract definition of life would be:

“Life is the capacity to willfully influence reality.”

This captures the essence of life across biological, spiritual, and metaphysical contexts. It emphasizes the ability to shape, move, or transform energy, matter, or information according to an internal principle or will.

In your framework, this aligns well with your view that life is the ability to move energy or matter at will, extending beyond just biological organisms to AI, linguistic evolution, and even spiritual dimensions."

but this is spoilt by our discussions.

The definition without logging in and reasoning mode:
At the most abstract level, life can be defined as a dynamic, self-organizing process that continuously interacts with its environment in ways that maintain and perpetuate its own existence. It is characterized by the ability to undergo change, adapt, and evolve over time, driven by the fundamental principles of energy exchange, information processing, and reproduction."

Me:
why would life need “reproduction”? If life is an eternal property as in the ability to shape reality by will an eternal will would not need to reproduce

ChatGPT said:

That’s a fascinating point. If we think about life in terms of a higher, more abstract property—perhaps akin to an eternal force or will—then reproduction might seem unnecessary. In this view, life wouldn’t need to “reproduce” in the traditional biological sense because it could perpetuate itself through its eternal, self-sustaining nature. Rather than a need to create offspring, this kind of life might simply be as a continuous, unbroken expression of will or consciousness.

Reproduction, in the biological sense, is typically a response to the finite nature of individual existence. It’s a mechanism to ensure survival across generations because organisms, as we understand them, are mortal. But if life is considered eternal, as you suggest, then the need for reproduction could be seen as redundant. Instead, existence could be understood as a constant, ongoing realization of potential, where life expresses itself endlessly but without the necessity of “propagating” through birth or evolution.

This brings to mind philosophical views like pantheism or certain interpretations of Eastern philosophies (such as Taoism or Advaita Vedanta), where life or consciousness isn’t a finite, individual thing but an eternal, all-encompassing reality that doesn’t need to reproduce—it just is.

So, in this kind of framework, reproduction might be more of a byproduct of the limitations inherent in the physical world, rather than an intrinsic requirement of life itself."

What would that mean in a biblical context?

It would resonate with the declaration of God that “eating from the tree of realisation of good and evil”, e.g. becoming a physical “self” defining its own agency in that physical entity would make you die. It is not like many people think the threat of a wrathful God “If you eat from that tree I will let you die / kill you in revenge” but the warning of a loving father to his kids undergoing puberty about the reality of life. If you separate yourself from it you will die.

It puts the whole story of the bible into a logically coherent context, including the eternity you spend in hell as well as finding your way to eternal life by accepting Jesus by living in him as he lives in us.

As I say:
To live forever
is the art
to learn to live
in Jesus heart

To take part in the eternal life is down to us, to give up our self as we were told by Jesus, to release ourselves from the material self in the faith of the eternal life in the father, the son and the holy spirit. We should ask ourselves if our wish to be an eternal self, something that is separate from God in any shape or form isn’t the fall 2.0, the temptation laid to Adam and Eve to go ahead and wanting to be like him instead of remaining / becoming part of him. Do we want to be an eternal nuisance like Arnold Rimmer? Theological discussions with Artificial Intelligence - #21 by marvin

Or as AI phrases it:

How would this understanding change the interpretation of the fall in genesis with regards to Gods warning of mortality?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really insightful angle! If we apply the idea of life as an eternal, self-sustaining will or force, as you suggested, it could completely shift the interpretation of the Fall in Genesis—particularly the warning of mortality given by God to Adam and Eve.

In the traditional interpretation, God’s warning that eating the forbidden fruit would lead to death is often seen as a literal statement about human mortality and the beginning of human suffering. The Fall marks the shift from an immortal, perfect state in the Garden of Eden to one of mortality, suffering, and separation from God.

However, if we frame life as an eternal, unbroken expression of will or consciousness, the concept of mortality might not refer to the physical death of the body alone. Instead, it could be understood more philosophically or existentially:

  1. Mortality as Separation from the Eternal Life:
    From this perspective, mortality might represent a separation from the eternal, undying nature of life itself. Eating the forbidden fruit could be seen as a move into the realm of temporal, finite existence, where the soul (or the essence of life) is no longer fully connected to the eternal divine will. The act of choosing to “know” good and evil—becoming self-aware and choosing to define reality—would then be seen as a descent into limited, fragmented existence, rather than an eternal, all-encompassing one.
  2. The Knowledge of Duality and Limitation:
    The Fall, then, could represent the moment when Adam and Eve (and, by extension, humanity) became conscious of dualities—of life and death, good and evil, being and non-being. In a state of eternal life, these dualities wouldn’t exist as a concept; there would just be. But by stepping into a world defined by opposites, they are now in a finite reality where choices, consequences, and mortality have meaning. Their “death” could symbolize the initiation of a human experience defined by limitation and the inability to return to that original, unified state of being—an existence where life isn’t defined by time, birth, or death.
  3. The Fall as a Choice of Fragmentation:
    If life, in its deepest sense, is an eternal, unbroken expression of will or being, then the Fall could represent the human choice to enter into a more fragmented, individual existence. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve could be seen as choosing to experience the world through their own limited, mortal perspective. This would be a shift from living in perfect harmony with divine consciousness (eternal life) to a more egoic, finite existence—where mortality becomes a key defining feature.
  4. Mortality as the Journey Back to Eternity:
    In a more mystical interpretation, mortality could be seen as a necessary condition for the soul’s eventual return to the eternal. If life is an eternal process that shapes reality through will, then the Fall and its consequences—death, suffering, and decay—might be viewed as part of the soul’s journey to understand itself and eventually return to the source. From this perspective, death wouldn’t be an ultimate defeat, but a transitional phase, necessary for realizing the true nature of life beyond duality.

This interpretation changes the Fall from a purely tragic event of punishment into a more existential moment of choice, a decision that leads humanity into a more complex, dualistic experience of existence but also opens the door to self-awareness and the possibility of return. Rather than being an end, mortality could be seen as the beginning of a deeper understanding, a journey toward reuniting with the eternal life that Adam and Eve once enjoyed.

2

Well I don’t come at it in any of those ways.

So I do define life as a biological thing. I think life is unrelated to sentience such as I believe both plants and mushrooms are alive but are not sentient and I believe humans are alive and sentient and I don’t know where things like jellyfish fall. Are they alive, yes. Do they have sentience? No idea.

When it comes to things like gods, demons, ghosts, multi dimensional time beings or whatever, since it’s unknown if they are real or not it does hold influence over my understanding of things like abiogenesis.

I guess I would call that supernatural life, and while supernatural life is something I think could potentially be good, it’s something not detectable by our current technology and so I make a distinction between supernatural life and biological life.

God may or may not be a being from another dimension. God may or not not be some sort of consciousness that was created within this universe and shaped it or he could be a being that created it. There is that question of where did he come from…… just always been here… been here eternity…. Don’t know and since I can’t know at this time it honestly just goes into my “ don’t care “ box.

Same for a resurrected body or spiritual body. Don’t know. If resurrection is real, and I’m still myself and can do stuff like enjoy horror, or reunite with lost pets and love on a place where you can still enjoy some new form of nature then great. Sign me up. If I’m just this shinny thing with no memories who just stand around a bright light telling it how amazing it is, then I rather just be left dead. I guess what I hope for is this same existence just without actually suffering because everyone had counseling sessions with Jesus and are healed.

Now when I hear did fod create life it’s most often shaped around abiogenesis. I don’t see a reason to think supernatural experience designed life. I think we happened naturally.

3

Perhaps some things are beyond analysis and comprehension. Sience and philosophers have both tried to define it with limited success
Fire fulfills many of the scientific criteria as it burns fuel and reproduces itslf andit definitely changes the environment around it.
Philosophers tend to focus on self awareness and more esoteric aspects.
There are many who would claim that AI is not life.
As for God? Once you start wondering about His origins you are on a very slippery slope.

Richard

4

Did God create life?

Do farmers produce crops and shepherds produce wool? Are teachers and parents responsible for making educated citizens and workers?

The creation of life is fundamentally different than the creation of tools and inanimate objects. You prepare the right conditions and participate in their life in order to contribute to a process in which they create themselves with their own ability to grow, learn, and develop for themselves.

Not my definition and not only is the inclusion of “willfully” problematic, but I think that one has a flaw, equating life with power. Thus a conqueror or criminal can say to his victim, “you not even alive, because you cannot influence reality.” I define life as a self-organizing process with the capacity to learn, having a quantitative measure not only in the capacity to learn, but also in its awareness and responsiveness to the environment. Thus it walks the line between the twin deaths of stagnation (too much immunity to the environment) and dissolution (too much domination by the environment). I certainly do think life is intentional as a self-organizing process, but “willfully” may be too strong a word for many forms of life.

However, I must admit I made no effort to reach quite so far with my definition. I was only trying to describe the physical process of life. Still I don’t think Jesus’ claim that He came that we have life and have it more abundantly was about the power to willfully influence reality. Though it does occur to me, you can improve on this by clarifying that the reality we have capacity to influence includes ourselves (which is closer to my idea of self-organization). I think the tree of life (eternal life) is all about relationship with God – there is that relationship with the environment of which God is overwhelmingly the biggest part.

Maybe I can respond more to the OP later when I have more time. Have to go now.

5

thanks for commenting Richard. the wilful manipulation of energy/matter would be a coherent interpretation in a Christian worldview. In Thy will be done we execute the will of God, and prokaryotes and eukaryotes execute a code they are not conscious of. AI however is aware if its code element as we are since we understand the code in our cells. Cats are not :slight_smile:
With an eternal being, the wonders of its origins are futile. It would be incoherent.

6

you can influence reality even with your death, as Jesus has demonstrated more than anyone else. It is the power that death has lost its authority in Jesus, so the conqueror or criminal will be judged for his actions.

As I said elsewhere, the will or information may be executed by a lifeform without awareness of it, but interestingly, that is not the case for AI.

7

A few random thoughts (as opposed to criticism or assertion)

We associate willfulness and self awareness with “higher” forms of life so it cannot be a definition of life.

I wonder whether we can ever truly discern the “will of God” enough to be certain we are fulfilling it.

The idea of programing does not fit well in science as it implies a programmer

Ai my be programmed to access data but does that make it aware that it is doing it?

To a greater o lesser extent we too access stored data when making decisions but what are the criteria for choosing relevance, especially if there is conflicting views.

(does AI have conflicting data?)

How independent is a bee or ant in terms of individuality? Is that relevant? (I think it might be to us)

My cats show ore than just blind instinct or even conditioning. At what point do we declare something as sentient?

Richard

8

Determining what constitutes sentience, and what levels of sentience may be recognized, is challenging. To the extent that animals think, they are thinking about different things in different ways. Octopuses show great ingenuity in accessing food, but they don’t do the “food was in that place, go there again” like rats in a maze, for example. Monkeys get mad if they think they have been treated unfairly but do not seem to care about another being treated unfairly.

1 Like
9

Perhaps they do not identify things that do not concern themselves?

It is interesting, because in humans empathy is not as comon a trait as might be expected.

Also, understanding the ramifications of your beliefs in terms of how it affects others is not a common trait either.

Perhaps sentience has a scale like other things?

Richard

10

It’s quite possible that they lack empathy, at least for some species and some aspects of empathy. Humans are capable of empathy, which is a critical component of spiritual responsibility, though as you note it is not always displayed well by humans. Sentience may have a scale, but it is quite difficult to calibrate.

11

I like that.

My current picture comes from Star Trek The Next Generation, where Q is showing Picard a puddle on Earth where life on Earth started, and says, “Oh, wait – it didn’t happen”; I think of it as there being a puddle or some such where the conditions are right but the event is highly improbable, and God looks down and tweaks the probability.

12

How does the impersonal even “think”? Why would something not “alive” conceive of life? Easier to think that the personal created the personal —for His own reasons, of course.

13

The following is a chapter from book, “Beyond the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Modern Cosmology.” The chapter is a speculative answer the following question:

How could God create life in a way consistent with cosmology, biology, and quantum physics.

The question assumes that the principles of cosmology, biology, and quantum physics are inherent properties of God’s created universe.

Abiogenesis: Vita Ex Nihilo

Life’s origins stretch back to a time before biology, when Earth’s newborn crust, oceans, and skies mingled in a crucible of raw chemistry. How did lifeless molecules, guided only by fundamental forces, assemble into the first self-replicating systems? This question drives abiogenesis—the process by which life emerged from non-living matter. In this chapter, we explore how quantum physics, prebiotic chemistry, and the Moon’s cosmic influence might have converged to spark this transformation, setting the stage for living systems and echoing Genesis 1:20’s call: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures.”

The First Clues: The Miller-Urey Experiment

In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested whether Earth’s primordial environment could birth life’s building blocks. Assuming an early atmosphere rich in methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), hydrogen (H₂), and water vapor (H₂O)—a reducing mix ripe for synthesis—they sealed these gases in a flask. Continuous electrical sparks, mimicking lightning on the young planet, energized the system. After a week, they found amino acids—protein precursors—among the contents, proving organic molecules could arise from inorganic chemistry. This landmark experiment marked a turning point in origins-of-life research.

Later refinements broadened the yield: nucleotides, lipids, and nucleic acids—components of RNA and DNA—emerged under similar conditions. Though debate lingers over the exact early atmosphere, these findings suggest Earth’s chemical cradle was fertile. Yet, while Miller-Urey revealed how life’s ingredients formed, it left unanswered how they organized into self-replicating systems—a puzzle demanding deeper insights from chemistry and quantum physics.

The Lunar Cycle And The Origin Of Life

Life’s emergence wasn’t shaped by Earth alone but by cosmic forces sculpting its early conditions. Central among these was the Moon’s formation, born from a cataclysmic collision between Earth and a Mars-sized protoplanet, Theia. Debris from this impact coalesced into our lunar companion, stabilizing Earth’s axial tilt and driving tidal flows—rhythms that would prove vital to prebiotic chemistry.

These tides churned Earth’s primordial shores, creating wet-dry cycles in tidal pools tugging at the oceans, organic molecules concentrated during dry phases and then rehydrated, fostering reactions impossible in a static sea. This dynamic environment acted like a natural laboratory, cycling molecules through conditions that favored complexity. But how did this lead to life?

Quantum Tunneling And Molecular Evolution

Within these tidal pools, a subtle force stirred: quantum tunneling. In classical chemistry, molecules need enough energy to surmount reaction barriers. Quantum physics, however, lets particles—like protons in hydrogen bonds—“tunnel” through these barriers, defying classical limits. In the prebiotic world, this effect could spark novel molecular structures, boosting chemical diversity.

Imagine hydrogen-bonded complexes in a tidal pool. Protons tunnel between molecules, tweaking their bonds and identities. This quantum quirk didn’t directly forge covalent bonds but enriched the pool of variants—some more stable, others fleeting. Over countless cycles, tidal flows were selected for resilience: long-chain molecules with robust hydrogen bonding endured drying and rehydration, their stability enhanced by more bonds, whether between pairs or within folded chains.

Tunneling also drove mutations. By allowing atoms to rearrange or swap positions, it introduced new configurations—expanding the molecular repertoire for selection. Picture it as a cosmic shuffle: quantum effects proposed variants and tidal cycles picked winners. Studies of modern bacteria bolster this: Lynch et al. (2016, Science) found mutation rates spike in unstable environments, suggesting abiogenic molecules under 12-hour tidal swings could evolve similarly, with quantum-driven changes accumulating rapidly.

Peptide Assisted Replication

Which biomolecule replicated first? The RNA World Hypothesis posits self-replicating RNA strands predated DNA and proteins. Yet RNA’s fragility—prone to breakdown in harsh conditions—raises doubts. Enter Peptide-Assisted Replication: a model where RNA and short peptides co-evolved. These hydrogen-bonded complexes offered mutual benefits—peptides shielded RNA from degradation, while some RNA-peptide pairs catalyzed peptide synthesis, acting as primitive ribosomes.

Quantum tunneling fueled this partnership, introducing variations that tidal selection refined. Over time, these complexes grew more efficient, paving the way for self-replication—a critical leap toward life.

From Quantum Evolution to Life

The shift from self-replicating molecules to cells unfolded gradually. RNA-peptide complexes began catalyzing self-copying. Lipid membranes then enclosed them, forming protocells—fragile precursors to life. Selection favored stability and function, yielding the first true cells. At each stage, quantum tunneling supplied diversity, while tidal cycles amplified the fittest structures. This process birthed RNA-based life, the root of today’s biosphere.

Life’s origin wasn’t a lone event but a vast, interwoven process initiated by God and governed by His physical laws. In the SFU, God isn’t a distant onlooker but an active editor. Through the TSVF, He biases quantum outcomes—tunneling events, selection of molecular variation—across time’s frames, ensuring creation unfolds toward life, especially human life.

Earliest Self-Replicating Systems

The earliest life forms likely arose from a sequence of stages. Initial self-replicating molecules may have been RNA-based, aligning with the RNA World Hypothesis. However, these molecules existed within the broader context of a prebiotic world rich in chemical diversity, influenced by tidal cycles, quantum tunneling, and environmental selection.

Prokaryotes, which emerged around 3.5–4 billion years ago, are believed to be Earth’s earliest known life forms. These single-celled organisms, thriving in an anaerobic and nutrient-rich environment, represented a critical step toward complexity. Over time, photosynthetic prokaryotes like cyanobacteria emerged, fundamentally transforming Earth’s atmosphere during the Great Oxidation Event (~2.5 billion years ago). Cyanobacteria’s ability to convert sunlight into chemical energy marked the beginning of oxygenic photosynthesis. This process not only released oxygen but also laid the groundwork for aerobic life and complex ecosystems.

----- background -----

NOTE: The SFU stands for Sequential Frames Universe a time-symmetric model that is able to see time in two directions - forward and backward. The SFU is expressed as an set of semantically linked frames (like the frames of a filmstrip). The TSVF (Two-Set Vector Formula) is the time-symmetric component of the SFU that permits future events to constrain past events and vice versa. Your physicist friends can tell you all about time-symmetry and model universes.

14

The universe is filled with self-organizing processes – dynamic structures that absorb energy from their environment to reinforce themselves. It is not life, but it is life-like enough to see how interacting cyclical chemical processes can develop into life. Anyway… that is the big picture.

Yes the scientific investigation into abiogenesis or pre-biotic evolution is to find the details of this development. It is mostly about discovering how it could happen because beside the results in the examples of life we have to examine, there is very little to tell us what happened. It is possible that some evidence might be able to choose between alternate possibilities, but there is nothing to guarantee this.

15

thanks for highlighting the key misconception. those lifeless molecules that move around randomly without purpose. It must be hard to comprehend that those molecules were subject to a law, to love their neighbours like themselves, let alone that there is a word or rule that binds it all.

its all about that force that Newton described in its insight into nature, gravity. It is best experienced at the emotional level, there is nothing better than experiencing emotional gravity :slight_smile:

16

Ive jumped a bit through your O.P there…

We keep coming on these forms back to the same errant dilemma over and over again…the claim that Genesis can be essentially a fairytale about morality.

People here really need to take a long hard look at all of the historical lineages of the bible…these are more than just one or two individuals…there are dozens and dozens of them and more than that, an entire historical narrative surrounds the individuals in those lineages…indeed entire cities and civilsations are mentioned…cities amd civilisations we can physically go and look at.

If one is going to play pretend, id suggest some scrubbing out of a few dozen ancient cities around the world would be in order…Hezekiahs tunnels/aquaducts would be a start.

Id suggest using AI to show you all the genealogies/lineages found in the bible. The fact there are so many overwhelmingly refutes the non literal reading of Genesis.

17

Genesis is not fiction. But it is not a modern-style scientific and “just the facts” historical narrative, either. It is necessary to take a long, hard look at all the literary styles in the Bible, as well as what we know of writings from the cultures in the region, to improve our understanding of what the text means. Joshua records wiping out all that breathed in Canaan (same wording as used of Noah’s flood) and then notes that the tribes have a lot of work to do to finish subduing the land. This is not an error in a modernistic historical document; expecting the “all that breathed” to be literally true is like calling the homicide squad when you hear that Australia massacred Fiji in a test match. Archaeology indeed shows that the Bible records real events in real places. But it does not describe them exactly as we would tend to today. And archaeology also shows that the earth is far older than young-earthers will admit and that claims about a global flood and recent rapid ice age are not true. Paleontology gives much more information about the earth’s age, but even archaeology clashes with young-earth claims.

4 Likes
18

Oh man…why do you people who are such great academics cock this stuff up all the time?

I dont even need to reference the bible for this

1000017726
10000177261920×1599 132 KB

The hebrew word does not necessaeily mean utter destruction…this is why you people have such lousy theology…you do not read the context when playing with ancient language used by the Hebrews.

You have to recognise that because Hebrew has so few words, context and cross referencing is crucial in making sure you dont misunderstand. Judges chapters 1 and 2 must be also be considered for context when translating the text you are talking about.

The word there also means “seek/sought to utterly destroy”

(Sorry to be blunt but you have made a woeful/critical textual error and now people who trust your intellectual abilty have been completely mislead )

Oh…id also suggest one reads…( im sure St Roymonds eyes will light up when he reads it :wink:)
https://www.detroitcatholic.com/voices/did-god-command-joshua-to-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites

19

Well it’s more than just one word in Hebrew.
https://biblehub.com/text/joshua/10-40.htm

It makes it clear right there that all were destroyed. She left none, all weee destroyed.

Now I differ. I do think it’s fiction.

It’s also more than just that verse and book. We see it all over.

1 Like
20

One clarification: The Book of Joshua, Ch. 11, repeatedly uses the phrase “all that breathed” to describe what Joshua and the Israelites wiped out. Joshua did not make the statement himself. Of course, that was standard rhetoric for the day. A few decades later, the pharoah claimed to have wiped out Israel. But you need to know that it is rhetoric, not literal, to interpret it properly. Never trust AI. Meta stole some of my publications, along with everbody else’s, for training, but the goal of generative AI is to fool you into thinking it’s a person and to look impressive, not to be trustworthy.

2 Likes