That assumes that all the components essential for the first lifeform were nothing more than a random arrangement of molecules etc.? As far as I know Biologists do not think that's how life emerged.
Aren't you just rehashing the reasonable objection to the proposition that enough monkeys with typewriters would eventually create the Complete Works of Shakespeare?
If it wasn't random it was with intent? Chance and necessity are not intentional it is one or the other.
No reason to think our solar system was assembled by some master-craftsman because we know gravity alone is enough to create order from a disk of gas, rock and dust debris.
Nature exhibits this ability to self-organise in other ways and this applies as much to organic chemistry.
You assume gravity could do it! Gravity doesn't have a plan or purpose and we are still talking about the universe we live in. You understand English so there is something in you that grasps that language, the same with mathematics. Do you think your thinking is in tune with the universe because, like the English language you have an understanding, of the words you read the sounds you hear are simply someone expressing themselves utilizing the material world to get their points across to you? People transcend the material world causing it to display meaning through the sounds they make, and signs they create.
I've expressed my views but what precisely are you proposing?
Understanding in language requires the speaker and listener understand one another. From a mathematical perspective we can see the universe in a comprehensive way, no different than when we read a text in a language we speak. You think some shuffling of molecules in a random manner with occasional necessities without anything directing it all could accomplish that?
The earliest life had no language! It's 3,000,000,000 years of evolutionary adaptation that's brought life the ability to communicate.
That is another major assumption, so two of them gravity and evolution did it, you have something along the lines of evidence.
What I'm saying is that in any weighing of the most likely explanation, in the context of current understanding, the most compelling one is still naturalistic.
It is difficult for you to make an argument that you have the most natural likely explanation when your explanation doesn't explain everything we are talking about.
Understanding of how the natural Universe functions is an unfolding process, so it's to be expected that there'll be many gaps in our knowledge and things we cannot yet explain.
That doesn't cause me any difficulty whatsoever.
So you shouldn't make claims about the most likely explanation you don't have the most reasonable explanation, that would be an inference to what explains it everything best. You leave out how the things you propose that could do the work could do it. You leave out why the universe is mathematically comprehensible in its order and clockwork precision looking at the forces all at play, while chaos by definition, only produces algorithmic incompressibility, meaning it is random.
Then there is the evolution and how the semantic and syntactic information got into it the process to drive forms and features. The genetic structure of life is no different than human language we can read it, it carries meaning, directing reproduction, and everything else.
When looking at it all the choices "Out of chaos or out of a mind" which is the best explanation that takes into account all we see here?
I think of mathematics as being the language of order and if our Universe wasn't ordered at some level, how would it have survived do you think?
Natural systems demonstrate order, we see this time and again, so there's no contradiction in something being both ordered and of a natural origin.
A natural order, exactly how do you explain the "natural origin" of the universe, if there wasn't anything, then there is, what was natural before it was a reality? What is natural about that, if it started in chaos what is natural about it evolving into highly integrated systems that behave like clockwork? With life, there is no life and there is, what is natural about that, evolution only applies to biology once it is there, what is natural about that explaining the information in it?
What reasonable, plausible and consistent alternative to the origin of the Universe and the emergence of life being naturalistic is there?
I know of none.
Just because some outcome is puzzling, strange/bizarre, utterly unexpected perhaps, does not mean it isn't the result of entirely natural processes.
We are not yet in any position to say what can possibly result from such processes and what cannot. That may have to be enough.
Actually unless there is even tiny reason to think otherwise then there is no reason to think so.
If I were to tell you without cheating that someone at a card game was dealt 12 Royal Flushes in a row and each time they were all hearts, would you think I'm lying? Would you think that could be a result of natural chance and necessity and not design by default? Are there not things that are so improbable that instead of looking for a bottom-up "natural explanation" a top-down designed one is the only reasonable one there is?