Sense organs+environment+conscious mind>imagination>knowledge>influence>desire>morality>vanity.
"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon. The basis of vanity is morality; the basis of morality is influence; the basis of influence is knowledge; the basis of knowledge is imagination; the basis of imagination is our sense organs reacting to our present environment, and the extent of how concious we are of this happening.
The more open one's mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a concious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing, and your dad going from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables, when imagining themselves as someone else. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue.
When one strikes us accross the cheek, and we stike back in retaliation, we appeal to the more instinctive, barbaric mammal within all of us. But when we lower our hand, and offer our other cheek in return, we appeal to the logical, reasonable thinking being within all of us instead.
I think the only evidence needed to prove my claim made in the title is to use the "skin" that holds the wine of the knowledge of everything we presently know now as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious minds on a planet, presently holding the most capacity to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.
What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold the wine of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that its always been poured into, and thats kept it seperate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion, that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God or creator of some kind; becoming stigmatized as a result.
There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will have always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air like the birds do, or the idea of democracy.
"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luthing King Jr.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi
"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy
"Never take an oath at all. Not to heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (humans)...Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (regarding these influences); anything more than this comes from evil (a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness, i.e., a religion). - Jesus, Matt 5:33
"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates
Lots of assumption.
The most we can say is intelligence emerged from the increasing complexity of biology, improving survivability for the animal, enabling it to outlive other animals without intelligence.
Anything beyond that is supposition.
From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.
I don't assume/claim there isn't, but stating that there is seems like a more significant assumption- one worthy of shouldering the burden of evidence/explanation (I won't say proof for obvious reasons).
Your post is about 'the most logical explanation' for an idea entirely predicated on a metaphysical assumption (something many would not consider 'the most logical')
There being an isn't is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation. And to say there isn't an is would be supposition based off your standards. Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief, this would make both there being an is and an isn't a supposition; this wouldn't/shouldn't make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because both there being an is and an isn't suppositions based off metaphysical assumptions.
So you're saying scientific theory is not worth the time and energy to even consider? Scientific theory being based off metaphysical assumptions. If so, you're saying The Big Bang wasn't worth not only the time and effort to think up in the first place, but not worthy of anyone's consideration?
Lmao this was so funny to read (bc of of the whole "an is/isn't" thing- not bc of your thoughts/etc).
I know it's not necessarily the most accurate term, but I think you know what definition of metaphysical I intended when I used that word.
If you say "unicorns exist" and I say "unicorns don't exist" that's on you to provide evidence.
I just think you should've said "supposing there is a why as to the existence of intelligent life, the most logical..." But I see you've edited the title, so it's moot now regardless.
A lot of science and philosophy are a supposition.
"Science is the knowledge of today, discredited tomorrow." - I forget
What do you feel as though I'm assuming?
I didn't read the content of your post because you assume there's a "why" at all, so that may be what they're referring to
From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.
Why bother with philosophy at all then, if not to ask why?
I remember when I held the same perspective. I like how Gandhi put it: I've made it through the "Sahara of atheism."