Human purpose if life started from random events

This is one of the fundamental questions of human existence and is the basis of controversial debates for centuries. If we remove emotions and focus on facts, can we come closer to or even see the truth? Let’s explore.

If you asked an AI model what is its purpose the AI will say things about the goal of its developers and researchers, what its abilities are and specific technology built into it.

The AI model has creators so the response is expected – it purpose is directed first by creators and then by users, that are in fact customers of its creators.

To be fair to everyone, lets look at some perspectives on how we got on this planet.

In the strict, empirical world of science, there is no peer-reviewed evidence that humans were “created” in a single act by a designer. However, there are different types of evidence people point to depending on their worldview.

A breakdown of how the evidence for our origins is currently understood:

The Scientific Consensus: Evolution

In science, “evidence” must be observable, testable, and falsifiable. The evidence for human evolution is considered overwhelming because it comes from multiple independent fields that all point to the same conclusion.

• The Fossil Record: We have found thousands of fossils of intermediate species (hominins) like Australopithecus and Homo erectus. These show a clear, gradual transition in brain size, jaw structure, and bipedalism (walking on two legs) over millions of years.
• Genetic Blueprint: Human DNA is roughly 98.8% identical to chimpanzee DNA. We even carry “genetic fossils”—remnants of ancient viruses and broken genes (pseudogenes)—in the exact same spots as other primates, which only happens through shared ancestry.
• Comparative Anatomy: Humans share the same basic bone structure in our arms and hands as bats have in their wings and whales have in their fins. This “homology” suggests a common ancestor rather than a unique, ground-up design for each species.

Arguments Often Cited as “Evidence” for Creation

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) or creationism argue that certain features of life are too complex to have happened by “random” mutations. While these are generally categorized as philosophy or theology rather than “hard science,” they are the “evidence” most often discussed:

• DNA as “Code”: Some argue that because DNA functions like a highly sophisticated computer language, it must have had a “programmer.” They suggest that information does not arise from matter spontaneously.
• Irreducible Complexity: This is the idea that some biological systems (like the bacterial flagellum or the human eye) are like a mousetrap: if you take away one part, the whole thing fails. Proponents argue such systems couldn’t have evolved bit-by-bit because the “halfway” versions would be useless.
  • Scientific Rebuttal: Biologists have shown that “useless” intermediate parts often served different functions (co-option) before becoming part of a more complex system.
• Fine-Tuning of the Universe: This isn’t just about humans, but the universe itself. If the strength of gravity or the mass of an electron were different by a tiny fraction, stars wouldn’t form and life would be impossible. Some see this “precision” as evidence of a “tuning” creator.

The Modern “Tech” Version: Simulation Theory

Interestingly, many people in the tech world argue for a version of creation that doesn’t involve a god, but a programmer.

• The Logic: As games and AI become more realistic, it’s statistically likely that a future civilization would create a “universe simulation.” If that’s possible, we are more likely to be in a simulation than in the “base reality.”
• The “Evidence”: Proponents point to the “pixelated” nature of the universe at the quantum level (the Planck length) and the fact that the universe follows mathematical “code” as hints that we are a created software.

Summary Table of Origin Theories:

How does our purpose compare to an AI model’s?

• The biggest difference between humans and AI is that the models cannot exist without a purpose. If you delete the AI code and goals, it is nothing. But if a human loses their “job” or their “social role,” they still exist. Humans have the unique capacity to feel the void of purpose and then choose to fill it with something new.
• Human Purpose is Agency: Unlike AI, our purpose is not “compiled” at the start. It is a living, breathing choice. Even if we are a “random event” of biology, we have the unique ability to override our programming. The AI model cannot decide to stop being an AI; a human can, however, decide to stop being a coder and become a poet tomorrow.

The question of whether humans can have a purpose if our origin was random is perhaps the deepest point of tension between science and philosophy.

If we look at the universe through a purely physical lens, it can seem like a series of “accidents”—a specific cooling of the Big Bang, a lucky chemical reaction in a primordial soup, a mutation that happened to work. From that perspective, there is no “pre-written” script. However, most thinkers—both scientific and philosophical—suggest that purpose is not something we are given; it is something that emerges.

Here is how we can look at purpose in a universe born of randomness:

The Perspective of “Emergence”

In science, an emergent property is something a complex system has that its individual parts do not.

• The Water Analogy: A single water molecule isn’t “wet.” But when you put billions of them together at the right temperature, “wetness” emerges.
• The Human Analogy: A single carbon atom has no purpose. But when trillions of atoms organize into a human brain, the ability to plan, love, and seek meaning emerges.

From this view, purpose is a real, physical phenomenon that happens once matter becomes complex enough to contemplate itself. Randomness was the starting condition, but “purpose” is the result of the system’s complexity.

Biological “Purpose” (Teleology)

Even if the universe doesn’t have a plan, evolution does have a direction. Evolutionary biology suggests that every living thing has a built-in “purpose”: to survive, to adapt, and to pass on information.

• Your heart has the “purpose” of pumping blood.
• Your eyes have the “purpose” of processing light.
• As a social species, humans evolved to find “purpose” in cooperation and empathy because those traits helped us survive.

In this sense, purpose isn’t a mystical decree; it is a biological survival strategy hardwired into our DNA.

The Existentialist View: “Existence Precedes Essence”

Philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre argued that for a manufactured object (like a letter opener), the “purpose” (essence) comes before the object is made. But for humans, we just “show up” (existence) first.

“Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” — Jean-Paul Sartre

If life is random, it means the “throne of purpose” is empty. To an existentialist, this isn’t a tragedy—it’s the ultimate freedom. If there is no pre-assigned meaning, you are not a cog in a machine. You are the architect. You get to decide if your purpose is to create art, help others, or simply enjoy the sun on your face.

The Cosmic Perspective

Some physicists, like Sean Carroll, speak of “Poetic Naturalism.” He suggests that while the fundamental laws of physics are indifferent, we live in a “mid-world” where the stories we tell about ourselves—our goals, our loves, our morals—are just as “real” as the atoms that make us up.

If the universe is vast, cold, and random, then humanity is the only part of the universe that can witness its beauty. In a way, our purpose might be to be the “eyes and ears” of a universe that would otherwise be dark and silent.

If life started from random events, we can conclude that:

• Purpose is a choice, not a discovery.
• Meaning is a human-scale invention, but that doesn’t make it “fake.” (Money is a human invention, too, but it has real-world power).
• The randomness of our origin makes our pursuit of purpose more impressive, not less. We are “accidents” that decided to matter.