Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to agree here - your argument is not an actual strawman. (Don't worry, I'm not being snarky) as that is a misrepresentation of a case to make it easier to demolish.
Your argument - though I don't agree with it - is pretty straightforward. The earth is a living unit, and I gather the universe is, too. I think 'life' is something different, but it depends on the definition.
Truly...what is "life"? It seems possible that there is "life" and "life as we know it". Can sentient life exist is a non corporeal form. As pure energy perhaps? Or be based on another element besides carbon? Does sentient thought have to be confined to a specific organ within a body? Can thought be projected from such an organ to perform tasks that life such as human life would use arms legs and fingers for? The possibilities seem endless.
When the subject of creation comes up, I always found it odd that some religious beliefs are of the thought that humanity is the best that such a being as could create in such a way would remain limited to creating only humanity. Seems rather ...arrogant. But that's just me.
I have to agree here - your argument is not an actual strawman. (Don't worry, I'm not being snarky) as that is a misrepresentation of a case to make it easier to demolish.
Your argument - though I don't agree with it - is pretty straightforward. The earth is a living unit, and I gather the universe is, too. I think 'life' is something different, but it depends on the definition.
Yes!...It all "depends on the definitions".
THAT is really the crux of the matter. What is it we are looking to get evidence for?
Saying that there is not an ad Populum argument being put forth is completely bogus. It is.
The argument is that the definitions and meanings of the word/term title "G-O-D" is fully on offer and known. It can be looked up and viewed by anyone, regardless of personal preferences. Fully verifiable.
We KNOW that there are definitions and meanings of the word/term title "G-O-D" that are other than Religious Deities. We also KNOW that these meanings and definitions have been endorsed and embraced by many millions for scores of centuries to recognize a perception and manifestation of GOD that is NOT a Religious Deity, and this perception and manifestation of God predates most of the theologies that present the Deities that are also (more commonly) accepted as GODS. This is not a case of just a few rogue outliers that present some radical definition and meaning of the word/term title "G-O-D"...this is held by millions and for longer than the meanings "most people" go by.
The NonDeity perceptions of GOD are completely dismissed and discounted by some, on nothing more than the basis that "most people" don't consider that as GOD when they contemplate the concept. They determine the Religious Deity type to be the only true GODS on the basis that "most people think so". In fact a "poster child" for an ad Populum logical fallacy argument.
Please explain how this dismissal of KNOWN definitions and meanings of the word/term "G-O-D" (that is, and has been, endorsed and embraced by millions, and is the basis of a longstanding concept (Pantheism) through which GOD manifests and is perceived) are viewed as "not true" based upon nothing more than "numbers & popularity".
You have never "debunked" this...and when contested nobody ever does anything but offer the illogical ad Populum argument again.
Truly...what is "life"? It seems possible that there is "life" and "life as we know it". Can sentient life exist is a non corporeal form. As pure energy perhaps? Or be based on another element besides carbon? Does sentient thought have to be confined to a specific organ within a body? Can thought be projected from such an organ to perform tasks that life such as human life would use arms legs and fingers for? The possibilities seem endless.
When the subject of creation comes up, I always found it odd that some religious beliefs are of the thought that humanity is the best that such a being as could create in such a way would remain limited to creating only humanity. Seems rather ...arrogant. But that's just me.
My own conclusion is -replication. What has DNA and can replicate, is life.
Discussing this on the 'Life after death' thread, I concluded that an incorporeal form of consciousness, if not life (and continued consciousness is, I think, what they really mean by 'Life' after death), could be possible. Particles work together in order, so why not intelligence? Though I couldn't se how it could come about without a material housing first. So, no it isn't beyond possibility, but without having biological form first makes it a bit less plausible. But this is all possibilities- no more.
I gather that religions see humans as the summit of creations, and in a way that is true. No other creature has our reasoning capacity. There are other things that other creatures can do that we can't but our level of reasoning tops all the rest, though dolphins, dogs and elephants are pretty good.
However, they all envisage something higher without our limitations (even if they have our faults, it seems) and in a more rarified if not incorporeal form.
My own conclusion is -replication. What has DNA and can replicate, is life.
Discussing this on the 'Life after death' thread, I concluded that an incorporeal form of consciousness, if not life (and continued consciousness is, I think, what they really mean by 'Life' after death), could be possible. Particles work together in order, so why not intelligence? Though I couldn't se how it could come about without a material housing first. So, no it isn't beyond possibility, but without having biological form first makes it a bit less plausible. But this is all possibilities- no more.
I gather that religions see humans as the summit of creations, and in a way that is true. No other creature has our reasoning capacity. There are other things that other creatures can do that we can't but our level of reasoning tops all the rest, though dolphins, dogs and elephants are pretty good.
However, they all envisage something higher without our limitations (even if they have our faults, it seems) and in a more rarified if not incorporeal form.
mmmm. Other lines of thought look at sentience alone as a requirement for life. The theory that "life" can exist is a pure energy forn is then touted as possible. Such things as ghosts/spirits do not qualify however since they have an ectoplasmic "shell" but there is of course no ability to replicate so they would not be life even if they do actually exist.
Silica is another theoretical building block of life that has been theorized. But I digress. What would a life form of pure energy require to exist? Well, an ability to maintain a cohesive field to be certain. But what would be contained within that field? I'm afraid I'm in over my head on that one . Life as we know it is far easier to understand. As is the case with most I'm sure. Perhaps Steven hawking or Michio Kaka would be better equipped to discuss energy based life. But the concept is truly interesting to think about.
The problem with these experiences is that they always have other possible explanations. Quoting a statistic such as, "Wow, the odds of that happening are so small that it *must* have been divine intervention" is not at all convincing.
In addition, even if ... even *if* ... you really did have some kind of supernatural experience, people always plug in their own cultural biases to explain it. For instance, if something supposedly miraculous happens to a Christian, naturally the God of the Bible or Jesus was the cause, but if a Muslim had the same experience, he would attribute it to Allah. A Hindu would have a completely different take on the experience ... and so on and so forth.
One of the big fallacies I see happening with personal anecdotes is they are almost unilaterally used to prove the existence of a specific god and the truth of a specific religion -- even when the experience had absolutely nothing to do with either of those things.
Take the Big Bang for example. The vast majority of Christians I've encountered who deny the Big Bang instantly leap from point A to point D by claiming that any signs of an intelligently-created universe is automatic proof that Yahweh is the intelligence behind the universe and, therefore, it vindicates the Christian religion and proves the Bible true.
This, to me, is why personal experiences mean very little in terms of evidence for a Creator. Sure, you can cite some personal miracle in your life, but that, in no way whatsoever, proves that whatever entity you encountered created the universe nor does it prove any particular god or religion true. In fact, you really can't say for sure *what* you encountered -- it could simply be a friendly interdimensional being taking the shape of whatever image of god you have in your mind so you don't run screaming from the room.
Automatically making that illogical leap from "I had an experience with an unknown and unidentified entity" to "It was Jesus!" is just that ... illogical.
You are not commenting on my experience (which is hardly surprising since I have not described it). You are telling us about your personal problems in YOUR encounters with certain individuals who seem (especially to you) to have taken quite a leap in interpreting their experiences. I'm sorry that you are apparently incapable of imagining that someone might have had an experience of a type you have not heard of before, or at least heard of and believed.
Note that you say in your first sentence that "The problem with these experiences is that they always have other possible explanations." You are wrong. They do not ALWAYS. Mine didn't. In fact, two of mine didn't.
You also say "In addition, even if ... even *if* ... you really did have some kind of supernatural experience, people always plug in their own cultural biases to explain it. For instance, if something supposedly miraculous happens to a Christian, naturally the God of the Bible or Jesus was the cause, but if a Muslim had the same experience, he would attribute it to Allah." Wrong again. First off, I'm not sure what you mean by supernatural, but it is not a word I would use to describe any of my experiences. More important, I do NOT plug in my own alleged biases to explain them. I merely claim that I have experienced obvious evidence that the controller of life on Earth is aware of what is going on and at least sometimes responds to specific situations very directly, even if in ways that do not appear to violate any rules deduced from ordinary scientific observation.
BTW, I think that most Christians, Jews and Muslims would reckon that God and Allah referred to the same entity, however exactly or inexactly or hopelessly one might attempt to describe said entity. Exceptions noted.
You are not commenting on my experience (which is hardly surprising since I have not described it).
Note that you say in your first sentence that "The problem with these experiences is that they always have other possible explanations." You are wrong. They do not ALWAYS. Mine didn't. In fact, two of mine didn't.
First off, I'm not sure what you mean by supernatural, but it is not a word I would use to describe any of my experiences.
mmmm. Other lines of thought look at sentience alone as a requirement for life. The theory that "life" can exist is a pure energy forn is then touted as possible. Such things as ghosts/spirits do not qualify however since they have an ectoplasmic "shell" but there is of course no ability to replicate so they would not be life even if they do actually exist.
Silica is another theoretical building block of life that has been theorized. But I digress. What would a life form of pure energy require to exist? Well, an ability to maintain a cohesive field to be certain. But what would be contained within that field? I'm afraid I'm in over my head on that one . Life as we know it is far easier to understand. As is the case with most I'm sure. Perhaps Steven hawking or Michio Kaka would be better equipped to discuss energy based life. But the concept is truly interesting to think about.
Yes, alien life-forms based on other chemical compounds are possible. However, what's possible is not the same as defining what is known. Sentienence itself won't do as even plants are life. What all have in common is reproducing DNA.
Even if...we learned of life -forms that did not use DNA to replicate or could not replicate at all and we had to talk about silicate life or incorporeal intelliegncee-life or sentinent ectoplasm, were ghosts proven, we would still be correct - I suggest- in defining earthly Life as the same - what reproduced by DNA.
Yes, alien life-forms based on other chemical compounds are possible. However, what's possible is not the same as defining what is known. Sentienence itself won't do as even plants are life. What all have in common is reproducing DNA.
Not to say that life could not come from another element like Silicon either, not just the Carbon compounds that make up life on Earth.
shinra, to dismiss these notions out of hand because you are afraid of religion isnt right either for us that are only in the game to find out "how the universe works". And why would people believe in a higher power.
I say they are misunderstanding what they are interacting with.
Oh, I'm not dismissing anything out-of-hand nor am I dismissing anything you're saying.
My line of disagreement has been more about semantics than any doctrinal or belief system. I just think it's a bad idea for pantheists or any derivative of pantheism to call the universe "god" simply because it's going to convey the wrong meaning to the vast majority of people -- including some atheists.
The word simply has way too much baggage. Thus, believing the universe may be alive is less of an issue for me than calling the universe "god."
mmmm. Other lines of thought look at sentience alone as a requirement for life. The theory that "life" can exist is a pure energy forn is then touted as possible. Such things as ghosts/spirits do not qualify however since they have an ectoplasmic "shell" but there is of course no ability to replicate so they would not be life even if they do actually exist.
Silica is another theoretical building block of life that has been theorized. But I digress. What would a life form of pure energy require to exist? Well, an ability to maintain a cohesive field to be certain. But what would be contained within that field? I'm afraid I'm in over my head on that one . Life as we know it is far easier to understand. As is the case with most I'm sure. Perhaps Steven hawking or Michio Kaka would be better equipped to discuss energy based life. But the concept is truly interesting to think about.
we don't know what "pure energy" is. All we say is that it does 'work". "life" is a lot of work in a smaller volume. Not even the hawk knows what it is.
also, we are really a net average of a set of events so in a real sense we are energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) as that is a misrepresentation of a case to make it easier to demolish.
Other lines of thought look at sentience alone as a requirement for life. The theory that "life" can exist is a pure energy forn is then touted as possible. Such things as ghosts/spirits do not qualify however since they have an ectoplasmic "shell" but there is of course no ability to replicate so they would not be life even if they do actually exist. 