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.
"Alive" wouldn't be as we think of alive. "Aware" might be one appropriate word. Certainly it is nothing like the god Christianity worships which is a schizophrenic god of wrath and retribution juxtaposed with a god of supreme love and tenderness. Christians have for 2000 years tried to fit these trianglular and round pieces into the rectangle and have only made the confusion worse about this god's attributes.
I think the bold above is very telling. There didn't have to be a procedural framework for all of this i.e. this higher being creates the universe, then seeds it with life, then sets up evolution, then walks away to leave us on our own. The odds were against us surviving right from the get-go and yet here we are--a highly advanced civilization of 8 billion people on a planet with all the requisites for sustaining life indefinitely if our numbers were controlled. Maybe as you say, this being "is" thus so are we. It's a fascinating idea. If it were that simple, the universe should be crawling with life form of every shape and size and yet here we are, as best we know, alone in the galaxy perhaps the universe. That this one insignificant little planet beat the odds and developed into what we are today I find too improbable which is why I cannot latch onto Learn's theory that it didn't take any overt act to jump-start something that could evolve into what we see around us.
Well, that's a fair argument. There are the objections that a planet has to at least have the conditions where life could evolve. We are still searching exoplanets to find earthlike ones with signs of Life (oxygen) and signs of any attempt at life on Mars, for instance. But that is a fair argument as to Life might have needed a helping hand to get going here.
You must have missed the many posts pointing out that natural design (e.g snowflakes...ah you remember now...) is not the same thing as Intelligent design, which is scientifically discredited as religion and not science.
Do you mean ... the snowflake Kobold does NOT exist?
"Alive" wouldn't be as we think of alive. "Aware" might be one appropriate word. Certainly it is nothing like the god Christianity worships which is a schizophrenic god of wrath and retribution juxtaposed with a god of supreme love and tenderness. Christians have for 2000 years tried to fit these trianglular and round pieces into the rectangle and have only made the confusion worse about this god's attributes.
I think the bold above is very telling. There didn't have to be a procedural framework for all of this i.e. this higher being creates the universe, then seeds it with life, then sets up evolution, then walks away to leave us on our own. The odds were against us surviving right from the get-go and yet here we are--a highly advanced civilization of 8 billion people on a planet with all the requisites for sustaining life indefinitely if our numbers were controlled. Maybe as you say, this being "is" thus so are we. It's a fascinating idea. If it were that simple, the universe should be crawling with life form of every shape and size and yet here we are, as best we know, alone in the galaxy perhaps the universe. That this one insignificant little planet beat the odds and developed into what we are today I find too improbable which is why I cannot latch onto Learn's theory that it didn't take any overt act to jump-start something that could evolve into what we see around us.
I am just going to address "alive" here. "aware", we know that parts of the universe are aware. We just don't know how much. It doesn't look like the whole thing is tho to me. "Alive" we can actually make a crude, but effective, measurement to demoinstarte that claim as "more valid" than a claim that the system aground us matches "non life".
The hills are alive. lmao, I love that one. if that doesn't tell you the person is political then nothing will.
Yes, "alive" actually is very unclear. If you look at what scientist say its not all that clear what "alive" means. For simplicity we can look at it as complexity versus volume ratio.
A measurement is really what is needed. For those interested, look up the science and engineering meaning. But its a comparison of an unknown to a known. So lets compare the system, the unknown, to what we do know, "humans". The system is more complex than humans. Well if humans are alive then what is the system?
If that scares us. We can use a cell. Is the system a more complex set of interactions than a cell? The answer is yes. If we then use the traits assigned to life in any high school science book (the minimum standard of life) the sytem matches it. The "higher" in education we go, I mean using what the professors/science use, then the system starts to align to "alive" more and more.
If we are still afraid of theist then compare the system to something "non living". Pick anything you want. I use LHC, but use anything you want. a rock, a mountain, a star, anything at all. Does the system we are in match non life more than a "cell"?
I think most people will say it matches a cell far more than anything non living. In fact, it takes an extraordinary complex argument to say it matches non life. Then use that thing where "pick the simplest answer.". Alive is so easy it needs very little explaining.
It would easily hold up in a court. In fact, non living would probably not hold up in court. And if atheist are about using science, then this is the time to step up to the plate. And use it.
So thrill, its not necessarily "awareness" that causes reality. It may be "alive" causes us to be here and the "alive" then cause "awareness". It doesn't look like it the reverse to me.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-18-2020 at 07:20 AM..
Well, that's a fair argument. There are the objections that a planet has to at least have the conditions where life could evolve. We are still searching exoplanets to find earthlike ones with signs of Life (oxygen) and signs of any attempt at life on Mars, for instance. But that is a fair argument as to Life might have needed a helping hand to get going here.
better not object to it. If you do you are as bad as the people that say jesus had to come save us.
but you stay hidden trans. You know, your anti-god of gaps can't face down all of science. It has to maintain an air of legitimacy by avoiding everything.
you have to avoid the claim that "the system around us matches "alive" more than "not alive". The fact that you know its true but have to avoid it because you feel religion is so dangerous you are afraid how theist will miss use shows your brand of atheism is just like the fundy theism. And as dangerous to people as they are.
The science points to it being based on personality, not theist or atheism. Another fact that you have to run away from.
I am just going to address "alive" here. "aware", we know that parts of the universe are aware. We just don't know how much. It doesn't look like the whole thing is tho to me. "Alive" we can actually make a crude, but effective, measurement to demoinstarte that claim as "more valid" than a claim that the system aground us matches "non life".
The hills are alive. lmao, I love that one. if that doesn't tell you the person is political then nothing will.
Yes, "alive" actually is very unclear. If you look at what scientist say its not all that clear what "alive" means. For simplicity we can look at it as complexity versus volume ratio.
A measurement is really what is needed. For those interested, look up the science and engineering meaning. But its a comparison of an unknown to a known. So lets compare the system, the unknown, to what we do know, "humans". The system is more complex than humans. Well if humans are alive then what is the system?
If that scares us. We can use a cell. Is the system a more complex set of interactions than a cell? The answer is yes. If we then use the traits assigned to life in any high school science book (the minimum standard of life) the sytem matches it. The "higher" in education we go, I mean using what the professors/science use, then the system starts to align to "alive" more and more.
If we are still afraid of theist then compare the system to something "non living". Pick anything you want. I use LHC, but use anything you want. a rock, a mountain, a star, anything at all. Does the system we are in match non life more than a "cell"?
I think most people will say it matches a cell far more than anything non living. In fact, it takes an extraordinary complex argument to say it matches non life. Then use that thing where "pick the simplest answer.". Alive is so easy it needs very little explaining.
It would easily hold up in a court. In fact, non living would probably not hold up in court. And if atheist are about using science, then this is the time to step up to the plate. And use it.
So thrill, its not necessarily "awareness" that causes reality. It may be "alive" causes us to be here and the "alive" then cause "awareness". It doesn't look like it the reverse to me.
So to put it in urban slang, the universe is woke?
better not object to it. If you do you are as bad as the people that say jesus had to come save us.
but you stay hidden trans. You know, your anti-god of gaps can't face down all of science. It has to maintain an air of legitimacy by avoiding everything.
you have to avoid the claim that "the system around us matches "alive" more than "not alive". The fact that you know its true but have to avoid it because you feel religion is so dangerous you are afraid how theist will miss use shows your brand of atheism is just like the fundy theism. And as dangerous to people as they are.
The science points to it being based on personality, not theist or atheism. Another fact that you have to run away from.
AA,
Are you saying people who say Jesus had to come save us are bad? You looking to get burned at the stake or something?
Apparently it is very important for you to establish whether the universe is more alive than not alive. I really have to wonder why, because either way the universe is all the same to me and you regardless. Right? If the universe is less alive than you want to promote, does that change anything for us? If the universe is more alive than you promote, what would the implications be? Seems we're all making our way in this universe on a daily basis without much difference what we think along these lines. Right?
Or is it that you want to feel plugged into a cosmic wall socket while others are content simply to use the on/off light switch?
So to put it in urban slang, the universe is woke?
I don't know about the universe. I stay on planet earth with my claim. strictly the surface of the earth.
I lean towards no. But the cosmic web is a very large information pathway. Its a clear information pathway in a pattern. The amount of information and complexity of information being exchanged is far greater than "human".
A white blood cell would see you as a never changing thing. It lives and dies so fast that it might even classify you as non life. Two white blood cells in us talking would sound exactly like me and you.
Are you saying people who say Jesus had to come save us are bad? You looking to get burned at the stake or something?
Apparently it is very important for you to establish whether the universe is more alive than not alive. I really have to wonder why, because either way the universe is all the same to me and you regardless. Right? If the universe is less alive than you want to promote, does that change anything for us? If the universe is more alive than you promote, what would the implications be? Seems we're all making our way in this universe on a daily basis without much difference what we think along these lines. Right?
Or is it that you want to feel plugged into a cosmic wall socket while others are content simply to use the on/off light switch?
no. when we talk about the validity of god claims. Politics should have nothing to do with it.
it should never be said to a person "although valid we have to be careful how we say it so theist can't use it and make atheism harder to sell."
and we need to be very careful of how honest people are evaluating god claims when they openly claim
"I am here to stop Christianity"
and
"my primary goal is to stop religion in the united states."
some of us are here just to talk about god and how god claims relate to what we know. That is different than talking about god with stopping religion as the goal.
I changed my mind the light socket is a great example. some people want to actually understand how it works and others are just fine with saying "i am going to sleep".
the question, when talking about the wall socket, who is more valid. The one that says how the light works or the one that said "I don't care I am off to bed."
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-18-2020 at 02:52 PM..
I don't know about the universe. I stay on planet earth with my claim. strictly the surface of the earth.
I lean towards no. But the cosmic web is a very large information pathway. Its a clear information pathway in a pattern. The amount of information and complexity of information being exchanged is far greater than "human".
A white blood cell would see you as a never changing thing. It lives and dies so fast that it might even classify you as non life. Two white blood cells in us talking would sound exactly like me and you.
do you think its alive?
It doesn't look that way.
Lots of things look alive to me...
The million sparkles of the Sun's rays reflecting off the ocean looks alive to me. The comet streaking through the night sky looks alive to me (when I can see it). Then again NEOWISE is nothing but a big chunk of ice that is hard to consider "alive" in most respects. All to say, I see plenty that looks alive and plenty that doesn't. None of which really makes much difference in terms of how I see us, the Earth or the universe as a whole.
Maybe if I could talk to those two white blood cells, I would see things more the way you do...
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.
you remember now...) is not the same thing as Intelligent design, which is scientifically discredited as religion and not science.
