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.
Now this is a reasonable post. I didn't know this thread was a special place, so perhaps more leeway for intersectional science/spirituality discussions will be allowed on this thread? Like I have always said, I'm happy to discuss the matter anywhere it is allowed. I hope a moderator will let me know if I am adding too much science here.
First of all I want to make something clear - I think that the person who is making a claim should give the detailed argument. This is something even Arach agreed with in the atheist forum - the person making a claim should give reasons for their claim. So it should be Arach who lists out in detail the criteria of life that he says he found in a biology book, and give a detailed argument why those criteria match the biosphere. The fact that he refuses to do so, and asks me to do so is disingenuous and at the very least lazy on his parts. It is not my claim after all - I make no claim on the matter. I'm asking him to justify his claim.
The criteria for life, taken from a biology book:
The term ‘living organism’ is usually used to describe something which displays all the characteristics of living things:
1 Nutrition
Living things take in materials from their surroundings that they use for growth or to provide energy. Nutrition is the process by which organisms obtain energy and raw materials from nutrients such as proteins, carbohydrates and fats.
2 Respiration
Respiration is the release of energy from food substances in all living cells. Living things break down food within their cells to release energy for carrying out the following processes.
3 Movement
All living things move. It is very obvious that a leopard moves but what about the thorn tree it sits in? Plants too move in various different ways. The movement may be so slow that it is very difficult to see.
4 Excretion
All living things excrete. As a result of the many chemical reactions occurring in cells, they have to get rid of waste products which might poison the cells. Excretion is defined as the removal of toxic materials, the waste products of metabolism and substances in excess from the body of an organism.
5 Growth
Growth is seen in all living things. It involves using food to produce new cells. The permanent increase in cell number and size is called growth.
6 Reproduction
All living organisms have the ability to produce offspring.
7 Sensitivity
All living things are able to sense and respond to stimuli around them such as light, temperature, water, gravity and chemical substances.
Do note that to be classified as a living organism, something needs to display all the characteristics above. Satisfying 6 out of 7 characteristics would mean that the object is not a living organism, as per the biology book.
Now anyone who makes a claim that the biosphere meets the criteria for a living organism, has to show in detail how they meet each of the above criteria. Not lazily ask me to prove it. They need to prove it. They are the one making a claim, not me.
Arach is more than capable of answering for himself, but I would note that your criteria does not exactly address Arach's claim. A partial fulfillment of the criteria would support what he actually claims which is that the system is more alive than not.
It is also important to note that he is talking holistically about the entire system, not its individual components. For example, if you look at the individual components of a cell, they do not all meet the requirements for alive, but the cell as a whole is alive. Arach is just extending the analogy outward to the biosphere itself.
I will assume that if pete is still here, I am cleared to answer. My apologies if that is not the case, I would happily delete this myself and My apologies to all the people that think we shouldn't use evidence to form a belief.
lmao The old "I don't have to say anything ... that is funny. Its like the go to dogma of atheism these days.
The claim is not "its an organism" although we could talk about that, its not what I said.
I said, the biosphere seems to match "alive" more than "Not alive.". That "aliveness" seems to match what we see people doing and thinking in terms of spirituality.,
Ok, so lets use your list.
1) nutrition ... yeah, that is your lack of understanding. That is using resources to be "alive". It most certainty is doing that. It just way bigger.
2) Respiration ... well, that is actually methodizing energy and breaking down resources. But either way, its doing it.
3) movement. what's that mean? now we need to run around? That is not a required trait for "alive". The internal movements of it metabolizing energy would be seen as "movement". Just watch a cell. Yes it does it.
4) Excretion. generating waste. Yes, it is definitely doing it. It is also reusing it. Its more complex than we are. Much like you are more complex than a cell in you.
5) growth ... that's stupid simple. we are mass extinction number 6. It regrew at least 5 major times. There are any number examples where life moves in when the conditions are right.
6) reproduction. I'll will give that one. But a simple thought experiment of us terra forming a planet means maybe that isn't lacking as much as we think. But I give it you for now.
7) sensitivity? I classify that as reacting to its surroundings. What would happen to the biosphere if we, say, started to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Would we see it react over time? What if a giant rock hit us? well, look at the rock record for a "sensitivity" check. its there. Although I wouldn;t call it sensitivity. I would call it reacting to the system around it.
Two of yours I would rewod, and take it to you go to person.
Homeostasis and metabolizes. I would sub in those for some of yours. They are just more precise in what we talking about.
Now, my claim is that the biosphere matches that list for "alive" more than it doesn't. I used your list to show it.
We could talk a little more respectful to each other, Pete, but I am not sucking your toes my man. I think atheist that hide behind "we don't have to say anything" are cowards. Man up. offer a claim, lets see how it fits in a relative reliability list. or are you just going to run around pounding people in their belief telling them how wrong they are.
I am more than happy to agree to talk more respectful to each other. Like how much better did I show what I meant when you brought the list?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-09-2021 at 12:55 PM..
Arach is more than capable of answering for himself, but I would note that your criteria does not exactly address Arach's claim. A partial fulfillment of the criteria would support what he actually claims which is that the system is more alive than not.
It is also important to note that he is talking holistically about the entire system, not its individual components. For example, if you look at the individual components of a cell, they do not all meet the requirements for alive, but the cell as a whole is alive. Arach is just extending the analogy outward to the biosphere itself.
that is exactly it.
A measurement is what I needed to seal the deal.
A measurement is comparing a known (a standard) to an unknow to see what we see. Like the height of a wall to a meter stick.
Then size is an issue. how do we classify objects? we classify them by they how interact with things around them and in them. So there is no size limit.
I chose the surface of our earth. what if I ignored the pieces and look at the green stuff as a unit.
I compared the green stuff covering our big wet rock earth to see what gives. I used a cell, a virus, and anything non living. I will gladly take anything else.
Its so stupid simple I can't really think of reason reason not to say it leans heavily on the cell side. I mean 900,000 out of million people will probably agree. I haven't met one trained person yet that said I was wrong.
There are not many reason to ignore the claim the way they do. Something must have happened. To toss down a measuring device and exclaim "I don't care, I lack belief" is an indicator.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-09-2021 at 01:09 PM..
I will assume that if pete is still here, I am cleared to answer. My apologies if that is not the case, I would happily delete this myself and My apologies to all the people that think we shouldn't use evidence to form a belief.
lmao The old "I don't have to say anything ... that is funny. Its like the go to dogma of atheism these days.
The claim is not "its an organism" although we could talk about that, its not what I said.
I said, the biosphere seems to match "alive" more than "Not alive.". That "aliveness" seems to match what we see people doing and thinking in terms of spirituality.,
Ok, so lets use your list.
1) nutrition ... yeah, that is your lack of understanding. That is using resources to be "alive". It most certainty is doing that. It just way bigger.
2) Respiration ... well, that is actually methodizing energy and breaking down resources. But either way, its doing it.
3) movement. what's that mean? now we need to run around? That is not a required trait for "alive". The internal movements of it metabolizing energy would be seen as "movement". Just watch a cell. Yes it does it.
4) Excretion. generating waste. Yes, it is definitely doing it. It is also reusing it. Its more complex than we are. Much like you are more complex than a cell in you.
5) growth ... that's stupid simple. we are mass extinction number 6. It regrew at least 5 major times. There are any number examples where life moves in when the conditions are right.
6) reproduction. I'll will give that one. But a simple thought experiment of us terra forming a planet means maybe that isn't lacking as much as we think. But I give it you for now.
7) sensitivity? I classify that as reacting to its surroundings. What would happen to the biosphere if we, say, started to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Would we see it react over time? What if a giant rock hit us? well, look at the rock record for a "sensitivity" check. its there. Although I wouldn;t call it sensitivity. I would call it reacting to the system around it.
Two of yours I would rewod, and take it to you go to person.
Homeostasis and metabolizes. I would sub in those for some of yours. They are just more precise in what we talking about.
Now, my claim is that the biosphere matches that list for "alive" more than it doesn't. I used your list to show it.
We could talk a little more respectful to each other, Pete, but I am not sucking your toes my man. I think atheist that hide behind "we don't have to say anything" are cowards. Man up. offer a claim, lets see how it fits in a relative reliability list. or are you just going to run around pounding people in their belief telling them how wrong they are.
I am more than happy to agree to talk more respectful to each other. Like how much better did I show what I meant when you brought the list?
See this is certainly better. But do you see how you should have taken the time to compile the list because it is your claim? Instead you evaded and lied and got me to compile a list for your claim.
The discussion could have been so much more respectful if you had simply written out your list when I first asked. That you didn't do so says a lot about your evasive tactics. How can I respect a person who makes a claim and then lazily gets me to do do lists for their claim, that they should do themselves?
Now you previously claimed that you get traits of life from a biology book. But of course you refused to be specific about what exactly you were using from the biology book. So I went and found a biology book published by the Cambridge University Press, and copied out the text above. So those are not my points, they are points taken from a biology book exactly word for word.
Now that is very clearly a science discussion and I would not blame the moderators for stopping it right here, but perhaps because this is a thread dedicated to views like yours maybe it will be allowed. I'm happy to follow the rules either way.
As for you responses to the specific points in my post, I can respectfully reply to them. And as long as your responses are not evasive I will continue to be respectful:
If I temporarily ignore movement (which is in my biology textbook as a trait of life) since you don't agree with it.
Nutrition - Where is the biosphere getting nutrition from? Where specifically? I think there is very little if any nutrient transfer into the biosphere. All nutrient transfer happens between organisms within the biosphere, not into the biosphere. In order to be alive an organism must have nutrient transfer into it.
Excretion - what exactly are the waste products that are being excreted and where are they being excreted to? I think there is very little if any excretion out of the biosphere. All excretion happens between organisms in the biosphere. the biosphere itself doesn't really excrete much. In order to be classified as living, an organism must excrete out of itself.
Reproduction - You have accepted it is problematic for now
Sensitivity - Can you give examples of where the biosphere as a whole reacts to external stimuli?
Homeostasis - as the current increase in CO2 in the air has shows, the biosphere doesn't nessasaraly self regulate. The earth has had massive fluctuations in temperature/oxygen level/Co2 level/etc over it's history. So this doesn't apply to the biosphere.
Growth - I will agree with you on this one. At some point the biosphere didn't exist, it started somewhere (near undersea volcano vents possibly) and then spread. So in some sense the biosphere did grow.
Respiration/metabolism - I agree with you on this. There is a energy transfer into the biosphere.
So the biosphere matches less than half the characteristics for life. Furthermore according to the biology textbook, it must meet all the criteria in order to be categorised as life.
Sadly, there isn't a specific place to discuss areas where religion / spirituality intersect with anything scientific.
The reason as far as I can tell is that moderators here don't feel they should be moderating science, and moderators over on the science forum don't want anything to do with religion.
Which is fair enough I guess.
They will however, allow a small amount of relevant discussion and you'll know when you've gone too far because they'll either give you a warning or delete your posts.
One of the reasons the pantheism thread was created was to corale such posts here.
So perhaps a discussion of what Arach is talking about IS relevant to this thread.
I'm not speaking for Arach and he can tell me if I'm on the wrong track but what he was saying put me in mind of the Gaia hypothesis - that the earth is a self regulating system.
Perhaps this is what he was meaning?
In the meantime I'm interested to read your definition for what constitutes 'life'.
One other thing regarding the limitation of the science forum and this forum.
If people are able to construct arguments with an intellectual rigorousness, it should be possible to have a hybrid discussion in both forums, where the science part is discussed in the science forum and the religious/spiritual part is discussed in here. Take the following as an example:
I claim that Earth is a living organism. My argument in defence of my claim is as follows:
1) I find a biology textbook
2) I look in it for traits of life.
3) I list these traits in detail
4) For each of these traits I check whether the Earth as a whole matches them, in detail
5) I add my spiritualism
Now if I were able to methodologically and rigorously construct arguments 1), 2), 3) and 4) can be discussed in the science forum. Using the results of that discussion, then 5 can be discussed on this forum.
However I think that would require a methodological and rigours discussion that I think may be beyond some posters.
See this is certainly better. But do you see how you should have taken the time to compile the list because it is your claim? Instead you evaded and lied and got me to compile a list for your claim.
The discussion could have been so much more respectful if you had simply written out your list when I first asked. That you didn't do so says a lot about your evasive tactics. How can I respect a person who makes a claim and then lazily gets me to do do lists for their claim, that they should do themselves?
Now you previously claimed that you get traits of life from a biology book. But of course you refused to be specific about what exactly you were using from the biology book. So I went and found a biology book published by the Cambridge University Press, and copied out the text above. So those are not my points, they are points taken from a biology book exactly word for word.
Now that is very clearly a science discussion and I would not blame the moderators for stopping it right here, but perhaps because this is a thread dedicated to views like yours maybe it will be allowed. I'm happy to follow the rules either way.
As for you responses to the specific points in my post, I can respectfully reply to them. And as long as your responses are not evasive I will continue to be respectful:
If I temporarily ignore movement (which is in my biology textbook as a trait of life) since you don't agree with it.
Nutrition - Where is the biosphere getting nutrition from? Where specifically? I think there is very little if any nutrient transfer into the biosphere. All nutrient transfer happens between organisms within the biosphere, not into the biosphere. In order to be alive an organism must have nutrient transfer into it.
Excretion - what exactly are the waste products that are being excreted and where are they being excreted to? I think there is very little if any excretion out of the biosphere. All excretion happens between organisms in the biosphere. the biosphere itself doesn't really excrete much. In order to be classified as living, an organism must excrete out of itself.
Reproduction - You have accepted it is problematic for now
Sensitivity - Can you give examples of where the biosphere as a whole reacts to external stimuli?
Homeostasis - as the current increase in CO2 in the air has shows, the biosphere doesn't nessasaraly self regulate. The earth has had massive fluctuations in temperature/oxygen level/Co2 level/etc over it's history. So this doesn't apply to the biosphere.
Growth - I will agree with you on this one. At some point the biosphere didn't exist, it started somewhere (near undersea volcano vents possibly) and then spread. So in some sense the biosphere did grow.
Respiration/metabolism - I agree with you on this. There is a energy transfer into the biosphere.
So the biosphere matches less than half the characteristics for life. Furthermore according to the biology textbook, it must meet all the criteria in order to be categorised as life.
Don't accuse me of being evasive. That's BS. We talk, we talk right here. if we can't talk here ... that proves what I have been saying. I told you petety, I am not going to suck your toes. I will be happy to play. I have no problem telling you that this dogma of "we don't have to say anything" is yellow belly back stabbing cowardice atheism. I am not falling for that sick political trick.
Atheism is stronger than that. We walk out in the open and we use all lines of logic. We have the weight of science, commonsense, logic, and reason on our side. I will not be a political chump. Its ok to believe stuff when its logical.
We both said our piece ... That is now behind us. Now back to business ...
1) Nutrition? Nutrition, as we use the word, is not a requirement. The word "nutrition" is really better stated "metabolizes energy". It process the energy from the sun to carry out processes that cause we see it doing.
The recourses to be alive (Nutrition) come from the atmosphere mostly. But the rest comes from minerals on the outer layer of the planet. If there is a blood thing, it would be water. water breaks down the big pieces into smaller more useable pieces. Then transports it around. the water cycle ...
2) Reacting to the system around it. this ie easy.
I gave you the example of co2 level increasing and asteroid impact. The system is definitely reacted to those. That 's where the word homeostasis comes into play. It reacts in such a way as to try and maintain that homeostasis.
CO2 sinks. The levels increase and the system reacts to that increase. Bigger plants and animals for instance. Like so many millions of years ago. But we are killing them off to fast to see that one. Co2 sinks are also sea water. But we are also affecting that one.
3) homeostasis. Trying to self regulate and actually doing it are two different things.
Much like when you get sick. Sometimes we die. We are killing everything off. But in a healthy ecosystem, it most certainly self regulates. Example: "limiting factors". Its an ebb and flow.
Homeostasis does not mean "never changes" and/or "never dies".
So I still have it more than half.
Thank you for the effort.
I do appreciate it.
at this point we can stop. I don't really mind if you don't see it. I don't even mind that you don't agree with it. Although I never met one trained person, in person, that said I was wrong. And I have been lucky enough to hang around more than your average amount.
But its is not a delusional, irrational, or fanciful belief. It has a mechanism pete. That is really important if you know anything about making claims.
Its a bottom up approach. Now, I would be happy to got a another cite and go deeper into it. Things like cell size is limited by the how a cell operates. Maybe dna strands are also.
again,
thank you.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-09-2021 at 07:29 PM..
Sadly, there isn't a specific place to discuss areas where religion / spirituality intersect with anything scientific.
The reason as far as I can tell is that moderators here don't feel they should be moderating science, and moderators over on the science forum don't want anything to do with religion.
Which is fair enough I guess.
They will however, allow a small amount of relevant discussion and you'll know when you've gone too far because they'll either give you a warning or delete your posts.
One of the reasons the pantheism thread was created was to corale such posts here.
So perhaps a discussion of what Arach is talking about IS relevant to this thread.
I'm not speaking for Arach and he can tell me if I'm on the wrong track but what he was saying put me in mind of the Gaia hypothesis - that the earth is a self regulating system.
Perhaps this is what he was meaning?
In the meantime I'm interested to read your definition for what constitutes 'life'.
yes, I am not the first one with this idea. And you know, I think you are close to trained people, if not one yourself, that many trained people would be fine with what I say.
I think Gaia goes to far. But I never get to speak with anybody from that camp. I only go so far as to say ...
"when I line up the biosphere to a cell, a virus, and anything not alive, over time, the biosphere is closer to the cell.
That is a measurement. It is a right powerful statement, as you know. It doesn't matter what we believe after that.
The word "organism" is an issue. But I do not see how "size" doesn't impact "organism", much like cell size effects how a single organism is constructed. IE: there is a limit to cell size so life went to systems.
And what is a system? Does it have to have physical contact to be a system? Well, the phone system doesn't. chemicals and gauge bosons connections are equally affective. example, emr connects us to the sun as surely as if we were sitting touching it.
On so many levels, it just makes sense. To me.
I just think that starting there is better than starting with "I don't have to say anything".
This thread has been created to express thoughts on the concept known as pantheism. pantheism, defined by Oxford Languages as :
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
For purposes of City-Data, the concept will encompass similar expressions of the concept whether one's perspective includes a deity or not. Please read Post No. 15 of the Rules above for further information.
What is the difference between pantheism and naturalism (the natural world with all its processes and features is all there is)?
One other thing regarding the limitation of the science forum and this forum.
If people are able to construct arguments with an intellectual rigorousness, it should be possible to have a hybrid discussion in both forums, where the science part is discussed in the science forum and the religious/spiritual part is discussed in here. Take the following as an example:
I claim that Earth is a living organism. My argument in defence of my claim is as follows:
1) I find a biology textbook
2) I look in it for traits of life.
3) I list these traits in detail
4) For each of these traits I check whether the Earth as a whole matches them, in detail
5) I add my spiritualism
Now if I were able to methodologically and rigorously construct arguments 1), 2), 3) and 4) can be discussed in the science forum. Using the results of that discussion, then 5 can be discussed on this forum.
However I think that would require a methodological and rigours discussion that I think may be beyond some posters.
It's an idea, but in reality people aren't going to switch between subforums to hold a single conversation.
You could type up your ideas in the science forum and link them here I suppose, but thats not really any different than just typing them here. It's still bringing science to the religion forum .
Take a look at the sticky attached to this sub forum.
You are allowed scientific arguments here, they just shouldn't be the main topic of conversation, rather they should be used to support an argument within a topic under the umbrella of religion and spirituality.
In practice the mods will let you have scientific input as long as threads don't start to become more about science than religion or spirituality.
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.
