A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So why couldnt god have created life elsewhere in the solar system? After all, he created it at the south pole. It took man a few millenia to find out. Or is it that you think that gods only interest is man? In that case do you hold the view that all other life is there to serve man? If so then how do you tally that view with the statement in the gospels about those who show compassion for gods littlest creatures? You therefore have to accept that god does care about all likfe and that he equally might have created it in any number of places in the universe. Unless you take the view that the earth is gods domainm and that other planets are the domain of other gods. In which case god isnt infinite.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Well, the two are not incompatible. If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen. I read a lot of popular science, I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere?
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
harold aptroot wrote:
How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence?
Well, He does, as it happens. But that's edging pretty close to Soapbox material.
harold aptroot wrote:
So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way. Scott Adams ( of Dilbert fame ) wrote several books, and in one he talked about his belief that picturing something you want to happen, can make it happen. In the next, he talks at length about his response to people who pilloried him for his view, and in particular talks about how Occams Razor is a farce in the sense it is used by people today. I don't agree with him on the visualisation thing, but I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic. Funny, the guy who runs the skeptic magazine in the US wrote a number of the books I've read of late, and he seems to be a calm, decent, logical individual. So are most skeptics, but the first book I read was 'why do smart people believe dumb things' or something similar. Yes, creationists got a chapter :-) It's funny to me that in some ways, that is true of the skeptic movement, and it's obsession with misapplication of Occam's Razor. I googled for the chapter online, but could not find it. It appears to be in the book 'the jo
Christian Graus wrote:
My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience
Based on my experience of nearly 40 years of life there is no evidence for God, and I was raised as a Christian and have read most of the Bible. As a rational, thinking being, as a result of this it is illogical and incomprehensible to me to be anything other than an atheist. If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
-
Nope. The fluffy one is right. She knows me so well.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
In Pete's context it means drunk.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Yeah, I know. When I said "used here", I meant in India. Britishers use some quaint words. :)
Cheers, Vikram. (Got my troika of CCCs!)
-
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
I was funnier in that thread. I hadn't realised I'd been so sig-worthy either.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Well, you don't believe in God, so you're obviously a Nazi. Does that do it ? ( Actually, Hitler thought he was doing God's work, but, that would kill the joke )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Was this reply to me or DD? This thread has become seriously borked.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
I understand your argument. There are problems with it. Saying you are open to it does not make it so. Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper. One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe. Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve. Or evolution, or trickledown economics, free market, government intervention, socialism, any of a million things that people see the same data and draw opposing conclusions. God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see. I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong. I came through engineering, calculus and physics. Both sides tell me it can't be so. If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they? People believe what they choose to, and, as the saying goes, YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
By creationists.
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing? I am a firm 'evolutionist', and I believe in God. But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience
Based on my experience of nearly 40 years of life there is no evidence for God, and I was raised as a Christian and have read most of the Bible. As a rational, thinking being, as a result of this it is illogical and incomprehensible to me to be anything other than an atheist. If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ?
Ah, so you're a theist then? But I would say nothing really follows one way or the other. Are you a Christian? I think Christianity strongly tends to the view that creation is for Man but doesn't strictly imply it. I vaguely remember reading some discussion by C. S. Lewis on this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it
Yes. Well, it depends what we mean by "accident." If the probability is vanishingly small then it may only have happened once. If the probability is small but reasonable then I would expect life to be everywhere. Personally, if we discount your theistic view, I think the second is more likely. I can't prove this other than by reference to the symmetry of the universe and the strangeness of life, i.e., complex events can't be explained by vanishingly small probabilities.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I would expect life to be everywhere.
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now? That has bothered me, because one of the solutions to the probability equation is that somebody kills them all, as soon as they hear them, so the time of radiating tends to be short. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
I understand your argument. There are problems with it. Saying you are open to it does not make it so. Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper. One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe. Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve. Or evolution, or trickledown economics, free market, government intervention, socialism, any of a million things that people see the same data and draw opposing conclusions. God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see. I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong. I came through engineering, calculus and physics. Both sides tell me it can't be so. If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they? People believe what they choose to, and, as the saying goes, YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Saying you are open to it does not make it so.
But it doesn't make it not so.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper.
All things which don't require god to exist at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe.
The point of religious faith in general is believing without seeing. Observation removes the need for faith.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve.
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or evolution
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't understand it, and who fabricate elaborate excuses for the evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see.
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong.
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
RichardM1 wrote:
If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they?
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
By creationists.
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing? I am a firm 'evolutionist', and I believe in God. But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing?
Pretty much, yes. Creationists are infamous for constructing ridiculous caricatures of evolution and criticising it.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Saying you are open to it does not make it so.
But it doesn't make it not so.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper.
All things which don't require god to exist at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe.
The point of religious faith in general is believing without seeing. Observation removes the need for faith.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve.
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or evolution
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't understand it, and who fabricate elaborate excuses for the evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see.
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong.
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
RichardM1 wrote:
If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they?
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing. There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before. So to you it is more likely you are not seeing reality. I admit I would be skeptical, for a couple reasons. Everyone approaches things from their own perspective.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it? :laugh: Like I said, engineering, physics, calculus. I saw and see the way it all fits together, how the same tools work for so many different things. Some people don't even question why they do. I know the whole anthropomorphic universe argument, but even within that, why do they still work? The chances are to low for it too be random, there are too many other ways the pieces could fit together (even within a livable universe) without the calculus working. That does not convince me of the Christian God, but in a designer. The Christian part comes from other study and personal experience. I have no doubt it would mean less to you than it does to me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
Yeah. Proof is proof, and belief is not faith. He does not ask for use to believe He exists like we know the ground is here. You get shown things and you make your own decisions. God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'.
Some people say that about AGW. [shrug] I believe in it, I just think God set up the fitness equation. What do you think set it up?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.<
-
Uros Calakovic wrote:
You don't actually need to believe in it.
You sure do, and I am a strong believer. :laugh: :laugh: But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. :)
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing?
Pretty much, yes. Creationists are infamous for constructing ridiculous caricatures of evolution and criticising it.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Doesn't it ever go from not being life, to being life? I'm not saying at one point, a flip switches, and there is life, as we don't have a good enough definition for life. But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is? Clearly, life wasn't, and then later, just as clearly, it was. I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. :)
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
Uros Calakovic wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. Smile
I believe there is a good verifiable test for God. I have faith what the result of the test is, but I have not performed it. The problem is that there is no verifiable form of communications from the knowing state back. And, while everyone performs this experiment, I'm not yet interested in doing it, until I have to. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Doesn't it ever go from not being life, to being life? I'm not saying at one point, a flip switches, and there is life, as we don't have a good enough definition for life. But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is? Clearly, life wasn't, and then later, just as clearly, it was. I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is?
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
-
Okay.. This is getting interesting and I am sorry to interrupt you both. But your discussion made me think of a beautiful mail that I got few days back and I can't resist myself from printing it here. So here it is: If God exists - Why so much pain and suffering? A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer. “Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all these things.” The customer thought for a moment but didn’t respond because He didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just as he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with long, string, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkept. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber, “You know what? Barbers do not exist.” “How can you say that,” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, I am a barber and I just worked on you!” “No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did there would be no people with long dirty hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside.” “Ah, but barbers do exists! What happens is people don’t come to me.” “Exactly,” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is people do not go to Him or look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”
..Go Green..