Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Dante Writer]

Do you believe in God, but you're not religious?

God is a religious term and has many definitions that I do not agree with.

I believe in the laws of science that energy can not be created or destroyed and all energy returns to that source eventually.

If you want to see the universal laws of nature as a controlling force in the Universe and that source of energy that hold the entire universe together as a God then that is fine by me.

 

[McBell]

God is a religious term and has many definitions that I do not agree with.

I believe in the laws of science that energy can not be created or destroyed and all energy returns to that source eventually.

If you want to see the universal laws of nature as a controlling force in the Universe and that source of energy that hold the entire universe together as a God then that is fine by me.

What is this "source" you speak of?

 

[Dante Writer]

They're natural. I'm a pantheist, so all things exist as they are. There's no difference between a God and nature. It's all one.

Now, you answer this question, do you believe in spontaneous generation? And where did science laws come from and why do they exist at all?

The answer is basically the same. Do the laws of the universe allow for and direct life to from from inorganic elements?

If so then that would be evidence of Intelligent Design.

You would first have to determine why we have those laws, what laws we have not yet discovered and include our very limited intelligence and perspective that may not allow us to yet understand that process.

 

[Dante Writer]

Because we know that carbon compounds, which are a large part of the basis for life, can be found throughout nature, but we don't have a single piece of objective evidence that a deity or deities exist. Therefore, I tend to go more in the direction of what we know rather than go with fabrications about what we cannot in any way verify.

However, with that being said, I do not conclude that there cannot be a deity or deities that created all.

If you only have those two theories to evaluate maybe you need to broaden your horizons.

A Diety is a religious belief with magical or supernatural powers.

Intelligent Design does not require any Diety or even a genius or a being as we understand that.

Computers can create and design many things based on a simple code of 1's and 0's.

The laws of the universe seem to all be mathematically connected and operate on some system of math we can not yet understand.

So maybe the intelligence is that code which has just always existed and everything else is just the result of the laws in action.

Just an idea!

 

[Dante Writer]

Clearly it did.
No, he is hiding behind an interesting question playing games by confusing reserved and defined terms.

Sapiens hates it when he can't answer a question without it exposing the holes in his logic.

Evolve damn you- EVOLVE!!!

 

[Dante Writer]

That is what the evidence points to. We know that at some point in time we as living creatures can be broken down into non-living building blocks.
Also here is some things we know.
Organic material can come from inorganic material
Simple Proteins can spontaneously develop from organic materials
proteins, even simple ones, can replicate
replicating proteins is the basis of life as we know it.

Saying something can come from something does not answer the question as everything all comes from the same source and all organic life forms have inorganic elements as their building blocks.

The difference is life. Something that gives that material the ability to eat, remove waste, move, reproduce and evolve or adapt for survival.

Some scientists think it was bolts of lightning like in a Frankenstein movie. I think we still don't know and maybe that source is no longer here to discover.

 

[Ouroboros]

The answer is basically the same. Do the laws of the universe allow for and direct life to from from inorganic elements?

Yes. I do believe that.

If so then that would be evidence of Intelligent Design.

I don't like the term simply because I can't say what "intelligence" is.

And knowing some things about design, it's a lot of trial and error and many times randomness plays a big role. For instance, to get some new ideas, it's a good practice to just scribble, draw lines, here and there, randomly, and from it extract and idea. Refine it. Make something. And in the end, it doesn't even look like the original idea, but it was designed.

You would first have to determine why we have those laws, what laws we have not yet discovered and include our very limited intelligence and perspective that may not allow us to yet understand that process.

Perhaps intelligence is ingrained in existence itself? It's a matter of reality searching for answers to its own existence? And that's what drives the intelligence of all things?

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens hates it when he can't answer a question without it exposing the holes in his logic.

Evolve damn you- EVOLVE!!!

You've got that all wrong. I am a scientist by heritage, training and profession. There is nothing I like more that being unable to answer a question or finding a hole is my views. But ... I don't much care for the Pigeon Chess that amuses you so.

 

[Dante Writer]

Again, you are making a semantic argument that is inappropriate. In this case we are talking about abiogeneis, but you are referring to spontaneous generation, an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. (thanks wiki).

Poor Sapiens!

When he can't debate he says it is a semantics argument and runs to wiki.

I repeat:

No they are the same thing. They both claim inorganic elements can form organic life. Abiogenesis just says it take s a real long time before the poof and spontaneous reaction happens.

 

[Ouroboros]

God is a religious term and has many definitions that I do not agree with.

I believe in the laws of science that energy can not be created or destroyed and all energy returns to that source eventually.

If you want to see the universal laws of nature as a controlling force in the Universe and that source of energy that hold the entire universe together as a God then that is fine by me.

There's another God view that fascinates me. It's the omega point by the jesuit priest Chardin. Basically, the idea is that the universe is evolving, and eventually it will evolve to become God. It's a bit like the "Last Question" by Asimov (I think that's the name of the short). Perhaps even time is something that can go backwards, or cause-effect be reversed, so God isn't the Alpha, First Cause, but rather Omega, the Final Cause.

 

[Dante Writer]

Maybe because it doesn't make sense? You are saying that something might be intelligence without fitting the definition of intelligence (a contradiction) and that conservation of energy has something to do with intelligence (and not just intelligence, but an intelligence that doesn't even fit the definition of intelligent).

Giving you a label or not wouldn't change anyone's beliefs or the justification thereof.

So did the intelligence create the laws or are the laws the intelligence? Is the intelligence alive or not? What characteristics of living things does the intelligence have? Is the intelligence energy or the laws of physics (these two things are not the same)?

"without fitting the definition of intelligence "

Who created that definition?

Was it created by organisms that barely evolved to fit their idea of intelligence based on their extremely limited capacity and lack of any experience outside their tiny globe of existence?

You do know man just barely learned how to fly about a hundred years ago.

You try to give people labels so you can either accept or dismiss their ideas without considering them. That is obvious from your posts.

I gave you the only answer I can give at this point because like you I am still evolving in my understanding. At least I hope you are evolving!

 

[Dante Writer]

There's another God view that fascinates me. It's the omega point by the jesuit priest Chardin. Basically, the idea is that the universe is evolving, and eventually it will evolve to become God. It's a bit like the "Last Question" by Asimov (I think that's the name of the short). Perhaps even time is something that can go backwards, or cause-effect be reversed, so God isn't the Alpha, First Cause, but rather Omega, the Final Cause.

"As man is now God once was and as God is now man may become."

That is a Mormon belief and may be in some other religions.

When you consider what we can already do to create organisms from cloning an genetic manipulation and terraform a planet and travel to new planets is that much different than the powers God is described as having in the Bible?

That is too simplistic for me but it is interesting.

 

[Dante Writer]

Yes. I do believe that.


I don't like the term simply because I can't say what "intelligence" is.

And knowing some things about design, it's a lot of trial and error and many times randomness plays a big role. For instance, to get some new ideas, it's a good practice to just scribble, draw lines, here and there, randomly, and from it extract and idea. Refine it. Make something. And in the end, it doesn't even look like the original idea, but it was designed.


Perhaps intelligence is ingrained in existence itself? It's a matter of reality searching for answers to its own existence? And that's what drives the intelligence of all things?

"Perhaps intelligence is ingrained in existence itself? It's a matter of reality searching for answers to its own existence? And that's what drives the intelligence of all things?"

Maybe not searching for answers but in a war with itself. Like trying to push two ends of a magnet together. The laws apply and so a reaction must happen.

 

[Sapiens]

There's another God view that fascinates me. It's the omega point by the jesuit priest Chardin. Basically, the idea is that the universe is evolving, and eventually it will evolve to become God. It's a bit like the "Last Question" by Asimov (I think that's the name of the short). Perhaps even time is something that can go backwards, or cause-effect be reversed, so God isn't the Alpha, First Cause, but rather Omega, the Final Cause.

When I was a sophomore (as my son is now) I had what I now feel to be a sophomoric thought:

1. Consciousness is nothing more that a certain level of complexity in a system.
2. The universe is mega complex.
3. The universe is therefore conscious.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Perhaps intelligence is ingrained in existence itself? It's a matter of reality searching for answers to its own existence? And that's what drives the intelligence of all things?"

Maybe not searching for answers but in a war with itself. Like trying to push two ends of a magnet together. The laws apply and so a reaction must happen.

Or Yin - Yang.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For anyone interested:

 

[Ouroboros]

When I was a sophomore (as my son is now) I had what I now feel to be a sophomoric thought:

1. Consciousness is nothing more that a certain level of complexity in a system.
2. The universe is mega complex.
3. The universe is therefore conscious.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.

What do we know of consciousness except the only experience we have of our own? From a single instance, of my own personal experience of what my consciousness is, I have to assume that other people around me probably have it too. But do I know? I don't. I can safely assume it, I think, but can I test it and know it for sure? Not really. One of those problems for AI. How do you know if an AI has reached consciousness? What if we're all just zombies who acts like we're conscious but in reality we're just pretending?

One book that I thought touched on the question was Solaris by Stanislav Lem. Great story. Didn't like the movie, however, since the planet being alive kind'a got lost.

 

[Dante Writer]

Or Yin - Yang.

Yes and you find that conflict in all religious beliefs I think. God and Satan, nature and chaos.

It is a universal law.

Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes and you find that conflict in all religious beliefs I think. God and Satan, nature and chaos.

It is a universal law.

Absolutely.

Also, Chaos v Cosmos in ancient Greek belief/philosophy.

Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects.

Agree. I do believe there's a constant conflict between disorder and order. Disorder is the energy, and order is the "calming" effect.

 

[sayak83]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

If you walk back the Evolutionary theories to their beginning at some point you have to deal with this question.

Even if that first life in the form of bacteria came from some other planet hitched to an an asteroid or meteor you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how did that organism form.

If you do believe in spontaneous life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

If not then please tell us what other mechanism could have produced that first life or theory for how it happened.

This is my discussion so any theory including religious and philisophical will be allowed.

As the local sheriff says about an abduction,
1) We have identified a potential suspect, but the case is still under investigation.
2) No Sir, we have no reason to believe that it was done by aliens from outer space. But thanks for calling us.