Life From Dirt?

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, it is. That addiction to self-righteousness and the ignorance that results shows up on both sides of many ideological debates. Bible infallibility, or scientism; same fantasy of righteousness, just different sides of the theism debate.

But I am not a scienticist. I check my beliefs every morning with the latest in science and am ready to modify them if needed.

It's frustrating to encounter on a debate site because those that have succumbed to it think it's everyone else's job to overcome their self-righteous ignorance while they tenaciously defend it. They dont converse with an ear to listen or learn, only to negate and dismiss. And it's the same people over and over.

I am ready to learn and listen, but give me evidence. Religious books may be looked into but cannot be taken as a proof, and the usual blah-blah about peace, brotherhood is common to all religions, many older than the monotheistic religions. So, what will you like to tell me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But I am not a scienticist. I check my beliefs every morning with the latest in science and am ready to modify them if needed.

I find that to be one of the greatest values of science in the continual testing of ideas against new information. Some people never test their ideas and seek to sustain their closed personal views through efforts to diminish that value by seemingly purposeful misinterpretation of science.

 

[Astrophile]

Go figure if Einstein is still pondering over time and light, ok? Why think about what other people think. Some die young, others live a few more years. That's evolution! Some die in infancy probably never heard of Einstein, Darwin, or evolution.

The important thing in evolution is not how long a person (or other living organism) lives but how many descendants they have. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) lived to be 84 but had no children. Elvis Presley (1935-77) died at 42, and has three living grandchildren and at least one great-grandchild. From an evolutionary point of view, Newton was unfit in spite of his long life and his great contributions to science, whereas Presley was fit in spite of his comparatively early death.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here's my take on this now. Evolution just doesn't make a person happy. Unless it does, right? The human brain did not evolve to be very happy, maybe you think? Because a lot of people are not happy. Can't blame evolution, it's not a person, right? So it just is whatever it is. Most people don't like the idea of death. But it's part of evolution life and death process you say. Einstein's dead and I am sure he isn't working on a theory about it. Of course even though his brain is cut up I'm pretty sure some might think he's still alive somewhere.

Humans can be happy in many adverse conditions. The wise accept death as part of life, it does not help to fear it. One needs a religion to be unhappy. The form of Einstein has merged back into what we term as Brahman, the stuff of the universe. All things are that only. He is nowhere alive. What constituted Einstein is now part of millions, probably billions, of living and non-living entities. All forms go through this process, whether they are buried, cremated, exposed or cast into sea. Like Buddha said, Naam-Roopa (Name and form) are temporary (Anicca). They are not substantial (Anatta).

 

[PureX]

I suppose you believe in the theory of evolution.

Belief is just the foolishness of the ego. It's pretending we know things that we can't and don't honestly know. I try to believe as little as possible. But my ego, like everyone else's, is persistent. Yet at least I'm aware of it, and of how it will lie to me if I let it.

Evolution is just the description of a biological mechanism, like cell replication but much more elaborate. It requires no belief nor disbelief any more than my car running correctly requires that I believe in it, or it not running correctly will result if I don't.

If you do, then death is the only outcome unless you want to say man will maybe figure a way out of it, right?

Death, and what or if anything follows it has nothing to do with what I believe. Any more than my car does. Belief is just ego-nonsense.

No need to talk about God. Maybe an alien will land on the earth and work it out. Or like a theory goes, a pebble dropped to the earth. Anything goes almost. But then some here might believe you can ask Einstein.

It doesn't matter what any of us believe about anything. The truth is what is, not whatever we believe it to be. And that even goes for God. God is what it is regardless of what we choose to believe God is, or isn't. So the real question is: what is God? Not what do you or I or anyone else believe God to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The important thing in evolution is not how long a person (or other living organism) lives but how many descendants they have. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) lived to be 84 but had no children. Elvis Presley (1935-77) died at 42, and has three living grandchildren and at least one great-grandchild. From an evolutionary point of view, Newton was unfit in spite of his long life and his great contributions to science, whereas Presley was fit in spite of his comparatively early death.

The attempt to associate death to a theory about the change in living things, their diversity and relationships seems meaningless and diversionary. Death is the outcome regardless of belief or of the theory of evolution.

Considering that many of the traits that express a long life are outside of selection, given that those that live longer are already beyond their reproductive period when their extensive lifespan is recognized as a value. If we evolve greater longevity, it will only be for traits that improve our fitness and not those that merely extend life towards the century mark.

The accumulated traits would not have value in avoiding death, but in extending life.

 

[PureX]

But I am not a scienticist. I check my beliefs every morning with the latest in science and am ready to modify them if needed.

I am ready to learn and listen, but give me evidence. Religious books may be looked into but cannot be taken as a proof, and the usual blah-blah about peace, brotherhood is common to all religions, many older than the monotheistic religions. So, what will you like to tell me?

To place "evidence" above reasoning is a big mistake. It's the endless and biased refrain of the scientism crowd because they won't let go of their philosophical materialist presumption that physicality defines reality. But it doesn't. And to claim that it does is absurdly illogical and irrational. A path that when followed leads to foolish priorities like "evidence trumps all".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To place "evidence" above reasoning is a big mistake. It's the endless and biased refrain of the scientism crowd because they won't let go of their philosophical materialist presumption that physicality defines reality. But it doesn't. And to claim that it does is absurdly illogical and irrational. A path that when followed leads to foolish priorities like "evidence trumps all".

I see a similar, perhaps more serious problem, with speculation based on feelings being turned into claims of certainty that don't offer evidence to reason on.

Would you suggest that people just accept any claim regardless of evidence supporting or refuting those claims?

 

[Aupmanyav]

To place "evidence" above reasoning is a big mistake.

Reasoning has no value if not supported by evidence. That is why science has not accepted String theory or multi-verse..

 

[Aupmanyav]

So the real question is: what is God? Not what do you or I or anyone else believe God to be.

Extend the real question to what is God and whether it exists, one or many, male, neutral or female, etc.? Or do you want to take it as an axiom?

 

[PureX]

Extend the real question to what is God and whether it exists, one or many, male, neutral or female, etc.? Or do you want to take it as an axiom?

That God exists is obvious, as we are here discussing it. So clearly we have universally perceived something that we have then chosen to identify as "God". But the question is, what is it that we have universally perceived and identified as "God"?

 

[ratiocinator]

To place "evidence" above reasoning is a big mistake.

The problem being that reasoning is useless without premises or axioms.

That God exists is obvious, as we are here discussing it. So clearly we have universally perceived something that we have then chosen to identify as "God".

You talk about reasoning but here is a huge non sequitur. If one thing is clear from reading this forum, it's that people's conceptions of 'God' vary greatly, so we quite clearly don't have a "universally perceived something".

 

[YoursTrue]

Belief is just the foolishness of the ego. It's pretending we know things that we can't and don't honestly know. I try to believe as little as possible. But my ego, like everyone else's, is persistent. Yet at least I'm aware of it, and of how it will lie to me if I let it.

Evolution is just the description of a biological mechanism, like cell replication but much more elaborate. It requires no belief nor disbelief any more than my car running correctly requires that I believe in it, or it not running correctly will result if I don't.

Death, and what or if anything follows it has nothing to do with what I believe. Any more than my car does. Belief is just ego-nonsense.

It doesn't matter what any of us believe about anything. The truth is what is, not whatever we believe it to be. And that even goes for God. God is what it is regardless of what we choose to believe God is, or isn't. So the real question is: what is God? Not what do you or I or anyone else believe God to be.

Some here are mistakes about my viewpoint. While I certainly do not know about everything in the Bible although I am glad to know what I do know, I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem to some, . I look at humans and think yes, some do look like monkeys or gorillas, but this doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor.
First, no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena believe (yes believe but moreso imagine) life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction by chance. Yes, by chance meeting. If someone wants to explain it, obviously they have the freedom to do so, but it no longer logically adds up to me. They can try to explain but they cannot really explain it with proof. We know that. That's for sure. The second is that it no longer makes sense to me that chimps, gorillas, dogs, cats, etc. evolved to a more or less thinking state. And also I am pretty sure that bees didn't figure they must build hives for themselves at a certain point.
So logically, if a poster wants to tell me I'm closed minded, prejudiced, uneducated, etc. that's obviously his choice. I see the evidence and reasons presented. It does not prove evolution . No matter proof or not. The real evidence isn't there. Some want to say or believe it is.

 

[PureX]

The problem being that reasoning is useless without premises or axioms.

And evidence is not even identifiable without reason.

You talk about reasoning but here is a huge non sequitur. If one thing is clear from reading this forum, it's that people's conceptions of 'God' vary greatly, so we quite clearly don't have a "universally perceived something".

People's conceptions of "a red car" will vary greatly, too, and yet we all universally understand what is being referred to as "a red car". And we all agree that red cars are "universally perceived somethings".

Try reading thee posts to actually understand what's being said, instead of reading them only to negate and dismiss what's being said.

 

[Astrophile]

I look at humans and think yes, some do look like monkeys or gorillas, but this doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor.

What other reason is there for the resemblance?

 

[ratiocinator]

And evidence is not even identifiable without reason.

There you go. We need reasoning based on evidence.

People's conceptions of "a red car" will vary greatly, too, and yet we all universally understand what is being referred to as "a red car". And we all agree that red cars are "universally perceived somethings".

The difference between red cars are trivial in comparison, and, of course, that was only part of the problem with your post. Starting with "That God exists is obvious..." is something I find very difficult to take at all seriously. I suspect, from what followed, that you meant that 'God' was an idea that existed, but to phrase it in such a way that implied that you thought that a God obviously existed as some sort of entity outside of human minds, seems muddled or dishonest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And evidence is not even identifiable without reason.

People's conceptions of "a red car" will vary greatly, too, and yet we all universally understand what is being referred to as "a red car". And we all agree that red cars are "universally perceived somethings".

Try reading thee posts to actually understand what's being said, instead of reading them only to negate and dismiss what's being said.

I believe Redcar is a city in England that even those with red/green color blindness can recognize. David Coverdale is from there.

 

[PureX]

Some here are mistakes about my viewpoint. While I certainly do not know about everything in the Bible although I am glad to know what I do know, I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem to some, . I look at humans and think yes, some do look like monkeys or gorillas, but this doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor.

Do you look at your automobile and think, "yes, it looks like a complex man-made machine, but that doesn't mean that it IS just a complex man-made machine"?

If not, why not?

The physical world is just a very big, very complex machine. And we humans are a part of that complexity. Understanding the mechanics of this big physical machine that we are a part of is how we have learned to cure diseases and heal broken bones and bodies. And to do a great many other wondrous (and sometimes frightfully dangerous) things. The truth is 'what is', and this is a big part of 'what is'. There is no good reason to deny it.

But the physical world is not ALL there is to it. There is also a metaphysical realm of the world that transcends the limits of the physical realm. And therein even more wondrous and frightfully dangerous things can and do occur. Because it's the realm of cognition, and of self/other awareness. It's the realm of value assessment and imagination, and of the impossible becoming possible. It's the realm where the machine comes alive, and becomes self-aware, and is able to pass judgment on itself. And we are a part of that realm of the world, too.

First, no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena believe (yes believe but moreso imagine) life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction by chance.

Chance does have a role in the mechanics of the event we call existence, but it is a minor role. I agree. We humans do not yet know the mechanism that generated life, or the extent to which chance was a part, but knowing the mechanics would tell the whole story, anyway. Because the world is far more then just a mindless physical machine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That God exists is obvious, as we are here discussing it. So clearly we have universally perceived something that we have then chosen to identify as "God". But the question is, what is it that we have universally perceived and identified as "God"?

We may also discuss unicorns, Fairies, Leprechauns, FSM and Cthulhu. Does it make them exist?

 

[PureX]

I believe Redcar is a city in England that even those with red/green color blindness can recognize. David Coverdale is from there.

This is why it's important to avoid "belief".