Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

That sounds right. Life is labeled as a physical phenomenon when all that is being analysed is the material that life manifests in.
So I don't give the reason to think it exists but show there is no reason to think it does not exist and that the stories of the spiritual experiences of people etc are not true.

OK, what is the reason to think that fairies do not exist?

The inability to detect something along with the inconsistency of those that claim they can detect5 it *is* a good reason to believe it does not exist.

It cannot deal with spirit or God.

Why not? Is there any phenomenon that is consistent enough to form a hypothesis and test it? If yes, then science can deal with it. If no, then it is irrelevant to understanding.

Then you want science to do what it cannot do. And you probably think that science stepping into the study of the Bible, has show that it is as true as unicorns and fairies.

Why can't science do this? What is it that prevents science from studying the spirit, if in fact spirits exist?

So the Christian mythos is seen as untrue from the start, until it is proven to be true.

Just like every other idea, yes. EVERY idea that is proposed is held tentatively at first. And, until it has been extensively tested, it is held skeptically at best.

Sounds like something that is set up from the start to deny the truth of the scriptures.

Nope. Whether the scriptures are correct or not is irrelevant to why these measures are taken. The conditions are taken so that we can prevent false ideas from taking hold and leading us astray. For that reason, we demand any ideas that make claims about reality be testable through observation.

It just so happens that scriptures fail those tests.

"Actual" evidence is something not agreed upon. "Actual" evidence usually means evidence that science can test. Not worth believing unless it can be tested.
So testing with actual belief is not seen as kosher.

ALL ide4as should be held skeptically and tested as stringently as possible. Only those that survive such testing are worthy of belief.

 

[wellwisher]

Fiction, innovation, initially exist only in imagination, which are epiphenomena of brain. There is no evidence that 'consciousness' exists in a separate space, there is evidence to the contrary. The comatose or the dead to not have consciousness. Kindly take me to the place where space and time are independent of each other.

The laws of physics are based on space-time, were space and time act as one thing like two people in a three legged race. Like in a three legged race, the two people become limited by each other and need to learn to work as a team. The left leg of one has to coordinate with the right leg of the other, due to the tether. This takes way the independence of each person and places awkward team limits.

Anything that does not add up to the laws of physics, is not fully part of space-time, by default. There are no perpetual motions machines in space-time. Fiction is not exactly in space-time; imaginary and maybe possible, but lacking tangible hard evidence for its specifics. These types of things can be modeled with space and time not connected. This includes knowing the future, before it is tangible in space, such as the seeds of innovation and faith. Atheist say the religion is not based on science, which means it is not fully part of space-time.

If you could move in space independent of time, you could be omnipresent. This is not possible in space-time, but it is conceptually possible if space was not tethered to time. If we separates the two people tethered in a three legged race, each could now move more freely, at their own pace, and have much more capacity. Each could win all the three legged races, since there are no limiting tethered constraints. If you could move in time independent of space you would get an affect like the laws of physics the same in all references. As we move forward in time everything in the universe follows the same rules; simultaneity.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says we can know the position and momentum of particles like elections in orbitals, but not both at the same time. Position is connected to space and momentum is connected to time. The Uncertainty principle, derived from experiment, suggests that space and time are not fully connected at this level, since position or momentum does not exactly imply the other; they are not fully tethered in the three legged race.

This theory is more about a way to model reality using two well known and fundamental variables. Space and time are both conceptual variables but are not tangible things. We cannot save time in a bottle and space is the lack of substance. The theory expands the variables of space and time allowing one to add consciousness.

If you had nothing but space, the universe would be void; before the BB. Energy needs space and time tethered as wavelength/frequency. Independent space and time allows us to apply these two well known variables in new ways beyond the tethered limits of the three legged race of space-time; uncertainty principle.

In terms of consciousness and this extrapolation of space and time, language is an important part of this affect. Human language is subjective, with over 6500 different languages in the world. There is no cause and affect; solid space-time connection, between the sounds and symbols of any language, and what they represent in space-time, or there would only be only one language.

If the chemical brain was trying to organized language by simple neural potentials, defined by the laws of physics, the information of language would not arrange based on human subjective language rules. The subjectivity of language adds an affect similar to space and time not connected to the space-time potential energy priorities of the neurons. This disconnect from space-time is part of self awareness. Information with language is not exactly in the natural cause and affect of space-time allowing imagination beyond space-time. This affect is also evident at the quantum level. It has many applications.

There is a universal language connected to sight. I this case, light reflected from objects enters the eyes and brain arranges these memories by wavelength and other space-time rules. This allows neural potential priory and memory to better overlap; seeing is believing. When we add subjective spoken and written language priority to natural neural potential priority, information organization can leave its subjective space-time priority assignments; imagination and faith. I think therefore I am is about spoken language compared to the natural visual standard in light of neural potential priorities; two centers of consciousness.

 

[Audie]

Are you speaking about YEC or anyone who believed God created everything?

" Creationism" is ill defined.

Generally though, it's about Christian beliefs.

Yec, oec, how many other schools of creationist thought.

By " God" I assume that you mean your chosen one.

Any version of bible- reading that has the stories
of supernatural creation as anything but symbolic
are exactly as I said.

" God" of some sort may have created
" everything" in the sense of starting it all.

The 6 day poof, flood etc is fiction that can only
be believed through ignorance, denial, intellectual
dishonesty.

It's an insult to humanity, and to any God that
might exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, it *might* mean you have a non-standard definition of the term 'real'. That could limit communication if you aren't clear about your definition.

If the question is what the term 'real' means, what alternative definition do you propose?

Yeah, it is with objective evidence as independent of all humans that you represent as objectively independent of you humanity for the correct standard for what universe really is.
I know this game with you and your inability to understand when you are not objective in effect, for which you always defend yourself with that you are we for which we decide subjectively, what is useful to all of us subjectively, including what objective reality really is.

So here is the explanation of the word real as for how it works and not just the definition as for the difference for I know that real has this definition versus I know how the word real works.
That is a standard in philosophy for how a trouser-word works and here is the version I was taught:
Now for the word imagine, that which you imagine, is not real, but it is real, that you can imagine. So now imagine a pond. In that pond are 2 ducks. A real duck and a decoy duck. The decoy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So now with your brain for which I know you have the cognition to understand this, I will explain what a trouser-word is. It is a word that is context dependent for which the context determines the in effect truth value of the trouser-word. I.e. the context is the trousers and dependent on the different trousers the word "wears" a different kind of trousers.
So what is real depends on the context for which the word real is used.

In effect for this game, if you got it right for objective, I will agree, but I can catch you when you are not objective for this game of the real world.
So again, you are trained differently than me and as long as you stay with the proper context of your training, you are correct. But if you don't understand that you are outside that context, I bite.

So you know that there is a word real, but you don't know how it works for the world as such. Yeah, I am not nice, but you don't understand for the limit of science, when you hit the limit of objective.
You are a scientific skeptic and I am a general one, and thus I know when we play subjective and you ignore it, because you are conditioned to consider only the objective real, but that is without evidence. For which you always retreat back to that what I can do subjectively, is not subjectively useful to you and therefore it is irrelevant for what the universe really is. That is your trick and I can spot it and understand how it works and I know that subjectively, because I know when we are both that and how it works.

So if you have to ban me or what ever, do that. Or learn that there is a limit even to science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And if we evolved just to survive and reproduce in our environment, evolution did a bit of an overkill with humans. It is almost as if we evolved to have dominion of the earth.

Not sure about that, given that we might just wipe ourselves out - not so clever then. Never mind, if we wipe out just humans there might be enough primates left to take over our roles - if they evolve in a similar fashion as we did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That sounds right. Life is labeled as a physical phenomenon when all that is being analysed is the material that life manifests in.
So I don't give the reason to think it exists but show there is no reason to think it does not exist and that the stories of the spiritual experiences of people etc are not true.



It cannot deal with spirit or God.



Then you want science to do what it cannot do. And you probably think that science stepping into the study of the Bible, has show that it is as true as unicorns and fairies.



So the Christian mythos is seen as untrue from the start, until it is proven to be true.
Sounds like something that is set up from the start to deny the truth of the scriptures.

Science is "set up" to remove our personal biases and errors, to be as objective as possible, to not include things in our explanations for which we do not have evidence. Science is "set up" this way so that we don't have to just believe in every single claim every person or religion have asserted until someone shows it to be wrong.

You're the one starting from a place where "the truth of the scriptures" is the ultimate truth, where you just accept they're true without evidence, relying on faith that it's all true. And you can't seem to see that you're doing that, all the while accusing others of doing it. You're the one starting from a place with an a priori belief that you have to attempt to shoehorn all the evidence into - and it shows. I'm sorry, but you're just projecting here.

"Actual" evidence is something not agreed upon. "Actual" evidence usually means evidence that science can test. Not worth believing unless it can be tested.
So testing with actual belief is not seen as kosher.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The cause of inflation (God) existed at the time of inflation and continued to exist.

That's good. It did not solve the problem of who caused that however. That is only a problem when people start thinking that finding a possible physical answer to a question eliminates the need for God.

And yes if anyone has or accepts the evidence they will believe God exists.

What evidence do you have for that?
That is one question that neither science nor religion answers. We have to wait for science to get the answer. For that your answer 'Goddidit' is not good enough for me.
Yes, billions believe so. That is immaterial to me. I do not compete with those who will believe without verifiable evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The laws of physics are based on space-time, were space and time act as one thing like two people in a three legged race. Like in a three legged race, the two people become limited by each other and need to learn to work as a team. The left leg of one has to coordinate with the right leg of the other, due to the tether. This takes way the independence of each person and places awkward team limits.

Anything that does not add up to the laws of physics, is not fully part of space-time, by default. There are no perpetual motions machines in space-time. Fiction is not exactly in space-time; imaginary and maybe possible, but lacking tangible hard evidence for its specifics. These types of things can be modeled with space and time not connected. This includes knowing the future, before it is tangible in space, such as the seeds of innovation and faith. Atheist say the religion is not based on science, which means it is not fully part of space-time.

If you could move in space independent of time, you could be omnipresent. This is not possible in space-time, but it is conceptually possible if space was not tethered to time. If we separates the two people tethered in a three legged race, each could now move more freely, at their own pace, and have much more capacity. Each could win all the three legged races, since there are no limiting tethered constraints. If you could move in time independent of space you would get an affect like the laws of physics the same in all references. As we move forward in time everything in the universe follows the same rules; simultaneity.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says we can know the position and momentum of particles like elections in orbitals, but not both at the same time. Position is connected to space and momentum is connected to time. The Uncertainty principle, derived from experiment, suggests that space and time are not fully connected at this level, since position or momentum does not exactly imply the other; they are not fully tethered in the three legged race.

This theory is more about a way to model reality using two well known and fundamental variables. Space and time are both conceptual variables but are not tangible things. We cannot save time in a bottle and space is the lack of substance. The theory expands the variables of space and time allowing one to add consciousness.

If you had nothing but space, the universe would be void; before the BB. Energy needs space and time tethered as wavelength/frequency. Independent space and time allows us to apply these two well known variables in new ways beyond the tethered limits of the three legged race of space-time; uncertainty principle.

In terms of consciousness and this extrapolation of space and time, language is an important part of this affect. Human language is subjective, with over 6500 different languages in the world. There is no cause and affect; solid space-time connection, between the sounds and symbols of any language, and what they represent in space-time, or there would only be only one language.

If the chemical brain was trying to organized language by simple neural potentials, defined by the laws of physics, the information of language would not arrange based on human subjective language rules. The subjectivity of language adds an affect similar to space and time not connected to the space-time potential energy priorities of the neurons. This disconnect from space-time is part of self awareness. Information with language is not exactly in the natural cause and affect of space-time allowing imagination beyond space-time. This affect is also evident at the quantum level. It has many applications.

There is a universal language connected to sight. I this case, light reflected from objects enters the eyes and brain arranges these memories by wavelength and other space-time rules. This allows neural potential priory and memory to better overlap; seeing is believing. When we add subjective spoken and written language priority to natural neural potential priority, information organization can leave its subjective space-time priority assignments; imagination and faith. I think therefore I am is about spoken language compared to the natural visual standard in light of neural potential priorities; two centers of consciousness.

Oh, what a long post. Do you think I will waste my time in reading all that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

For which you always retreat back to that what I can do subjectively, is not subjectively useful to you and therefore it is irrelevant for what the universe really is. That is your trick and I can spot it and understand how it works and I know that subjectively, because I know when we are both that and how it works.
So if you have to ban me or what ever, do that. Or learn that there is a limit even to science.

Mikkel, does the universe exists for you?
Yeah science has its limits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, does the universe exists for you?
Yeah science has its limits.

It is not really about the universe as such. It is in effect about epistemology and how it relates to realism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is not really about the universe as such. It is in effect about epistemology and how it relates to realism.

You have not answered my question - "do you think that the universe exists?"
In the view of Advaita Hinduism, it does not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have not answered my question - "do you think that the universe exists?"
In the view of Advaita Hinduism, it does not.

It is a bit complicated. What I think or not think doesn't decide the ontological status of the universe.
I have blind faith that the universe is real, orderly and knowledge, but that is in end in part psychology in me. And that skeptic in me would answer it is unknowable one way or anther.

 

[Brian2]

The Noadic flood has been shown to be fiction.

Not a local flood.

True beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to proof at the mathematical level.

That seems to be based on who is doing the doubting.

There are versions of the concept of God that are possible: identifying God as the universe, or as the physical laws make God exist, but not with most of the usually assumed characteristics. It is *possible* that a race of higher dimensional beings has learned how to create universes and that ours is a high school art project that has been forgotten in some room. But there is no reason to think that is what actually is the case.

Logical possibility is a very, very weak filter for ideas.

Logical possibility is why science does not eliminate God.

Nope. No such leap has been made by science as a whole. All that has happened is that the theories have developed and God has been found to be irrleevant to understanding. And, at each stage, those things attributed to a supernatural deity have been found to have natural explanations.

The leap of faith is by people who believe and preach that there is no God.
Because someone though lightning was thrown by God, does not make it true.
Finding a mechanism for lightning does not eliminate God.
No possible natural mechanisms eliminate God.

I find there to be deep philosophical problems with the idea of a supernatural. Those problems need to be overcome before I could believe in a supernatural deity. That is a separate issue (although related) to the fact that science doesn't require a deity or supernatural to understand what happens in the universe.

You don't need a God to understand (partially) what happens in the universe.

 

[Brian2]

No, that is just a weak explanation of an obvious contradiction in the Bible. It is not based upon the Bible itself at all. In fact at one point it was argued the other way around. This is merely apologetics, or in other words Lying For Jesus.

It's based on faith that the Bible is correct and all you have logically is "OK maybe" but no you go past that to ""lying for Jesus".

 

[Brian2]

It is shown to be the case by having explanations that don't require a deity and where those explanations are testable and make correct predictions.

If everything can be explained without those elements, they are not necessary for understanding.

No such presumption is required.

I, for one, have never found a good definition of 'materialism' that applies to all scientific theories. it is a term I don't use except in discussions like this one. I prefer 'physicalism', but even that has definitional issues.

All I am doing to agreeing with science that science cannot say there is no God, or that a God is not necessary really.
What are you doing but saying that science is wrong and that God is not needed (when that is not know).
You can think you understand it all as much as you like but science has not shown as much as you think to be true imo.

 

[Brian2]

Educated Christians by the million know there was no flood.

IF it's your opinion that there was a world wide flood,
and it has not been disproved, that is a truly shameful
level of ignorance and denial.

As for what's true, there are facts.
One is, no flood.

You may still be confused about
proving a theory, and don't understand that
ITS IMPOSSIBLE in this universe to prove a theory.

Trying to put the error off onto atheists/ skeptics
is frankly , childish, and probably unchristian.

You probably know that I don't think there was a world wide flood.
What else do I believe that has been shown to be false?

 

[Brian2]

No, I don't. It means that it contains no unnecessary items just like the words said.

OK so it might not have all the necessary items, so a God might be necessary and science just has not found out what for because it does not even know that it has all the necessary items and that things will happen with only those items.

You know the drill. If you consider an idea wrong, rebut it. Show why it is wrong. Show why these foundational assumptions are false. If you can't do that, it may be because they are sound. That's how these matters are decided in academic culture. I realize that it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but that's not an issue for the critical thinker who doesn't share those beliefs and who doesn't have a problem accepting the fruits of science even when they contain no god mentions. The scientific method works at predicting various aspects of nature without gods, and adding gods doesn't improve that.

As I said, it is not know whether adding god is going to improve it or not because a lot of ideas that are accepted in science and by skeptics as true have not been shown to be true. It is just assumed that they are true.
I can point to any theories about how the universe came to be.
I can point to abiogenesis.
I can point to the idea that evolution produced all the types of living creatures without the need for God.

 

[Brian2]

The assume assume assume presume is
province of theists.
Thinking people know there COULD be
a god.
It's the theists with minds sealed shut,
who assume that a universe without
their particular God is impossible.

Again, you project your faults onto
others.

It's a bad habit. See about changing it

No theists just point out the assumptions and presumptions and skeptics/atheists deny that they exist, or say "who cares, what science says is good enough for me and if science has not actually shown something to be true, that is OK with me also,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, science right or wrong, rah, rah, rah."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appears I have nothing as well.
Why should I be any different.

Others do have evidence and logic that supports what they believe. Don't try to claim that others have nothing.

It's based on faith that the Bible is correct and all you have logically is "OK maybe" but no you go past that to ""lying for Jesus".

You cannot legitimately make that assumption. If one can be honest one quickly sees that the Bible is self contradicting if one does that. And if one cannot own up to those self contradictions that is a form of lying. I have as of yet to see a Christian apologist that is not also a liar for Jesus. They are supposed to be "scholars" such as William Lane Craig. They claim to know enough to understand the work. Let's leave the Noah's Ark myth out of if for right now, that is such an easy one. It does not really matter all that much to Christianity. I have yet to see an apologist deal honestly with the ten year difference between the birth dates of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke. Do you know of any apologists that can deal with that honestly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No theists just point out the assumptions and presumptions and skeptics/atheists deny that they exist, or say "who cares, what science says is good enough for me and if science has not actually shown something to be true, that is OK with me also,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, science right or wrong, rah, rah, rah."

Name the "assumptions" when it comes to the sciences. That sounds like a claim that you cannot support.