The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

This idea Thief presented was that god is dead. Well if all of this is just chemistry then there was nothing to be alive to begin with. As a pantheist, I would agree that if god is dead then chemistry is dead, if not then its alive, quite simply.

I do not see any relevance between God and chemistry except a single profound one. The best explanation for our knowledge of Chemistry is God. Even Nietzsche speaking about the death of God made no chemical reference. Pantheism always confounds me. Calling chemistry God neither adds to chemistry nor God. It is a rhetorical exercise devoid of necessity IMO.

 

[1robin]

BTW the fact that chemistry needs to be in certain configurations to be deemed as alive is not lost on me. I just think awareness and life is a bit deeper than their corresponding chemical reactions we see on the surface.

I would say it was bigger than what you think God to be. Abstract conceptualization alone seems to be extra Godly in a pantheistic context. Of does the pantheistic God just become whatever is. Again I see only an unnecessary and redundant exercise in rhetoric here. No offence intended.

 

[1robin]

Exactly.

Currently, I'm taking a class in Nutrition (just for fun, with my wife, she's a chef and this will help her in her profession), and there's quite a lot of chemistry behind living. Triglycerine, amino acids, fatty acids, I have the chemical definitions of them, and many others. And the processes how these are broken down and used by the body is all a matter of chemical processes. It's all part of a physical reality. Even electromagnetism plays a roll. For instance why saturated fat v unsaturated fat behaves differently depends on chemistry and physics, not pixie dust and magic.

Chemistry may not be dead, but it sure is boring.

 

[idav]

I would say it was bigger than what you think God to be. Abstract conceptualization alone seems to be extra Godly in a pantheistic context. Of does the pantheistic God just become whatever is. Again I see only an unnecessary and redundant exercise in rhetoric here. No offence intended.

To me there doesn't really seem to be an answer to how life came about and how we have consciousness. If the cosmos were devoid of awareness then I don't think a dead planet can become an alive planet. Chemistry is more than just cause and effect, it is the foundation of awareness all together.

 

[Ouroboros]

To me there doesn't really seem to be an answer to how life came about and how we have consciousness. If the cosmos were devoid of awareness then I don't think a dead planet can become an alive planet. Chemistry is more than just cause and effect, it is the foundation of awareness all together.

Awareness is emerging from complexity. Somethun' like that, I think.

 

[1robin]

To me there doesn't really seem to be an answer to how life came about and how we have consciousness. If the cosmos were devoid of awareness then I don't think a dead planet can become an alive planet. Chemistry is more than just cause and effect, it is the foundation of awareness all together.

So you think God is the universe and also some kind of independent mind behind it all?

 

[1robin]

Awareness is emerging from complexity. Somethun' like that, I think.

Actually as far as we can prove it is the opposite. All codes, language, complex structures, semiotic patterns, information, etc... all requires intelligence. That is why genetics alone is so bizarre. Nature shows two things, it can't create alone beyond an very low equilibrium complexity point, and that despite that, it did anyway. That is why evolution is hard to swallow but impossible to deny.

 

[idav]

So you think God is the universe and also some kind of independent mind behind it all?

That sounds more like pan(en)theism but yes something like that. Rather an integrated mind.

 

[metis]

Does someone's pet rock have consciousness? I would suggest that if one hooks it up to an e.e.g. machine, it'll show flat-line. So, just because something exists doesn't mean that consciousness is present in it.

With matter, only some forms show signs of consciousness, which suggests that it is a by-product of a certain complexity that's not found in pet rocks and the likes. Matter of fact, the vast majority of that which we find here on Earth show no indication of consciousness.

Like the pet rock, for the vast majority of the history of our universe, nothing seems to support the idea that consciousness had been formed throughout most of our history. Therefore, if it's not intrinsic to our universe, then it most likely would have evolved when certain material forms were complicated enough to interact with other forms, much like forms of energy may inter-react with other forms of energy. IOW, to me the likely key here is energy. Not that energy by itself is consciousness, but that energy that channeled in some way between forms can hypothetically become consciousness.

So, where did consciousness come from? Well, under what I propose above, it gradually may have evolved over time and became common in life forms, which could have evolved as well because of the building blocks of carbon leading into protein coming from amino acids that inter-reacted with other chemicals.

Can I prove this? Of course not. Nor do I have a clue if it's right in any way. I cite it as a "maybe"-- that's all.

 

[1robin]

That sounds more like pan(en)theism but yes something like that. Rather an integrated mind.

Pan (en) theism is more agreeable to theism. A mind made of rocks, carbon, and electrons which brought rocks, carbon, and electrons into being is irrational.

 

[idav]

Awareness is emerging from complexity. Somethun' like that, I think.

Something like that. At what point in complexity does an atom know it interacted with another atom? Probably never. With direct contact there is no reason for a third party knowledge such as consciousness. My cells are all aware of what they are doing or I might die although I can never know all the work the cells put into preserving the mind. They know what they are doing. When something touches my finger I am being made aware of something the cells in my finger are already aware of cause they like it or cells neighbors are being eliminated and the cells able to relay the message back to headquarters don't like it. All living things even the single cells of multicellular organisms want to survive.

 

[metis]

Awareness is emerging from complexity. Somethun' like that, I think.

If I had read this before posting what I did, I could have saved a lot of time and space. You did it much more succinctly that I did but got the same message across. Now I feel so worthless.

 

[idav]

Pan (en) theism is more agreeable to theism. A mind made of rocks, carbon, and electrons which brought rocks, carbon, and electrons into being is irrational.

No it isn't irrational at all. Look at the human body. We are only made of those elements and have mind.

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

Composition of the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idav]

Pan (en) theism is more agreeable to theism. A mind made of rocks, carbon, and electrons which brought rocks, carbon, and electrons into being is irrational.

What is irrational is saying the mind is default in order to explain the mind found in creation. I am almost saying the same thing, mind is default and found in all existence but the parts never know what the whole knows. The parts never even know they part of a bigger system with a greater mind.

The major difference is I stop creation at the existence of everything including god. Theist throw one extra step and have god creating something after he somehow magically existed without needing a creator like a creation requires. Theists have this magical exception that I avoid for consistency. If anything can exist by virtue of itself then I don't turn around and say the universe doesn't qualify.

When we get to the beginnings cause and effect were not valid. Before the big bang was a realm where things can be caused by there effect. In such a realm much is possible, god and what not, but we hit a brick wall with event horizon. We can't know what started things in a realm where things can start without having started. Yet all of existence is like this and we are very much a part of that.

 

[Aman777]

Does someone's pet rock have consciousness? I would suggest that if one hooks it up to an e.e.g. machine, it'll show flat-line. So, just because something exists doesn't mean that consciousness is present in it.

With matter, only some forms show signs of consciousness, which suggests that it is a by-product of a certain complexity that's not found in pet rocks and the likes. Matter of fact, the vast majority of that which we find here on Earth show no indication of consciousness.

Like the pet rock, for the vast majority of the history of our universe, nothing seems to support the idea that consciousness had been formed throughout most of our history. Therefore, if it's not intrinsic to our universe, then it most likely would have evolved when certain material forms were complicated enough to interact with other forms, much like forms of energy may inter-react with other forms of energy. IOW, to me the likely key here is energy. Not that energy by itself is consciousness, but that energy that channeled in some way between forms can hypothetically become consciousness.

So, where did consciousness come from? Well, under what I propose above, it gradually may have evolved over time and became common in life forms, which could have evolved as well because of the building blocks of carbon leading into protein coming from amino acids that inter-reacted with other chemicals.

Can I prove this? Of course not. Nor do I have a clue if it's right in any way. I cite it as a "maybe"-- that's all.

Dear Metis, God told us HOW He created matter thousands of years ago. It's from Energy, which God has in abundance. Heb 11:3 It took mankind until the time of Albert Einstein to learn that Energy and Matter are different sides of the same coin. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Thief]

Something like that. At what point in complexity does an atom know it interacted with another atom? Probably never. With direct contact there is no reason for a third party knowledge such as consciousness. My cells are all aware of what they are doing or I might die although I can never know all the work the cells put into preserving the mind. They know what they are doing. When something touches my finger I am being made aware of something the cells in my finger are already aware of cause they like it or cells neighbors are being eliminated and the cells able to relay the message back to headquarters don't like it. All living things even the single cells of multicellular organisms want to survive.

The 'want' to survive isn't there at the cell level.
I don't think so.

True enough, at some 'point' self awareness takes hold.

I suspect Man as a species may have been less than that for a long time.
Man as a species would be a complex item.....
but not until Man was able to say....I AM.....did heaven come to intervene.

 

[Ouroboros]

Something like that. At what point in complexity does an atom know it interacted with another atom? Probably never. With direct contact there is no reason for a third party knowledge such as consciousness. My cells are all aware of what they are doing or I might die although I can never know all the work the cells put into preserving the mind. They know what they are doing. When something touches my finger I am being made aware of something the cells in my finger are already aware of cause they like it or cells neighbors are being eliminated and the cells able to relay the message back to headquarters don't like it. All living things even the single cells of multicellular organisms want to survive.

I've been thinking that "consciousness" is kind'a like a field, like magnetism, existing innate but only active at higher level process/complexity. I don't know. Just thinking loud.

 

[Ouroboros]

If I had read this before posting what I did, I could have saved a lot of time and space. You did it much more succinctly that I did but got the same message across. Now I feel so worthless.

LOL! No brother, don't feel that way. But thanks anyway.

The only reason you get what I'm saying (in the succinctly way) is because you know and think already in line with it. I'm certain that my words flew miles above the heads of several readers. Concise sentences only make sense to those who are tuned in to the same wavelength. Something I've learned over the years.

 

[Ouroboros]

No it isn't irrational at all. Look at the human body. We are only made of those elements and have mind.

It reminds me of Gospel of Thomas, "look under a rock and I'm there." (I probably botched the quote, but I think I'm close). In other words, God/Spirit is everywhere and part of all, even the dormant matter. Life is there, just not active.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just got some crazy idea about life and why it exists... Maybe I can formulate it later today in another thread.