Unknown

[Jimmy]

I don’t think the time even existed when abiogenesis was suppose to take place but Let’s just consider that it did, I’m still undecided weather life could’ve evolved from non living matter. Interesting to think about. I might have to chalk it up as a forever unknown.

 

[kadzbiz]

How about just spending some time walking in the sunshine and enjoying the nature all around you? Seems to me that people waste too much of their time contemplating inconsequential things.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don’t think the time even existed when abiogenesis was suppose to take place but Let’s just consider that it did, I’m still undecided weather life could’ve evolved from non living matter. Interesting to think about. I might have to chalk it up as a forever unknown.

We already know that life is a product of organic matter of which non organic matter plays a role as well. Matter isn't static either as it can become animated via atoms which in themselves vibrate and bind and unbind through forces of energy.

Hello RNA

Hello DNA.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How about just spending some time walking in the sunshine and enjoying the nature all around you? Seems to me that people waste too much of their time contemplating inconsequential things.

Why can't I spend time walking in the sunshine and enjoying nature around me while contemplating inconsequential things?

 

[kadzbiz]

Why can't I spend time walking in the sunshine and enjoying nature around me while contemplating inconsequential things?

because it distracts from the natural enlightenment of your surroundings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t think the time even existed when abiogenesis was suppose to take place but Let’s just consider that it did, I’m still undecided weather life could’ve evolved from non living matter. Interesting to think about. I might have to chalk it up as a forever unknown.

Well, if you want to play unknown, I can play that with you. We can even play - I know nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

I don’t think the time even existed when abiogenesis was suppose to take place but Let’s just consider that it did, I’m still undecided weather life could’ve evolved from non living matter. Interesting to think about. I might have to chalk it up as a forever unknown.

Lucky nature doesn't need your approval.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lucky nature doesn't need your approval.

Well, yes. But he is in nature and a part of nature, so what he does is natural and doesn't violate nature as such, because it is fact, that he can do, what he does.
You are doing a duality of him as not nature and nature as different than him. That is as far as I can tell not the case.

 

[Stevicus]

How about just spending some time walking in the sunshine and enjoying the nature all around you?

You mean when it's hot? How about if I dance in the moonlight instead?

 

[ChristineM]

Well, yes. But he is in nature and a part of nature, so what he does is natural and doesn't violate nature as such, because it is fact, that he can do, what he does.
You are doing a duality of him as not nature and nature as different than him. That is as far as I can tell not the case.

I said nature does not need his approval, i did not mention anything about him neing nature so your post is irrelevant

 

[ChristineM]

You mean when it's hot? How about if I dance in the moonlight instead?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said nature does not need his approval, i did not mention anything about him neing nature so your post is irrelevant

But nature is not different than him as he is a part of nature. Your example requires that nature is different than him, otherwise approval doesn't come in to the question. Learn to analyze your words.

 

[ChristineM]

But nature is not different than him as he is a part of nature. Your example requires that nature is different than him, otherwise approval doesn't come in to the question. Learn to analyze your words.

Sheesh, really. Learn to think about your words, your misunderstanding is nor my problem

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sheesh, really. Learn to think about your words, your misunderstanding is nor my problem

Then explain what it means to assign personhood to nature as if nature is a person.
The problem is that there are needs and wants in nature, but they are localized to life, yet life is not nature. Life is a part of nature and as humans we all have needs and wants and for some of them we cope differently as individuals.
And yes, I don't cope like Moon or you in all cases, but we still all cope.
So the answer is that we are in some but not all cases different. So what comes next?

Or in other words: "Lucky nature doesn't need your approval." is psychology in a sense. And yes, that is true, but that is human. So it is about how different humans cope and that you cope differently. I do get that.
You use emotions and so do all humans capable of that, but sometimes differently.

 

[ChristineM]

Then explain what it means to assign personhood to nature as if nature is a person.
The problem is that there are needs and wants in nature, but they are localized to life, yet life is not nature. Life is a part of nature and as humans we all have needs and wants and for some of them we cope differently as individuals.
And yes, I don't cope like Moon or you in all cases, but we still all cope.
So the answer is that we are in some but not all cases different. So what comes next?

Or in other words: "Lucky nature doesn't need your approval." is psychology in a sense. And yes, that is true, but that is human. So it is about how different humans cope and that you cope differently. I do get that.
You use emotions and so do all humans capable of that, but sometimes differently.

First you explain why nature almost 4 billion years ago does need his approval, you are the one questioning its up to you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Lucky nature doesn't need your approval.

What about unlucky nature?

 

[Stevicus]

Then explain what it means to assign personhood to nature as if nature is a person.
The problem is that there are needs and wants in nature, but they are localized to life, yet life is not nature. Life is a part of nature and as humans we all have needs and wants and for some of them we cope differently as individuals.
And yes, I don't cope like Moon or you in all cases, but we still all cope.
So the answer is that we are in some but not all cases different. So what comes next?

Or in other words: "Lucky nature doesn't need your approval." is psychology in a sense. And yes, that is true, but that is human. So it is about how different humans cope and that you cope differently. I do get that.
You use emotions and so do all humans capable of that, but sometimes differently.

I think you may be overthinking this a bit. Sometimes, an off-the-cuff comment might be the only reply one can give to questions about the great unknown. But you're right in that we all have our own peculiar ways of coping with it all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First you explain why nature almost 4 billion years ago does need his approval, you are the one questioning its up to you.

It doesn't, but that is his way of doing it. Now if you want to play false, I can do that.

It is a fact in nature, that he can do, what he does. Now explain that as a part of nature and don't explain it away.

 

[Stevicus]

What about unlucky nature?

Looks like it's from a lightning strike? As lightning is a part of nature, wouldn't that make this a lucky shot? Unlucky for the tree, though.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Looks like it's from a lightning strike? As lightning is a part of nature, wouldn't that make this a lucky shot? Unlucky for the tree, though.

Nice 'glass half-full' perspective.