It looks like we're edging closer to how life spontaneously starts from a bunch of random organic molecules. They haven't quite recreated the event in a lab, but they've figured out how they might.
quote:Yet rocks that formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, almost as soon as the bombardment had stopped, contain possible evidence of biological processes. If life can arise from inorganic matter so quickly and easily, why is it not abundant in the solar system and beyond? If biology is an inherent property of matter, why have chemists so far been unable to reconstruct life, or anything close to it, in the laboratory?
...
Simple fatty acids, of the sort likely to have been around on the primitive Earth, will spontaneously form double-layered spheres, much like the double-layered membrane of today’s living cells. These protocells will incorporate new fatty acids fed into the water, and eventually divide.
Living cells are generally impermeable and have elaborate mechanisms for admitting only the nutrients they need. But Dr. Szostak and his colleagues have shown that small molecules can easily enter the protocells. If they combine into larger molecules, however, they cannot get out, just the arrangement a primitive cell would need. If a protocell is made to encapsulate a short piece of DNA and is then fed with nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, the nucleotides will spontaneously enter the cell and link into another DNA molecule.
I was recently having this discussion with my two coworkers - one of whom is a biblical literalist and the other of whom is an Intelligent Designer. Neither of whom believes in evolution really. But this is some pretty strong evidence for life to be able to spontaneously generate of its own accord given the right circumstances.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Incremental steps. Every few years since the 1960s someone figures out another possible path that life might plausibly have arisen by. It won't be really convincing until it's done in the lab. And of course some people won't be convinced until our creations rise up and eat our brains - an event which, alas, will leave only creationists to write its history.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And of course some people won't be convinced until our creations rise up and eat our brains - an event which, alas, will leave only creationists to write its history.
And the brain-eaters. And for them, deliberate creation will be the correct answer to their origins.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
I'd think that Intelligent Design believers would think that creating life in a lab would be evidence in their favor. You would need to show them a case if it happening without Intelligent Design or influence since I'm pretty sure that they believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can do anything man can do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think so. Showing that you can assemble a cell molecule by molecule using nanotech manipulators (as has been done with viruses) is not really evidence either way; nobody disputes that you can create life in this manner, the question is whether this is what happened. The IDers need to show that life cannot self-assemble without intelligent intervention. A lab which takes large batches of chemicals (preferably simple ones) X, Y, and Z, mixes them at temperature A, and perhaps runs the occasional shot of lightning through it, and ends up with life, has not intervened in this sense - you can hardly call "zap it with lightning" an action requiring intelligence. The IDers would then have to fall back on their standby of "who created conditions for lightning to exist in the first place?", which is not ID in the usual sense, but deism. ID as the phrase is usually used requires intervention at the level of specific molecular events, not mere creation of physical law.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: I'd think that Intelligent Design believers would think that creating life in a lab would be evidence in their favor. You would need to show them a case if it happening without Intelligent Design or influence since I'm pretty sure that they believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can do anything man can do.
I'm not sure. As I understand it, intelligent design is essentially a way of thinking about creationism to allow for its teaching in the classroom. When I first heard the term, I thought it sounded innocent enough because I've long believed that God and science are perfectly compatible and never had a problem with the idea that the universe, left to its own devices, can accomplish a great many things. Maybe I'm weird...
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think so. Showing that you can assemble a cell molecule by molecule using nanotech manipulators (as has been done with viruses) is not really evidence either way; nobody disputes that you can create life in this manner, the question is whether this is what happened. The IDers need to show that life cannot self-assemble without intelligent intervention. A lab which takes large batches of chemicals (preferably simple ones) X, Y, and Z, mixes them at temperature A, and perhaps runs the occasional shot of lightning through it, and ends up with life, has not intervened in this sense - you can hardly call "zap it with lightning" an action requiring intelligence. The IDers would then have to fall back on their standby of "who created conditions for lightning to exist in the first place?", which is not ID in the usual sense, but deism. ID as the phrase is usually used requires intervention at the level of specific molecular events, not mere creation of physical law.
Alas, the argument being fatally wrong won't preclude ID advocates from making it and believing it.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: I'd think that Intelligent Design believers would think that creating life in a lab would be evidence in their favor. You would need to show them a case if it happening without Intelligent Design or influence since I'm pretty sure that they believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can do anything man can do.
I'm not sure. As I understand it, intelligent design is essentially a way of thinking about creationism to allow for its teaching in the classroom. When I first heard the term, I thought it sounded innocent enough because I've long believed that God and science are perfectly compatible and never had a problem with the idea that the universe, left to its own devices, can accomplish a great many things. Maybe I'm weird...
If your weird then that makes two of us.
Posted by Badenov (Member # 12075) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think so. Showing that you can assemble a cell molecule by molecule using nanotech manipulators (as has been done with viruses) is not really evidence either way; nobody disputes that you can create life in this manner, the question is whether this is what happened. The IDers need to show that life cannot self-assemble without intelligent intervention. A lab which takes large batches of chemicals (preferably simple ones) X, Y, and Z, mixes them at temperature A, and perhaps runs the occasional shot of lightning through it, and ends up with life, has not intervened in this sense - you can hardly call "zap it with lightning" an action requiring intelligence. The IDers would then have to fall back on their standby of "who created conditions for lightning to exist in the first place?", which is not ID in the usual sense, but deism. ID as the phrase is usually used requires intervention at the level of specific molecular events, not mere creation of physical law.
Now, I'm not a believer in Intelligent Design for various reasons, but you're ignoring some very important facts aside from the creation of lightning. For instance, how would those chemicals get put together?
What you fail to realize is that any attempt for humans to replicate the conditions that hypothetically resulted in life in a lab involves an intelligent being. It may not *require* intelligence to do it, but the simple fact is that the process did, in fact, involve an intelligent being and as a result, said experiment cannot be used to ultimately prove Intelligent Design as incorrect.
The only way you can "prove" IDers wrong is to view the whole multi-billion year process occurring spontaneously in nature. I realize you're too stubborn to accept this, KoM, but no human success at synthesizing the creation of life could "prove" what you want it to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't want to get into the whole evidence versus proof thing again. I understand that there's no proof that will satisfy a sufficiently stubborn mind.
Nonetheless: The ID hypothesis is, in effect, that life cannot possibly arise without intelligent intervention. If the chemicals in question are, let's say, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, I think you will have a hard time denying that life resulting from the mix is pretty strong evidence against the ID claim; to state that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen never mix at temperature X in the presence of lightning, unless an intelligence intervenes, is fairly audacious.
I grant you that this is an extreme case. The more complex the chemicals, the weaker the evidence. Still, we know that simple amino acids can arise without the presence of intelligence. I think that would be a nice cutoff. If you need actual proteins, then you've only shown one step in a long pathway. Someone else would then have to show where the proteins come from.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
Well then I'm certainly not and ID person.From the evidence I've seen it seems likely it is possible, however unlikely. Future evidence may change this or may support it. It will be intreasting learning more. Has any part of this contradicted my beliefs in God? Not yet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course it hasn't; tell me, what sort of evidence would contradict your theistic beliefs?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
(Don't answer)
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Sorry for the double post, but what would happen if it were somehow proven (or there emerged some strong evidence) that life started elsewhere and then plopped down on earth? What would the effect be on the positions of IDers, Creationsts, or evolutionists? I wonder if ID advocates would say that this proves it, since it must have been God that directed it here or created it "there," wherever there is (that seems weak even to me). I suppose a more likely result would be something of a standstill in the debates until more information was found on exactly where life originated.
Oh, by the way KoM, have you read much by Michael Ruse?
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Of course it hasn't; tell me, what sort of evidence would contradict your theistic beliefs?
Well, I guess the results of a vast majority of the thousands of tests I've conducted regarding the exsistance of god would need to be retro-actively changed, or at least explained with evidence stronger then the evidence suggesting the exsistance of a god.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Uh oh.
Cat, I think your use of the word "tests" there is gonna be a sticking point. Note my not taking any sides here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Oh, by the way KoM, have you read much by Michael Ruse?
No.
quote:What would happen if it were somehow proven (or there emerged some strong evidence) that life started elsewhere and then plopped down on earth? What would the effect be on the positions of IDers, Creationsts, or evolutionists?
This evolutionist would state that this does nothing for or against evolution, which deals with existing life, and is interesting for abiogenesis.
quote:Well, I guess the results of a vast majority of the thousands of tests I've conducted regarding the existence of god would need to be retro-actively changed, or at least explained with evidence stronger then the evidence suggesting the existence of a god.
How about "This data indicates the existence of a god only to one who already believes it"?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: Well, I guess the results of a vast majority of the thousands of tests I've conducted regarding the exsistance of god would need to be retro-actively changed, or at least explained with evidence stronger then the evidence suggesting the exsistance of a god.
I'm always curious, when someone makes this claim, specifically what some of these tests were, how they were conducted, and what evidence pointed so strongly to the existence of a god.
Strangely, I've never had anyone who could produce convincing tests which would lead an observer from a neutral standpoint to a deistic standpoint. I'd love to be shown otherwise.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
Hmm I never liked spelling and "tests" is easier to spell then "Spiritual Experiments".
But yes the tone of the thread is changing. If my post(s) is what is changing it I'm sorry. I'll withdraw before the tone gets heated. I hope the good discussion will continue.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I read the thread title and thought science was about to come to life. That's just what we need, science reproducing and excreting all over the place.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Oh, by the way KoM, have you read much by Michael Ruse?
No.
Eh, he's a History and Philosophy of Science guy, big into biology and evolutionary theory, as well as a Darwin expert. He's pretty heavy into the evolution/ID debates. I think he's probably a bit moderate for your taste though. I went to the Creation Museum with him last week. It was quite the experience. If you're ever flying through the Cincinnati airport ... probably skip it. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As it happens, I live in Cincinnati. And the only reason I would ever give any money to those liars is so I could scope out their security.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The interesting thing about it is that it really is not science, and for the most part is not trying to be science. In fact, at least how I saw it, they were pretty blatant about being anti-science, anti-intellectual, and I would even go so far as to say anti-knowledge. The base assumption was that truth exists in, and only in, Scripture, so any science, or knowledge, not directly supported by Scripture is false, and any science in Scripture is better described by Scripture. This led to some pretty interesting, glaringly blatant contradictions in their presentation, but given that base, there really was no way around it. Kinda sad really.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: Hmm I never liked spelling and "tests" is easier to spell then "Spiritual Experiments".
But yes the tone of the thread is changing. If my post(s) is what is changing it I'm sorry. I'll withdraw before the tone gets heated. I hope the good discussion will continue.
Some posters can come across as heated, and I think it's unfortunate that people end up preferring to avoid threads because of that, but I think there's other other people you can have worthwhile conversations with.
That said, the reason King of Men defaults to a hostile position is that whenever someone makes a claim to the point of "I've done/seen tests that suggest God exists," those claims almost invariable end up being full of false premises and logical fallacies. If you truly believe your experiences are the exception, go ahead and stand by them. But to date I've never seen a creationist or intelligent design argument argument that didn't rely on the same faulty logic.
One big thing to consider: in the tests you've witnessed/conducted, what outcome would you have considered evidence AGAINST God? What new evidence would cause you to reconsider your position? Science is only valid if it has the potential to be disproved. The reason Intelligent Design is not science is that it doesn't make a claim that can actually be falsified.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: I'd think that Intelligent Design believers would think that creating life in a lab would be evidence in their favor. You would need to show them a case if it happening without Intelligent Design or influence since I'm pretty sure that they believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can do anything man can do.
And that, my friend, is why "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. When the results of any possible experiment would seem to prove either way that a certain hypothesis is correct, you don't have a theory, you have something else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I suggest that if you really have "spiritual experiments" that have positive results, rather than mixing it up with random forum goers on the Internet, you could look into things like the Randi challenge which could be quite profitable.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Guys, I'm as vociferously anti-Intelligent Design as anyone here, but it's pretty obvious that Catseye was using "tests" in the colloquial, laymen's sense, rather than in the strict scientific sense of the word. He (she?) has stated a skepticism about ID/creationism, and otherwise seems to be the same sort of theistic evolutionist as quite a few others at Hatrack. So in the spirit of the "be nice to each other" threads, can we not immediately jump all over Catseye for a belief in Intelligent Design that he/she has stated outright that he/she doesn't even hold?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is my impression that he/she is now being jumped on for theism and for believing that private states of mind are credible evidence, rather than for ID.
In passing, I note that your last sentence is ambiguous; "Can we not do X" can mean either "Let us do X" or "Let us avoid doing X".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(I'm specifically not addressing "tests." Rather I'm addressing the term "spiritual experiments" that was proposed as a replacement.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As far as we know, that could mean *anything*.
quote: Originally posted by Catseye1979: Well, I guess the results of a vast majority of the thousands of tests I've conducted regarding the exsistance of god would need to be retro-actively changed, or at least explained with evidence stronger then the evidence suggesting the exsistance of a god.
I suppose 9.11 conspiracy theorists would like to require their opponents to sit down and prove, conclusively and more importantly to the theorist's satisfaction, why every piece of "evidence," arrived at by errors in reasoning is in fact something else, and more specifically, prove exactly what it is.
Last I checked it was more than enough to prove convincingly that an argument is wrong- one need not be required to supplant it with a conclusive and comprehensive explanation of whatever observation may have been made and then wrongly theorized about.
Just to get to the brass tacks: I don't need to know that 2+2=4, I just need to know that when you say 2+2=5, that's wrong, because 2+3=5. I don't actually have to sit down and show you what 2+2 actually equals 4. When talking about a much more complex observation, like almost anything deemed "spiritual" by some observers, is going to require much more work to correctly *explain* than it would take to negate obviously false conclusions.
That's just argumentation 101 though Catseye, you don't get to sit pretty just because I can't explain your spiritual experiences for you.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Wouldn't argumentation 101 also need to take into account that sometimes there may be more than one correct answer? To continue with the math thing, if I say the answer to x^2=4 is x=-2, and you say you don't need to prove that's wrong, but you already know that x=2 is the correct answer.
Granted, Catseye has been pretty non-specific, and I'm not going to ask for more than has been given (it's a topic I don't consider arguing over to be worthwhile). But just because one can explain something without a "supernatural being" (caveats galore on the title, its various attributes, and people's disagreement thereupon) doesn't mean there isn't one. And just because one can't come up with an explanation that doesn't require a "supernatural being" doesn't mean one exists. But one can certainly state that "proof" has not been given in those cases. But distinguishing between proof and evidence so often comes back to "this is more likely," which can have discrete measurement but often doesn't, and even when it does, less likely needn't mean impossible.
To put myself in the hotseat for a little while, I'm willing to answer "[T]ell me, what sort of evidence would contradict your theistic beliefs?"
Honestly, lots of things have resulted in my adjusting my overall theistic beliefs, but to change from theist to atheist -- I can't think of anything aside from a (multiple-use) time-machine. I've posted here at Hatrack before about some experiences I've had, and fully granted that they could probably be explained away, and that I don't expect anyone else to alter his own belief system based on them. But they've formed mine, and I can't really see un-forming them, as opposed to a more modest re-forming of them.
<Never really completes a thought any more, but kinda mentally rambles, so doesn't know if there's a point.>
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Something I've discovered, is that when I was a theist, I did have a concrete idea of things which would contradict my theistic beliefs. Upon closer examination, many of these things came to my attention, and as a result, I am now an atheist.
Without making a value judgment on the practice, I imagine that it's a quite good defense, if one really desires to be a theist, to have none, impossible, or ill-defined standards to contradict one's beliefs. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I've talked before about the difference between concluding that there is a god and believing that there is a god. Had I only concluded it, I think I would more likely have an idea of something which would contradict it. (I don't believe I've taken the tack of "logically" determining the existence of God, and I don't believe it's a claim I'd make.)
And if I had chosen to answer "nothing" specifically as a defense to the question, I think it could serve as an effective defense, but I wouldn't therefore categorize it as "good."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's just argumentation 101 though Catseye, you don't get to sit pretty just because I can't explain your spiritual experiences for you.
Why not? That seems pretty obviously what you would need to do in this instance.
Catseye was asked what would it take for him to change his theistic beliefs. He responded that you'd need to provide a better explanation for his experiences and "tests" than he has right now.
That seems perfectly logical given the context we're talking about. You seem to be suggesting that in order for him to not change his beliefs, he should be able to establish that they are true to you. That seems very unreasonable.
---
I've never really gotten where the vehemence stirred up by people believing for themselves in religion comes from. I'm talking about people who are not intent on forcing it on others, who are intelligent and psychologically healthy who have a personal belief in religion. What is the big problem here, that they have a belief that they can't be sure is true?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:That's just argumentation 101 though Catseye, you don't get to sit pretty just because I can't explain your spiritual experiences for you.
Why not? That seems pretty obviously what you would need to do in this instance.
Catseye was asked what would it take for him to change his theistic beliefs. He responded that you'd need to provide a better explanation for his experiences and "tests" than he has right now.
That seems perfectly logical given the context we're talking about. You seem to be suggesting that in order for him to not change his beliefs, he should be able to establish that they are true to you. That seems very unreasonable.
---
I've never really gotten where the vehemence stirred up by people believing for themselves in religion comes from. I'm talking about people who are not intent on forcing it on others, who are intelligent and psychologically healthy who have a personal belief in religion. What is the big problem here, that they have a belief that they can't be sure is true?
There's no "big problem," it's rather a small problem for me, since my mind is made up, and the existence of this particular logical fallacy, along with the unreasonable requirement that some people have that the world be totally within their personal grasp, does not actually bother very much because I am not so afflicted.
I don't think catseye must provide proof of the veracity of his beliefs to others in order to hold them himself- that's obviously not the case, nor can it be. I would argue that he will be unsuccessful in arguing *for* his beliefs if he thinks they stand as true until alternate theories are proven correct, especially when falsifying his personal theories (at least scientifically) is bound, almost certainly, to be easier.
Now, were it me, I would only require that my theories (and by the way I didn't say "beliefs," but only theories), for the things I observe be falsified, not adequately explained, for me to abandon my theories in search of better ones.
This, I think, is the fairly clear difference between theories which are based on articles of faith, and theories which are based on scientific curiosity. Theories about god in general, unless you are studying way-far-out theoretical cosmology, or philosophy, are not scientifically interesting, because they produce no scientifically meaningful instruments. To me, the lack of scientific meaning removes *most* of my interest. My pure curiosity keeps me wondering, but I do not want to form theories that I have no hope of proving or falsifying- that just feels pointless.
quote: I've never really gotten where the vehemence stirred up by people believing for themselves in religion comes from.
Well, I find a lot of arguments in favor of specific religions, and more generally those in favor of the god hypothesis to be insulting to my intelligence. I have no *problem* with people believing in God, but then I have no problem with other people being less smart than me- I understand it's a natural consequence of living. And really, not to be flip about it, I personally view theistic beliefs (granted I have a viewpoint with its own limitations, far from perfection itself) as dumb. On another level, I find some varieties and consequences of those beliefs to be actually dangerous. I suppose all of that baggage informs the way I react- and really I don't react with much fire to the idea any more at all, because I realized a long time ago that I am not personally capable of doing much good in this area. If you sensed a lot of passion on my part, I don't think it's there. I'm very frank about my position on it, but I have no stake in changing minds.
[ June 18, 2009, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Though I try to avoid being the annoyingly evangelist atheist, the thing that bothers me and at least keeps me involved in internet arguments is people believing that their beliefs are justified logically and/or scientifically when they really are not.
There are people whose reasons for believing are "I was raised this way and it makes me happy so I'm sticking with it." (Or, alternately "I found this religion in adulthood and it has improved my life.") There's also people who don't fully understand the science and mathematics involved in evolution and see life as too miraculous to believe it came about by chance. Those people are wrong but I don't think it's fair to force them to study evolution and statistics until all the counterintuitive implications make sense. There are people who've had a powerful experience that suggests God is real to them. Even if other people have had similar experiences that pointed to an opposite kind of God, I think it's reasonable (if not fully logical) for those people to accept those experiences.
I'm fine with those people believing what they do and don't argue with them unless they go out of their way to evangelize me.
What bugs me, though, are people who honestly believe they have arrived at the conclusion of God (intelligent design/creationism in particular) through logical and/or scientific processes that are, in fact, completely bogus. I think there is a danger to misunderstanding science and logic that can A) lead them to make misunderstandings in other areas of their life, B) because the misunderstood science/logic sounds reasonable to laymen, they may end up spreading that those misunderstandings to other people.
While Catseye's statement was fairly vague, the language ("Spiritual experiments, thousands of tests") suggested that he/she fell into the later category.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It is my impression that he/she is now being jumped on for theism and for believing that private states of mind are credible evidence, rather than for ID.
I don't see any particular reason for anyone to be jumping on at this point.
Personally, I thought that Raymond Arnold's response covered pretty much everything that needed to be said, so unless something else comes up I see no need for this particular line of conversation to be pursued.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Something I've discovered, is that when I was a theist, I did have a concrete idea of things which would contradict my theistic beliefs. Upon closer examination, many of these things came to my attention, and as a result, I am now an atheist.
Without making a value judgment on the practice, I imagine that it's a quite good defense, if one really desires to be a theist, to have none, impossible, or ill-defined standards to contradict one's beliefs.
This sounds a bit like what happened to me except that, in the end, I came to the conclusion that the things I was ignoring contradicted only my Christian beliefs, but did not contradict the idea that there is a God, when I broaden the term God to be a concept removed from specific doctrine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, you can easily remove the trivialities of the God of religion from every level of logical reasoning and still maintain a belief in God just based on the things science *can't* tell you, which is plenty of important stuff.
At that level, I'm agnostic. The point interests me, but I would find it silly (and would fully expect an immortal divine being to agree with me here) if there was a god that actually fit the Christian, or any other, religious doctrine. I mean seriously. Perhaps God has a sense of humor? That's all I ever got from the bible myself "you've got to be kidding... there's no way a god would act like this..."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It looks like we're edging closer to how life spontaneously starts from a bunch of random organic molecules. They haven't quite recreated the event in a lab, but they've figured out how they might.
No! I'm neither a young earth creationist nor a proponent of intelligent design, I'm just a scientist with a decent grasp of both biochemistry and mathamatics. This is still light years away from creating the simplest self reproducing living systems. The genetic code is truly mind bogglingly complex and even with this minor advance we still don't have a real clue of as to how the genetic code got started.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To continue with the math thing, if I say the answer to x^2=4 is x=-2, and you say you don't need to prove that's wrong, but you already know that x=2 is the correct answer.
I don't know if I need to point this out but x = -2, is also an answer which satisfies the equation x^2 = 4. Perhaps this is what you you were implying when you said
quote:Wouldn't argumentation 101 also need to take into account that sometimes there may be more than one correct answer?
So to make your analogy more explicit, are you saying that atheists have the equation x^2= 4 (How was life on earth created?) and they have found a solution 2 (evolution) which they believe satisfies the equation. This however does not preclude the possibility that -2 (perhaps intelligent design) is also a solution which also satisfies the equation equally well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It may satisfy the equation, but there is actual evidence that 2 is the correct answer, whereas there's no particular evidence that -2 does. To continue the increasingly convoluted (and probably flawed) math analogy, biological life is a square with area 4. It's hypothetically possible that we somehow live in a world where the sides of squares can have negative dimensions and the square has a width of -2, but it makes a lot more sense, for now, to assume that the width is 2.
Edit: I like how the 42nd post in a thread about life, the universe and everything prominently ended up featuring the numbers 4 and 2.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
See? There *is* a God.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
What you're asking, Rabbit, is pretty much what I was saying (where it said "but you already know" it should have said "because you already know" which might have made that more clear). When it comes to "How was life on earth created" I certainly wouldn't have used such a simple equation (at the time I was thinking of what Catseye referred to as "tests"), but the concept still holds to a degree.
Had I been talking about creation, I'm certain I would have created an equation where the alternative answers could readily have been called imaginary, or irrational, or unnecessarily complex, not because I would intend to belittle one side of the conversation, but because it would make me chuckle.
More thoughts on a different tack, but they'll have to wait a bit because my youngest is sick.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This sounds a bit like what happened to me except that, in the end, I came to the conclusion that the things I was ignoring contradicted only my Christian beliefs, but did not contradict the idea that there is a God, when I broaden the term God to be a concept removed from specific doctrine.
Having abandoned the specific evidence or beliefs that first made you think there was a god, why would you continue thinking so? It's as though you have this scaffolding of Christian stuff, eg Jesus rose from the dead, or whatever it was you started out with; and on top of all that is "God exists". Then you remove all the scaffolding as not making sense - and the God-belief continues to stay up! How can you account for this without a kmb-like "I choose to believe", which you would not accept in any other context?
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Wow this thread has drifted considerably, so I'm going to ignore the ID vs. evolution debate initially and comment on the original post. I was a little surprised at the original excerpt because it isn't news. In fact I love the New York Times Science section, but occasionally, they seem to be stretching for an article. The fact that micelles (the technical term for the spontaneous spheres) form is not new, nor is the theory that if somehow nucleic acids, sugars, and amino acids all happened to be inside a micelle you would essentially have a primitive cell, also supposing the nucleic acid had a mode of self-replication.
Reading through the article in more detail, I realized that this theory was originally published in 2001, which fits with the reason why I've 'always' known it, because it was published 3 years before I began studying biochemistry, and it's so cool professors want to throw it out there as cutting edge, but by this point even text books have it in there as incontrovertible fact.
However this theory does not solve the problem of spontaneous generation because in order for it to occur it assumes that several other things have spontaneously formed in sufficient quantities: A) phospholipids B) amino acids C) nucleic acids
I don't know much about the spontaneity of phospholipids. Amino acids, however, are not complex and I are quite readily and easily created using inorganic means. The problem is nucleic acids, which require a sugar molecule to be linked to an acidic base. This reaction is extremely improbable and unfavorable without enzymes (in fact DNA and RNA are both very fragile molecules and don't survive long outside a cell). So a problem to creating life in a test tube has been creating this self-replicating RNA system. And the 'news' in this article is that some guy proposed a method for the RNA to be created all at once, rather than having a sugar and the base link up after being separately formed. Then some other guy is working on proving that he could do just that, however (at least from what I read) he hasn't actually done it yet.
So I guess the gist of the rather long article is that there are still people working on proving the 8 year old theory is possible without any significant concrete advancements.
The article also doesn't address a few other flaws in the theory. A phospholipid bilayer is semipermeable, but there are a few things it is explicitly not readily permeable to including certain amino acids, all sugars, and naturally nucleic acids. If it were permeable to these things then a cell would not be able to concentrate them inside it without an active pump. However since it is effectively impermeable to these things I am not clear on how they are supposed to have gotten inside to begin with.
Another flaw is with the 'self-replicating' bit. In order to become a cell you not only need this combination of organic molecules to form out of an inorganic soup, then you need them to begin inexplicably copying itself. In fact you need the micelle (the phospholipids) and the RNA and the amino acids (which eventually have to become proteins coded for by the RNA) to have independent replication processes which are somehow improved when the elements are all fused together.
Maybe one day science will have answers to these questions. Certainly there are a lot of other smaller questions to answer before it will get to them. However it requires no less to faith to believe science can figure these things out than it does to believe that maybe some intelligent being helped the process out.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Having abandoned the specific evidence or beliefs that first made you think there was a god, why would you continue thinking so? It's as though you have this scaffolding of Christian stuff, eg Jesus rose from the dead, or whatever it was you started out with; and on top of all that is "God exists". Then you remove all the scaffolding as not making sense - and the God-belief continues to stay up! How can you account for this without a kmb-like "I choose to believe", which you would not accept in any other context?
Wow. No. That's exactly backward. God -- or something like God -- is not a conclusion, he's a premise. I never accepted the doctrine of Christianity as proof that God existed. God was never a difficult concept for me -- it was all that stuff they piled on top of him that was hard to swallow. (ie Jesus is his son, died and rose from the dead, the earth is 6,000 years old and was made in a week...)
Looking broadly at *all* religions -- not just the Judeo-Christian religions that get so much flack around here, there is a core of something out there. who, or what, is that something? I tend to think that everything we learn about the universe gets us closer to that something.
[ June 21, 2009, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Looking broadly at *all* religions -- not just the Judeo-Christian religions that get so much flack around here, there is a core of something out there.
The virtue of stuff "out there" is that you can easily look at it, and poke it, and study it.
But stuff "in here", you can't do that to.
So most people come up with some kind of God idea. Well, we are all human. We all have very nearly the same biology. So the commonality could be due to something "in here", not "out there". In which case, there might be nothing "out there".
quote:who, or what, is that something? I tend to think that everything we learn about the universe gets us closer to that something.
The way one learns is by collecting evidence, and rejecting false conclusions. If God is an unfalsifiable premise, you can't do that.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:who, or what, is that something? I tend to think that everything we learn about the universe gets us closer to that something.
The way one learns is by collecting evidence, and rejecting false conclusions. If God is an unfalsifiable premise, you can't do that.
The way one learns about what?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:who, or what, is that something? I tend to think that everything we learn about the universe gets us closer to that something.
The way one learns is by collecting evidence, and rejecting false conclusions. If God is an unfalsifiable premise, you can't do that.
The way one learns about what?
Anything.
Or, anything which is important enough for one to care about being accurate.
Technially, I could "learn" that France is an island at 12 degrees latitude, that it's national language is HTML, and its capital is a pile of wet socks, if by "learned" you only mean "heard, remember and believe".
But the far more meaningful definition of "learning" invovles knowing things which are actually true. And you can't determine this without a robust and reliable method of determining what is false.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
You completely missed the point of my question, probably because you are making assumptions about who I think God is. But didn't I already say, I don't know who or what he is and that I think science is how we learn about him?
Let's go back to the question...
The way one learns about what?
You said: Anything.
Great. Stop right there.
Anything. Everything!
The universe.
The way I see God, he is precisely what we are studying. He is the universe. When we learn things, we are learning about him.
The rest of what you've been saying you really ought to save for a different believer (maybe one with a strict doctrinal approach) because I have no problem with your way or looking at the world. It's absolutely consistent with what I believe. Most beliefs are consistent with what I believe, actually.
It's all just semantics. Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: The way I see God, he is precisely what we are studying. He is the universe. When we learn things, we are learning about him.
But the universe isn't a "him". Or a "her" for that matter. It's just the universe. Either you are talking about God as a person, (which is how the word is prtty universally used) or you aren't. Calling it "God" and "him", and then saying "Oh, I meant the whole universe" is equivocation.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well. I haven't gotten into details about my belief system...can't imagine why I wouldn't want to...even when I tell people their beliefs are entirely consistent with my own they start proselytizing. Well you know what, the universe can handle more than one way of looking at it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well.
Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Praying to the universe, for instance doesn't change anything external to the mind of the prayer. Trees and stars, and the atoms they are made of don't answer prayers. Only persons can answer prayers by changing the external universe.
So are you really using the term "God" to mean something that doesn't respond to prayers? To an impersonal universe that doesn't care about humanity on any level?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What are the consequences of your belief? Take the hypothetical Christine who does not take 'God' as a premise; how does her behaviour change? What experience does she expect which is different from what you expect?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well.
Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Praying to the universe, for instance doesn't change anything external to the mind of the prayer. Trees and stars, and the atoms they are made of don't answer prayers. Only persons can answer prayers by changing the external universe.
So are you really using the term "God" to mean something that doesn't respond to prayers? To an impersonal universe that doesn't care about humanity on any level?
swbarnes2, I'm an atheist, and I have a very good from India who for all intents and purposes is an atheist as well, or at least agnostic. He considers himself religious in that he lives by a certain creed and has a spiritual master back home in India. He is an extremely intelligent scientist here in the states. We've had many many many a long and frustrating conversation about the universe where he spoke about "god". It took us a long time to realize that when he uses the word god, that term has no relation to the western conception of the word god. He doesn't believe in any sort of personal god, god is not an individual, or even conscious, does not answer prayers, takes not active role in the universe, and as far as i can understand is, to him, basically a pattern of relationships that define the universe. What proceeded after this realization was another long and protracted conversation about terminology and definitions, with the result of him basically saying that he refuses to change the word he uses because our western conception of that word is so off from the reality of it.
While I don't think Christine's conception of god is exactly like my friend's, I think the point is valid, and as at the root of the misunderstanding here.
To be fair, I did drive the point home to my friend that understanding your audience is important, and that when you use particular words with english speaking people, those words have certain accepted and understood meanings, and if you are using that word differently, unless you are explicit by what you mean by it, it will necessarily lead to confusion on both sides.
Our conversations flow much smoother now since I usually ask him to define what he means by something before I reply with what I assume he meant.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Thanks, Strider, I think that helped, although you're right that I am not using the term the way your friend is, either. I have heard it used exactly that way, though. I've had a number of excellent conversations with people who have a wide range of ways of looking at God...anywhere from the spiritually atheist view of your friend to the eastern views which include the Void and Tao, among countless others.
swbarnes2: Even your concept of prayer is very Judeo-Christian, which makes it very difficult for me to answer any of your questions.
I realize that I probably added to the confusion on this thread by hinting at my beliefs (I hate that word...can I use ideas instead?) without fully describing them. I think in the post that started all this I was doing a simple compare/contrast with another poster on our approaches to religion. After that, I probably should have stopped talking. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I've never really gotten where the vehemence stirred up by people believing for themselves in religion comes from. I'm talking about people who are not intent on forcing it on others, who are intelligent and psychologically healthy who have a personal belief in religion. What is the big problem here, that they have a belief that they can't be sure is true?
MrSquicky, my guess is that the vehemence comes from the feeling that we (I am presumptuously including myself in the intelligent and psychologically healthy group) give credence, legitimacy and a foothold to those that are intent on forcing their beliefs on others and whose beliefs are not so benign.
There is some validity in that.
On the other hand, by lumping us all together and making it an all or nothing proposition, they frame the argument in precisely the way that is most advantageous for those people who think that their specific beliefs should become law. They amplify the already-too-loud voices by buying into the fantasy that those people represent religious people as a whole.
Christine, you and I agree on a lot.
swbarnes2, we anthropomorphize God in order to better have a relationship with God. We can't wrap our heads around a God that is infinite, so we deal with facets of God. Because we call God "he" or "she" or "father" or "mother" (yes, people do use the feminine more and more these days) does not mean that that is all God is.
Strider, my idea of God is closer to that of your friend than it is to the "superman in the sky" that is often imagined. And much closer than it is to the God that has sometimes been described by other Christians here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
kmb, although we've had this conversation before with little result, I invite you also to answer my question to Christine. What would be different in your expectations or actions if you did not "choose to believe"?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What are the consequences of your belief? Take the hypothetical Christine who does not take 'God' as a premise; how does her behaviour change? What experience does she expect which is different from what you expect?
I'm not ignoring you, but I want to think about this for a while. I don't think it's a simple question or an easy answer. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, and I have answered before. How would I know? I would be someone else.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Assuming that God must be some kind of person is a very short sighted view of God.
Lets put it this way:
Who created everything?
God.
If he created everything, what did he create it out of?
My answer--God.
Hence God is the Universe, the molecules, the atoms, the water, the stars, the people and the forces that move all of those. God is time, and space and energy and everything.
Just because you are Anthropomorphizing God doesn't mean we all do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, and I have answered before. How would I know? I would be someone else.
Are you really so incapable of exercising imagination on this subject? If you could be convinced that your god does not exist, what would you do differently?
quote:Hence God is the Universe, the molecules, the atoms, the water, the stars, the people and the forces that move all of those. God is time, and space and energy and everything.
This being so, what is wrong with the phrase "The universe", which carries no religious baggage; and what is the purpose of going to church, as you perhaps do?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, how would you be different if you choose to believe? How would you be different if you had always believed?
What is wrong with the phrase, "The Universe" is that it doesn't carry religious "baggage".
And it doesn't describe all God is. Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how would you be different if you choose to believe? How would you be different if you had always believed?
This is not the question I asked you; if it is the question you heard, then I agree that it is unanswerable. My question was, however, "How would your actions be different, and what different experiences would you anticipate?"
To answer the symmetric question I will have to assume a religion I converted to or was born into; I'll pick Mormonism. I would then go to church fairly often; pray or meditate frequently; tithe; go on a mission, assuming I converted young enough; drink no coffee or tea; and probably marry within the religion. I would expect prayers to be answered often enough to notice; answers to difficult questions to appear in my head when I prayed about them; and, most significantly, I would expect an afterlife.
quote:And it doesn't describe all God is. Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
Very good; this being so (assuming of course that Darth_Mauve will agree with you), Darth_Mauve should not have implied that his god can be summed up as being what the rest of us refer to as the Universe.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
KOM--
quote:This being so, what is wrong with the phrase "The universe",
Nothing. Though by using it you may be attaching that religious baggage without trying.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
KM--hmm, the Universe is described as everything in reality. You posit that God is everything, and then some.
I'll grant you that, but don't underestimate how much "the Universe" really is.
God is the Infinite, plus.
KOM, I notice you are capitalizing "The Universe." Instead of just the universe--which has a scientific definition, you talk about the Universe, which seems to me to be a word for everything, and then some.
Perhaps (don't shoot the blasphemer), the Universe is the infinite, plus.
My comment about the Universe = God stands corrected. I did not mean to imply there were limits to God. I was just pointing out that for many people God is much much more than some powerful old man sitting in the clouds. Those who limit their definition of God to that have a really small god.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or Darth Mauve may have a different idea of God than I do.
KoM, would you be you, then?
I do not know how much of how I relate to people around me is a function of the fact that I believe that they are all "children" (aqain, do not take this metaphor for reality) of the Divine. I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful. I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
But all of this is hypothetical. I would not be who I am. Just as I would not be who I am if I believed in a cruel, capricious, smaller God.
Added after seeing DM's post: Probably not all that different, then. If one said, "the Universe plus (that plus being Love?) with who one has a relationship" that would be closer than the small, superman-in-the-sky, type god.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, would you be you, then?
I don't see why not. There was a time when I did not make love on a regular basis; was I a different person then? There was a time when my opinions were much more left than they are now; did that make me a different person? I have a continuity of experience with both those younger versions of myself, and identify myself with them. I don't think this is a useful way to approach the problem; actions and anticipated experience are much more easily communicable, and way less dependent on philosophical questions. Nobody has made any real progress on questions of identity for 2500 years; this suggests to me that the problem is either too hard, or not a problem at all; in either case, discussions that depend on such answers are not likely to be fruitful.
quote: I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful.
I do not think this is psychologically realistic. Let's take 'cranky' first; by analogy with myself, I imagine that you experience this as annoyance when people talk to you, and sometimes snap at them in consequence, while most of the time stopping yourself. But I suspect that you do not stop yourself with the thought "That is not very godlike", or indeed any conscious thought at all; rather you just make the decision to snap or not at a subconscious level. I doubt your surface-level beliefs would change this process. However, we have at least reached the level of the empirically verifiable; it would in principle be possible to test whether atheists are more cranky than theists of your kind, with theists of other kinds as a control group.
As for gratitude, this seems very woolly to me. Grateful to whom? If your feeling would, perchance, better be expressed as "Glad to be alive", I don't see why that should change. If on the other hand it is that you occasionally stop up and perhaps pray internally, "God, thank you for creating all this", I can see that stopping, yes. Would you clarify for easier discussion?
Notice that both these 'actions' are internal, states of mind, and that predictions about one's future states of mind are notoriously unreliable.
quote: I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
As an anecdote, I sing fairly often. I do think, though, that the difference between a kmb who sings and one who doesn't is not, as these things go, large. If this is really all that your god-belief causes you to do, I'd have to say it's not a very important belief. Consider the actions your belief that electricity works causes: Every day you flip dozens of switches, expect dinner to be warm, and post on Hatrack. These effects are much larger, IMO, than the ones you report for believing in your god. Is it really so small?
quote:KOM, I notice you are capitalizing "The Universe." Instead of just the universe--which has a scientific definition, you talk about the Universe, which seems to me to be a word for everything, and then some.
My exact words, including capitalisation, were "the phrase "The universe"". Using a capital 't' in 'The' is a grammar point, indicating the start of a new phrase. I have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:God is the Infinite, plus.
That's very fine. What does it mean? Again: What actions would you take if you did not believe this, or how would you expect life to be different? If a belief doesn't imply some sort of difference in your expectations or actions, then it's just words and you might as well be speaking in tongues.
quote:You posit that God is everything, and then some.
I do nothing of the kind and have no idea how you extracted this from my words.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
After a great deal of thought, and reading the subsequent discussion, I think I've come to the conclusion that however much you, KoM, want to have this conversation in terms of actions and expectations, I personally do not find them to be relevant.
You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
Why? Because I feel a deep spiritual need to do so.
I'm not sure if you feel the same need -- you do seem to like the conversation, however fruitless it becomes.
Or, to put it another way -- it's not about the destination, it's about the journey.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful.
I do not think this is psychologically realistic. Let's take 'cranky' first; by analogy with myself, I imagine that you experience this as annoyance when people talk to you, and sometimes snap at them in consequence, while most of the time stopping yourself. But I suspect that you do not stop yourself with the thought "That is not very godlike", or indeed any conscious thought at all; rather you just make the decision to snap or not at a subconscious level. I doubt your surface-level beliefs would change this process. However, we have at least reached the level of the empirically verifiable; it would in principle be possible to test whether atheists are more cranky than theists of your kind, with theists of other kinds as a control group.
What I italicized is almost exactly what I do. I am far nicer to you than I would be if I did not constantly and consciously remind myself that you are a child of God and that God wants me to treat you kindly.
quote:
As for gratitude, this seems very woolly to me. Grateful to whom? If your feeling would, perchance, better be expressed as "Glad to be alive", I don't see why that should change. If on the other hand it is that you occasionally stop up and perhaps pray internally, "God, thank you for creating all this", I can see that stopping, yes. Would you clarify for easier discussion?
Notice that both these 'actions' are internal, states of mind, and that predictions about one's future states of mind are notoriously unreliable.
What I italicized. And not necessarily internally. Sometimes out loud and sometimes expressed as song, or service, or kindness...
quote:
quote:I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
As an anecdote, I sing fairly often. I do think, though, that the difference between a kmb who sings and one who doesn't is not, as these things go, large. If this is really all that your god-belief causes you to do, I'd have to say it's not a very important belief. Consider the actions your belief that electricity works causes: Every day you flip dozens of switches, expect dinner to be warm, and post on Hatrack. These effects are much larger, IMO, than the ones you report for believing in your god. Is it really so small?
KoM, you have no evidence at all for your estimation of how large a difference not singing is to me. Nor did I say or mean to suggest that it would be the only difference.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
I suspect you would not like to have your belief in or ideas about a god characterised as an intellectual game with no real-life consequences. But that seems to be what you are describing. Is your religion really no more connected to action than literary criticism is?
quote:What I italicized is almost exactly what I do. I am far nicer to you than I would be if I did not constantly and consciously remind myself that you are a child of God and that God wants me to treat you kindly.
Well then, bluntly, I do not believe you. Nonetheless, we appear to have found something one might characterise as a belief, to wit, that your god wants something. Would you like to describe the world in which your god wants something else? How would it look different from this one?
quote: Sometimes out loud and sometimes expressed as song, or service, or kindness...
Again, I do not believe you would stop doing the songs, services, or kindnesses.
quote:KoM, you have no evidence at all for your estimation of how large a difference not singing is to me. Nor did I say or mean to suggest that it would be the only difference.
I can only go by what you say. It appears to me, though, that you're having difficulty coming up with any other specific activities you would stop doing. Are you really suggesting that this is a life-changing list, compared to the actions of my hypothetical Mormon alt, which indeed are performed by many of the Mormons on this board?
I also note that nothing stops you singing about other things; people who enjoy singing generally find a way to do so, religious or not.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
I suspect you would not like to have your belief in or ideas about a god characterised as an intellectual game with no real-life consequences. But that seems to be what you are describing. Is your religion really no more connected to action than literary criticism is?
No. But you won't accept any answer I would give you, as evidenced by your treatment of others, so why should I bother? Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe. Anything else, apparently, you probably wouldn't believe anyway.
[ June 22, 2009, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, you can only go by what I say and yet you don't believe what I do say. Yeah. Pretty fruitless conversation. I think I am done indulging you for now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No. But you won't accept any answer I would give you, as evidenced by your treatment of others, so why should I bother?
Because of finding endless philosophical discussion fruitful? Plase notice that already, you have apparently conceded the point you tried to make in your previous post: There, you did not wish to discuss this in terms of action and expectation. Now you apparently agree that this is the proper way to approach the matter, since otherwise your beliefs are detached from actual life; your worry now is that your statements about hypothesized actions would not be believed. Is that not a rather quick overturning of a philosophical point? It follows that you may expect to gain other insights by continuing the discussion.
quote:Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe.
Would you like to clarify the distinction between this, and a need to believe that your security blanket keeps the bogeyman out of the closet?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
KoM -- You are not engaging anyone in a philosophical discussion. You are proselytizing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:
quote:You posit that God is everything, and then some.
I do nothing of the kind and have no idea how you extracted this from my words.
I was referring to KMbboots who was arguing pro-God at this point, not KingofMen who was arguing universe.
And I thought there was a few lines where you capitalized universe. I don't see them now, my error.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: KoM -- You are not engaging anyone in a philosophical discussion. You are proselytizing.
Since your religion apparently consists mainly of discussion of ideas, what is the difference?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: KoM -- You are not engaging anyone in a philosophical discussion. You are proselytizing.
Since your religion apparently consists mainly of discussion of ideas, what is the difference?
Well, in your case the difference is that you don't want to listen, you only want to talk. You twist words and concepts to suit your purpose. You take words out of context and make up context out of words. You are abrasive and attempt to use verbal trickery to make your point. Most of all, you completely disdain and disrespect anyone who does not believe the way you do.
I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
And FYI, I never said that my "religion" consisted mainly of anything, let alone a discussion of ideas. I've been purposefully vague about my spirituality. Once again, you are trying to put words in people's mouths.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
A splendid excuse for being unwilling to actually think and discuss, as opposed to listening to echo chambers which reflect back your own assumptions in ever-so-refined variations.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
A splendid excuse for being unwilling to actually think and discuss, as opposed to listening to echo chambers which reflect back your own assumptions in ever-so-refined variations.
A splendid example of your disdain and disrespect.
You don't know me. Don't judge me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I know what you've shown in this thread; and I take no orders from you.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
No, you don't even know what I've shown in this thread, because you've twisted it to suit your own purposes.
And on that note, I bid you good night.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
May you wake up smarter than you went to bed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: May you wake up smarter than you went to bed.
King of Men post
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
If I can cut through a lot of the hostility that's dogged the last few posts, I do have a question about this:
Kate, a "relationship" implies reciprocity. If the universe were not engaged in a reciprocal relationship with you, how would you tell? What would be different?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe. Anything else, apparently, you probably wouldn't believe anyway.
What specifically is the difference between a "deep spiritual need" and a plain desire? I really enjoy ice cream, but I'm not sure that such enjoyment tells me anything about the ultimate nature of ice cream, other than the fact that it makes me happy to eat it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
If I can cut through a lot of the hostility that's dogged the last few posts, I do have a question about this:
Kate, a "relationship" implies reciprocity. If the universe were not engaged in a reciprocal relationship with you, how would you tell? What would be different?
I don't really know. I do know that what I can control - my response and my interaction - is different.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:May you wake up smarter than you went to bed.
What would be really interesting is if she did wake up smarter than when she went to bed, yet couldn't explain how, and so people refused to believe her and called her irrational.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)