Life and God

[Willum]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

[DrNoGods]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 58 by Kenisaw]

Incorrect. You are the one making a positive assertion that something occurs (beings repeat everything they do). Myself and several others have pointed out that there is no logical reason to think this, and no data or evidence to support your assertion. We do not observe gods, so there is no reason to think they exist, and talking about their characteristics is putting the cart before the horse. You also been given examples, like welding an egg to an anvil, that you cannot show anyone has ever repeated.

Yes, it has assumptions. But your assumption that intelligence doesn't repeat itself is unfounded. You keep trying to weedle between "God is a single being and Joe down the street never went kayaking again," and "Just because humans do it doesn't mean another will."

You, none of you have ever explained 1. Why this isn't a reasonable assumption. 2. Why one should dismiss the assumption.

It is an assumption, that means, you assume it is true to have a conversation.

You ain't smart to dismiss assumptions that are part of the OP.

This OP assumes God.
You need to PROVE otherwise.

Your arguments for this particular strain are also spurious, and pointless to the OP.

Like I told Justin, sure, you're right, the OP is solved. so if you want to keep pointing out that the assumptions of the OP are not well founded, you have to prove, not just say "it doesn't necessarily mean that..." because if you can't say what it actually DOES mean, then all you are saying is, "that's not true, but I have nothing better to say."

Like I told Justin, I GET THE BORING SOLUTION. If you dismiss the assumptions, there is nothing worth talking about. If your goal is that a lack of a conversation is fascinating.

Of course stating the assumptions are wrong has lasted the OP seven pages... Someone is entertained. I still can't convince you I get your arguments, they aren't necessarily right, and the OP assumes that your very boring, possibly correct rationales, aren't correct, so the conversation would have been interesting.

Do I need to say, yes, I get it, again?

[Monta]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

Many with OBE have met beings from other planets/dimensions including the spiritual.

The purpose of life is 'life more abundant' - more than what we see/experience here on earth.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 63 by Monta]

"Be fruitful and multiply."

I agree, so wouldn't that mean we would find life elsewhere in the galaxy?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 59 by Kenisaw]

It would just be good to know what you see, so that it can be discussed. Hopefully you will list "the empirical data and evidence" that "supports it" in your next reply...

I have already explained that I see the the empirical data and evidence presented as having intelligent agency involved as the reason empirical data and evidence exists.

Obviously you do not see it the same way.

Obviously you can't actually list "the empirical data and evidence" that you apparently see, even after a specific request for you to do so. It's kind of hard to discuss particular data points when you won't give us any data points. I hope you can understand the dilemma that creates for a discussion between the two of us.

When you ask for "the empirical data and evidence" that "supports it" the data is no different from the data you already have and is already available.

The difference is in how you choose to interpret the data as to how I choose to interpret the data. For you there is no reason to assign any interaction of intelligent design in relation to the data and for me there is.

Great. I clearly understand that you interpret the data differently than I do. Now if we only knew what data it is you are talking about, we might be able to discuss the data in greater detail. Perhaps in your next post we can begin the analysis of the data...

On that, it is simply a matter of opinion based upon subjective experience -
the interpretation of subjective experience within objective reality.

I'm going to assume you understand why subjective anything is not empirical data and evidence and just move on...

Any list re the empirical data and evidence will be no different from one you could provide, because the data is the same. Only the interpretation of the data is different.

So then there's really nothing holding you back from listing some evidence that you think supports intelligent design followed by a explanation for why that data supports your conclusion, eh?

You see evolution of conscious self aware biological life forms on the planet which happened for no intelligent reason, purpose or instigation through said process.

You've summed my position up very nicely.

I see evolution of conscious self aware biological life forms on the planet which happened because the planet is the form/body of a self conscious highly intelligent creative entity which, in inhabiting the planet as its form is enabled to then create the life forms on the planet and give these forms 'life' through inhabiting those forms - the forms take on the creative intelligent self conscious properties to varying degrees.

OK. After a quick racking of my brain, I cannot think of any data or empirical evidence that I use that could also be used to support your hypothesis. On the contrary, the data points to something completely different than the planet being a self conscious entity, or that there is a creative thing at all for that matter. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in greater detail what data led you to this conclusion...

Now if you are asking for evidence that this is indeed the case, I can only point to the critters on the planet, and the process we call biological evolution. How is one able to point out the planet is inhabited by a self conscious highly intelligent creative entity other than by pointing out the evidence of the product of biological evolution on said planet.

Yeah, that's not really a logical conclusion, is it. Existence doesn't prove source. We both agree the Earth exists, right? Does that prove a god created it? No. Does it prove the Big Bang? No. The only thing the existence of the Earth proves is that the Earth does indeed exist. Using existence as proof doesn't get anybody anywhere, because it doesn't explain how the existence came to be. You need more than that if you are going to be able to show a rationally thought out conclusion for something.

I could point out that one can indeed connect with said self conscious highly intelligent creative planet entity on a personal and subjective level, but those are NOT traditionally areas of science and thus - whilst this can and does provide subjective evidence to the individual experiencing such, for science it cannot produce the empirical evidence required which is why it remains in the domain of theist theory and philosophical speculation and explanation.

Exactly. To sum it up a little more directly, it's off the hip conjecture. Claiming people can connect with an unproven entity on the unverifiable personal and subjective level is speculation. I could say the same thing, and I'd be lying, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two statements. Not much of an empirical foundation you've built for yourself in my opinion.

The existence of consciousness does not prove that it came from other consciousness...

I have not said this. I have stated that from the idea of Panpsychism, there is only one consciousness, not 'another' consciousness. All consciousness is the same thing, and only appears to be different because it divests into forms.

My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

On that, we in human forms, cannot specifically know what it is like to be a planet consciousness but a planet consciousness can indeed specifically know what it is like to be a human consciousness. Those difference are not in themselves evidence that the two aspects of consciousness are thus so different as to be unrelated. Any disconnect is from our side of the experience. We are connected whether we know it or not, whether we accept it or not.

A planet consciousness however can be understood by us through examining its creation/creative abilities and can impart understanding to the individual through interactive relationship. To a certain degree we can imagine what it might be like to be a planetary entity with the ability to create life forms in which to inhabit and experience through while at the same time remaining aware of being the overall consciousness responsible for all that.

But again, such ideas are the domain of theology and philosophy, not science, even that they are based upon the observable universe. It is a fallacy to demand scientific evidence to back up the ideas formed through theology and philosophy, as I think I have clearly conveyed.

♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

I have a much better understanding of your position now. As I see it, and this is just my opinion of course, you've taken a position that involves nothing empirical in nature, but rather a rather generic speculative claim of things unsupportable and testable that have no real value in a scientific discussion. If that satisfies your intellectual curiosity so be it.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 58 by Kenisaw]

Incorrect. You are the one making a positive assertion that something occurs (beings repeat everything they do). Myself and several others have pointed out that there is no logical reason to think this, and no data or evidence to support your assertion. We do not observe gods, so there is no reason to think they exist, and talking about their characteristics is putting the cart before the horse. You also been given examples, like welding an egg to an anvil, that you cannot show anyone has ever repeated.

Yes, it has assumptions. But your assumption that intelligence doesn't repeat itself is unfounded. You keep trying to weedle between "God is a single being and Joe down the street never went kayaking again," and "Just because humans do it doesn't mean another will."

Thanks for the blatant misrepresentation of what I've been saying. To quote myself from post 54: "There's absolutely no logical reason to assume that all beings repeat everything they do because some beings repeat some of the things they do."

I have NEVER said "intelligence doesn't repeat itself". What I've explained, and so have others, is that there is no reason to think that intelligence ALWAYS repeats EVERYTHING it does.

You, none of you have ever explained 1. Why this isn't a reasonable assumption. 2. Why one should dismiss the assumption.

I beg to disagree. We've been telling you for 6 pages now why it isn't reasonable. You haven't provided one rational reason to think your OP assumption is useful. Not one. You just keep telling everyone it's an OP assumption and we should just go with it, which isn't a reason at all.

It is an assumption, that means, you assume it is true to have a conversation.

Or you point out the absurdity of the assumption, which is what people have been doing. I can't think of a single reason to hold a conversation based on an assumption that has no logical support behind it.

You ain't smart to dismiss assumptions that are part of the OP.

I'd be an idiot to accept something that is irrational, just to talk about it with someone. Just because it's in an OP doesn't make it rational, justifiable, or useful.

This OP assumes God.
You need to PROVE otherwise.

This doesn't help your stance, do you not understand that? Assuming a god exists does NOT prove that intelligence repeats everything it does. Fine, we assume a god exists. Does this mean the god has to repeat everything it does? No. There's still absolutely no logical reason to accept your assumption that intelligence repeats itself. It's ridiculous that this has to be explained to you over and over...

Your arguments for this particular strain are also spurious, and pointless to the OP.

I will politely disagree. I find the entire OP pointless to be honest with you, and without standing.

Like I told Justin, sure, you're right, the OP is solved. so if you want to keep pointing out that the assumptions of the OP are not well founded, you have to prove, not just say "it doesn't necessarily mean that..." because if you can't say what it actually DOES mean, then all you are saying is, "that's not true, but I have nothing better to say."

I did prove it. I welded an egg to an anvil. Anyone else do that? Proves that intelligence doesn't always repeat things. Is there any other life in the universe? I don't know of any. That would also prove your OP wrong. Someone created the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone else create the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Than I guess intelligence doesn't repeat itself.

Like I told Justin, I GET THE BORING SOLUTION. If you dismiss the assumptions, there is nothing worth talking about. If your goal is that a lack of a conversation is fascinating.

Hey dude, no one is holding you back from going into the exciting solution. If that's where you wanted to take this, than go ahead. My goal is not a lack of a conversation, it's to stop a conversation that's pointless before it gets going. If you have something exciting to bring up, then by all means get to it...

Of course stating the assumptions are wrong has lasted the OP seven pages... Someone is entertained. I still can't convince you I get your arguments, they aren't necessarily right, and the OP assumes that your very boring, possibly correct rationales, aren't correct, so the conversation would have been interesting.

Do I need to say, yes, I get it, again?

I await the exciting part. I'm sitting on pins and needles over here.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

I have a much better understanding of your position now. As I see it, and this is just my opinion of course, you've taken a position that involves nothing empirical in nature, but rather a rather generic speculative claim of things unsupportable and testable that have no real value in a scientific discussion. If that satisfies your intellectual curiosity so be it.

Regardless, the topic itself is not exclusively scientific in nature. It involves philosophical and theistic ideas as well, so while I appreciate you have your position, complaining that these things have naff all to do with actual science, is besides the point, because science deals with explaining empirical data without the additions of philosophical and theistic ideas, and as such - it is not a great tool at all for arguing against those ideas, and those who attempt to use it in that way erroneous for that.

Life and God


If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

To sum it up a little more directly, it's off the hip conjecture.

No. Subjective experience is not to be conflated with useless information.

Claiming people can connect with an unproven entity on the unverifiable personal and subjective level is speculation.

If it were a scientific claim, sure, but it is not.

I could say the same thing, and I'd be lying, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two statements.

Regardless. You know you would be lying, from your subjective experience, and I know that I am not, through my subjective experience.

Not much of an empirical foundation you've built for yourself in my opinion.

Not in relation to being useful for science, but useful for me within the context of my subjective experience in relation to what science is able to so far show me re empirical evidence.

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

OK. After a quick racking of my brain, I cannot think of any data or empirical evidence that I use that could also be used to support your hypothesis. On the contrary, the data points to something completely different than the planet being a self conscious entity, or that there is a creative thing at all for that matter. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in greater detail what data led you to this conclusion...

It would be far more appropriate for you to show me why the data points to something completely different than the planet being host to a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity. I am sure that you cannot show this to be the case, and am willing to change my position if indeed you actually can.

[Neatras]

Just popping in to remind everyone this is the science sub-forum.

Anyone saying their ideas have "naff-all to do with science" need only move their speculative rhetoric to an appropriate sub-forum, or start using more science in their ideas.

[William]

Just popping in to remind everyone this is the science sub-forum.

Anyone saying their ideas have "naff-all to do with science" need only move their speculative rhetoric to an appropriate sub-forum, or start using more science in their ideas.

Perhaps it needs to be brought to the attention of the mods then, that the thread is in the incorrect forum.



Apart from that, my comments re science are appropriate within the context of the forum. As far as I can see, no one has stated that their own ideas have "naff all to do with science."

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

That's a fact, Jack.

eta - just popping back in to say you are actually incorrect. It is not a 'science forum' as you claim. perhaps no need for mod action after all as it is a "Science AND Religion" forum.

Post all debate topics in regards to Science and Religion here. When you create a new topic, have a clear and specific question to debate. The more specific your topic, the better. Do not create a topic like, "Creationism vs Evolutionism," because each of these areas has many issues. Instead, choose a topic that is more focused (such as "Plate Tectonics" or "Radiometric Dating," or "The Global Flood").

This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

I have a much better understanding of your position now. As I see it, and this is just my opinion of course, you've taken a position that involves nothing empirical in nature, but rather a rather generic speculative claim of things unsupportable and testable that have no real value in a scientific discussion. If that satisfies your intellectual curiosity so be it.

Regardless, the topic itself is not exclusively scientific in nature. It involves philosophical and theistic ideas as well, so while I appreciate you have your position, complaining that these things have naff all to do with actual science, is besides the point, because science deals with explaining empirical data without the additions of philosophical and theistic ideas, and as such - it is not a great tool at all for arguing against those ideas, and those who attempt to use it in that way erroneous for that.

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method. That it may ALSO have philosophical and theistic ideas as well does not remove the scientific testability of the claim. Science is THE perfect tool for examining your claim to determine it's plausibility. The reason you don't like that is because science takes your claim and throws it in the dumpster pretty fast. I think you make the mistake of thinking that philosophical and theistic ideas aren't testable by the scientific method, and they are completely exclusive of each other. This is completely erroneous.

Life and God


If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

To sum it up a little more directly, it's off the hip conjecture.

No. Subjective experience is not to be conflated with useless information.

In terms of making an empirical argument, subjective experience is absolutely useless. Plain and simple, any person making a claim could be lying. It's not verifiable. It cannot be used as validation for any claim. The human brain is notoriously unreliable at accurate representations of actual reality. The classic example is the "thief" that runs into a classroom and steals something off the teachers desk, and all the students are asked to describe the perp. The variation in description is staggering. Human eyes have all kinds of known issues that causes gaps in the information being received that the brain just fills in based on previous experience (see the show Brain Games, they do a great job of explaining that stuff).

Subjective experience is useless for data points to support claims such as the conscious planet one.

Claiming people can connect with an unproven entity on the unverifiable personal and subjective level is speculation.

If it were a scientific claim, sure, but it is not.

It is a scientific claim, because it can be tested scientifically.

I could say the same thing, and I'd be lying, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two statements.

Regardless. You know you would be lying, from your subjective experience, and I know that I am not, through my subjective experience.

Or your brain made it up, based on previous expectations and experience. Or you remembered incorrectly, because human memories change over time. Like I said in an earlier post, if it fulfills your intellectual curiosity, so be it. But I will not let the claim that it is a real thing go unchecked at this website.

Not much of an empirical foundation you've built for yourself in my opinion.

Not in relation to being useful for science, but useful for me within the context of my subjective experience in relation to what science is able to so far show me re empirical evidence.

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

Not true in the least. There is no scientific support for your statement. Science has a great deal to say on it. That it is useful for you is fine, but it is unsupported conjecture as far as scientific knowledge and research has discovered.

OK. After a quick racking of my brain, I cannot think of any data or empirical evidence that I use that could also be used to support your hypothesis. On the contrary, the data points to something completely different than the planet being a self conscious entity, or that there is a creative thing at all for that matter. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in greater detail what data led you to this conclusion...

It would be far more appropriate for you to show me why the data points to something completely different than the planet being host to a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity. I am sure that you cannot show this to be the case, and am willing to change my position if indeed you actually can.

Nice try, but you don't get to shift the burden of proof here. You are the one claiming the planet is a conscious thing. I can't think of any data or empirical evidence that shows this, and apparently you can not provide anything either (let's be honest - if you had something, you would have already posted it). So if no empirical information exists for your claim, and the only thing we have to go on is your personal experience, then the only rational conclusion to reach is that your claim is not even remotely plausible.