Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Depends on what you mean by those terms, suffice to say supernatural AND natural origin of life cannot both be false.

Ok, so you agree that the truth value of one necessarily negates the truth value of the other, correct?

If I have to give a yes/no answer, I would say yes, abiogenesis and God's existence can both be false: Panspermia is the third alternative.

Panspermia and abiogenesis are the same thing, brethren. The origin of life on/in another universe would be the abiogenesis of that universe. All you are doing is placing the origin of life problem in another universe.

Which would be equivalent to having the aids in Canada, and thinking that if you go to China, you won't have aids there, too.

You are just taking the problem with you.

That's the problem right there, they are not the same thing under the typical understanding of abiogenesis, the term exclude panspermia, considered an natural alternative to abiogenesis.

Ok, so according to panspermia, did life not originate naturally from nonliving material...yes or no?? Simple yes or no.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 37 by Kenisaw]

Will, it is critical if this conversation is going to move forward that you understand and accept two important things:

I don't believe any conversation between you and I (and our subsequent positions, obviously) are ever going to 'move forward' Ken. Indeed I have stated more than once that we simply go around in circular argument.
I think what you probably mean is that 'in order for this conversation to veer toward your objective (which is for me to agree only with your position and convert to that) I am 'going to have to accept' two important (to you) things.

Please do not deem to speak for me or pretend to find some hidden meaning in what I've written to you. I choose my words carefully so that I can communicate my thoughts as accurately as possible. If you have trouble understanding them, then please ask me to restate, because what you wrote above isn't an accurate portrayal of the words I wrote...

1) There is no data or evidence, and no good logical reason, to assume that this universe is created (meaning purposefully brought into existence). You really need to let that go. You are making a claim that cannot be justified, yet you use it as a pillar of your arguments.

You mean scientific evidence Ken? Is there really any point in reminding you again of the difference between philosophical insight and scientific evidence? I don't think that there is. Like I said already Ken;

No point at all. One is evidence, the other is not. That's as straightforward as it gets. As I've pointed out before, you have yet to justify your philosophy.

You are most comfortable inclining towards science alone and leaving the 'we don't know' to itself. Personally I have absolutely no problems with anyone assuming such position. For me though it is akin to leaving the imagination basically inert, which fells very unnatural at that. I enjoy the philosophical idea of assuming a creator being and working things out from that perspective - while incorporating science into that.

Right, you incorporate science into it...AFTER you assume a creator being. Because if you started with science first the assumed creator being wouldn't last two seconds in a rational analysis. So you are a creationist then. You assume a being, and then try to use science to cram it into the rest of the universe.

It is important to note though that the universe, as the saying goes, is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Why is that 'important to note'?

Because it appears to me that some people in the world can't handle that, so they create artificial coping mechanisms to help their mind avoid the reality of things. It's not really a pursuit of knowledge so much as it is a pursuit of comfort.

Despite the valid logic that argues against eternal things, it could still be possible that an eternal thing (be it a universe, creator god, or anything else) can exist and can reach a point in its existence where this particular universe could begin. How that could be I don't know, but we can't rule it out, and we reason why we can't rule it out is because we have no idea about things pre-Big Bang. That void in our knowledge makes it impossible to rule anything out, even if it is not logical to humans at this time.

Yes. So it stays on the table.

Not being able to rule it out isn't reason enough to keep it "on the table". Give me a better reason than that if you can.

No, I am consistently applying the same logic to everything labeled "eternal".

Then you have ignored my own explanation as to the differences between the created and the non created creator.

There is no difference, as I have already explained. The argument against an eternal thing is the same, regardless of what that thing is. Posts 32 and 37 both contain the breakdown of this.

No, a creator being that has always existed cannot reach a point in it's existence where it gets around to creating a universe.

Lets see your explanation then...

Post 32 AND post 37 contain the explanation you ask for. If I need to explain it differently or better, please let me know.

If a creator being has always existed, it would have to have an infinite amount of existence before it reaches the moment that it creates the universe.

Why would you think that?

I followed the logic. Some X has always existed. That same X, at some point in it's existence, created the universe. In order for that X to get to that point, it has to have an infinite amount of existence first. If it has to go through an infinite amount of existence first, it can never reach the moment in it's existence where it created a universe. That's the dilemma of something that has always existed. It cannot have always existed, and then done something in the middle of that existence. There is no middle to infinity.

It could never get to that moment of its existence because of the infinite existing it would have to do before then.

You are speaking in terms of time, and apparently linear at that. Obviously such a thing only comes into play when there is a beginning Ken.

When there is no beginning, then being eternal is not subject to those notions of time in which something which has a beginning is subject to.

You are adding things in that were not a part of my explanation. I have never mentioned time. I have only mentioned existence. How does something exist for infinity and reach the point where it creates universes? You've done the philosophy on that apparently, explain it to me if you don't mind.

A creator entity who has never had a beginning can indeed create at any point in Its existence. The reason for that is that the 'any point' isn't about time. It is about an action of creation.

Cool. So explain how an always existing creator can reach the part of its existence where it can create stuff. It's about an action of creation you state. So how far along in it's infinite existence does it take this action?

The potential to create this universe has always existed.

Explain to me why I should think this is true.

The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized at some point. Not a point in 'time' just at the point of doing so.

So how did the infinite critter get to that point?

It could never get to that moment of its existence because of the infinite existing it would have to do before then. It's no different than an always existing universe reaching the point just before the Big Bang.

This is where you conflate the two ideas.

Consciousness as something which has always existed, does not have the same properties as the physical universe. The physical is created within the mind of the creator (as per my theology) and in that, (from the perspective of being within the universe) it appears to have come from nowhere - based on the data we have which we gathered well after the BB event.

But what is your logic that consciousness has always existed? You've not provided an argument supporting that conclusion. If you want to use that as a starting point then you've failed, because as a premise it cannot be supported by anything outside of complete speculation. You haven't made a sound argument.

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-argument-b ... e-opinions

It also needs to be noted that the BB does not claim that the universe "appears to have came from nowhere". This is scientifically inaccurate, and as a false statement doesn't belong in a philosophical argument.

One can argue that the whole universe was a thought the creator had and just from that thought, it 'began' and unfolded and dissipated all within the blink of an eye - so to speak.
In other words, it 'already happened' and we are simply experiencing it in 'real time' as it were. We are the aspect of GOD consciousness which went into Its creation to experience it - not simply as a momentary blink of an eye thought - but as something to experience in absolute detail. A product of that thought.

I don't see how one could argue that. You've given opinions that a creator exists, that it has thoughts that make things happen, and that this universe is a result of such a thought. All arguments based on pure opinion, which means they are not sound and therefore not valid.

This type of process could be going on in countless variety of other thoughts of the creator, each one bringing forth a universe which can be explored in every conceivable detail within the leisurely confines of their own 'space-times'.

Coulda Whoulda Shoulda. Not a very sound basis for an argument.

Now of course, I take liberties in being very extreme in relation to a type of process, but do so to at least get the gist of the capabilities of mind and creativity of First Source by taking all the infinite potential universes and having each and every one of them simultaneously begin (come into being) and in that one splendid moment of infinity, all potential becomes real as an infinite process which has always been going on and will always go on - in an eternal moment, as it were.

Point being, we cannot simply say the universe came from nowhere and neither can we assume that just because this universe had a beginning does not mean it wasn't created.

No, we cannot assume it wasn't created. That is not a reason to think it is even remotely plausible that it was.

Now can you explain to me wherein the above philosophical insight, science has any part to play? Certainly it is not in stating that the philosophy is not sound and logical enough.

To comment on your second sentence first, your philosophy is completely unsound and illogical. You have opinions, based on nothing more than your imagination. That is not a rational basis for your claims.

As for the first sentence, science can play a part. Anything that happens in this universe can be examined by science. If you think the physical (our brains) can react with this creator consciousness, then science can examine that claim because science can study the physical and it's interactions. Theists seem to think that their claims of a creator being makes the actions of that being untestable, which is nonsense. If it interacts with the universe (and that's all creator beings ever seem to do is interact with the universe), then you have testable evidence as a result of those interactions. Amazingly though none of the data ever seems to support such claims...

The part science plays is in investigating the reality this universe offers to the consciousnesses experiencing it from inside of it.

And since the consciousness is inside it, it can be investigated too.

That is where science must always stay. It is pointless and remiss for anyone to try and use science to dismiss sound logical physiological ideas about how the the universe may well have come into existence. Conflating can only result from such a practice, as has been evident in your replies so far.

This is not the first time you have deemed to limit what science will and will not be able to do. Truly fascinating to me that anyone thinks they know the limit of scientific investigation, especially when they believe in limitless other things (albeit an unsound belief)...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 38 by Kenisaw]

I agree with most of this, although I would state that I don't think it is possible to say that science can never do anything in due time.

'Due time' may be relative to various situations. It may be that there is the generally known science and then there is privately funded science which might even be ahead in terms of knowledge.

Sounds like speculation of a conspiratorial slant to me. Unless there is something specific you wanted to discuss, I fail to see the point of your paragraph.

But from what I gather of the nature of this universe, species related science will be varied depending on the evolutionary position of each particular species - which is also what prompted me to start this thread in the members chat forum;
The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally
The explanation which involves science rather than magic

As long as there is consciousness within this universe, science will naturally accompany that and logical conclusions related to this will be drawn ahead of time.

"Species related science" that varies on the evolutionary "position" of each species...You lost me again I'm afraid.

As long as there is a way to investigate it, science can test it. One day we may be able to test and verify theories about how the maze started and where it came from. We certainly can't do that now of course, but I would not deem to totally exclude that possibility from occurring in the future.

It may have already been accomplished by a more ancient species even.

Interesting speculation, which is still nothing more than speculation...

The only reason science favors the Big Bang is because that theory explains the data and evidence the best. If it didn't offer the best explanation, it would not be favored. To be honest, I think once someone figures out how quantum mechanics, relativity, and gravity go together, the BB will be replaced by a new theory.

If that is to be the case, it would have to involve something other than it is the evidence of the universes beginning.

The new theory would still explain the start of the universe, but it would do so at the levels of both QM and relativity...

And that is your right to do that. The problem from my perspective is that you are building something with a foundation that is purely speculative. I don't see that as an efficient use of resources or time.

Well that is simply a judgment call on your part. What would YOU have me do with my time and why would that be any better than what i already do with my time and how can you make such a call when you do not even know what it is that I do with my time?

All I can go off of is what you do with your time as it relates to the conjecture that you try to pass off as sound philosophical conclusions at this website. I don't think some wandering person on the internet who takes the time to read things at this website is going to get anything useful out of the guesswork and speculation found in this thread.

All you are really doing there is implying that to bother thinking in philosophical terms is a waste of anyone's time.

Not at all. Thinking in philosophical terms is fine, as long as you follow the rules in doing so. I don't agree that you've thought about things in philosophical terms. You've assumed total speculation as valid starting points, which is philosophically unsound.

A judgmental opinion rather than anything substantially relevant.

Even philosophy starts off with facts. You haven't started your entire Christian-like theology with facts. You've started it with conjecture, and went from there.

To me the effort is only worth it if I know I have something to build off of.

Would the world be a far better place if everyone was like you then?

Absolutely. Thinking rationally and logically is what got us out of the caves and into modern times. Imagine how far we'd be if everyone was doing that...

What say when you die, you discover you aren't dead at all but just in another type of reality experience? Will you kick yourself for believing there was no such possibility because you believed that you were just a product of a brain? Will you wonder then as to the validity of building off of only that which you could use in regard to this present experience alone?

I'd ask you something similar, except there's no point to it because you will be dead and will cease to exist for the rest of time, and won't be able to wax philosophically about anything anymore.

Please understand that I agree that it is my problem.

Please understand that i don't see why it has to be a problem at all. your's or anyone else's.

Which is why I continued to write the rest of that paragraph, which you have quoted below this sentence...

A lot of people read these threads as "visitors" to this website, which means there could be people out there who are unsure about various things, looking for information and views. So my effort is just as much to help them see a scientific point of view and why I think it is a more logical starting point compared to theistic ones.

Whereas I don't see the problem in incorporating both positions into a singular idea. I don't want people thinking either/or as if there were an actual competition going on, as that is the completely wrong way to approach the complexity of our collective reality.

There's no point in taking sound scientific points of view and adding conjecture into the mix, especially when that conjecture was reached as a result of unsound philosophy. It's a blatant contradiction to mesh two opposite things together in that way.

I sincerely believe the more logical and rational people are, the better off the human race is. Religions and theisms are not logical and rational, and I think people are better off without them.

Thus you are combative in your approach and general mannerisms. Some will be attracted to that, others repulsed. Me, it has no affect either way, and those are the kinds of people my approach will be attracted to.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make me combative. That I take the time to give detailed explanations and discuss the nuances in various topics might not be enjoyable by the person on the other end, but I have yet to see someone claim they were forced into these discussions.

I'll present my side as I find necessary, and each individual can reach their conclusions as they personally see fit.

I fail to see any threat you perceive in my particular theology. Certainly it appears to be that you see a threat because your approach seems to paint all theologies with the same brush.

Irrational thinking is a threat to everyone. We all live on the same planet, we all suffer the consequences of bad philosophy and poor logic. All the climate change deniers are going to be under the same water as those that are proponents of it.

All theologies are devoid of logic, evidence, and data. All of them. Anyone that feels otherwise is welcome to take up the gauntlet and show me otherwise...

Your way of thinking may very well be expanded, but that doesn't make it worthwhile, accurate, or plausible. Please don't think, by the way, that because I don't agree with your theism that equates to the idea that I haven't thought about it, or explored it in any way. I don't find fault in things because they don't agree with my worldview, I find fault in them because I've examined them and found them to be faulty.

By all means, if you find fault in my theology, do point it out.

Already done in the post before this one.

Sure it is limited. The physical environment of the brain is what limits it. There's no reason to think consciousness is not tied to the physical.

Indeed, for the duration of one's life-time, this is largely the case. Brains may look the same, but like everything in this universe, they are all unique. However, we are not necessarily bound to the physical in that we are unable to experience other types of realities. These types of experiences are regarded by many to be precursors to what is generically referred to as 'afterlife'.
While the limitation of consciousness in relation to its direct environment (in our case, the human instrument) is a major factor, consciousness can and does find ways around such limitations. This involves WILL, which is a fundamental element of consciousness. A handy tool when used correctly.

DNA are all unique too, but that doesn't mean they aren't DNA. Again, there is zero evidence that consciousness exists outside the human brain. You haven't provided any empirical data to the contrary, and we both know you won't either.

I'm sorry Will, but that is just pure nonsense. In 2011 alone there were 25,000 papers published with the word "neuron" in the title. If you include "neural" or "neuronal" or "brain" that number triples to 75,000. If just 13% of those were related to the working of the brain, that makes 10,000 different research papers being published for review and critique. "Woefully lacking in scientific data"? That's a ludicrous statement.

What I said was;

Woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

If you are now claiming that all these papers do in fact show without shadow of a doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe, then I stand corrected.

Otherwise, my statement stands.

You stand corrected then my friend. None of those papers makes any claim that consciousness could possibly exist outside the brain. If a scientific paper said that every religion that believes in souls would have plastered that all over billboards the world over. Seen any billboards to that affect lately? I didn't think so. There's a mountain of data and none of it supports your speculation.

There is no research or study that has yet to support your theology of some kind of super consciousness that human brains tap into. If there was you would have already put it in your member notes.

What none of these papers finds from the data and evidence is that conscious exists separately from the brain, as you like to claim. There is no support for such conjecture.

There it is then you see. Those papers don't say any such thing. The reason for this has already been mentioned numerous times. You are conflating science with philosophical conjecture. You are expect the reader to side with scientific conclusions which naturally enough exclude philosophical conjecture as part of scientific studies, BECAUSE scientific method is simply UNABLE to go there.

You are conflating philosophy with speculative opinion. Even philosophy starts with facts. Your theology doesn't start with facts, therefore it is not based on the philosophy part, just the conjecture part.

If there was any data, any empirical evidence, any reason at all to look into a creator conscious existing and being responsible for human consciousness, they'd be doing it. The fact that they aren't is a testimony to what the facts show.

There is no known scientific way of measuring philosophical conjecture, but this does not equate to philosophical conjecture being irrelevant! Except obviously to you and those of your ilk.

Show me a sound philosophical argument that cannot be tested scientifically.

Thus my statement stands, and for good measure, I will quote it again.

As far as the brain and consciousness goes, we are woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

Thus, the notion (that consciousness is NOT emergent of the brain) is still very much on the table.

Nonsense, for reasons already explained ad naseum.

That we have just scratched the surface of brain research doesn't make it logical to insert a god of the gaps style negative evidence claim that consciousness is not tied to the brain. Instead of focusing on a supposed woeful lack of evidence that removes all doubt, you might want to focus on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of data that supports consciousness as a stand alone thing outside the physical body.

Only...well... your claim that there is a "COMPLETE ABSENCE of data that supports consciousness as a stand alone thing outside the physical body" is only applicable to scientific method, which involves itself primarily with objectively testable measuring.

In reality many individuals have and continue to have subjective experience which they consider to be DATA and just as relevant as any scientific based data, and no amount of criticism will have any affect on their knowing what they have experienced is REAL.

We've been over this. Personal experience is not data. It's been proven that the mind tends to categorize things based on expectation, not reality. It's been proven that memories change over time. It's been proven that stressful situations lead to inaccurate memories. It's been proven people lie.

If there was any substantiation to your theology, you could provide evidence of such, or at least make a sound philosophical argument. You've done neither to this point. I'm sorry to say I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Not even accusations of mental illness, or advice on seeing doctors and taking pills or being belittled in forums etc et al is ever going to convince them that their experiences are just 'products of the brain'.

And it isn't evidence of a super conscious living in the Earth, either.

Sorry mate, it just isn't going to happen. And certainly if I have any task to fulfill, it is to give the reader the opportunity to learn to understand why such things happen to them which don't involve hand-waving away their subjective experiences as mere brain induced delusions which they need to seek 'professional help' for. I wouldn't want that on my rap-sheet carrying over into any afterlife experience.

And it is my task to inform them of the reality of the limits of human brains and sensory systems, and to point out irrational mumbo-jumbo when it shows up.

All said and done, scientist should stick to saying what they observe and leaving out their personal interpretations of what they think the observations must actually have to be.

Right. It's only their "personal interpretations" when it disagrees with your bad theology, eh? Scientists follow the data to the most rational conclusion, based on the scientific method, not because of what they thing the observations "have to be". It's a shame you need to insult so many hard working people just because their research doesn't lend credence to your improperly applied philosophy.

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by Kenisaw]

You are adding things in that were not a part of my explanation. I have never mentioned time.

You may not be using the word 'time' but you are using argument which infers the passage of time, Ken.

So explain how an always existing creator can reach the part of its existence where it can create stuff. It's about an action of creation you state. So how far along in it's infinite existence does it take this action?

'How far along' infers time Ken. It infers the passage of time.

The potential to create this universe has always existed.

Explain to me why I should think this is true.

I have already explained the process. It matters not to me whether you are prepared to think it is true or not. It is logical.

The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized at some point. Not a point in 'time' just at the point of doing so.

So how did the infinite critter get to that point?

Through the process of doing so Ken.

But what is your logic that consciousness has always existed? You've not provided an argument supporting that conclusion. If you want to use that as a starting point then you've failed, because as a premise it cannot be supported by anything outside of complete speculation. You haven't made a sound argument.

I certainly have made a logical argument Ken. In doing so the argument also logically debunks infinite regress. As well as this, it also explains the intelligent nature of biological evolution.

It also needs to be noted that the BB does not claim that the universe "appears to have came from nowhere". This is scientifically inaccurate, and as a false statement doesn't belong in a philosophical argument.

I am not making that argument. I am making the argument that all is in the mind of 'GOD'. All that exists, does so, because of this. That is a philosophical argument.

Show me where that argument is 'scientifically inaccurate' Ken. I understand that you are unable to do so, because the scientific method can only go so far and the rest is up to philosophy to provide the most logical answers which science cannot test because those logical answers are outside the parameters of what science is able to test. This does not make the logical answers therefore false.

Your insistence on being shown the logical through scientific verification is thus illogical - a false insistence that has no place in philosophy, or for that matter, simple truth.

I don't see how one could argue that. You've given opinions that a creator exists, that it has thoughts that make things happen, and that this universe is a result of such a thought. All arguments based on pure opinion, which means they are not sound and therefore not valid.

If you can show me that my arguments are illogical, then I can drop them. Otherwise they are not just 'based on pure opinion' Ken. They are based on thoughtful logic.

No, we cannot assume it wasn't created.

Exactly.

That is not a reason to think it is even remotely plausible that it was.

Now that is an opinion we do not share Ken. I see the plausible and you do not. Certainly science isn't showing us anything which can be assumed by anyone that it wasn't created, so your opinion here is obviously based in something else, other than science.

To comment on your second sentence first, your philosophy is completely unsound and illogical. You have opinions, based on nothing more than your imagination. That is not a rational basis for your claims.

I have given plenty of rational base for my theology. You do me an injustice to imply to the reader otherwise.

As for the first sentence, science can play a part. Anything that happens in this universe can be examined by science. If you think the physical (our brains) can react with this creator consciousness, then science can examine that claim because science can study the physical and it's interactions.

Certainly science should be able to do so Ken. However, science is owned and operated by scientists and those who invest money into projects in the hope that they will be able to make more money from that investment Ken.

There is no need for anyone to ask how investors can profit from having such information widely known. None that I can think of anyway.

However, any individual scientist can indeed make the effort to investigate this possibility and find out for themselves.

You are a scientist are you not? How would you go about setting up the necessary equipment in order to examine this idea more fully?
Your answer to that question will show the reader just how serious or not you are about your assertions there.

The part science plays is in investigating the reality this universe offers to the consciousnesses experiencing it from inside of it.

And since the consciousness is inside it, it can be investigated too.

Ah but as you should know, it is a hard problem Ken. Science - as a method - appears to be very limited in that regard.
Philosophy is more adaptable. The panpsychist view is one step closer to that, and the panentheist view one step beyond that again.

The idea that everything from spoons to stones are conscious is gaining academic credibility

This is not the first time you have deemed to limit what science will and will not be able to do. Truly fascinating to me that anyone thinks they know the limit of scientific investigation, especially when they believe in limitless other things (albeit an unsound belief)...

It is the nature of consciousness which limits what science can do to investigate it Ken, but by all means, if you have any idea of ways of overcoming this problem, I certainly am prepared to acknowledge I have therefore been mistaken about that.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so you agree that the truth value of one necessarily negates the truth value of the other, correct?

Correct. Natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive.

Panspermia and abiogenesis are the same thing, brethren.

Incorrect.

The origin of life on/in another universe would be the abiogenesis of that universe. All you are doing is placing the origin of life problem in another universe.

That's some deep misconception you have there: The origin of life on/in another planet would not be the "abiogenesis" of Earth and hence a different term "panspermia." All I am doing is placing the origin of life problem on another planet.

Which would be equivalent to having the aids in Canada, and thinking that if you go to China, you won't have aids there, too.

No one rational would come to that conclusion. Aids is not defined by physical location. An appropriate equivalent would be something like being born and raised Canadian, while in Canada I am a "local," if I go to China, I won't be a local but a "foreigner."

Ok, so according to panspermia, did life not originate naturally from nonliving material...yes or no?? Simple yes or no.

Yes.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Panspermia and abiogenesis are the same thing, brethren.

Incorrect.

Then please tell me what is the intrinsic difference.

That's some deep misconception you have there: The origin of life on/in another planet would not be the "abiogenesis" of Earth and hence a different term "panspermia." All I am doing is placing the origin of life problem on another planet.

Bruh, this is about the best example of splitting hairs that one can give^. A text book example, actually LOL.

And then you have the nerve to call it a "deep misconception" LMAO!!

So, the origin of life concept, we call it "abiogenesis". Oh, but the origin of life on a different planet, galaxy, universe; oh, we will call it "panspermia"...despite the fact that both concepts would in fact be described/bound by natural law.

Ok, how about this...you pick your favorite planet, galaxy, and/or universe, and I will bring my origin of life concept to that place, and we can have the discussion there.

No one rational would come to that conclusion. Aids is not defined by physical location.

Tell that to Ryan White..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White#Death

"Hey Ryan, I guess you don't have aids..because aids is not defined by physical location". (yet it was inside his physical body). SMH.

An appropriate equivalent would be something like being born and raised Canadian, while in Canada I am a "local," if I go to China, I won't be a local but a "foreigner."

I don't see how your analogy works..but I do see how mines worked.

Ok, so according to panspermia, did life not originate naturally from nonliving material...yes or no?? Simple yes or no.

Yes.

Then it is abiogenesis at a different address.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 106 by For_The_Kingdom]

Then it is abiogenesis at a different address.

Panspermia is not at all the same as abiogenesis. Just read their definitions. The Wikipedia article on panspermia defines it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

and the last sentence of the second paragraph is this (underline mine):

"Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."

Evolution describes how life diversified on this planet once it appeared, but it has no dependence whatsoever on HOW life originated. Abiogenesis is an origin-of-life mechanism, while evolution and panspermia are not.

If life forms were transported to Earth via some mechanism (asteroids, comets, space debris, etc.), and that was the source for the first life forms on Earth, then it would follow that panspermia was an explanation for the origin of life on Earth. But it is not a mechanism for life from nonlife, as abiogenesis is. Panspermia is perfectly consistent with an abiogenesis event on some far away body being the source of a life form.

None of this depends on the presence or absence of any god. If life originated on planet Earth via the act of a god (creation), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life were transported to Earth from elsewhere (panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life arose from an abiogenesis event on Earth (or elsewhere, then transported to Earth ... ie. panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. Your continued insistence that evolution is somehow dependent on HOW life arose is simply wrong ... it is not.

[Bust Nak]

Then please tell me what is the intrinsic difference.

One is limited to Earth, the other anywhere else but Earth.

Bruh, this is about the best example of splitting hairs that one can give^. A text book example, actually LOL.

And then you have the nerve to call it a "deep misconception" LMAO!!

You think pointing out the difference between "universe" and "planet" is splitting hairs? Of course I have the nerve to call that a misconception. Who wouldn't?

So, the origin of life concept, we call it "abiogenesis". Oh, but the origin of life on a different planet, galaxy, universe; oh, we will call it "panspermia"...despite the fact that both concepts would in fact be described/bound by natural law.

Not quite the origin of life concept is call it "abiogenesis" when it is on Earth, otherwise it is called "panspermia." Both are indeed bound by natural law. As such it makes no sense to talk about different "universes."

Ok, how about this...you pick your favorite planet, galaxy, and/or universe, and I will bring my origin of life concept to that place, and we can have the discussion there.

I pick Earth, Milky War.

Tell that to Ryan White..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White#Death

"Hey Ryan, I guess you don't have aids..because aids is not defined by physical location". (yet it was inside his physical body).

You are talking to yourself. Again no one rational would come to that conclusion. You know full well by physical location I was referring to Canada vs China.

I don't see how your analogy works..but I do see how mines worked.

Hence the charge of misconecption.

Then it is abiogenesis at a different address.

Would you call a Canadian tourist visiting China a local at a different address?

[For_The_Kingdom]

One is limited to Earth, the other anywhere else but Earth.

"The Mona Lisa painting requires an intelligent designer on Earth, but on Mars, it doesn't require an intelligent designer" (it could have formed naturally on Mars).

That is literally the same logic being used here.

You think pointing out the difference between "universe" and "planet" is splitting hairs? Of course I have the nerve to call that a misconception. Who wouldn't?

Disingenuous. Obviously there is a difference between a "universe" and a "planet"...but 2+2=4 regardless of what universe you are in or what planet you are on.

And in the same way, life from nonlife (originating naturally) rears the same ugly head, regardless of what natural realm it is originating from and/or in.

That is the point, and of course you know full well the point..you are just in a tight spot with the whole origin of life /abiogenesis thing...and being in tight spots can be difficult to get out of..right?

Not quite the origin of life concept is call it "abiogenesis" when it is on Earth, otherwise it is called "panspermia." Both are indeed bound by natural law. As such it makes no sense to talk about different "universes."

"If you catch HPV in China, it is called "herpes", but if you catch HPV in Brazil, it is 'warts'". You can change the name, but you can't change the concept, because the concept is what it is, regardless of where it is. You don't stop having the virus in China just because you caught it in Brazil.

The origin of life problem doesn't stop being a problem for naturalists just because they decide to move the problem to another planet/universe.

Ok, you believe that life originated in another universe and/or planet? Ok, can you scientifically prove it? Nope. What a coincidence, because you can't scientifically prove that sentient life can originate from nonliving material on this planet, either.

But of course you understand this..you are just having some disingenuous fun with it, of which I am reluctantly entertaining.

I pick Earth, Milky War.

Right, and we call it "abiogenesis" here. LOL.

You are talking to yourself. Again no one rational would come to that conclusion. You know full well by physical location I was referring to Canada vs China.

The concept is the same, though. The same thing applies to both locations.

Hence the charge of misconecption.

Sure, hence the false charge..

Would you call a Canadian tourist visiting China a local at a different address?

The tourist would be a local of planet Earth, wouldn't he?

[Bust Nak]

"The Mona Lisa painting requires an intelligent designer on Earth, but on Mars, it doesn't require an intelligent designer" (it could have formed naturally on Mars).

That is literally the same logic being used here.

Incorrect. The logic being used has already been provided: being born and raised Canadian, while in Canada I am a "local," if I go to China, I am a "foreigner."

Disingenuous. Obviously there is a difference between a "universe" and a "planet"...but 2+2=4 regardless of what universe you are in or what planet you are on.

Who has ever questioned anything remotely resembling that?

And in the same way, life from nonlife (originating naturally) rears the same ugly head, regardless of what natural realm it is originating from and/or in.

Right, but when it is on Earth it's called abiogenesis, any where else it's called panspermia. Just like a Canadian in Canada is a local but a Canadian in China is foreign. The guy is still a Canadian, the concept hasn't changed, but there is a different term depending on where he is.

That is the point, and of course you know full well the point..

No, the point is, you keep using the wrong term and ignoring the corrections.

you are just in a tight spot with the whole origin of life /abiogenesis thing...and being in tight spots can be difficult to get out of..right?

Why would that be considered a tight spot?!

"If you catch HPV in China, it is called "herpes", but if you catch HPV in Brazil, it is 'warts'". You can change the name...

Now you are getting it. Use the right name, depending on whether you are talking about China or Brazil.

but you can't change the concept, because the concept is what it is, regardless of where it is. You don't stop having the virus in China just because you caught it in Brazil.

No one is trying to change the concept. Just trying to get you to use the correct term.

Ok, you believe that life originated in another universe and/or planet?

No, I don't believe that at all.

Right, and we call it "abiogenesis" here. LOL.

Correct!

The concept is the same, though. The same thing applies to both locations.

But the term is different, it's different depending on whether you are in Canada or in China.

Sure, hence the false charge..

Incorrect. It was quite clear you had no idea what the issue was. You thought this was an attempt at changing "the concept."

The tourist would be a local of planet Earth, wouldn't he?

Yes, and when he is on Mars, he wouldn't be. He would be an alien.