So one of the biggest issues in a world without God is that we do not observe life from non-life. We have no examples of abiogenesis, andit is a difficult concept to envision for most.
"How did the first life arise?" so the argument goes, "and only God could create life."
I believe I have solved the problem.
God does not fit into any definition of life, or being alive.
God is not alive, even under the most broad interpretation of life, therefore, even assuming that life must come from life, God is a non-living thing that must generate it.
So, the argument that only life can produce life, falls flat even allowing that God created it.
Here is a refresher for those who don't remember what it is to live:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Special thanks to "DrNoGods" for inspiring this post.
Life from non-life
Moderator: Moderators
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #41[Replying to post 40 by William]
Why do you eschew dictionary definitions? Without them the meanings of words can be arbitrarily chosen or extended to mean essentially anything at all. Or maybe that is specifically the reason?
Or they can be perfectly good descriptions of things which exhibit, or contain, the properties of chaos and randomness. A "random" number is a value within a range that is arrived at without any intention to produce any specific number, and random number generation algorithms are widely used when such values are required (eg. lottery numbers, gambling machines, etc.). It's not that we don't understand the process, but rather that we do and need randomness (as defined in a dictionary).
Unless you are studying chaos theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
You can randomly generate an integer between 1 and 6 by throwing a die against the wall and letting it land.
Why do you say "when it is clearly a mindful process"? I assume you are referring to biological evolution in this comment, but there is no evidence that shows that the complexity of biological forms is "directed" (by some mind, as opposed to natural selection working as it does), or a "mindful" process in any way. That is simply your opinion as there is no science that even remotely suggests that evolution is a mindful process. Just the opposite in fact.
How so? Consciousness is most likely nothing more than an emergent property of the brain based on all observable evidence to date. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, is there?
How do you draw that conclusion? We could be debating it for another 100 years and still not have a definitive answer (although I wouldn't bet on that). Just because science has not yet conclusively answered the question does not mean that consciousness is NOT an emergent property of the brain. It is just another unsolved problem that is still open to a "final" answer. Progress is being made every year.
The key word there being "subjective." Is there any legitimate evidence that humans have any experiences after death, or that afterlives of any kind actually exist? I don't think there is ... just subjective experiences from people whose brains produced sensations in a partially compromised state that they interpreted as something more than a dream analogy.
*Points to a book of definitions readily open to interpretations*.
Why do you eschew dictionary definitions? Without them the meanings of words can be arbitrarily chosen or extended to mean essentially anything at all. Or maybe that is specifically the reason?
6: 'Chaos' and 'Random' are made-up 'explanations' for things we don't understand.
Or they can be perfectly good descriptions of things which exhibit, or contain, the properties of chaos and randomness. A "random" number is a value within a range that is arrived at without any intention to produce any specific number, and random number generation algorithms are widely used when such values are required (eg. lottery numbers, gambling machines, etc.). It's not that we don't understand the process, but rather that we do and need randomness (as defined in a dictionary).
8: My understanding of math is that it is precise and orderly, rather than chaotic and random.
Unless you are studying chaos theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
9: To my knowledge, there is no way to actually randomly generate anything.
You can randomly generate an integer between 1 and 6 by throwing a die against the wall and letting it land.
10: To postulate that the complexity of biological life forms derived from a mindless process when it clearly is a mindful process is to ignore the woods for the trees.
Why do you say "when it is clearly a mindful process"? I assume you are referring to biological evolution in this comment, but there is no evidence that shows that the complexity of biological forms is "directed" (by some mind, as opposed to natural selection working as it does), or a "mindful" process in any way. That is simply your opinion as there is no science that even remotely suggests that evolution is a mindful process. Just the opposite in fact.
Consciousness is Life.
How so? Consciousness is most likely nothing more than an emergent property of the brain based on all observable evidence to date. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, is there?
I am sure that if there were any substance to the theory we would already be celebrating this as a testable conjecture which has shown conclusively that consciousness is emergent of the brain, and all contrary argument would have been silenced accordingly.
How do you draw that conclusion? We could be debating it for another 100 years and still not have a definitive answer (although I wouldn't bet on that). Just because science has not yet conclusively answered the question does not mean that consciousness is NOT an emergent property of the brain. It is just another unsolved problem that is still open to a "final" answer. Progress is being made every year.
There is a quite a lot of shared subjective experiences re so-called afterlife experience in which - when compiled - it appears clear that the individual involved creates their own reality simply through their beliefs and thoughts.
The key word there being "subjective." Is there any legitimate evidence that humans have any experiences after death, or that afterlives of any kind actually exist? I don't think there is ... just subjective experiences from people whose brains produced sensations in a partially compromised state that they interpreted as something more than a dream analogy.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Life from non-life
Post #42[Replying to post 40 by William]
I have lost all respect for philosophy that is not grounded in facts as premises and mathematical logic as method to reach conclusions and make predictions. Millennia of philosophers have not quelled argument in the matter of epistemology, but mere decades of observation in neuroscience have increased understanding immensely.
We observe life as chemistry. There is no reason to suppose it is more, except that people don't want to die. Bring forward reproducible observations (facts) or reasoning based on facts and we can revise our hypotheses.
I have lost all respect for philosophy that is not grounded in facts as premises and mathematical logic as method to reach conclusions and make predictions. Millennia of philosophers have not quelled argument in the matter of epistemology, but mere decades of observation in neuroscience have increased understanding immensely.
We observe life as chemistry. There is no reason to suppose it is more, except that people don't want to die. Bring forward reproducible observations (facts) or reasoning based on facts and we can revise our hypotheses.
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #43What in the world does this part mean? Who is collecting afterlife experiences and how?? Are you saying that whatever we wish for most at the time of our death is what we experience in an infinite afterlife and you somehow have proof of this?William wrote:There is a quite a lot of shared subjective experiences re so-called afterlife experience in which - when compiled - it appears clear that the individual involved creates their own reality simply through their beliefs and thoughts. Not everyone who dies, understands that this is what takes place. Individuals who don't expect it are more inclined to panic and in their panic, create situations which are not convivial to any good experience.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #44[Replying to post 42 by TSGracchus]
I myself am not afraid to be dead. (which is what you were really meaning, right?) I am just not convinced in the slightest that this is what is going to be.
Your opinion is just as ridiculous as someone who asserts that people who believe when they die that is the end of their experience, do so because they are afraid of still being alive and not knowing what might happen to them if that is the case.
Sure, that will be the case for some, but not all.
Really the facts are you are fine with your beliefs about what to expect when you die. I have no trouble accepting that of you. It makes no difference to me.
But I do find it strange that someone who is grounded in facts as premises and mathematical logic as method to reach conclusions and make predictions, would even be demanding evidence of the sort you are demanding. Surely you already realize that the demand is pointless and empty of meaning for that?
Perhaps I am missing something? Perhaps you can tell us what type of experiments one could set up in order to investigate the idea of continuation of individuate consciousness after the body has died?
In the mean time, there is no reason that I can see where I need to drop my developing philosophy and theology on the matter.
♦ My thoughts on death.
♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"
Your loss of respect is besides the point in relation to what I wrote.I have lost all respect for philosophy that is not grounded in facts as premises and mathematical logic as method to reach conclusions and make predictions.
Again, besides the point. The door is still open on the subject of consciousness and the possibility of ones experience continuing after the body dies. Neuroscience hasn't answered those questions.Millennia of philosophers have not quelled argument in the matter of epistemology, but mere decades of observation in neuroscience have increased understanding immensely.
No. You interpret what is observed as being only chemistry, and that consciousness is emergent of the brain. Big difference.We observe life as chemistry.
That is too sweeping for a start. There are many reasons why people think there may well be more to experience after this.There is no reason to suppose it is more, except that people don't want to die.
I myself am not afraid to be dead. (which is what you were really meaning, right?) I am just not convinced in the slightest that this is what is going to be.
Your opinion is just as ridiculous as someone who asserts that people who believe when they die that is the end of their experience, do so because they are afraid of still being alive and not knowing what might happen to them if that is the case.
Sure, that will be the case for some, but not all.
That challenge is devoid of practicality. If such could be done, science would be doing it already. Demanding evidence for such a thing from others is simply a fallacy.Bring forward reproducible observations (facts) or reasoning based on facts and we can revise our hypotheses.
Really the facts are you are fine with your beliefs about what to expect when you die. I have no trouble accepting that of you. It makes no difference to me.
But I do find it strange that someone who is grounded in facts as premises and mathematical logic as method to reach conclusions and make predictions, would even be demanding evidence of the sort you are demanding. Surely you already realize that the demand is pointless and empty of meaning for that?
Perhaps I am missing something? Perhaps you can tell us what type of experiments one could set up in order to investigate the idea of continuation of individuate consciousness after the body has died?
In the mean time, there is no reason that I can see where I need to drop my developing philosophy and theology on the matter.
♦ My thoughts on death.
♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #45[Replying to post 43 by DeMotts]
What I mean is that in relation to this particular subject, science has no substantial evidence in which an individual can conclude without doubt that the individual is not going to experience more once their body has died.
Thus, in relation to the question, one looks elsewhere - to where information is available.
For me this involves my own personal subjective experience and studying the experiences others share and correlate that info in order to formulate most likely scenarios should it turn out to be actually what is going to happen to me after my body dies.
There is literally reams of info freely available on this subject, for anyone interested enough to get into it. My main motivation for being interested is based in fact. The fact that my body is going to die and no one really knows whether death of the body is the end of ones individual experience, or not.
Also, the individual you think you are is really only the tip of the iceberg. One's consciousness involves more than simply that which meets the eye and by accounts, it appears everything suppressed or otherwise hidden from the prying eyes of self and others will be exposed in all its naked reality, and the individual will be dealing with that in the next phase.
Justice will be served and the individual will be serving it on their self. It really isn't a matter of some GOD entity on a throne judging individuals to one place or the other. It is the individual judging their self, and there are may 'places', although I suppose these could be seen as either positive or negative by those experiencing them, depending on what it is they create for themselves, whether they know they are creating this or simply assuming it is being done to them by someone else.
By accounts, these experiences are not permanent, but they are necessary - as necessary as the individual deems them to be for their self.
I take death seriously - as a serious part of this experience I am having here and now, and I have seen no compelling evidence from the scientific community which allows for me to discard the idea of 'afterlife' from being a relevant possibility.
It seems to me that science might never be the device which will be useful in positively answering the question, and certainly I have doubts that in my lifetime this is going to change, so the onus is on me to get what answers I can from other sources, including from my own subjective experience.
Certainly I see no sense in hand-waving it away as an irrelevant and pointless pursuit, any more than I think accepting I am the sum total of chemical reactions within the brain is an acceptable answer.
See my answer above. The evidence I am referring to, is not scientific.
♦ My thoughts on death.
What in the world does this part mean? Who is collecting afterlife experiences and how??
What I mean is that in relation to this particular subject, science has no substantial evidence in which an individual can conclude without doubt that the individual is not going to experience more once their body has died.
Thus, in relation to the question, one looks elsewhere - to where information is available.
For me this involves my own personal subjective experience and studying the experiences others share and correlate that info in order to formulate most likely scenarios should it turn out to be actually what is going to happen to me after my body dies.
There is literally reams of info freely available on this subject, for anyone interested enough to get into it. My main motivation for being interested is based in fact. The fact that my body is going to die and no one really knows whether death of the body is the end of ones individual experience, or not.
No. It is not as simple as that from what I can gather. In part our beliefs shape the experience we are going to have, but in the case of - for example - someone who believes that when they die, that will be the end of them, this will not be the case.Are you saying that whatever we wish for most at the time of our death is what we experience in an infinite afterlife...
Also, the individual you think you are is really only the tip of the iceberg. One's consciousness involves more than simply that which meets the eye and by accounts, it appears everything suppressed or otherwise hidden from the prying eyes of self and others will be exposed in all its naked reality, and the individual will be dealing with that in the next phase.
Justice will be served and the individual will be serving it on their self. It really isn't a matter of some GOD entity on a throne judging individuals to one place or the other. It is the individual judging their self, and there are may 'places', although I suppose these could be seen as either positive or negative by those experiencing them, depending on what it is they create for themselves, whether they know they are creating this or simply assuming it is being done to them by someone else.
By accounts, these experiences are not permanent, but they are necessary - as necessary as the individual deems them to be for their self.
I take death seriously - as a serious part of this experience I am having here and now, and I have seen no compelling evidence from the scientific community which allows for me to discard the idea of 'afterlife' from being a relevant possibility.
It seems to me that science might never be the device which will be useful in positively answering the question, and certainly I have doubts that in my lifetime this is going to change, so the onus is on me to get what answers I can from other sources, including from my own subjective experience.
Certainly I see no sense in hand-waving it away as an irrelevant and pointless pursuit, any more than I think accepting I am the sum total of chemical reactions within the brain is an acceptable answer.
You are referring to scientific proof, right?...and you somehow have proof of this?
See my answer above. The evidence I am referring to, is not scientific. ♦ My thoughts on death.
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #46[Replying to post 45 by William]
Well, it's a fun theory I suppose. And you're correct, science will likely never be able to conclusively prove that there is no afterlife. I think it's fair to say that science doesn't care one way or another. You are free to believe whatever you wish based on whatever stories you find on the internet, or whatever subjective personal experience you have.
That doesn't change the fact that biological life is a process that occurs before our very eyes, and can be examined and explained through a scientific lens. Because you attribute a metaphysical property that you can't quantify shouldn't hinder our attempts to explain things (including consciousness) naturalistically.
Well, it's a fun theory I suppose. And you're correct, science will likely never be able to conclusively prove that there is no afterlife. I think it's fair to say that science doesn't care one way or another. You are free to believe whatever you wish based on whatever stories you find on the internet, or whatever subjective personal experience you have.
That doesn't change the fact that biological life is a process that occurs before our very eyes, and can be examined and explained through a scientific lens. Because you attribute a metaphysical property that you can't quantify shouldn't hinder our attempts to explain things (including consciousness) naturalistically.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #47[Replying to post 46 by DeMotts]
As explained, this is the process and only function science is able to be used for. How the evidence is interpreted is another story. The scientific lens does not 'explain' so much as reveal what is. The 'explanation' has to do with how what is revealed is interpreted. The 'explanation' of course, may be well off the mark.
And you're correct, science will likely never be able to conclusively prove that there is no afterlife
That doesn't change the fact that biological life is a process that occurs before our very eyes, and can be examined and explained through a scientific lens.
As explained, this is the process and only function science is able to be used for. How the evidence is interpreted is another story. The scientific lens does not 'explain' so much as reveal what is. The 'explanation' has to do with how what is revealed is interpreted. The 'explanation' of course, may be well off the mark.
While science lingers in this area, sure. Just avoid conflating what science reveals with how you choose to interpret what is revealed as being one and the same thing.Because you attribute a metaphysical property that you can't quantify shouldn't hinder our attempts to explain things (including consciousness) naturalistically.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Life from non-life
Post #48"Life" has a meaning in biology. And "dead" is dead. Is there some other definition that can be offered, and demonstrated? 'Life after death" is as likely and demonstrable as a "pot of god at the end of the rainbow".William wrote: [Replying to post 46 by DeMotts]
And you're correct, science will likely never be able to conclusively prove that there is no afterlifeThat doesn't change the fact that biological life is a process that occurs before our very eyes, and can be examined and explained through a scientific lens.
As explained, this is the process and only function science is able to be used for. How the evidence is interpreted is another story. The scientific lens does not 'explain' so much as reveal what is. The 'explanation' has to do with how what is revealed is interpreted. The 'explanation' of course, may be well off the mark.
While science lingers in this area, sure. Just avoid conflating what science reveals with how you choose to interpret what is revealed as being one and the same thing.Because you attribute a metaphysical property that you can't quantify shouldn't hinder our attempts to explain things (including consciousness) naturalistically.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #49[Replying to post 48 by TSGracchus]
You keep telling yourself that. If it turns out to be the case that there is more to one's individual experience after this one is completed, it will just be something you will have to deal with, whether one expected it or not.'Life after death" is as likely as a "pot of god at the end of the rainbow".
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Life from non-life
Post #50[Replying to post 49 by William]
I note with weary amusement that you continue to ignore what you cannot contest. I challenged you for a definition of "life" that did not reference the science of biology, and you responded with the usual veiled threat.
We live until we die. Then we are dead.
"But a man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. As the water of a lake dries up or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, so he lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, people will not awake or be roused from their sleep." --- Job 14:10-12 NIV
I note with weary amusement that you continue to ignore what you cannot contest. I challenged you for a definition of "life" that did not reference the science of biology, and you responded with the usual veiled threat.
We live until we die. Then we are dead.
"But a man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. As the water of a lake dries up or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, so he lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, people will not awake or be roused from their sleep." --- Job 14:10-12 NIV
