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?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 76 by William]


em·pir·i·cal [əmˈpirik(ə)l]: {ADJECTIVE} based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

You will excuse me mentioning it publically, but you appear to have completely ignored part of my oft repeated request for your data. I didn't type the word empirical for no good reason. I have read every single word of the list of selected readings (and some of the ones that weren't listed for that matter), and nowhere in any of it was a single data point or piece of verifiable evidence listed.

You don't have any data or evidence to offer, you have conjecture and philosophical waxings instead. So it appears that what I have been saying all along - that there is no proof for the planet being some kind of single consciousness - was entirely accurate.

If you have indeed read every single word in my Members Notes, you would have come across the argument that science is not a good device in which to examine subjective, philosophical and religious ideas. Therefore demanding 'em·pir·i·cal' evidence for such things is fallacy.

Clue: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I saw all kinds of arguments. What I didn't see was any evidence, which is what you are asked for. Why am I still explaining this?

Specific claims, like the Earth is conscious, is not a "subjective, philosophical, and religious idea". It is obviously testable. It is obviously within the realm of scientific inquiry. I've tried to find any data that suggests a coherent, thinking pattern by the planet, and there isn't any that I know of. Obviously you don't have any either. So what we are left with then is your baseless assertions of things that you believe based on philosophical musings. It seems you claiming evidence for these things is grossly inaccurate then.

I suppose the next step is to discuss the logic behind some of your Member Notes claims, which I didn't find particularly convincing either. I'll leave that up to you if we go on to those chit chats...

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by Kenisaw]

Specific claims, like the Earth is conscious, is not a "subjective, philosophical, and religious idea". It is obviously testable.

Then explain to me how it is, as you say "obviously testable".

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 81 by Kenisaw]

Specific claims, like the Earth is conscious, is not a "subjective, philosophical, and religious idea". It is obviously testable.

Then explain to me how it is, as you say "obviously testable".

I already did in the last post. We know what consciousness is, and we have ways of measuring it. There are gobs of mountains of data on the Earth. All kinds of it. Anything in any of that information indicate consciousness, or organization, or directed effort, or awareness, or anything life like? I don't know of any geological process or event that requires consciousness to occur. Do you?

If the Earth is conscious, where is the proof for that? I honestly don't know of anything that supports that. If someone else does, please share that with me.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by Kenisaw]

My understanding is that the Earth is the form in which a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity uses as its body and through that creates all the biological forms which it divests aspects of its consciousness into, for the purpose of experience.

The evidence in that light - is in the biological life forms on the earth.

Your assertion that the royal 'we' "know what consciousness is", is an incorrect claim. The better expression is that we understand how consciousness works through certain types of biological forms, we do not know for certain that consciousness is or isn't also present in vegetation although we can see intelligence in the actions of those things....in the actions of all biological life on the planet.

So those are some of the things on the planet which point to the planet actually being the form of a consciousness being.

Not everything is, as you claim, 'obviously testable', because not everything is obvious, and one need not assume that because something isn't obvious, that this means something isn't the case.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 83 by Kenisaw]

My understanding is that the Earth is the form in which a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity uses as its body and through that creates all the biological forms which it divests aspects of its consciousness into, for the purpose of experience.

The evidence in that light - is in the biological life forms on the earth.

And since we've already covered how existence doesn't prove source, you bringing it up again is a non sequitur.

Your assertion that the royal 'we' "know what consciousness is", is an incorrect claim. The better expression is that we understand how consciousness works through certain types of biological forms,

Baseless assertion by you, once again. There is no evidence that consciousness works "through" biological forms. All the data points to the physical structure of brains as being the foundation for consciousness. Perhaps you have something empirical that supports your hypothesis?

we do not know for certain that consciousness is or isn't also present in vegetation although we can see intelligence in the actions of those things....in the actions of all biological life on the planet.

So those are some of the things on the planet which point to the planet actually being the form of a consciousness being.

Which still doesn't prove that the planet is making them conscious. Care to prove your assertion?

Not everything is, as you claim, 'obviously testable', because not everything is obvious, and one need not assume that because something isn't obvious, that this means something isn't the case.

Stop making stuff up. Where have I ever said "everything is obviously testable". What I said is that a conscious Earth is testable. We have tests for consciousness. The Earth doesn't pass those tests. The Earth should not be considered consciousness. Unless there is forthcoming evidence for such a thing......

[William]

[Replying to post 85 by Kenisaw]

And since we've already covered how existence doesn't prove source, you bringing it up again is a non sequitur.

What the existence shows is that the possible source is a conscious self aware intelligent creative Earth Entity. The fact that the process is intelligent whether viewed in its parts or as a whole, allows for the possibility that intelligent design is involved in said process.

Simple as that.

'Proof' is another thing entirely. I am open to hearing how science might be useful in determining if the possibility is indeed, real.

Baseless assertion by you, once again.

The assertion is interpretation based upon observation.

There is no evidence that consciousness works "through" biological forms.

Perhaps we simply have a different understanding of the word "through". When I observe behavior in human beings, I see consciousness working through the human instrument.

All the data points to the physical structure of brains as being the foundation for consciousness.

Correction: All the data points to consciousness interacting with the human brain.

Your statement simply implies that what is being observed shows that consciousness is an emergent aspect of the brain. That statement is one of opinion about what is being observed.

Perhaps you have something empirical that supports your hypothesis?

My hypothesis is sound, in relation to the evidence which already exists. As I pointed out, you overstep with your own hypothesis in relation to believing that what is being observed as evidence is proof positive that consciousness is emergent of the brain.

Consciousness can be identified in relation to intelligent actions, and not all intelligent actions come only from biological life forms which have brains.

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

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

we do not know for certain that consciousness is or isn't also present in vegetation although we can see intelligence in the actions of those things....in the actions of all biological life on the planet.

So those are some of the things on the planet which point to the planet actually being the form of a consciousness being.

Which still doesn't prove that the planet is making them conscious. Care to prove your assertion?

The assertion is based upon the interpretation of the evidence. As such it explains how the intelligent process happens with intelligent design, rather than as a mindless process, which is not what science is showing but what people are claiming is happening because of their interpretation of the evidence science is showing.

A mindless process should not be able to create a mindful thing. Would you care to explain your assertion that it can? Because if you don't think life on earth is the result of Intelligent Design, then what else can you assert except that it came about through mindless processes. If that is the case, where on earth is there evidence that intelligence is created through non intelligence?

Specific claims, like the Earth is conscious, is not a "subjective, philosophical, and religious idea". It is obviously testable.

It is obviously observable. I still don't understand why you believe it should be obviously testable.

I've tried to find any data that suggests a coherent, thinking pattern by the planet, and there isn't any that I know of.

The data exists and has done for a long time and is being added to on a daily basis. How you interpret that data is another thing entirely and is the main reason why you cannot 'find' the data. What you cannot 'find' has to do with how you interpret.

What I said is that a conscious Earth is testable. We have tests for consciousness. The Earth doesn't pass those tests. The Earth should not be considered consciousness. Unless there is forthcoming evidence for such a thing......

Your interpretation of the data (the evidence all around you) is what prompts you to proclaim that "the Earth should not be considered consciousness" (I assume you mean 'should not be considered a conscious self aware intelligent creative autonomous entity') and certainly you are free to interpret the evidence as you wish to.

I interpret it as being evidence of intelligent design and in relation to being a subjective, philosophical, and religious idea, I understand why those not inclined to such things, shy away from going there.

But really, we have come to a point where the conversation is becoming circular and since it really is just a matter of interpretation of the evidence, neither of us look at all like we are going to shift from our preferred positions, is there any reason to continue this debate/discussion?

[Peter]

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

The Universe is probably teeming with life and we wouldn't know it.