Life from non-life

[Willum]

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.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by DeMotts]

How does god divest humans of consciousness? He's depriving humans of consciousness? He is stripping them of it somehow? It's grammatically impossible to divest into something.

If you read up on the links I gave in my last post you should begin to understand what I am saying.

This is what I said to which you replied the above;

In relation to individuate human experience - that equates to an aspect of GOD-Consciousness divested into the human form.

Breaking that down into parts we have;

1: The individual human experience.
2: What the individuate human experience equates to.
3: An aspect of GOD-consciousness divested INTO the human form.

My theology states that the process of the one consciousness directly responsible for the creation of this universe (The Universal Entity [UE]) is itself an aspect of a vaster consciousness which - no matter how many times the divestment process occurs - can only be traced back to the original consciousness (First Source Consciousness [FSC].
Thus eliminating the need for the idea of Infinite Regression.

The process of divestment allows for experience within this universe and within individual objects.

UE is the overall consciousness of this universe.

UE has divested aspects of its overall consciousness into forms. Galaxies, Galactic Entities [GE]) Planetary systems, Planetary Entities [PE] and biological systems. Biological Entities [BE]

Our particular system (Sol) - particularly the Earth as far as that goes- is imbued with an aspect of GOD-Consciousness (for there is no other consciousness apart from GOD-Consciousness) through the overall process of divestment from UE through GE through the PE and finally the BE.

Divestment is a good enough word to use to describe the process as accurately as possible from our point of view as individuate BE's. The sum total of UE Consciousness cannot be contained within a galaxy let alone an individual human being. This is how the one entity -UE- is able to intimately experience the whole universe it created for that very purpose.

He's depriving humans of consciousness?

Strictly speaking consciousness is not gender-based. And no, it is not a matter of depriving but of enabling. Earth Entity [EE] is the direct local link in an undivided chain of the divestment process. In that, we are - as BE - aspects of EE consciousness, EE is an aspect of GE consciousness which is an aspect of the UE consciousness.

In that, it is all the same consciousness, divested into the whole universe.

He is stripping them of it somehow?

There is a necessary 'dumbing down' which occurs but is not of itself unable to be overcome by individuate consciousness. It is merely a matter of learning to understand that one is never separate from the whole, even that one is unable to fully comprehend the wholeness whilst one is occupied with the individual form one is experiencing.

It's grammatically impossible to divest into something.

Not at all. In relation to the use of the word in association with money, one stops investing in something (divests) for particular reasons. In the case of UE, the reason was to experience everything first hand (subjectively) rather than simply observe (objectively).

The phrasing of this makes me think that we agree, yes the aspects of reality experienced by quarks would indeed be different but it would be "experienced" nonetheless. The quark is an observer is the same way any particle, or collection of particles is.

Consciousness does not simply observe. It participates and this is so because it is always in a subjective outlook, whether a quark, a human, a planet, a galaxy or a universe.

In the case of the UE, Its subjective reality is being that of the whole universe. That is precisely why I say we are aspects of that overall consciousness, because our subjective reality is experienced differently from UE, GE, EE and even individual BE.

I prefer to understand that there is no reason to think that the earth itself is not a living, self aware creator entity - an aspect of GOD-consciousness imbued within the actual planet, experiencing what is it to BE a planet.

This is silliness...

Not from my position...

...and throws away any scientific definition of the term self-aware.

It isn't science. It is theology and philosophy, which incorporates scientific process as part of its's overall cosmology. Science deals with what can be measured and there is enough stuff to measure in relation to the 'self aware' and science to occupy humans for a very long time. In terms I am speaking of, science is ill-equipped to deal with such possibilities and in that, scientists are equally ill-equipped to debunk my position re my theology.

The convenient answer for many scientists therefore, is to ignore those possibilities and focus on explanations which do not include them, such as everything happened mindlessly and from out of nowhere. I cannot - in all good consciousness - accept such ideas of explanation as being the truth of the matter.

If you want to think that the earth knows it's a planet then bully for you, but that's just an assertion backed up by nothing testable or falsifiable.

That is not my fault or concern. If I wasn't destined to experience the act of my body dying, such contemplation may not be that important to me either. I see nothing in what scientists tell me about the universe as they interpret it, to conclude that the death of my body will mean the end of my experience.

What qualities of self-awareness does the earth have? Is it capable of introspection?

Yes.

Can it recognize itself as an individual separate from other individuals?

It recognizes Itself as a unique individual which is connected not only to all its aspects of BE It has divested into but also, It understands that the GE sees itself in the same way - that the EE (and It's accompanying BE) (and all such PE and their accompanying BE) are aspects of Itself, as does the UE understand that all GE, PE and BE are aspects of Itself.

What would this even mean? Can it recognize that is it a planet and compare it's experience to other planets?

The EE would have experienced a period of time where It was unaware of these connections, and simply got about the business of being and doing within Its creative capacity and external limitations.
Regarding reports of what is called the Astral Realm [universe] there is every indication that EE is indeed able compare It's experiences with other PE's.

Can it understand it's own character, feelings, motives, desires?

Yes.

These are the hallmarks of the classic definition of self-awareness.

Self awareness defined as such, allows for one to ignore those things which display obvious self awareness but may not have noticeable character.

If you want to make up some other definition that suits your comparison then fine, but at least acknowledge that you're redefining terms that have be universally accepted and defined by academia.

The reader can of course choose to read what I write and in doing so, can agree that I have made the effort to acknowledge that popular definitions universally created and accepted by academia are tainted by the bias of academic mindset and are thus questionable. See my prior posts in this thread for more on that.

On the contrary. The universe has to have been created by consciousness. It simply couldn't have magically appeared out of 'nowhere'.

You're arguing two completely separate things here. Firstly you are asserting that the universe HAS to have been created deliberately, which is of course unprovable.

It follows the path of the logical, which is good enough for me.

And then you're creating a strawman that suggests the alternative explanation you are debating is that it magically appeared out of nowhere. Nobody said that was the case either.

Your assertion that 'nobody said it was the case' is not accurate and neither does it take into account that I also made it clear that the above statement was based on a far broader spectrum of ideas which involve the necessity of consciousness as the reason why everything exists. That is why I followed the statement with;

My Members Notes go into far more detail regarding this idea; See the following links from more on that.

The idea of a belief which allows for the universe to magically appear out of nowhere directly has to do with the association that all that is, came to be through a mindless process, whereas I am insisting the evidence allows for one to see that the process is in fact, a mindful one.

Look I can do it too:

The universe MUST have been created by an omnipotent giraffe. It simply couldn't have been accomplished by a zebra.

Well what can I say? If this is all you are able to critique the information I linked you with, then you well and truly miss the mark.

Rather, 'The Universe MUST have been created by a self conscious creative Entity. It simply couldn't have been accomplished through a mindless process.'

I appreciate that you've clearly given this a lot of thought and you feel passionate about your explanations. I think what I'm struggling with here is that you are redefining terms to suit whatever purpose you require of them (i.e. what is life, what is consciousness, what does self-aware mean) and then giving a completely untestable, unprovable, and totally immovable explanation that leaps with complete confidence to the conclusion that a god consciousness is somehow necessary to make it all function.

And of course, this cannot be debunked. I have every right to question popular academic definitions because they are based on the presumption that the universe does not require a creator in order to exist, which is itself untestable, and unprovable, but of course, not totally immovable once one recognizes that dictionary definitions are not in themselves set in concrete, or any less questionable than religious write and that bias is involved anyway, and just because a definition happens to be popular, does not in itself mean it also happens to be truth.

Any redefining I have done therefore, is about trying to get as close to the truth as possible, all things considered.

Reality is weird. I'm perfectly fine admitting I don't know how it all works. I don't see the need to assert with total confidence an entity that I can't demonstrate, to satisfy a premise that I've concocted.

Which is really all I have been saying anyway DeMotts. I have not been arguing from a position which doesn't acknowledge you are set in your ways and see no reason to explore possibilities outside of those ways. If you recall, how we expanded the conversation into its present setting had everything to do with me saying that your belief about the death of your body is that you will no longer exist to experience anything more, didn't mean that this is what was actually going to occur. My point being that part of the thing you argue as reality, involves the fact that your body will die someday, and that may not at all mean the end of your experience as an individual.

You asked for details as to why I think this is probable, and I have given you those reasons. You argue that I redefine meanings to suit my theology. I argue that one has to redefine popular definitions which fail to take into account either the probability of a creator entity or the continuation of personal experience after the body dies.

It is, as I pointed out to TSGracchus, a matter of how one chooses to interpret life, the experience of life, and if one decides to only accept what one can be shown through science, and disregard any other information which cannot be tested or proven, then while such a position can be appreciated in its context and accompanying definitions, it fails to take all things under consideration and is bound within the constrictions of its own contextual definitions.

Essential I am here to offer the reader alternatives. Those alternatives are naturally complex. They cannot be broken down and repackage as " The universe MUST have been created by an omnipotent giraffe. It simply couldn't have been accomplished by a zebra." and other such mockery. The reader is free to engage with or ignore, and I am happy to accommodate to the point of circular argument. I even accommodate mockery because mine is not the type of theology which requires being all precious about itself as it were. I do, however, keep under consideration that those who resort to such often purport to come from academia, clever little buggers that they think they are.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 71 by William]

Well William, if it gives your life meaning then I won't try to take that away from you. I find the observation and methodical scientific deconstruction of the universe to be awe inspiring, beautiful, incredible, infinitely useful, and a source of the only objective truths we can reliably depend on to inform our decision making. I'm perfectly happy to admit what I don't know, and obviously more hesitant than you to adhere to a metaphysical or philosophical explanation for mysteries that are beyond my scope of understanding.

I struggle with your use of language, and having to refer to your rather extensive collected works to respond to an argument is more effort than I care to expend right now. I feel like this would be a conversation I would be more keen to have over a bowl of some excellent cannabis sativa. Good luck with your theory!

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by DeMotts]

I feel like this would be a conversation I would be more keen to have over a bowl of some excellent cannabis sativa.

Well DeMotts, perhaps the next time you partake, you might get the urge to delve into my Members Notes. Feel free to ask me more questions as i appreciate the opportunity to answer.

Also, just as a little experiment, think about asking the EE for a graphic astral experience - one that includes things for which your personality type might question their own preference only for observation and methodical scientific deconstruction of the universe and attract them to metaphysical or philosophical explanation for mysteries that are beyond the present scope of scientific understanding.

All that is required is a sincere approach and humble curiosity with open mind and heart and EE will be more than happy to accommodate.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 72 by DeMotts]

I feel like this would be a conversation I would be more keen to have over a bowl of some excellent cannabis sativa.

All that is required is a sincere approach and humble curiosity with open mind and heart...

On this we can agree! Tell you what, next time I'm in the mood I'll ask the universe to reveal itself to me in new and mysterious ways. We'll see what happens.