Microbial life discovered on Saturn's moon Enceladus!

[DeMotts]

Now that I've got your attention... No, we have not discovered microbial life on Enceladus. Sorry, cheap trick.

However! Recent discoveries and observation of cryovolcanoes venting water vapor, molecular hydrogen, and other volatiles into space as well as the detection of escaping heat indicate that Enceladus possesses a large sub-surface ocean of liquid water and is geologically active. Scientists speculate that it is one of the most likely places in the solar system to search for life.

Ok, so imagine if you will that we've constructed a probe and launched it towards Saturn, and it is designed to fly through the ejecta from Enceladus and collect samples and thoroughly scan them for signs of life. And amazingly enough, the probe snags a sample that contains a microbe. It is conclusively proven that the microbe originated from the warm liquid water ocean under the icy surface of Enceladus.

Here's the question:

Theists - What would be your reaction? Does this change your view on the origin of life? Does this change your opinion on the validity of abiogenesis? How does this inform your world view?

Non-theists - What implications does this have for how you see things? Is this, or something like it, simply "expected"? Do you feel like this would strike some sort of a blow against religious world views? Or would you predict denial, conspiracy accusations, and maintenance of the status quo in regards to religious acceptance of scientific explanations for both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial life's origins?

[Rufus21]

I reject the idea of having the dictionary or Wikipedia being the authority in defining things about God or spirituality.

I reject the idea of people redefining words that already have a long history and specific definition in order to make their opinions seem logical. If it doesn't make sense using the dictionary definition, it doesn't makse sense. It's a big red flag when someone twists the meaning of words to meet a specific worldview.

One way to distinguish a fake God and a fake miracle is if it is not natural.

Not natural, meaning supernatural, meaning against the laws of nature? Is that what you mean?

Of course I understand and acknowledge that lots of religious people do not agree with what I am saying here, and many religious people view both God and miracles as magic and supernatural - and so they are wrong.

Opinion noted. This would be there perfect place for some evidence. You can't just say "Everyone else who has studied this is wrong" and expect to be taken seriously.

The Big Bang is a natural (Godly) event which created the universe - in ancient times people saw the creation as magic and now we see it as natural.

Again, the Big Bang didn't create anything. How many times must we explain that?

[JP Cusick]

Let's not forget, humanity wasn't made from dust. The biomass of humans comes mostly from the air. Since you stated that you ignored a lot of one of my previous posts it's possible you missed this information...

I do not see that as relevant or as adding anything to the discussion.

Humans are also made up of water - so when we die - to dust thou shalt return.


-------------------------------------------------

I reject the idea of people redefining words that already have a long history and specific definition in order to make their opinions seem logical. If it doesn't make sense using the dictionary definition, it doesn't makse sense. It's a big red flag when someone twists the meaning of words to meet a specific worldview.

To me this stand means that you are hopelessly lost.

The dictionary is one of your gods because it rules over you.

[Rufus21]

Humans are also made up of water - so when we die - to dust thou shalt return.

Nope. That's not what happens.

I reject the idea of people redefining words that already have a long history and specific definition in order to make their opinions seem logical. If it doesn't make sense using the dictionary definition, it doesn't make sense. It's a big red flag when someone twists the meaning of words to meet a specific worldview.

To me this stand means that you are hopelessly lost.

The dictionary is one of your gods because it rules over you.

I am hopeless lost in reality. I'm afraid you and I will never meet. If you cannot live in the same world with the same definitions that everyone else does, you are not being honest with yourself or anyone else you speak to.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 19 by JP Cusick]

I reject the idea of having the dictionary or Wikipedia being the authority in defining things about God or spirituality.

I still like Wiki and dictionaries but they do have their limitations.

Making things up and then declaring them to be true is extremely limiting. Since it ultimately gets no one anywhere.

Viewing or defining God and miracles as supernatural or unnatural is totally wrong, because God and nature are synonymous and a true miracle is totally natural.

Science is all about discovering and understanding natural law. Things which are claimed to occur outside of natural laws are called supernatural. If any single thing ever occurred which was clearly and indisputably outside of natural law, then the entire concept of natural law (the laws of physics) would be invalidated. But there is no such example. Not one. Examples of make believe and imgination abound however.

One way to distinguish a fake God and a fake miracle is if it is not natural.

To do that we would have to have an honest-to-goodness example of a miracle. But as I already pointed out, there is not one. There are innumerable claims based on ignorance however.

Of course I understand and acknowledge that lots of religious people do not agree with what I am saying here, and many religious people view both God and miracles as magic and supernatural - and so they are wrong.

I am not a religious people.

Biology being a natural process is just using the name of "nature" as God, because otherwise "nature" does not have a mind or a process unless it is synonymous with a God.

Nature does not have a mind. Nature works by overproducing. Nature is very wasteful and inefficient.

Nature creating babies is the same thing as God creating babies, so it is still a miracle, but we could call it as a miracle of the nature God.

Babies do not simply pop into existence. Babies are created from material that originated with their parents. But the material that originated with their parents didn't simply pop into existence either. Every particle of your body has existed for billions of years at least. These particles were many other things before you were conceived, and will go on to be many other things after you die. Because matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form. According to all observation and experimentation, energy is eternal.

The Big Bang is a natural (Godly) event which created the universe - in ancient times people saw the creation as magic and now we see it as natural.

The concept of the big bang is derived from the observation that the universe is expanding. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that everything in the universe was once all on one place. You made the part about God up from your imagination. Which is what I mean about "make it up and declare it to be true" being useless.

The Bible already tells us that life was made from non-life, as in humanity was made from the dust of the ground, so if we do find life on a moon of Saturn then yes we can expect that it was created in the same way, and it will verify that God told it correctly that He made life from lifelessness.

Life is composed of non living material, this is true. This material can theoretically be put together to make anything... a rock or a baby... if it's put together in the right order. Which is how people suppose God works. But it's also the way the replicators on Star Trek work. The replicators on Star Trek are at least theoretically possible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 24 by Tired of the Nonsense]

But it's also the way the replicators on Star Trek work. The replicators on Star Trek are at least theoretically possible.

As long as we have Heisenberg compensators, yes, they are theoretically possible.

For fun, here's a quote I found on Memory Alpha, the wiki for Star Trek regarding that 'device'.

The Heisenberg compensator was invented to circumvent the authors' understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which they believed to state that one cannot know both the position of a subatomic particle and its momentum to arbitrary precision. (Star Trek Encyclopedia, 3rd ed., p. 187)
When asked by Time magazine in 1994, "How do the Heisenberg compensators work?" Michael Okuda replied, "They work just fine, thank you."

In other words, if I hypothesize that someone is seriously asserting that Star Trek is real, what Okuda says there is just like what we see theists do when it comes to explanations for phenomena. Declare that 'God-did-it' and yet not be able to explain in detail just what exactly is going on.
"How do God's powers work?"
"His powers work just fine, thank you"

[JP Cusick]

Science is all about discovering and understanding natural law. Things which are claimed to occur outside of natural laws are called supernatural. If any single thing ever occurred which was clearly and indisputably outside of natural law, then the entire concept of natural law (the laws of physics) would be invalidated. But there is no such example. Not one. Examples of make believe and imgination abound however.

True religion is the exact same thing - by discovering nature then we discover God.

Einstein knew this, but he could not stand up against the organized religions.

Natural laws and Godly commandments are the exact same things.

The real God is not supernatural nor unnatural.

It is like "V-ger" of the Star Trek movie, in that V-ger thought God was in its own image - and that was not accurate.

These particles were many other things before you were conceived, and will go on to be many other things after you die. Because matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form. According to all observation and experimentation, energy is eternal.

In this view energy is another synonym for God, or just another name for God.

"May the force be with you."

The energy (God) is eternal, the energy (God) was not created and can not be destroyed, the energy (God) gave life to lifelessness, etc etc etc.

Life is composed of non living material, this is true. This material can theoretically be put together to make anything... a rock or a baby... if it's put together in the right order. Which is how people suppose God works. But it's also the way the replicators on Star Trek work. The replicators on Star Trek are at least theoretically possible.

Seeing Star Trek as theoretically possible includes that a realistic God is possible too.

A supernatural God can not be real, but a realistic God can be.

Humanity is simply growing and maturing into our destiny as children of God, so for now our physical miracles are still rather crude and evolving.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 26 by JP Cusick]

True religion is the exact same thing - by discovering nature then we discover God.

Einstein knew this, but he could not stand up against the organized religions.

Natural laws and Godly commandments are the exact same things.

The real God is not supernatural nor unnatural.

"True religion" has at least one component that is true right around the world. Every individual knows to the exclusion of all doubt that the the one true religion is the one that they have right there in their hands.

The 20th century provided us with three great scientific "revelations." These revelations have served to explain the basic nature of the universe. These three revelations have NOT served to verify the existence of God, I am afraid. The first revelation came with Einstein's monumental insight, E=MC^2. E, energy, and M, mass, or matter, are equivalent. Matter is a very condensed form of energy. Matter is the stuff that you and I and the stars and the planets are composed of. Because matter interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics, the nature of which is the second great revelation of the 20th century. And the third great revelation has been the ongoing observation that energy, which is ultimately what everything is, can neither be created or destroyed. It can be changed from form to form, but the amount always remains exactly the same. Energy is finite in amount, but infinite in duration. If energy cannot be created, then there can BE no creator. The universe interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics explains all change. No God is needed. Which perfectly corresponds to the fact that no God is actually observed. Only made up and declared to be true.

This is what ongoing observation and experimentation has revealed. What you are contending has simply been made up and declared to be true. It's make believe. You (believers) make it up, and then you contrive to believe it. Scientific observation has given us all of our current modern technology. Make believe, among other things, has given us the story of a corpse that returned to life, subsequently flew off up into the sky, and the ongoing claim that this flying reanimated corpse will return again at any moment now, which has proven to be every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, for the last 2,000 years.

Einstein never had any interest in "standing against the organized religions." Einstein was only interested in understanding how things work. Einstein was a practicing Jew as a youngster. By the end of his life however he was indifferent to all religion. Because he recognized that the workings of the universe can be explained perfectly well without the assumption of any God. Organized religion will stand or fall on its own merits. In the US belief in Christianity has fallen from 90% of the population twenty years ago, to about 70% today. There is a distinct trend towards unbelief which goes hand in hand with this new recognition that the universe can now be physically explained without resorting to make believe.

The real God is not supernatural or unnatural because no such Being ever existed to begin with. The concept of God/gods has simply been a filler for our ignorance for most of human history. But that empty spot in our knowledge has now been filled in with E=MC^2, quantum mechanics, and the law of conservation of energy. God no longer computes.

It is like "V-ger" of the Star Trek movie, in that V-ger thought God was in its own image - and that was not accurate.

And like the Star Trek movie, the concept of God is entirely fictional.

In this view energy is another synonym for God, or just another name for God.

And this is an example of make it up and declare it to be true. Make it up and declare it to be true, among other things, leads to believing that an individual who lived 2,000 years ago is about to return at any moment now, despite an unbroken 2,000 year chain of being conspicuously wrong. Empirical scientific research on the other hand has led to that computer you are sitting at, as well as all of the other technological marvels of our time. So which had the better track record of actually proving to be true, make it up and declare it to be true, or empirical scientific research?

Seeing Star Trek as theoretically possible includes that a realistic God is possible too.

A supernatural God can not be real, but a realistic God can be.

Star Trek is based, rather loosely at times, on actual scientific theory. In the name of creating a good exciting story however, Star Trek has no problem crossing the line between scientific theory and right on into make believe. Because ultimately Star Trek is fiction. It's entertainment. And in a fiction we can indulge in make believe. Believing in make believe does not make it real, however.

Humanity is simply growing and maturing into our destiny as children of God, so for now our physical miracles are still rather crude and evolving.

Our technological "miracles" are not miracles at all. They are based on solid scientific principles. Humanity will continue to grow as our knowledge of how the universe operates grows. Unless religion can drag us right back into ignorance again.

[McCulloch]

[…]
True religion is the exact same thing - by discovering nature then we discover God.
Einstein knew this, but he could not stand up against the organized religions.
Natural laws and Godly commandments are the exact same things.
[…]
In this view energy is another synonym for God, or just another name for God.
[…]
The energy (God) is eternal, the energy (God) was not created and can not be destroyed, the energy (God) gave life to lifelessness, etc etc etc.

Einstein did not believe that God was a personal being. His concept of what God is is vastly different from the distinctly personal God portrayed by the writers of the Bible.

[JP Cusick]

"True religion" has at least one component that is true right around the world. Every individual knows to the exclusion of all doubt that the the one true religion is the one that they have right there in their hands.

I agree with this and I see no problem with this.

Each and every person has their own independent faith and I thank God for my own independence from other people.

You say that about religion, but that is also true about politics, and it is true about food, and about lovers, because humans are individual entities and it is a fact of life = that each person has their own and sees their own as right.

If energy cannot be created, then there can BE no creator. The universe interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics explains all change. No God is needed. Which perfectly corresponds to the fact that no God is actually observed. Only made up and declared to be true.

In this way energy is the creator, energy is the same God by another name.

The perfect invention is one where it no longer needs its creator.

As in building a humanoid android where the machine is made so that it can maintain and renew its energy and it can do its own repairs so it no longer needs its creator - thus the perfect and ideal invention or creation.

That is what God has done with humanity, in that humanity is self sufficient, and the planet earth is self sufficient, and the universe is self sufficient, and so the energy (God) from the beginning has created perfection.

I honestly love the concept of God and energy being synonymous.

May the force be with us all.

Scientific observation has given us all of our current modern technology. Make believe, among other things, has given us the story of a corpse that returned to life, subsequently flew off up into the sky, and the ongoing claim that this flying reanimated corpse will return again at any moment now, which has proven to be every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, for the last 2,000 years.

I really do agree with you in what you say above about science and about religion, but but but - just because Christianity is wrong and ridiculous then that does not disqualify the reality of the God.

To view religion as wrong then that is fine - but the real God is not stuck in any religion.

I long for the day that God becomes more included into science.

And like the Star Trek movie, the concept of God is entirely fictional.

I agree that most of the popular concepts of God are mostly inaccurate or just wrong, but reality is not a matter of popular opinion or of majority vote.

When science declared the Big Bang then science declare proof of a creation event.

And when they find any form of life on Saturn's moon or any other spot in space - then it too will be more scientific proof that there was a creation which made life from lifelessness whether that creator be called energy of call it as God - and that counts.

[JP Cusick]

Einstein did not believe that God was a personal being. His concept of what God is is vastly different from the distinctly personal God portrayed by the writers of the Bible.

I like some of the things that Einstein said, but I do not like Einstein as a person, because my knowledge of that man is that he was a spineless little creep who was distinctly immoral and debased.

Still his words here are brilliant = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My own finding is that Einstein took that saying above literally because I say he got his theory of relativity and about time from the Bible, because the Bible talks about changing time and about people living hundreds of years which makes time as relative and changeable.

Einstein getting the basis of his theory from the Bible is fine, but that also means that it might not have come from such a brilliant intellect.