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 50 by TSGracchus]

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,...

Wow, what filthy bag did you drag that out of??

Perhaps you are confusing me for a shifty character with not one ounce of integrity. Your so called 'challenge' is not ignored. I probably didn't notice you had made such a challenge in the first instance - feel free to show me where this challenge was made by you - and secondly, if you go back through the thread you will notice I gave my definition in post #4.

Now, I am not one to proceed with circular debate, so at that point there has to be a cut off - when debaters start repeating their arguments. It is the sensible manner in which to proceed.

We do not agree, so be it. No need to waste time and space in proceeding down that path...

...and you responded with the usual veiled threat.

My mention of death was not in any way some 'veiled threat'. What does that even mean?
In line with what I did have to say, is it the idea of life after death which you perceive as a threat? One would have to ask you WHY such an idea makes you feel threatened!

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

Neither you or the writer of this prose you quote, can know that is the case for sure. That is all I have been saying. That you feel threatened by the possibility is besides the point really.

[Inigo Montoya]

In the absence of certainty, anything is possible for now.

We got it.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 51 by William]

In 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 gold at the end of the rainbow.

Perhaps it was too subtle. How would you, non-biologically define "life", "death", and "life after death"? What are the mechanisms of the proposed after-life? What would make you believe such a thing?

But your definition was denied in post #5:

Life has a few definitions, many descriptions, but none of them include either consciousness or God.

If consciousness is life then when you are unconscious, anaesthetized, you are dead. And if life is God then there would be no need for one word or the other. Bacteria would be divine, and so would a cabbage or a slime mold.

My mention of death was not in any way some 'veiled threat'.

In post #49:

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.

How would one experience without sensory apparatus or neurons?

"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

Neither you or the writer of this prose you quote, can know that is the case for sure.

To the same extent, I don't know for sure that leprechauns don't come from China, or the planet, Kolob.

That you feel threatened by the possibility is besides the point really.

I don't feel threatened. I perceived a feeble attempt to threaten.

You have equated "God"="life"="consciousness". Thus, it would seem that pond scum is conscious and divine, in your view. Some of the cells in cabbage that has been chopped into coleslaw are still alive. Are they conscious and alive? Is that an accurate representation of your position?



And if your definitions of these concepts differ from common usages or those of the dictionary, I submit that it is your responsibility to clarify your idiosyncratic usage. The rest of us are using English to communicate not obfuscate.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by TSGracchus]

How would you, non-biologically define "life", "death", and "life after death"?

Throughout this thread I have offered those definitions. Also, in this particular setting, one cannot 'non biologically' define anything. Are you confusing my argument as being one which hasn't recognized the part the biological plays in experience?

What are the mechanisms of the proposed after-life? What would make you believe such a thing?

I gave a link to that answer further back in this thread. (post #44)

From that link;

[center]My Thoughts On Death.[/center]
[center]What happens in the next phase? [/center]

I have studied a lot of claims regarding NDEs OOBEs and astral travel and have had my own experiences in regard to briefly leaving my body on at least 3 different occasions.
I have not myself entered any alternate experience related to what are commonly referred to in that circle as astral plane or astral world.

From all of this and other data I have come across over the years, my understanding is that:

Consciousness is eternal - It never had a beginning and will never have an end, and before things were created (be they universes or the objects within universes) this Eternal Consciousness as One Entity, is the overall GOD of the creation of All That Is, except for Itself of course, for obvious reasons.

All consciousness therefore, is likewise eternal because all consciousness has its source in The One Consciousness, which I refer to as First Source Consciousness.

So we are eternal consciousnesses. We are individuate consciousnesses experiencing this existence as human beings, in the form of the human.

This is why, when our bodies die, they 'give up the ghost' as it were - our experience as a human being ends but the memory of that experience does not.

So...where exactly do we 'go' when our bodies die? Some say heaven or hell, while others name other places while still others believe that when they die, that is the end of them, because they - the consciousness which allows them the experience of 'I AM' believe that the brain is the thing which creates them, and what they are is no more or less than an 'illusion of self' generated by electrical pulses and chemical reactions within the brain, and when that dies, they will no longer exist.

What happens in the next phase is largely dependant on the individuals personal belief systems in relation to 'where we go'.

It is my understanding that we 'go' within the mind of the Local GOD, which itself is a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity who primarily resides within the Sol system - specifically noticeable in relation to the Earth and which I refer to as 'The Earth Entity.'

This universe is also something within the mind of a GOD - a less local one at that. Even so, it is not FSC overall, but is itself an aspects of FSC.

But were we go when our bodies die is within the mind of the local GOD, the Earth Entity, and the reason for this is because it is what we are connected to most intimately - we are far removed from FSC - our connection with FSC is through - perhaps uncountable varieties - of GODs/GODs in the making, but even for that we are not able to be separated from FSC, except within our own beliefs and wilful ignorance, because the fact that we are consciousness determines the connection, whether intimate or ignorant. We are known by FSC even if FSC is unknown to us.

But when our bodies die we do not go back to FSC. We go into the mind of the EE - the Local GOD.

The nature of the mind of EE in relation to our own consciousness is that our thoughts and beliefs effect the outcome of the next phase because the EE mind acts like a screen and our thoughts and beliefs project onto that and we experience the effect as real. We literally create the effect simultaneously with experiencing it and in that, things appear instantly manifested.

Most people who enter this next phase of experience do not understand that it is they who are creating the experience. They tend to see themselves still as human beings and thus create bodies for themselves which are pretty much designed around the same body they experienced when living as a human being.

So in relation to personal beliefs, whatever you expect is the large part of what you will get except for if you expect nothing, such as someone who believes that when their brain dies, that is the end of their experience as being anything.

This is because, we are eternal beings and simply cannot die.

The reason we go into the mind of the EE is so that we continue our journey back to wholeness in relation to FSC and in relation to my second post in this thread called What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality .

Because most beliefs are not based in truth, what is experienced isn't true, but within that experience there is an aspect of truth which shows itself as an anomaly - something which will exist within the context of the experience expected in relation to personal beliefs, which itself is not expected. The anomaly (whatever it may be) is there in order to prompt the individuate consciousness to question their beliefs and in that, develop a process of escaping that dominant 'reality' by gradually (or even quickly) transforming it.

The transformation process is really no more or less than lifting a veil as these individual experiences within the mind of the EE act like partitions and all are concealed from each other due to those partitions.

All this happens within a part of the mind of the EE designed for that purpose, rather than through the whole mind of the EE.

There is more I would like to say about this, and I will do so in additional edits of this post.

♦ Pascal's Wager

♦ There is no escaping the inevitable. The ego is going to account.

♦ I have good reasons for thinking there is more to life than death.

♦ Dying to go to hell?

♦ It is a matter of deserving to know who we truly are.

♦ Eternal damnation is no solution any more than annihilation is.

♦ Consciousness is real and things are illusion

♦ If we are not aspects of GOD-Consciousness, then where did GOD get the consciousnesses that we are?

♦ Regarding the idea of Creating the experience of hell through our belief systems, in relation to afterlife...

♦ Free will is always specific to situation - to the parameters of the reality being experienced.

♦ Reports of my "second death" have been greatly ..
... EXAGGERATED!

♦ Death is the end of one experience and the beginning of another

♦ Creating experiences through belief which are instantly manifested in the 'afterlife'.

♦ It's complicated but worth the study. Going over old ground for the purpose of (hopefully) giving clarity.

[Replying to post 278 by brianbbs67]

Ok, I read thru all of this again. Good read. Here is my question, what if my truth is different than you guys? Can not it be possible that we disagree and are correct at the same time? There is a lot of room for possibilities here.

In relation to the thread topic - which is basically questioning a particular belief about what happens in afterlife - and my own understanding about that, which I have been sharing, my answer to your question - based on that understanding - is 'Yes'.

In fact, what I have been writing and sharing in regards to my understanding allows for your truth [belief system], and everyone else's truth [belief systems] to be explored by you in every detail due to you being given the opportunity to experience that as real, in the next phase (afterlife) and slowly and surely learn through the experience as to whether it is the actual truth or not.

♦ Personal beliefs and their energy systems - how the anomaly works and what other influences might be used to suppress that work.

♦ We will never lose our individuality, because that is - literally - the GIFT we have been given.

♦ Why can't we have a second chance?

♦ It is a fallacy to think of ones self as both consciousness and that which possesses consciousness.

♦ Secular beliefs end up being dead in the water. You are going to die. Believe that it will be a case of the end of experience for you doesn't prepare you for possible alternatives.

That should implicitly answer your question. If you have any more, please do ask as we are all here to learn, right?

If consciousness is life then when you are unconscious, anaesthetized, you are dead.

You are unaware of experience as the individuate consciousness you have been experiencing up to that time. It is aspects of the biological which have been turned off and this prevents the consciousness attached to that biological form from experiencing being that biological form. The form has not died, so the individuate consciousness remains.

Can you cite studies where it is confirmed that consciousness is still not interacting in relation to the brain whilst the body has been anaesthetized?
I myself have been under so I understand first hand what that is like. I cannot confirm that I was not experiencing anything. I can only confirm that I have no memory of experiencing anything.

Also I understand that consciousness is interconnected and it is form which allows for the experience of NOT being interconnected even while we still are. What we understand as our individual consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg and I mention this in relation to what happens which we are related with but do not consciously experience. Iow, consciousness is not just what the individual experiences as the sum total of their human experience.

And if life is God then there would be no need for one word or the other. Bacteria would be divine, and so would a cabbage or a slime mold.

Whilst I have no problem understanding the awesomeness of creation, I don't understand your bringing 'divine' into the discussion here. If you are simply using the word as another way of saying 'consciousness' then in that regard my argument is that consciousness uses form for experience. Experience also is something I had while under - during surgery - I experienced nothing that i can recall, other than that experience. One might argue that one cannot experience 'nothing', but since I have the memory of that, it counts as far as I am concerned.

Your argument that one is dead, doesn't float. Your belief that when your body dies, that 'nothing' is what you will experience might be the case. But also, it might not be the case. Which is my argument.

My theology states that consciousness permeates all things. Those things which are more obvious to our senses, are what biologist define as 'life' and if that 'life' is 'divine' as you put it, then yes - it matters not which form the 'divinity' occupies. Altogether no life form is more 'divine' than any other, or independent of all others either.

My mention of death was not in any way some 'veiled threat'.

In post #49:
William wrote:
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.

How would one experience without sensory apparatus or neurons?

Not sure what your question has to do with 'veiled threat' you claimed I made.

To the same extent, I don't know for sure that leprechauns don't come from China, or the planet, Kolob.

I have already debunked this line of reasoning you present as argument. This is precisely the kind of thing which prompts me to state that such argument has become circular. See post #24, first paragraph.

I don't feel threatened. I perceived a feeble attempt to threaten.

Then you are being paranoid. That is coming from your own internal workings and is not something I need to own.
What I was attempting to inform the reader of is that belief that when you die signifies the end of experience for you may not be true, and thus if one expects that to happen and it does not, then one is going to have to deal with it.
If one perceives such as a threatening thing for consideration, one would be wise to do some honest introspection as to why that is the case. Obviously something I said triggered your response, but the onus isn't on me to thus take responsibility for your internal perceptions being externalized.

You have equated "God"="life"="consciousness". Thus, it would seem that pond scum is conscious and divine, in your view. Some of the cells in cabbage that has been chopped into coleslaw are still alive. Are they conscious and alive? Is that an accurate representation of your position?

No. In fairness, that is your reasoning. You appear to believe that this thing you call 'alive' is what is living. My position is that consciousness is that which is living.

Viewed another way, are bodies living or dying? Answer me that and perhaps we can work from that position together.

My position is that consciousness is alive. Living. Not able to die. Has always existed. Exists in all forms.

Forms on the other hand are impermanent. Thus not really 'living'and from a practical perspective, really 'dying'.

In relation to the transformation of living matter into other living matter (which appears to be what you are saying here) this is simply due to consciousness permeating all matter, as per my theology.

And if your definitions of these concepts differ from common usages or those of the dictionary, I submit that it is your responsibility to clarify your idiosyncratic usage. The rest of us are using English to communicate not obfuscate.

If it is just a matter of using dictionary definitions, then that is related to the fallacy of popularity.

Words are created and things are defined according to bias of interpretation. Just because the majority define 'things' a certain way, does not mean that the majority are correct. See argumentum ad populum.

This is especially true in relation to this particular argument re life after death and some ideas of GOD as such cannot be definitively proven either way to being false or true.

The way you define 'life' is a peculiar notion of the westernized mindset. It is no wonder western dictionaries therefore 'see' life that way. This of course in no way means that the interpretation is the correct one, and should not be implied to be so, as you are obviously attempting to do.


Apart from that, you do me a disservice in implying that I am being obfuscate in my interactions. I accept that complex things are not easy to explain or to understand. However what you said is as unfair as someone accusing a mathematician of the same thing, just because they are not mathematically inclined and thus it appears to them to be the case.

I am nether mathematically or scientifically inclined in relation to formulas and other complexities involved with those disciplines, but I am able to apply myself enough to get the gist and feel no compulsion to claim those disciplines are purposefully being obfuscating just because I might not fully understand what they are saying.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 54 by William]
What you seem to be saying, and I could be wrong, is that God, consciousness, life, and reality are synonyms. If that is the case, then to clarify the discussion we can discard any three terms, since they add no new information.
If we wish to actually communicate more than "yadda yadda yadda" we must come to some agreement about what terms used in the discussion mean. If you have a problem with the dictionary definitions, admittedly arbitrary and often unclear, then please provide functional definitions. No circular reasoning need apply.

[William]

[Replying to post 55 by TSGracchus]

What you seem to be saying, and I could be wrong, is that God, consciousness, life, and reality are synonyms.

No. Rather I am saying that GOD and consciousness and life are synonymous. Reality - in this case the experience of this physical universe - is a created thing.

In the same way, our bodies are a created thing. Anything impermanent is not regarded by me to being synonymous with GOD. GOD is experiencing the impermanent in relation to this particular universe.

That is why I ask you to say whether you thought biological things - such as the human body - were 'living' or 'dying'. So far you have said that you think of them as 'life' and that both biologists and the dictionary agree with your definition.

If that is the case, then to clarify the discussion we can discard any three terms, since they add no new information.

As I said, you can also continue to do the same in relation to your belief about death of the body. You are going to experience this. You believe that you can discard the idea that there is more for you to experience after the death of the body, because you believe - literally - that the event will provide you with 'no new information'.

Our definitions are different because our positions are different.

My position is that while I do not hold beliefs about life after death I do hold that it is probable. I am okay with the notion that when my body dies, that will be the end of my existence but find that point of view to being something I cannot literally believe because of the many reasons I have already provided.

My position thus, is to remain open about the possibility and in that find out as much as I can about the subject, as well as accept the evidence of my own subjective experience related to OOBEs.

As is the case, my experience and subsequent studies have allowed for possibility to morph into probability, and in that I have no doubt at all that when my body dies, and I find myself still experiencing existing, I will not be surprised at all.

So my position here in relation to your statement above is that of the three words identified by me as being synonymous, the word GOD is the one I mainly use, however this can be confusing in some situations, in which case I will often use my next favored choice, CONSCIOUSNESS, which can also be confusing in some situations, and in relation to the third word, LIFE, - again the confusion can happen.

This is because in all three cases, the subject is little understood to the point where human beings are able to agree together about it. The best they can do is to place definitions in a book called a Dictionary and hopefully not use that as some authority on what is what, while the confusion still exists, because the Dictionary is only a record of the confusion, not that which provides a way out of confusion.

What is GOD?
What is Consciousness?
What is Life?

The great part about that is that I - as an individual - can apply my own definitions to what that is. Thus, I define all three as one and the same.

Now would it be correct of me to assume that the one word you would like to use as the best one to reflect this is 'Reality'?
'Because' the others 'add no new information'?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to William]

In the same way, our bodies are a created thing.

Just wondering what you mean by this statement. Can you clarify?

Also you've spoken about your own experiences shaping your views, I'm curious as to what these experiences were. I'd be interested in hearing more about them.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 56 by William]
I would say that reality is permanent. Reality is that which exists. It does not require experience. When a tree falls in a forest some of the energy released is transferred to the air as compression waves whether there is anyone or anything to hear.
Science is the study of what is real. Truth is an accurate model of what is real.
And if, like Humpty Dumpty, you reserve for yourself the right to redefine words to suit yourself. then communication becomes impossible.

Now would it be correct of me to assume that the one word you would like to use as the best one to reflect this is 'Reality'?
'Because' the others 'add no new information'? "

Consider Newton's second law of motion, a description of observed reality: F = ma. Let us modify it just a bit and say F = ma + God.
Observation will tell us then, that God = 0 else the observation will not concord with the law. Or if F = ma X God, then God = 1 and God still adds no useful information. As LaPlace remarked to Napoleon there is no need of God in our models. It adds no information.

Consciousness is a dynamic pattern of neural feedback loops. Life is a subset of chemical reactions. If you want to call that "God" then God is just the set of what is real.

But if we disagree so basically about the utility of strict definitions, if all distinctions are to disappear in a fog of fuzz, if you are going to insist that you can redefine terms at will, there is no point to discuss the matter further.

[William]

[Replying to post 58 by TSGracchus]

I would say that reality is permanent. Reality is that which exists. It does not require experience. When a tree falls in a forest some of the energy released is transferred to the air as compression waves whether there is anyone or anything to hear.
Science is the study of what is real. Truth is an accurate model of what is real.

I understand the mistake you make here in your reasoning is that you are attempting to remove consciousness from this reality and then claim the reality would still exist, but not understanding that in order for anything to be acknowledged to exist, consciousness is required.

That is the truth, so if truth is an accurate model of what is real, then one cannot simply remove an integral aspect of that reality and still call it 'truth' or 'accurate' or even a 'model', for all such things require consciousness from the go get.

Without consciousness, truth cannot exist any more than accurate models can exist.

And if, like Humpty Dumpty, you reserve for yourself the right to redefine words to suit yourself. then communication becomes impossible.

Sure. But you are implying that I am redefining words to suit myself when I am redefining them to suit the truth. See my prior posts to do with the dictionary, as there is no point in me repeating myself. If you cannot understand what it is I am saying, other than to imply that I twist definition to suit some untruthful agenda, then you do me a disservice. The readers can of course decide for themselves as to the truth of the matter in that regard.

Observation will tell us then, that God = 0 else the observation will not concord with the law. Or if F = ma X God, then God = 1 and God still adds no useful information. As LaPlace remarked to Napoleon there is no need of God in our models. It adds no information.

I don't understand what you are attempting to convey here TSGracchus. Are you claiming that this reality we think we are experiencing, does not exist, therefore GOD does not exist?

Consciousness is a dynamic pattern of neural feedback loops. Life is a subset of chemical reactions. If you want to call that "God" then God is just the set of what is real.

I have already covered this. You have shaped your beliefs on the above and therefore you are naturally enough going to extend those beliefs as a statement of faith that when your body eventually dies, that is the end of you, whereas I take the same observations of brain + consciousness interactions, and interpret them differently. Because they can be. That is the truth.

But if we disagree so basically about the utility of strict definitions, if all distinctions are to disappear in a fog of fuzz, if you are going to insist that you can redefine terms at will, there is no point to discuss the matter further.

It isn't about the definitions which make it pointless to continue trying to discuss. It is that you already have your mind made up on the subject and are unwilling to budge. you believe without a shadow of a doubt that you are the sum total of neural feedback loops and chemical reactions.

If I could suggest to you experiments you might be able to perform which may induce doubt in you, I would. But my experiencing in interacting with people of faith is that unless they choose of their own volition to be curious, they will simply stay in their safe bubble of conviction (a kind of 'feedback loop' itself) and no amount of attempt at discussion etc will change that.

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by DeMotts]

In the same way, our bodies are a created thing.

Just wondering what you mean by this statement. Can you clarify?

Our bodies are impermanent. They are created for the purpose of experience. See the context of my whole statement from that part of the post for more clarity.

Also you've spoken about your own experiences shaping your views, I'm curious as to what these experiences were. I'd be interested in hearing more about them.

There is little point in my getting into the specifics here, mainly due to time constraints. As mentioned, the OOBE experiences I had shaped my current views. As I mentioned in post #Post 54 about my thoughts on death.

There are many links in that post, to other posts I have made which can give the reader a broader understanding of my position and why I think about life as I do. Perhaps that is the place to start for you to get a better overall impression.
In the mean time I will think about writing the details re specific OOBE and post these into my Members Notes in order to be able to provide a link to those -such as yourself - who are interested in hearing more about them.