Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: ColoHank]
      #5834989 - 05/01/13 06:39 PM

Quote:

Quote:

There are plenty of examples in religious text that claim opposite of you.




It's obvious that someone knew all of the answers two thousand years ago, so let's ignore all of the scientific knowledge accumulated since then. Why can't we all just agree that lightning and thunder are generated when Thor swings his hammer and strikes his anvil?




Because we know exactly how lightning and thunder are created?

Can you on the other hand tell me what created/allows or determined all of the phyical constants we call natural laws? and if you can, which you cant please, tell me what created/allows or determined all of the laws that allow the natural laws to be as they are ad infinitum.

Heisenberg is quoted as saying…
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
To say Heisenberg made an astute observation would be an understatement !
You see, Heisenberg understood that man and science can only explain so much and that the limit (bottom of the glass) to this explanation are the natural laws and constants. Why is the speed of light 299,792,458 meters per second. Why does the velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. Are these just laws that form by chance or due to some equilibrium state of the combined energy states of matter?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835037 - 05/01/13 07:09 PM

Quickdraw,

Thank you for responding to my request to share your thoughts about the Origin of LIfe.

You wrote, “I believe the origin of life on Earth is divine and can be attributed to an intelligent creator.

By faith, I believe all life comes through Jesus Christ. Thus, life is a spiritual thing. However, along the lines of the writings of the French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, I believe a certain degree of material complexity (chemistry, biology, geology, etc.) is necessary for life to appear; for life to be given. The material complexity of itself cannot create life, but it is a condition within the material conditions of the universe for life to occur. Concerning human life, the same applies a fortiori; that is, once the anthropod reaches a certain degree of complexity, then human awareness, will, intellect can appear, be given.

Virtually none of what I believe can be proven or disproven scientifically, as my assertions about life are that it is a spiritual entity and defined as such, is necessarily outside the authority of science which deals with, and only with, matter and motion.

I do feel, nonetheless, that this spiritual understanding of life can embolden, empower, and inspire the scientist in her/his purely scientific work. And, possibly, provide some guidance for distinguishing scientifically productive and unproductive paths of investigation.



You also wrote, “Furthermore, I believe the Earth's attributes, orbital characteristics, solar characteristics, galactic position are far more rare and unique than we currently understand or believe. Possibly to the point it may be a one of a kind.

I have no idea why you believe what you wrote in the first sentence but I would guess it comes from some source of divine revelation to which you ascribe or to some gut feeling. Please feel free to say more about this.

As to the second sentence, Jarad, who is one of the administrators of this site, in a response to a request of mine about the statistical significance of n=1 as it relates to determining the conditions for life, and sentient life to come into existence, powerfully and clearly explained to me/us that based on the sample we have (i.e. earth) we simply cannot say how likely or unlikely the existence of life and sentient life elsewhere is.


Finally, you wrote, “I see God as a logical necessity required to give pre-universe absolute nothingness contrast and definition. When asked who he was God said himself “I Am that I Am” which to me means he is because he has to logically be.

I do not understand what you meant by the first sentence. Could you explain your statement?

As to the second statement, I think I do understand what you believe and think. There does seem to be a correlation between the theological dogma of God defined by the Hebrew word meaning I AM (or I AM WHO AM) and the scholastic metaphysical concept of pure Being and its logical attributes.



To your opening aside/comment: some people are uncomfortable with philosophical and theological discussions; especially when those discussions become oppressive or abusive preachings. Fortunately, I have experienced environments of education based on dialogical courtesy. In these environments, time and again I have seen, on the most sensitive of issues, philosophical and theological and political discussions occur without rancor, with good will, and with productivity.

From my viewpoint, and I would hope from yours as well, I would hope that it is the case that, no matter how different our philosophical or theological beliefs are, that in the end, these will cause far less conflict between you and I, then the fact that you are from Ann Arbor, Michigan and thus, probably a University of Michigan fan, and that I lived in Lansing, Michigan; am a Michigan State University Spartan fan (go Izzo) and now live in Kentucky; the home of Pitino and Calipari who regularly (but not always) beat up on the maize and blue.

Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (05/01/13 07:13 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835123 - 05/01/13 08:01 PM

Quote:

Because we know exactly how lightning and thunder are created?




Well, that's a fairly simply example, but we have a pretty good idea. Static electricity generated by friction is pretty straighforward, as is electrical arcing. There may be some details left out, but we have the basics pretty well covered.

Quote:

Can you on the other hand tell me what created/allows or determined all of the phyical constants we call natural laws? and if you can, which you cant please, tell me what created/allows or determined all of the laws that allow the natural laws to be as they are ad infinitum.




No. But I don't find "because God said so" to be a very satisfying answer either. I prefer to use the fact that we don't know all the answers as motivation to keep looking, rather than to give up and say "God did it".

And for the record, I am not an atheist. Even on the issues where I believe that "God did it", I still think it's a worthwhile endeavor for us to try to figure out exactly how he did it.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: Jarad]
      #5835149 - 05/01/13 08:19 PM

Quote:



No. But I don't find "because God said so" to be a very satisfying answer either. I prefer to use the fact that we don't know all the answers as motivation to keep looking, rather than to give up and say "God did it".

And for the record, I am not an atheist. Even on the issues where I believe that "God did it", I still think it's a worthwhile endeavor for us to try to figure out exactly how he did it.

Jarad




Jarad,
Exactly !
Too many people that do not have a spiritual belief system think that just because one may believe in some form of a supreme creator or intelligence that we automatically give up the right to wonder how he fashioned it all.
Just because I am of the belief that God exists and has set in place everything according to his plan, foreknowledge and wisdom does not mean I am not just as curious as the next guy as to how he made it tick. I am after all here on CN as an example and very interested in most of the sciences
Don’t make the mistake in thinking that at least me personally has “given up” in searching for understanding just because I believe God. I am however acutely aware that we will never ever have the final answer and that also may be by design.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835156 - 05/01/13 08:23 PM

So you want philosophy of religion?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835193 - 05/01/13 08:47 PM


Otto,

I am not nearly as prolific a writer as you and it is getting late so I will try to give you the quick and easy answers to your questions.
Otto wrote…
“As to the second sentence, Jarad, who is one of the administrators of this site, in a response to a request of mine about the statistical significance of n=1 as it relates to determining the conditions for life, and sentient life to come into existence, powerfully and clearly explained to me/us that based on the sample we have (i.e. earth) we simply cannot say how likely or unlikely the existence of life and sentient life elsewhere is.”

I believe first that God has no reason to create life (at least intelligent life) elsewhere. If you believe in the Christian God you have to ask what motivation would there be to create “another mankind” elsewhere. Are they or us a plan B or C….
Did God err in his ways or was his plan perfect due to his wisdom and foreknowledge?

Otto wrote
“I do not understand what you meant by the first sentence. Could you explain your statement?

As to the second statement, I think I do understand what you believe and think. There does seem to be a correlation between the theological dogma of God defined by the Hebrew word meaning I AM (or I AM WHO AM) and the scholastic metaphysical concept of pure Being and its logical attributes.”

The first and second statements are related and supportive of each other. I believe God is a logical necessity in the pre-universe dominion. I believe he being absolute truth, life and love lived in contrast and was essential to define absolute falsehood, death, evil and nothingness. One could not exist without the other. In other words, you cannot have a “something” without a “nothing”

Go Blue !


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835234 - 05/01/13 09:08 PM

Well since we have gone there...
Why is it "rational" to think that whatever magical being you belive in is THE origin of life?
Give me one shred of evidence, one logical argument, that it's the one YOU belive in and NOT one of the countless other deities that are credited with creating life, the Universe and everything. For that matter, what if aliens engineered the DNA strain that ended up here billions of years ago and spawned the diversity we see today, would we be able to tell the difference? Would it matter to a religious person or would that just be more "reinforcement of belief"? Ah...there it is, intelligent design!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5835242 - 05/01/13 09:10 PM

Quote:

Well since we have gone there...
Why is it "rational" to think that whatever magical being you belive in is THE origin of life?
Give me one shred of evidence, one logical argument, that it's the one YOU belive in and NOT one of the countless other deities that are credited with creating life, the Universe and everything. For that matter, what if aliens engineered the DNA strain that ended up here billions of years ago and spawned the diversity we see today, would we be able to tell the difference? Would it matter to a religious person or would that just be more "reinforcement of belief"? Ah...there it is, intelligent design!




Please see the above post


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5835254 - 05/01/13 09:17 PM

Quote:

For that matter, what if aliens engineered the DNA strain that ended up here billions of years ago and spawned the diversity we see today, would we be able to tell the difference? Would it matter to a religious person or would that just be more "reinforcement of belief"? Ah...there it is, intelligent design!




I told jarad I was finished with spiritual discussions so I will not address your first questions. I will however address your statement above as it is very easily challenged when we ask "Who designed the alien's DNA?"

I know, other aliens


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835272 - 05/01/13 09:31 PM

Sorry I didn't mean you specifically, just wondering how, if one reaches the conclusion that life was created, ordained, as it were, by some divine intervention, which one to believe.
Is it a logical review of all the contenders, research into the merits of each claim?
I don't think so, once the closed loop is set up it's hard to break it. I am open to the possiblity that the origin of life was "created" but quoting text from people that thought the sun went round the earth aint gonna sway me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: origin of life new [Re: ColoHank]
      #5835285 - 05/01/13 09:38 PM

Quote:

Quote:

There are plenty of examples in religious text that claim...



Why can't we all just agree that lightning and thunder are generated when Thor swings his hammer and strikes his anvil?




I have for years thought our name (homo sapiens)should be changed. My first pick was the Mayan name for us, "Those Who Bear the Burden of Time". But i have come to think the better, would be, "the story telling ape".
We have so many "just so" stories.
The opening of my favorite "just so story" because it is so beautifully written...

Edited by moynihan (05/01/13 09:44 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: origin of life new [Re: moynihan]
      #5835296 - 05/01/13 09:48 PM

Pretty good, but I prefer Doc Savage...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5835329 - 05/01/13 10:14 PM

"I believe" is never a fertile argument in a scientific discussion.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5835330 - 05/01/13 10:15 PM

Okay guys. I am willing to allow some discussion of philosophy, but quoting bible verses (particularly ones that belittle other religions) is stepping too far.

From a science viewpoint, the problem with this answer:
Quote:

I told jarad I was finished with spiritual discussions so I will not address your first questions. I will however address your statement above as it is very easily challenged when we ask "Who designed the alien's DNA?"

I know, other aliens




is that you can replace the word "aliens" with "God", and you are in the same logical hole. Issues of faith will not be resolved with logic or evidence, which is why we avoid them here, regardless of whether we personally agree or disagree with the conclusion.

So let's step away from the religious references and stick to what we can figure out about the "how" regarding origins of life, based on things that can at least potentially be observed or measured.

Thanks,

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Jarad]
      #5835446 - 05/01/13 11:40 PM

Exactly, Jarad. Claims about censorship on this topic are ironic, because once someone has inserted "belief" in the faith sense, they have already self-censored. They can no longer be addressed with any sort of fact-based argument.

It's no longer discussion, its proclamation.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: origin of life new [Re: Jarad]
      #5835475 - 05/02/13 12:08 AM

Quote:


Issues of faith will not be resolved with logic or evidence
Jarad



Actually many of those issues have been resolved and laid to rest many times over by logic and evidence. It's kinda what science does, investigate, experiment and explain how things happen.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5835677 - 05/02/13 06:03 AM

Quote:

"I believe" is never a fertile argument in a scientific discussion.




It certainly is, it is the start of every hypotheses.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835696 - 05/02/13 06:50 AM

Quote:

Quote:

"I believe" is never a fertile argument in a scientific discussion.




It certainly is, it is the start of every hypotheses.




No, hypotheses start with "I wonder".

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: origin of life new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #5835724 - 05/02/13 07:27 AM

Quote:

Quote:

"I believe" is never a fertile argument in a scientific discussion.


It certainly is, it is the start of every hypotheses.




Technically, no.
Belief is acceptance that something is true or real etc. Quite the opposite of the beginning of a hypothesis.

But this does illustrate why the matters of religious belief and science are pretty much apples and oranges (other than the scientific study of religious belief itself, in neuroscience, biology etc.).

Faith is belief without evidence for it, in the empirical sense. In science biogeophysical evidence is necessary. By its very definition, religion and faith are "supernatural". biogeophysical evidence for it (not the "act" of believing, such as runs of a temple, or some ancient text), for the symbolic object of belief, are not necessary, and do not exist in the first place. In the contemplation of such, assertions and bases of argument that would be logical fallacies in empirical thought do not bound the the discussion.

Matters religious and spiritual, are not subject to "persecution" here. Being told you are wrong is not persecution. This is not prejudice either. This is a science related forum.

I would myself expect a less than warm reception to my thoughts, if i raised astrology in this forum, or, if i entered a chess forum and began posting about poker, because both games have a beginning. Or, if in a forum about repair of internal combustion engines, I insisted that all problems arose from gizmos, the evil jins North African tribal folks thought were involved in engine operation when they first saw jeeps and trucks.

Perhaps the nicest way to explain the deferences is to think of science and religion, like games. Science has method (i.e "rules"). Religion has rules also (believe in god x or after physical death, you will be pain in place z, etc). Different games, different rules

Edited by moynihan (05/02/13 07:48 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: moynihan]
      #5835735 - 05/02/13 07:41 AM

Quote:

Being told you are wrong is not persecution.




Just to clarify, we do not tell people that their religion is wrong. That is neither the personal opinion nor the policy of the SASE moderators.

We do tell people that this is the wrong place to discuss religion.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 7 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 8285

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics