What if god...

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. 

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest.

Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you.

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means.

 

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?

So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

the essence of subjectivity

Is that subjective?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

But it happens! I’ve seen it with my own two eyes!!

 

[Luc Turpin]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. 

Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you.

Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means.

 

So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

A distinction must be made between individual subjective experiences and the collective patterns of those experiences that span across time and cultures. While science cannot and should not concern itself with individual preferences, as they are highly variable, it becomes significant when millions of people report similar subjective experiences. This suggests that there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself. By exploring these shared experiences, science can broaden its scope, bringing it closer to a deeper understanding of true reality. An approach that bridges the gap between objective and collective-subjective realities would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

 

 

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself

And if they’re part of reality, then they are subject to scientific inquiry. 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

The human condition is very much at risk in several significant ways right now in large part bc humans keep ignoring scientific findings and continue relying instead on their own subjectivity.

Edited Sunday at 01:34 AM by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

1- And if they’re part of reality, then they are subject to scientific inquiry. 

2-The human condition is very much at risk in several significant ways right now in large part bc humans keep ignoring scientific findings and continue relying instead on their own subjectivity.

1- I have been saying that all along.

2- Relying on their own individual subjectivity, which is not very good. I am talking about collective subjectivity though.

 

[Khanzhoren]

On 1/15/2025 at 5:55 PM, Phi for All said:

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/20%3A_The_Origins_of_Life/20.03%3A_Formation_of_Organic_Molecules_in_an_Earthly_Reducing_Atmosphere

https://ebrary.net/70968/education/conversion_inorganic_materials_organic_matter_through_series_complex_reactions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1093669

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

Thank you for your comment and the links. However, I didn't really say that the understanding of the (theory of the) mechanism  is not advanced enough... Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

Edited Sunday at 04:47 AM by Khanzhoren

[zapatos]

55 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living".

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

[Luc Turpin]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

There is a major difference to be made between non-living molecules being incorporated into a living organism and life emerging from non-living matter on its own. The first is common, while the second has, I believe, never been observed in nature or recreated in a lab. CO2 is used by living organisms but remains non-living. On the other hand, abiogenesis refers to the process where non-living matter transforms itself into living organisms without life being present.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

1-Science does not seek to understand reality. It describes how nature behaves.

2-It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

3-Science would be further hindered by trying to dilute it by making it incorporate extraneous things.

1-I disagree. Science does more than simply describe how nature works; it seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms, and this brings us closer to understanding reality. Through theoretical models, for instance, science aims to explain and predict phenomena, which refines our understanding of the world. Ultimately, science’s goal is not just to describe nature, but to better comprehend the principles that govern reality. Beyond describing; understanding is the essence of science.

2- I do not see the relevance of bringing up "fantasy" in the discussion. Fantasy is separate from reality; it involves creating imagined thoughts that don’t align with the real world. In contrast, subjectivity starts with reality, interpreting and shaping it based on an individual’s experiences and perspectives. Subjectivity would not lead to the conclusion that a bicycle can fly, but it might influence how one perceives whether the rider is in control of the bicycle, based on observations and experiences.

3- I contend that it would bring science closer to undertanding reality in all of its's ramifications.

Edited Sunday at 01:04 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

Classic creationist argument against evolution by conflating it with abiogenesis and suggesting all theories are same as all beliefs.

Basic structure: “We’ve only witnessed parts of the process not all together when it actually occurred billions of years ago therefore your trust and faith in that as truth is no different from my trust and faith that goddidit. Both equal.”

Edited Sunday at 02:01 PM by iNow

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Thank you for your comment and the links. However, I didn't really say that the understanding of the (theory of the) mechanism  is not advanced enough... Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

For science, you require direct observation, but not of your god? Yeah.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

CO2 is used by living organisms but remains non-living.

Every atom in your body remains 'non-living' when looked at on its own. But they are part of a larger structure; that is, the body.

The body is alive, and the molecules are part of the body. If you exclude molecules as being alive when part of a body, then you are essentially saying that life exists even when the body (i.e the atoms) does not.

[Luc Turpin]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you exclude molecules as being alive when part of a body, then you are essentially saying that life exists even when the body (i.e the atoms) does not.

Molecules, even within the body, are not alive on their own. If I were to remove one from the body, it would not be alive by itself. For now, I prefer to say that we have not yet discovered how molecules transform into life, or what causes an amalgamation of molecules to sometimes form a living entity and other times remain non-living. 

Edited Sunday at 04:41 PM by Luc Turpin

[zapatos]

41 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Molecules, even within the body, are not alive on their own.

But they are not on their own, right?

They are part of a larger structure?

And the larger structure is alive?

And the structure will not be alive without those molecules?

41 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

we have not yet discovered how molecules transform into life

Sure we have. We eat the apple, the apple is digested, the molecules are used to build proteins, the proteins are incorporated into the body, the body is alive.

In a similar way we have discovered how molecules transform into a building. The ore is mined, the iron is smelt, the girder is manufactured, the girder is installed in the building.

Edited Sunday at 05:21 PM by zapatos

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The first is common, while the second has, I believe, never been observed in nature or recreated in a lab. 

Nor has the big bang or macroevolution.  Science can use indirect evidence and inference.  

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science does more than simply describe how nature works; it seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms

Distinction without a difference.  To describe how something works one looks at underlying mechanisms.  

[Kassander]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Molecules, even within the body, are not alive on their own. If I were to remove one from the body, it would not be alive by itself. For now, I prefer to say that we have not yet discovered how molecules transform into life, or what causes an amalgamation of molecules to sometimes form a living entity and other times remain non-living. 

In the course of the Enlightenment, the world was increasingly better understood and God was increasingly pushed back as an explanation. At first he was said to be responsible for the weather, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for health but also illness, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for natural disasters, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for the creation of the earth, today we know better. The more we discovered and the more we learned, the more God became superfluous and we began to understand that the universe functions without him.

Therefore, modern theologians no longer try to use God as a hypothesis for scientific phenomena such as the phenomenon of the origin of life that you described. Instead of having God carry out scientific tasks that are not necessary from a theological point of view anyway, modern theology is more concerned with the philosophy of religion. What place it can have in our everyday lives, which questions religion can answer and which it cannot. There are less serious religious movements such as creationism, which still tries to make God do unnecessary scientific work, but most serious theologians no longer want to push God into the gaps in science. This came to an end in the 19th century.

One should therefore be very cautious with religious movements that want to connect God with science. Here the focus is often more on making money than on an intellectually productive communication of faith.

[m_m]

Just now, Kassander said:

In the course of the Enlightenment, the world was increasingly better understood and God was increasingly pushed back as an explanation. At first he was said to be responsible for the weather, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for health but also illness, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for natural disasters, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for the creation of the earth, today we know better. The more we discovered and the more we learned, the more God became superfluous and we began to understand that the universe functions without him.

 

You are talking this way because you take things for granted. If you wanted to thank that the sun rises every day, and not only for you, but for everyone and everything, who would you thank? Or we don't have to be grateful, do we?

Just now, Kassander said:

Therefore, modern theologians no longer try to use God as a hypothesis for scientific phenomena such as the phenomenon of the origin of life that you described.

How do you know, are you a theologist? Why do you decide for others?

Edited Sunday at 06:34 PM by m_m

[exchemist]

39 minutes ago, Kassander said:

In the course of the Enlightenment, the world was increasingly better understood and God was increasingly pushed back as an explanation. At first he was said to be responsible for the weather, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for health but also illness, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for natural disasters, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for the creation of the earth, today we know better. The more we discovered and the more we learned, the more God became superfluous and we began to understand that the universe functions without him.

Therefore, modern theologians no longer try to use God as a hypothesis for scientific phenomena such as the phenomenon of the origin of life that you described. Instead of having God carry out scientific tasks that are not necessary from a theological point of view anyway, modern theology is more concerned with the philosophy of religion. What place it can have in our everyday lives, which questions religion can answer and which it cannot. There are less serious religious movements such as creationism, which still tries to make God do unnecessary scientific work, but most serious theologians no longer want to push God into the gaps in science. This came to an end in the 19th century.

One should therefore be very cautious with religious movements that want to connect God with science. Here the focus is often more on making money than on an intellectually productive communication of faith.

Good post. +1

[m_m]

Just now, Kassander said:

One should therefore be very cautious with religious movements that want to connect God with science. Here the focus is often more on making money than on an intellectually productive communication of faith.

This is your subjective opinion. 

I understood for myself the roots of atheism- responsibility. If there's no God, who will judge your thoughts and actions?

Just now, exchemist said:

Good post. +1

No, not good. Wrong.

Edited Sunday at 06:41 PM by m_m

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

I understood for myself the roots of atheism- responsibility. If there's no God, who will judge you?

Did you ever consider you can judge yourself?

[Kassander]

21 minutes ago, m_m said:

You are talking this way because you take things for granted. If you wanted to thank that the sun rises every day, and not only for you, but for everyone and everything, who would you thank. Or we don't have to be grateful, do we?

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I think it's absolutely possible to be grateful that a new day full of possibilities has dawned without God being responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies. If someone believes in a God, they can still be grateful to God for it, and if someone doesn't believe in a God, they can also feel gratitude towards the world. I don't know if you "have to" be grateful for that, that's more of a philosophical question. But a God who is responsible for scientific phenomena doesn't seem necessary to me.

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Did you ever consider you can judge yourself?

Why should I judge myself? What for? 

Just now, Kassander said:

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I think it's absolutely possible to be grateful that a new day full of possibilities has dawned without God being responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies. If someone believes in a God, they can still be grateful to God for it, and if someone doesn't believe in a God, they can also feel gratitude towards the world. I don't know if you "have to" be grateful for that, that's more of a philosophical question. But a God who is responsible for scientific phenomena doesn't seem necessary to me.

How do you know that the new day will come? What is the reason for your confidence?

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, m_m said:

I understood for myself the roots of atheism- responsibility. If there's no God, who will judge your thoughts and actions?

You claim comprehension, yet so consistently display the opposite

30 minutes ago, m_m said:

If there's no God, who will judge your thoughts and actions?

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did you ever consider you can judge yourself?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

Why should I judge myself? What for? 

Do try to follow along. God isn’t required for judgment on our thoughts and actions. We have ourselves and also the society in which we commune to provide such feedback and consequence. 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

Why should I judge myself? What for? 

To make yourself a better person.

That this does not occur to you means it’s unlikely you would understand what motivates others who aren’t like you. But they/we exist.

 

[Kassander]

7 minutes ago, m_m said:

How do you know that the new day will come? What is the reason for your confidence?

Nobody knows whether he will live to see the next day or not, whether he believes in God or not. This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the topic.

[m_m]

Just now, Kassander said:

Nobody knows whether he will live to see the next day or not

Why is that?