What if god...

[CharonY]

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it:

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research

As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things.

To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

[Luc Turpin]

Based on the available evidence, the leading hypothesis is that life originated from matter. However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. While it is not the leading theory, it remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed at this point in time.

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it:

As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things.

To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. 

That is why I asked @Luc Turpin to agree abiogenesis is a fact, something he refused to do. 

Edited Thursday at 07:55 PM by exchemist

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. 

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However,

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter.

this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However,

this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural  principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural  principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it. 

Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis."

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter

What in the fuck are you talking about? Look up the definition of 'life'. Any version of the definition you wish to use does not include the possibility that life can exist without matter. I cannot believe you are this clueless. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

a natural principle [does] not involve matter

For example ...?

[Gees]

On 1/29/2025 at 10:57 AM, swansont said:

Put another way - we’ve seen this behavior long before ChatGPT came along. 

Blaming stuff on bots is kinda lazy. 

The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. Otherwise, life had to originate at some point, and that’s abiogenesis. Since science’s domain does not cover magic/mysticism, and that avenue was expressly rejected by the author, and also that we can pretty safely rule out life existing on the proto-earth, it’s what we’re left with.

IOW, abiogenesis must be accepted. What’s not yet been shown are the mechanisms and steps of that process.

Swansont,

Do you have any idea of how many times the words "supernatural", "magic", and "mysticism" have been used in this thread? The interesting part is that the words are always used by "science" people.

So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? It is no wonder that Luc and I are having trouble in this thread, as we don't think either of those things happened.

I didn't think this thread was about abiogenesis, but then maybe it is.

Gee

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Gees said:

the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? 

Another option is that you seem to struggle with reading comprehension 

[Gees]

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

I revisited my earlier comments on abiogenesis to assess where I may have misrepresented the concept, and I reached the same conclusion as you. I would ask exchemist to clarify where the misrepresentation occurred, but unfortunately, as others, he has withdrawn from the discussion.

Asking would be a waste of time. After 12 pages, you should realize that nobody cares. I have watched members in the religion forum abuse every idea that is presented in this religion section, whether it is good or bad -- for years. They pretend interest, then gradually change the conversation to be about science, then ridicule anyone who does not agree with them. This thread was never about abiogenesis -- it is about the "God" concept, which none of the members study or understand. The members here are reasonably intelligent and capable of reading and following a thought process, so this is a bait and switch tactic.  Entertainment for the forum members.

Normally I would not even respond to a thread in this forum, but when you noted that there is a difference between the spiritual and religion, and you made that comment without regard to any religion or practice, I thought that you might be worth talking to.

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Additionally, my statement that 'although there is strong evidence suggesting life could have originated from simple molecules under specific conditions, it remains a plausible concept rather than an established fact' more accurately reflects the current state of scientific understanding, as opposed to claiming that 'abiogenesis is an objective fact.'"

If you google abiogenesis, you are informed that the Oxford dictionary calls abiogenesis a theory.

On 1/29/2025 at 8:09 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Science can study the mental indirectly, but not directly.

Science can study it, but they don't. They study the brain, or they study behavior, or they study societies. They do not study the mental and barely study consciousness.

I have been studying consciousness off and on for decades and have come to the conclusion that some aspects of consciousness can interact with the physical. Some aspects of consciousness may actually be physical. I have asked members in other forums if they can tell me the properties of mental aspects, and they have no answer. Some aspects of the mental do have properties.

But I must tell you that I have been fighting MS (multiple sclerosis), which slows me down, for about 50 years, and now I have cancer to fight also. I start my radiation treatment next week, which I have been told will make me even more tired, so I have no desire to provide entertainment for the masses. 

I sent you a PM with my email address so that we could continue this conversation if you are interested. I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread. It is just too hard and serves no purpose.

Gee

 

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, Gees said:

I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread.

Who cares? You are not participating in this thread anyway. Every Single Post you've made consists of you bitching and moaning about this site and the people here (with the exception of your crush on Luc) . Be gone already.

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, Genady said:

For example ...?

One could argue the "laws of physics", perhaps better described as the fundamental order we see in nature which we express through our "laws" , are physical principles that apply whether matter is present or not. 

 

And, as we are in the Religion subforum, this order is, I understand, what thinkers like Spinoza and Einstein seem to have identified with "God". Of course this conception of god is far removed from the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. It is just an orderly principle of nature itself. 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by exchemist

[Genady]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

One could argue the "laws of physics", perhaps better described as the fundamental order we see in nature which we express through our "laws" , are physical principles that apply whether matter is present or not. 

 

And, as we are in the Religion subforum, this order is, I understand, what thinkers like Spinoza and Einstein seem to have identified with "God". Of course this conception of god is far removed from the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. It is just an orderly principle of nature itself. 

 

Are there currently examples of laws or principles of nature like this, i.e., laws that do not involve matter?

Aren't such principles rather mathematical than natural?

[Intoscience]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis."

All life as we know it is made from matter, simple.

So you have 2 options outside this:

Option 1. Life emerging from pure energy, which we have no real examples, evidence, or models for.

Option 2. life emerging spiritually, which we would define as "super natural" again we have no real examples or evidence for.

Both these examples extend our current definition of life outside of what would be considered mainstream.

If you want to propose an alternative to life as we know it (matter based), then by all means crack on. But if you are going to make propositions outside of the mainstream and bring them to a "science" forum then you better have some credible, testable evidence to support your claims.  

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Intoscience
spelling

[Gees]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

One could argue the "laws of physics", perhaps better described as the fundamental order we see in nature which we express through our "laws" , are physical principles that apply whether matter is present or not. 

Yes. One could make that argument. Philosophy would talk about balance, science would talk about math, and religion would talk about the "God'" plan, but they would all be talking about the same thing.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

And, as we are in the Religion subforum, this order is, I understand, what thinkers like Spinoza and Einstein seem to have identified with "God".

Congratulations. You finally got off the Science v Religion merry-go-round long enough to think. Think about this: Spinoza lived hundreds of years ago, so what has science learned in the meantime that would support or detract from Spinoza's work?

Einstein used math to make his conclusions. Quantum theories and holographic theories built on his original ideas.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Of course this conception of god is far removed from the personal God of the Abrahamic religions.

So is there a personal "God" concept and a universal "God" concept? Two of them? Look to psychology for an answer to the personal "God". Jung taught us about the "God" archetypes, Blanco taught us about the logic in the unconscious by explaining that emotion ignores time, psychology tells us a lot about the personal "God".

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

It is just an orderly principle of nature itself. 

Even ordinary principles are worthy of study.

Gee

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

Swansont,

Do you have any idea of how many times the words "supernatural", "magic", and "mysticism" have been used in this thread? The interesting part is that the words are always used by "science" people.

It’s because the science people are responding, as in “what you propose is magic”and how many instances are tied to a negation (e.g. “not magic”)?

I don’t see what all is so interesting about that. It’s like going into a crackpot’s thread and finding that only the science folks are saying “perpetual motion” because crackpots know to avoid the phrase. But it’s perfectly legit to say perpetual motion violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

10 hours ago, Gees said:

So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? It is no wonder that Luc and I are having trouble in this thread, as we don't think either of those things happened.

We don’t have a large enough sampling here to conclude anything about what religious people think, and if you conclude that scientists think magic started life you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

(edit: I see I’m not the only one to make that observation)

10 hours ago, Gees said:

I didn't think this thread was about abiogenesis, but then maybe it is.

Gee

That make an excellent argument for all of this being a thread hijack, but I think the original topic was asked and answered,

[Gees]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Are there currently examples of laws or principles of nature like this, i.e., laws that do not involve matter?

Aren't such principles rather mathematical than natural?

I always thought that the self balancing of ecosystems was interesting. How does it put itself back together and maintain its self-balancing nature after we mess it up or after a natural disaster messes it up? What law or principle causes all life to work so hard to maintain itself and cause life to continue?

We use math to measure these principles, but I don't see how math causes them.

Gee

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Asking would be a waste of time. After 12 pages, you should realize that nobody cares. I have watched members in the religion forum abuse every idea that is presented in this religion section, whether it is good or bad -- for years. They pretend interest, then gradually change the conversation to be about science, then ridicule anyone who does not agree with them

When one brings up a science topic, it’s disingenuous to claim that anyone else has changed the topic to be about science. abiogenesis is firmly within science. The religious version is referred to as creation.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Gees said:

I always thought that the self balancing of ecosystems was interesting. How does it put itself back together and maintain its self-balancing nature after we mess it up or after a natural disaster messes it up? What law or principle causes all life to work so hard to maintain itself and cause life to continue?

When I studied ecology (as a course in biology program) many years ago, several models were presented for a variety of such events in different circumstances. All of them were built upon known chemical and physical principles, which are properties of matter.

[Luc Turpin]

 

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis."

Apologies for the post; I realize I misrepresented natural principles.

10 hours ago, Gees said:

1-Asking would be a waste of time. After 12 pages, you should realize that nobody cares. I have watched members in the religion forum abuse every idea that is presented in this religion section, whether it is good or bad -- for years. They pretend interest, then gradually change the conversation to be about science, then ridicule anyone who does not agree with them. This thread was never about abiogenesis -- it is about the "God" concept, which none of the members study or understand. The members here are reasonably intelligent and capable of reading and following a thought process, so this is a bait and switch tactic.  Entertainment for the forum members.

2-Normally I would not even respond to a thread in this forum, but when you noted that there is a difference between the spiritual and religion, and you made that comment without regard to any religion or practice, I thought that you might be worth talking to.

3-If you google abiogenesis, you are informed that the Oxford dictionary calls abiogenesis a theory.

4-Science can study it, but they don't. They study the brain, or they study behavior, or they study societies. They do not study the mental and barely study consciousness.

5-I have been studying consciousness off and on for decades and have come to the conclusion that some aspects of consciousness can interact with the physical. Some aspects of consciousness may actually be physical. I have asked members in other forums if they can tell me the properties of mental aspects, and they have no answer. Some aspects of the mental do have properties.

6-But I must tell you that I have been fighting MS (multiple sclerosis), which slows me down, for about 50 years, and now I have cancer to fight also. I start my radiation treatment next week, which I have been told will make me even more tired, so I have no desire to provide entertainment for the masses. 

7-I sent you a PM with my email address so that we could continue this conversation if you are interested. I doubt that I will respond to many more posts in this thread. It is just too hard and serves no purpose.

Gee

 

1. I’m starting to feel that some of this is becoming futile, both for myself and for those responding to my posts. 

2. Being freed from religion while retaining one’s spirituality is truly a state of bliss.

3. Catching someone on technicalities seems to be a common tactic in these forums.

4. I completely agree.

5. After studying consciousness for some time, I’ve come to wonder: does the mind emerge from the brain, or does it flow through it?

6. I’m genuinely sorry to hear about your situation. I truly hope things improve for you as much as they can.

7. Let’s take this conversation offline.

8. 12 hours ago, zapatos said:

   What in the fuck are you talking about? Look up the definition of 'life'. Any version of the definition you wish to use does not include the possibility that life can exist without matter. I cannot believe you are this clueless. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.

   There’s no need for harsh language. Life might exists alongside matter, not without it. Matter is essential for life to fully express itself.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

All life as we know it is made from matter, simple.

So you have 2 options outside this:

Option 1. Life emerging from pure energy, which we have no real examples, evidence, or models for.

Option 2. life emerging spiritually, which we would define as "super natural" again we have no real examples or evidence for.

Both these examples extend our current definition of life outside of what would be considered mainstream.

If you want to propose an alternative to life as we know it (matter based), then by all means crack on. But if you are going to make propositions outside of the mainstream and bring them to a "science" forum then you better have some credible, testable evidence to support your claims.  

 

This conversation has drifted from my original intention, and I take part of the responsibility for that.

I’m not trying to suggest an alternative to life itself, but I do believe that the claim that life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is both premature and overly simplistic. Furthermore, I argue that science has become so closely tied to this and similar explanations that it has somewhat overlooked its duty to explore all viable possibilities.

Again, we have drifted into the unknown with this conversation and there was no need for it.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

and if you conclude that scientists think magic started life you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

No, some people in this forum dismiss alternatives to prevailing scientific knowledge by labeling them as 'magic,' even when they are not. It’s a convenient way to avoid engaging in thoughtful conversation.

Edited 12 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[Gees]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s because the science people are responding, as in “what you propose is magic”and how many instances are tied to a negation (e.g. “not magic”)?

I know why they do it. But when people often say, "what you propose is magic", or "that is supernatural", one has to wonder what those people know about magic and the supernatural, or what they are hiding about their superstitious natures. For me, I see magic as something that entertains children and the supernatural as a word that is used by some to explain the unexplained -- neither term has any real meaning for me personally. I actually worked a thread in this forum, while trying to get to the bottom of the "supernatural" dilemma.

So either the people who accuse others of magic and/or the supernatural in this forum are superstitious fools, or they are being insincere, insulting, argumentative, disingenuous, and royal pains.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see what all is so interesting about that. It’s like going into a crackpot’s thread and finding that only the science folks are saying “perpetual motion” because crackpots know to avoid the phrase. But it’s perfectly legit to say perpetual motion violates the second law of thermodynamics.

This is off-topic, irrelevant, and it looks like misdirection. Have you been studying Trump's methodologies?

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

We don’t have a large enough sampling here to conclude anything about what religious people think, and if you conclude that scientists think magic started life you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

You missed the point.

You said, "The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. " This is not true. You have oversimplified something because you do not understand it.

I responded with, "So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life?" which is also not true, which would be why I phrased it as a question. I  was mimicking your rather simplistic statement, which obviously had nothing to do with truth.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

(edit: I see I’m not the only one to make that observation)

iNow missed the point also. Maybe he should consider some help with his reading comprehension.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

That make an excellent argument for all of this being a thread hijack, but I think the original topic was asked and answered,

It was not answered. 

Gee

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I know why they do it. But when people often say, "what you propose is magic", or "that is supernatural", one has to wonder what those people know about magic and the supernatural, or what they are hiding about their superstitious natures. For me, I see magic as something that entertains children and the supernatural as a word that is used by some to explain the unexplained -- neither term has any real meaning for me personally. I actually worked a thread in this forum, while trying to get to the bottom of the "supernatural" dilemma.

That points to a problem we’ve seen - not defining your terms, or using lay definitions instead of more precise scientific ones. Most people understand that “magic that entertains children” is not actually magic, and that what we’re discussing is not sleight of hand or illusion (stage magic) and what it refers to is paranormal magic.

1 hour ago, Gees said:

So either the people who accuse others of magic and/or the supernatural in this forum are superstitious fools, or they are being insincere, insulting, argumentative, disingenuous, and royal pains.

This is off-topic, irrelevant, and it looks like misdirection. Have you been studying Trump's methodologies?

The term you want to look up is “analogy”

That might clear up your confusion

1 hour ago, Gees said:

You missed the point.

You said, "The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. " This is not true. You have oversimplified something because you do not understand it.

I responded with, "So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life?" which is also not true, which would be why I phrased it as a question. I  was mimicking your rather simplistic statement, which obviously had nothing to do with truth.

I can’t help but notice that you have not actually offered the third option that would rebut my claim.

Keep in mind that Luc has been adamant that they are not promoting creationism, so God has already been excluded as an option.

1 hour ago, Gees said:

iNow missed the point also. Maybe he should consider some help with his reading comprehension.

If multiple people allegedly miss the point, perhaps you should consider that the point was not clearly made.

But when you claim “science people think that magic started life” I have to wonder how in the world you can reach that conclusion based on what was discussed.

1 hour ago, Gees said:

It was not answered. 

Gee

Peterkin answered it

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Or you could, you know, NOT DO IT AT ALL, since it’s off-topic.

Is it though, we're twelve pages into troll paradise, what if god did it; we both know he didn't, so we're just talking semantics...

[Luc Turpin]

Discussions on this forum should centre on questioning ideas, not attacking individuals. Everyone should make an effort to read carefully and fully understand what’s being said—sometimes rereading a post or requiring reviewing previous posts for context—before responding. I, myself, am partly guilty of this as well.