Gap between life and non-life (split from What if god...)

[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 January 19 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 January 19 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 January 19 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 January 19 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? 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Kassander said:

This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the topic.

The “topic” is seeing how long he can keep people engaging, how long before he can make them emotional and lash out, and how long it takes staff to shutoff his account 

[Kassander]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

The “topic” is seeing how long he can keep people engaging, how long before he can make them emotional and lash out, and how long it takes staff to shutoff his account 

I know he is a classic troll, but I still thought it was important to refute arguments and rhetoric. Even a troll can provide good templates for making your own position public.

Edited January 19 by Kassander

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

 

 

 

Just now, swansont said:

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.

 

But what are your criteria of being good or bad?

Just now, Kassander said:

I know he is a classic troll, but I still thought it was important to refute arguments and rhetoric. Even a troll can provide good templates for making your own position public.

No, I am not a troll. I am a person. I just ask you some questions, and you attack and insult me in response. I thought it was a scientific forum. 

Good offence is the best defense, classic.

Edited January 19 by m_m

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

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

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

But what are your criteria of being good or bad?

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around?

Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? 

Quote

No, I am not a troll. I am a person.

But you are acting like a troll.

Quote

I just ask you some questions, and you attack and insult me in response.

Sealioning. Textbook example.

Quote

I thought it was a scientific forum. 

And here we are discussing belief in gods.

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

How do you tell if you have uncovered reality? Is there a way to test it?

If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around?

Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? 

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

But yes, it does matter, because we have to judge. Judgments create our values. And it does matter on what values you judge yourself and others. 

Just now, swansont said:

But you are acting like a troll.

 What of my words made you think I am a troll?? I didn't know that asking questions meant trolling.

If I disagree, how should I react to not being considered a troll? How should I behave?

Just now, swansont said:

Sealioning. Textbook example.

NO.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

But yes, it does matter, because we have to judge. Judgments create our values. And it does matter on what values you judge yourself and others.

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

 

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

 

Yes, I judge. Not in the sense to compare: if you are bad, then I am good. Though it is said not to judge. And I have no right to judge, because if something happens - this was meant to happen. 

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, m_m said:

Though it is said not to judge

You’re the one who introduced the subject of judgment. 

3 hours ago, m_m said:

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

Circle. Circle. Circle. Jerkle. Jerkle. Jerkle. 

54 minutes ago, m_m said:

I didn't know that asking questions meant trolling.

Strawman. It’s actually worse if you’re not a troll bc it means you’re a moron. 

Edited January 19 by iNow

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, I judge. Not in the sense to compare: if you are bad, then I am good. Though it is said not to judge. And I have no right to judge, because if something happens - this was meant to happen. 

Well that’s not very clear. Telling how you don’t judge isn’t very illuminating, and admitting you violate a religious teaching? That can’t go over well with the eye in the sky.