Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Cavebear]

I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

[Baruch]

'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

Only death is necessary ... and taxes ... pay them first, then die.

[Baruch]

I never stated how life came to exist as a fact in favor of the existence of God, only that life does exist. I don't know whether life started by direct intervention or because the existence of the universe and the laws of physics allowed life to happen. The thinking among scientists is if a planet has water and is in the 'Goldilocks' zone life will occur. However using intelligence we haven't yet figured out how natural forces caused life without trying to do so. I'm excited about the possibility we may discover other life in my life time. They think a planet like ours gives off a unique signature we might find in other solar systems.

It is weird to think either way... are we alone in the universe or is their life elsewhere?

There is other life here already, and we are killing it all.

[Solomon Zorn]

I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

If I could be pedantic, for a second, I would say that I know a lot about how life is possible: it is possible because of a complex molecular system, that exploits it's environment. I am not certain how biogenesis is possible. It's a pedantic difference, like I said, but worth a mention.

[Drew_2017]

'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

You're only kidding yourself if you think eliminating God eliminates the miracle of our existence. How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind. That would be like a blind man driving a car from NJ to CA without getting into an accident. Secondly how do you know God isn't necessary? For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

[TrueStory]

For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

Useless example.   A laptop is not biological life.

[Sorginak]

  Useless example.   A laptop is not biological life.

Correct.  It is as useless an example as that silly Watchmaker analogy.

[Unbeliever]

'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

Yeah, like this:

[Baruch]

Yeah, like this:

Irony alert ... you are illustrating scientists at work (per cartoon) ... and you think theologians are ass hats?  This is how science works:

!. Clever guessing (this is done in maths too, particularly Fermat) ... applied numerology, minus animal sacrifice to the demons.

2. Lucky confirmation by observation or experiment (assuming the experimentalist is doing a good job ... Einstein was disconfirmed once, by a bad experiment ... "he said .. too bad G-d is wrong" ... later a better experiment confirmed the same prediction.  Sometimes patience is required.

Whenever a theoretician comes up with an idea, he usually jealousy guards what inspired him (see Newton vs Leibniz).

When ever a prediction is confirmed, jealous colleagues say "he was just lucky" (said at many scientific conferences ... aka conclave of pointy heads).  This happened with the "mass of the Higgs boson betting pool".  The winner got 125 billion electron volts (ouch!).

If the prediction is confirmed, people overlook the ... ahem ... problems with the theory.  As Feynman would say, as long as the equations are correct, it doesn't matter what philosophy they were generated from, nor what they may mean vs reality.  Have equation, plug in numbers ... use fairly accurate result to do useful stuff (aka engineering) that is more important than academic bragging rights.

[Baruch]

Correct.  It is as useless an example as that silly Watchmaker analogy.

Seri says you are wrong, she is hurt, and demands an apology!  Mac laptops can now carry Seri.  Like autonomous cars?  Wait until your autonomous banker transfers all your money to the Bahamas ;-)

[Baruch]

You're only kidding yourself if you think eliminating God eliminates the miracle of our existence. How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind. That would be like a blind man driving a car from NJ to CA without getting into an accident. Secondly how do you know God isn't necessary? For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

There you go again ... there are no miracles, by definition.  I don't agree, but I am an ogre, with layers, not a parfait, not a troll.

[Unbeliever]

This may be relevant to the thread. I heard this on NPR this past weekend. It was extremely interesting! Sean Carroll I've already heard many times, but Wallace was new to me. I like both of their points of view, but I still don't know the nature of reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

[Baruch]

There are many similarities between modern theoretical physics and Buddhism ... see Tao of Physics (yes, Tao is Taoism).  Basically Buddhism and modern theoretical physics agree that what is real and what we ordinary experience, are two different things.  Buddhism is psychological, physics is .... well ... physical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Alan_Wallace

I have read the intro, by the Dalai Lama, to a modern edition of The Tibetan Book of the Dead.  I understood his introduction, as a psychology.  The book itself is a very advanced system of charnal ground meditation.

[Unbeliever]

By the way, I forgot to mention that the Sean/Wallace discussion (City Arts & Lectures) will be on again tonight, at 8:00 p.m. pacific time.

http://www.kqed.org/radio/programs/index.jsp?pgmid=RD13

[Sorginak]

I never could make myself like or respect Buddhism.