quote:I take it that you are referring to my question about a cell. Sure a cell would have to be 'alive', in order to set it apart from the non-living, but do you have material that suggests that cells by themselves are generally conscious? I suppose the same question can be asked about the smaller entities, including DNA and RNA, that make up a single cell - which is by itself complex enough, let alone a multicellular organism.
There's a lot of evidence which suggests that "consciouness" is a continuum that ranges from never alive to nirvana.
Examples to be *cited*?
I think it is necessary to realize that being alive and being able to be sensitive to the environment, is not one and same thing as being able to think. What mechanism would allow a single cell to think? And like I asked earlier, one could ask the same question about the more microscopic elements that make up a single cell; do they think?
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
Certainly bacteria are closer to the low end of the scale than the high end but new research shows that the behavior of many simple organisms change based on enviromental factors such as species population. One bacterium will simply multiply if able until it hits a sort of critical mass and then it glows. This is apparently the result of changes in each (or most) of the bacteria rather than a chemical property. This would imply communication and at least a low level consciousness.
How would the change in the bacteria not be affiliated with chemical property? Obviously, information is passed between different components of a cell, which would enable the system to work in the first place; is this what you mean by 'consciousness'. I mean, what is DNA alone, if not to code *information* for the production of proteins and to instruct pre-existing proteins? So yes, information is circulated in cells and between cells, which would be the whole idea behind "organization" in multicellular organisms, but does this tell us that the components involved are themselves "thinkers"?
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
Individual human cells are most probably far lower on the "consciousness" scale than bacteria or even viruses but I wouldn't be surprised if it were learned that some body parts and their associated ganglia had a very high level of consciousness of which we're not aware. All communication with such structures occurs in the most primitive parts of the brain and the medula.
Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
I cannot think of any time existing before Time T(zero) and I cannot think of a situation where there is zero space. So the universe has always existed but in pulsating--i.e. expanding and contracting fashion.
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I love Jesus because he freed mankind from dependence on the brahman, priest, cohen, imam or rabbi. Jesus taught that upon this rock I make my church. This was a simple teaching but what he said was that one can communicate with his Creator, anytime and anywhere as long as he prayed...
Jesus taught that this was unacceptable. You had no need for Mosque, Church or Temple worship, the Creator was there for you to consult through prayer anytime you felt like communicating with Him/Her in anyway you saw fit.
Most of these "Abrahamic" faiths, if not all, teach that in principle, that the Supreme Being is omnipresent, and hence, one can call upon this Being virtually anywhere, and by extension outside sacred temples of worship.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
But that does not preclude the possibility of a "contracting-expanding phase universe".
On the other hand, to argue that the universe just popped up from nowhere at a non-existent time boggles my imagination.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking? [/q]
I'm just guessing that individual cells have less need for intelligence than individual bacteria so probably are much less intelligent. Obviously I might be wrong. You're right that cells will react to the enviroment.
It's also obvious that the intelligence or consciousness of a single celled organism must be very slight. They're a lot smarter and aware than a stone or this computer though.
I would think that an animal has to be pretty complex with complex behavior before the concept of a creator might be considered by many individuals of the species. Language and communication are probably key as well in other species (there's less doubt it was in man). Elephants, for instance, display a lot of complex behavior and even treat the bones of their ancestors with a sort of reverence. Whales have a language which appears to be nearly as complex as elephants though we've yet to find much behavior which could indicate belief in a creator. Some species have extremely complex behavior but are apparently of low intelligence. Termites build vast airconditioned cities with farms in them but it's difficult to ascribe a high level of awareness or intelligence to them.
Even plants get in on some complex behavior but who's going to believe that they pray on Sundays or tithe in some way.
It seems that it's language which enables complex ideas to be communicated. It probably even facilitates the formation of these ideas. If thought is the processing of concepts then language might increase the complexity of the concepts which can be processed. It may well follow that the concept of "God" is a natural outgrowth of this complexity. Likely too, though, is that god is to some extent a measure of the level of consciousness. This last absolutely does not apply to individuals only to species.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti says...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
According to the most widely accepted view of life at least in regards to organic life, they must follow these rules:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Viruses don't follow the first rule because they are not of a system complex enough for any homeostasis. They don't follow the second rule of course because they are not composed of cells but are themselves sub-cellular in nature; Rule three is out because again they have no complex system and don't perform any major work for metabolism; Rule four, they don't grow but remain virtually the same in size; Rule six, they don't respond to any stimuli.
As for rule five, they do adapt in particular to cell defenses but only because they use the genetic material of that cell. They have no independent genetic material of their own to which they use to adapt. Similar can be said for rule 7, in which they cannot reproduce on their own but use cells to make copies of them.
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
But they definitely have no "intelligence" because intelligence by its very definition involves some sort of thought process. It can be argued that cells do think by the use of their nucleus which is the 'brain' of the cell and the adaptablity of the chromosomes within a kind of 'learning'. But viruses are mere fragmentary shadows of what cells are.
quote:You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
But that does not preclude the possibility of a "contracting-expanding phase universe".
That is a non-issue. The issue was with regards to your suggestion that the universe may not have a beginning at all.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti says...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
According to the most widely accepted view of life at least in regards to organic life, they must follow these rules:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Viruses don't follow the first rule because they are not of a system complex enough for any homeostasis. They don't follow the second rule of course because they are not composed of cells but are themselves sub-cellular in nature; Rule three is out because again they have no complex system and don't perform any major work for metabolism; Rule four, they don't grow but remain virtually the same in size; Rule six, they don't respond to any stimuli.
As for rule five, they do adapt in particular to cell defenses but only because they use the genetic material of that cell. They have no independent genetic material of their own to which they use to adapt. Similar can be said for rule 7, in which they cannot reproduce on their own but use cells to make copies of them.
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
But they definitely have no "intelligence" because intelligence by its very definition involves some sort of thought process. It can be argued that cells do think by the use of their nucleus which is the 'brain' of the cell and the adaptablity of the chromosomes within a kind of 'learning'. But viruses are mere fragmentary shadows of what cells are.
Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
quote:Originallly posted by Djehuti
quote:You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking?
I'm just guessing that individual cells have less need for intelligence than individual bacteria so probably are much less intelligent. Obviously I might be wrong. You're right that cells will react to the enviroment.
It's also obvious that the intelligence or consciousness of a single celled organism must be very slight. They're a lot smarter and aware than a stone or this computer though.
I'm not yet rejecting or accepting the possibility of some level of "consciousness" in single-cell organisms, pending being informed about the mechanisms behind it. As it stands right now, no indicators have been provided to entertain the possibility. So, when you say that that "individual cells have less need for intelligence than bacteria", and are therefore likely to be "much less intelligent", I'm thinking to myself with regards to how that could be. Wouldn't coordination between cells in multicellular, necessitate feedback between cells. Do cells require consciousness to respond to such feedback? Well, if it 'cause and effect', perhaps not necessarily so. But then, you have the central nervous system; does information not flow between its components, and do they need to be "conscious" for this to work? I mean, how do we get individual cells to come together and work together? To some, DNA and RNA immediately comes to mind, but as one goes much further back into time - to primitive earth, when these likely didn't exist, what then accounts for this coming [of both elements that makeup the cells themselves - types in both single cell organisms and muliticellular organisms, and coordination between cells in multicellular organisms] together and coordination? Happenstance, i.e. trial and error of interaction between the elements that came to makeup the biological elements of a single cell perhaps?
I got a little carried away with the series of questions, but in some ways, single cells in multicellular organisms seem to be more structurally complex than the single-cell of organisms like bacteria. The point is, that bacteria themselves are essentially single-cells; how does this make them any more conscious than single cells of multicellular organisms?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Real talk brother. Real talk.
You EgyptSearch denizens are the best on the Net.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
quote:What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Where did I say the universe had no beggining? I merly stated the possibity that its begging stemmed from an end. There is a theory that states once the universe reaches total energy entropy, anti-energy will condense it back again into a point singularity from which another big-bang will occur.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
I couldn't have put it better myself. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
I have to agree with this statement 100%. Even further more, the people who claim to be these people are not culturally the originals.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
I have to agree with this as well ... but there is another problem here which I think must be brought up. The oldest so-called copy of the Hebrew is the Septuagint which was written around 250 B.C.E ... A lot of Jews and Yisra`elites like to refer to the Masoretic Text and even worse the JW's/Jehovah Witnesses use the Textus Receptus.
The one thing that these text have in common is that neither of them are the original so-called Hebrew writings.
Septuagint ... was supposed to be translated by Jew/Yisra`elites ... O ... where is the original Hebrew Text? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Well the DSS read different from both with some similarities in certain areas; but read different from both. And yet that is even fairly new. But even to that, it was a new religion verse some of the religions that's been around thousands of years prior ... one that come to mind is Voodoo/Vodoun which is said to be 10,000 old +.
I say this all the ... show me the original Greek ... Every culture that was a written culture have their original such as the Kmtians, Zoroaster ... etc but the Yisra`elites don't have them ... and even the Dead Sea Scroll was interpreted by people who were not the original. They release little pieces that help their concept but they have not released all of it because they know that is will not mirror Judaism for today or Christianity.
This isn't just about the Yisra`elite culture its about religion in general.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
Agreed!!! Yet many people are not aware of this. Those scriptures that I used was an example of how distorted peoples ideas are even in matter of there own theories (Christianity for one). I was once a part of that religion so that was an example based off of my experience while in that religion.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Agreed!!! I had this talk with my kids and they very well understand this concept ...
Example:
A man lives in a country where they are allowed to marry a 15 year old virgin and this is the normal in his country ... there are no laws against such action because it is his tradition, but he comes to the US and tries to keep his traditions. This man if caught in America will be imprisoned and brutally raped in prison by other men because it is frowned upon severely in America.
What is good in his country is bad in another ... We are the controllers of what's good and what's bad, and because we want our laws or traditions to out power another we say that a deity gave these laws and the country that is in power or rules they world will out-power the traditions of those who cannot defend their traditions.
P.S. Example people ... I agree with the US on this thing here but it was an example ... what is good or evil is based on individual traditions so then the question must be asked ... what is good or evil in the sense of these word?
Is their one universal evil? Murder? If that is true then why do so many die in the name of religion? Rape? If true then why have so many been raped by religious folks?
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
Damn this quote is good!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
It is true. We have been conditioned to believe that time is linear. Past-->Present--> Future. This is false to me. I believe that time is a circle and you can jump in at anytime.
It has to be a circle or how else can some people claim to see the future.
As a result, I believe that when we decide to play a role in the Creator's great Book, we can jump into to any period of time, due to the fact that time Just Is. Time probably does not exist where we came from, it is a phenomena that is necessary for existence on this plane.
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: alTakruri wrote:
quote:Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
Damn this quote is good! [/QB]
AlTakruri is absolutely correct, in my opinion, the Creator would not have to be beholden to His creation's idea, but the entity that created these ideas would. This results from the fact that if we are all playing roles in the Creator's Great Book we make the final judgment as to what is right or wrong, good or bad.
For example, someone is murdered by someone. We assume that this person is a monster, because our individual feelings, tell us what this person did is wrong.
How are we to say the person who murdered someone is wrong when his actions were dictated by the specific role he played in the Great Book, when he murdered someone. Who are to say that these two humans had made an agreement at home to play the murderer and the murdered.
If s/he was suppose to commit a murder to teach us something then s/he was really carrying out the assignment he chose when he agreed to come on this plane.
This means that the murderer is only wrong depending on how he percieves his actions. We see this person as good or bad based on our perceptions of what is right or wrong. This is why all of the major monotheistic religions make it clear that the Creator fulgives all of our trepasses. They are forgiven because they were done in service to completing the Great Book of the Lord.
Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
Therefore, to judge youself most compassionately, you must learn to forgive others. By learning to forgive them, you may have a better chance of leaving this plane and going home instead of creating a severe punnishment for yourself--by forgiving yourself.
This is why the Egyptian records talk about doing good; And the wonderful station we can assume by recognizing GOOD and treating our fellow brothers and sisters , as we would treat ourselves: i.e., good.
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're in danger of drifting off into politics here.
It doesn't really matter what god, gods, goddesses, deities, creators or prophets think of murder except to those individuals who believe it matters. Murder is a societal problem which has to be dealt with for societal reasons. It's simply extremely expensive and destructive to allow anyone to kill people. Even when the victim is more valuable to society in the grave it sends a bad message to allow it to occur.
This may be a relevant question in a theocracy or to religious people but the US was founded by pragmatists not theologians. Most countries are operated along common law maxins that have evolved over thousands of years and do have some religious tenets at their roots. But law remains the framework in which man best flourishes historically. One can argue any of the finer points but many of the ten commandments remain unlawfull in most places.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Clyde Winters wrote ->
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Religion is the problem, not faith in a Creator. The Creator allows us to believe or not believe.
People get in trouble when they join a religion. It is then, and only then, that people are forced to do anything.
For example, to become a Muslim you make the declaration of faith: There is One God Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.
After making this declaration you are a Muslim (a believer). Surah al-Baqarah tells you what to do to be a good believer:
"This is a perfect book; there is no doubt in it , it is a guidance for the righteous, Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 2: 3-5)
These surahs make it clear that the true believer prays, helps other people,believes in the prophets that came before Muhhammad and a return Home to the Hereafter: the Last Abode.
You see you are in islam (submission to the moral law) when you pray for guidance and way free of harming yourself and others. By helping you fellow man you are in ibaada ('service to God').
There is nothing here about praying 5 times a day, going to the Mosque, or fasting. To be a good believer you just have to acknowledge that God exist and believe in the prophets and pray.
The word we translate as Hereafter, is al-Aakhirah 'the last abode'. This does not say hereafter it simply implies that you go to last abode after living on the earth.
Praying five times a day, fasting, going to temple /mosque/church has nothing to do belief in Allah. These things are all based on sunnah (practice) that people claim Muhammad performed. If someone performs these practices they do so because they want too, or to impress their fellow man. These practices don't impress the Creator, because he has made it clear that" there is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:257).
It is belief in a Religion that fails you, and leads to people being forced to do this or that. Faith or non faith in a Creator is free, it demands no money,going to mosque/church/temple, fasting and praying five times.It only requires you learning to communicate with your Creator, helping your fellow man.
How is praying to god making you a slave? How is helping your fellow man, making you a slave?
Slavery comes from joining a religion,and allowing your co-religionists and religious leaders to tell you what is right and wrong , and what makes you the "perfect believer". It is your co-religiousness who will criticize you if you don't attend Mosque regularly for prayer, fast, wear beard, traditional garb and etc. and etc.
Having faith in a Creator is not slavery. Joining a religion enslaves you.
quote:Originally posted by sam p: I think we're in danger of drifting off into politics here.
It doesn't really matter what god, gods, goddesses, deities, creators or prophets think of murder except to those individuals who believe it matters. Murder is a societal problem which has to be dealt with for societal reasons. It's simply extremely expensive and destructive to allow anyone to kill people. Even when the victim is more valuable to society in the grave it sends a bad message to allow it to occur.
This may be a relevant question in a theocracy or to religious people but the US was founded by pragmatists not theologians. Most countries are operated along common law maxins that have evolved over thousands of years and do have some religious tenets at their roots. But law remains the framework in which man best flourishes historically. One can argue any of the finer points but many of the ten commandments remain unlawfull in most places.
Your final statement contradicts your entire post. If the ten commandments are part of the frame work of the law, and they came from a Creator, then law for most nations had a religious genesis.
Moreover Murder is not murder. In the USA people were paid bounties if they killed Indians. Briitish murdered all the Tasmanians. Finally, thousands of Afro-Americans have been killed by whites and every body knew they murdered Blacks, yet they were never tried by the law.
The law is a joke. Law exist as a way to protect the privilege, of the privileged. The adminstrators of the law always invoke a religious element in the proceedings--i.e., to promise to tell the truth based on your adherence to a religious book (take your choice Torah, Bible or Qur'an).
Moreover the people who administer the law are also the people who claim they live by a moral code and are very just based on their "religion".
Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:[What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Where did I say the universe had no beggining? I merly stated the possibity that its begging stemmed from an end.
If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.[/quote] Well as for their "border line" status, is that not what I said?? They are not truly alive by biological definition but one cannot say they are dead since they perform activities. By biological defintions they cannot reproduce since they merely use the genetic codes as well as protein material of other cells to make more of themselves instead of using their own material.
quote:If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Yes, no 'definite' beggining or end. If that the theory is true, that is.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.
Well as for their "border line" status, is that not what I said??
Where specifically?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
They are not truly alive by biological definition but one cannot say they are dead since they perform activities. By biological defintions they cannot reproduce since they merely use the genetic codes as well as protein material of other cells to make more of themselves instead of using their own material.
That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Yes, no 'definite' beggining or end. If that the theory is true, that is.
The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Clyde Winters wrote ->
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Religion is the problem, not faith in a Creator. The Creator allows us to believe or not believe.
People get in trouble when they join a religion. It is then, and only then, that people are forced to do anything.
For example, to become a Muslim you make the declaration of faith: There is One God Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.
After making this declaration you are a Muslim (a believer). Surah al-Baqarah tells you what to do to be a good believer:
"This is a perfect book; there is no doubt in it , it is a guidance for the righteous, Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 2: 3-5)
These surahs make it clear that the true believer prays, helps other people,believes in the prophets that came before Muhhammad and a return Home to the Hereafter: the Last Abode.
You see you are in islam (submission to the moral law) when you pray for guidance and way free of harming yourself and others. By helping you fellow man you are in ibaada ('service to God').
There is nothing here about praying 5 times a day, going to the Mosque, or fasting. To be a good believer you just have to acknowledge that God exist and believe in the prophets and pray.
The word we translate as Hereafter, is al-Aakhirah 'the last abode'. This does not say hereafter it simply implies that you go to last abode after living on the earth.
Praying five times a day, fasting, going to temple /mosque/church has nothing to do belief in Allah. These things are all based on sunnah (practice) that people claim Muhammad performed. If someone performs these practices they do so because they want too, or to impress their fellow man. These practices don't impress the Creator, because he has made it clear that" there is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:257).
It is belief in a Religion that fails you, and leads to people being forced to do this or that. Faith or non faith in a Creator is free, it demands no money,going to mosque/church/temple, fasting and praying five times.It only requires you learning to communicate with your Creator, helping your fellow man.
How is praying to god making you a slave? How is helping your fellow man, making you a slave?
Slavery comes from joining a religion,and allowing your co-religionists and religious leaders to tell you what is right and wrong , and what makes you the "perfect believer". It is your co-religiousness who will criticize you if you don't attend Mosque regularly for prayer, fast, wear beard, traditional garb and etc. and etc.
Having faith in a Creator is not slavery. Joining a religion enslaves you.
.
Ok ... since this seems to be a difficult concept for you to handle ... I implore you to point out the Most High to me or as you would say Allah/Ellah/Eloh/Eloh[im]i.e. Y`hwah. If you have met him then please show him to me or even tell me what he looks like if it is a HE so to speak.
Having faith n a creator is slavery because the very meaning of Islam is servitude or am I wrong. Christianity demands devotion to their religious ideology which means you are enslaved to another mans philosophy; this is as weak as it gets.
The Yisra`elites were punished to the highest degree because they didn't follow the guidelines of their enslaver or Deity. It seems to me that you fall into this b/s as well.
I get so sick of people preaching to me but don't nobody have anything substantial to say. You believe in Allah/E-loh[im] but you have no real proof that he exist[ED], yet you claim that your so-called documentation came from some dude named Mohammad is supposed to be believed without question. R U Serious? Prove it or don't believe it is my philosophy ... Only the weak minded will believe such foolish B/S without questioning it and finding answers. If there is no answer then there is no real question because every question has an answer.
If you haven't met the Most High/Allah/E-loh/Y`hwah personally then you can't say anything that would make me truly believe you. In the ancient days according to Grecian documentation of so-called Hebrew scriptures the Most High always showed himself to the people ... Why did he stop now? Do you have a so-called logical explanation for me? Absolutely not! You will say that man is being punished for their evil doings and the Most High cannot look upon evil in its purest form yet the Most High created all things which basically mean he cannot look up its own creation ... lol B/S!!!!
He sent his messenger Mohammad? Shut up with that b/s and tell that to someone who is needy!
Proof or shut it down and continue to show me graphic or pseudo linguistic information that you couldn't possibly believe in yourself.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you haven't met the Most High/Allah/E-loh/Y`hwah personally then you can't say anything that would make me truly believe you. In the ancient days according to Grecian documentation of so-called Hebrew scriptures the Most High always showed himself to the people ... Why did he stop now? Do you have a so-called logical explanation for me? Absolutely not! You will say that man is being punished for their evil doings and the Most High cannot look upon evil in its purest form yet the Most High created all things which basically mean he cannot look up its own creation ... lol B/S!!!!
First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
You have not read what I have written. I said that the Creator punishes no one, because we are only probably playing a role in his Great Book. You probably go to the Movies and have a favorite genre.
The people in the films are play acting but it appears Oh so real. Our life on earth is just as intense.
If we are playing a role in the Great Book, this is all illusion just like the movies we see at the threatre. Therefore what we see as evil is only such due to our ideas about good and bad. Ideas which were partially scripted by the Creator, who allows us the free will to make the scene materialize anyway we see fit.
You only expect punishment from the Creator if you belong to a religious group. It is the leader of your group and co-religiousionists who propagate this reality of punishment.
Many people today no longer believe in a religion. They don't go to temple, mosque or church but--they are good people who treat their neighbor as they would want themselves to be treated and have strong faith in a Creator.
It is the people who belong to religions that are fighting. In many conflicts the combatants belong to different sects of the same religion,e.g., Shia against Sunni in Iran. In the U.S., the Catholics don't like the Baptist, and both groups dispise Jehovah Witnesses.
The only slaves you find are people who believ in religions. People who are enslaved by religions do this on their own. They invent dogmas which have no basis in fact but sound great because it allows the individual to feel part of a group, and nurtures the individual's ego through the belief that the follower of a specific religion is better than members of another religion, and the nonbeliever.
The belief in a Creator makes no one a slave. It is belief in a religion and becoming a member of a group that enslaves you.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mystery Solver said to Djehuti: ''What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.''
I agree. Further, according to what I've read, if the virus is an RNA type then this same dumb-as-a-rock, outside the cell virus evidently has the wherewithal to recognize what needs to be done to turn its own RNA into DNA using the host cell's equipment to do that too even before it inserts itself into the host DNA. Looks like these little Einsteins got it down pat; all the while the host cell is up against the wall looking on helplessly. The fact is they have their instructions in place before they set out on the road to mayhem.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ru 2 religious, thanks for the compliment. However I see a need to elaborate somewhat.
You said: ''Did God create us or did we create GOD?''
While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
''I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.''
It goes without saying because witness the many thousands of beliefs around the world today.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I've been aware of this one more than 30 years ago and to some it sure is troubling... but not to me. I've seen some figuratively jump through semantical hoops and do the scriptural gymnastics route to calm the storm on this one. Of course some Biblical scholar/s could turn the pages enough and say that isn't what it means. And reading several verses above and below won't hide the fact what's been set down in print. To deny it also means to deny other parts of the book.
I said above Isaiah 45:7 doesn't trouble me at all. The reason is my intuition tells me that if there is a God and he/she, whomever, is responsible for this ''creation'' of humankind then we have no one else to blame for this condition we find ourselves in. We are not the creators but the created. Is there such a thing as saying some people have too much of this predisposition and others are predisposed to an opposite. The fact is we do what it is we are preprogramed to do. We have no control over us. We are predisposed to ''their'' unfathomable actions, good and bad, and in the process become an enigma ourselves. Every human on this planet when talking about the Deities should have a mirror in his/her pocket. It doesn't matter the direction one takes, it doesn't matter if you change your mind at the last moment; it's already set in stone for you. This condition we find ourselves in has no other answer to it. There is no way out.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Clyde Winter whom I respect tho many may ask why .. but I do respect him thus I will respond so that I can collab with you on this topic....
Winters wrote:
quote:First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
Actually Abraham did meet with him personally according to the Torah ...
Verses:
quote:Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, Genesis 18:3 And said, My Lord (adonay i.e. another name for Ha Shem/The Name/God), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
So God according to the bible did meet Abraham and Jacob had a fight with him which ended in a knee break ... The scriptures call him an angel at first but then Jacob named the place Elbethel because as he said:
Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
And for these reasons I declare that God appeared unto men in the past but he hasn't appeared to modern men. Why is that? Did God die of old age or did God just loose communication with humanity or does he send humans who cannot be trusted to give us a message from the angel Gabriel (Christian and Muslim faith Gabriel came as a messenger)? Why should I trust a man whom said God appeared unto him or a man that many proclaimed to be God (Y`shua) and without sin?
Jesus didn't proclaim to be without sin right?
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
This is admission that he is not perfect but his so-called father is which is the only one that man should call good!
We know that Jesus didn't think he was god because he said:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So that is admission that he didn't think he was without so-called sin because he didn't think that he was God as he separated himself from God in the scripture directly above.
Mr. Winter please be patient with me because I write long sometimes ...
The last part of the statement above that you made I want to respond to directly because it goes along with me theory (which is all that it is; not an ounce of proof to this).
When you say creator who are you talking about. If it/he/she wants to appear then it will see fit.
Y`shua/Jesus didn't believe that because according to the Grecian Jesus though we were God which direct you to my statement (did we create god or did God create us).
Y`shua/Jesus said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
But he further said:
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Jesus was saying like many people other then Africans which was adopted from African teachings is "Know Thyself" or "To Thyself be true".
Grumman f6f wrote:
quote:While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
On this particular phrase that you wrote I have to say or even write what John Henrik Clarke wrote, but because I don't know where the original quote is on my computer I will paraphrase:
"Man has always known that their was a force greater then him and he knew it was the spirit, but then someone created the word God. Then someone said my God is greater then your. Then someone said, I have the truth because I have the true God, but then someone said my God is greater then yours and I have the truth ... thus the beginning of the religious wars"
It is not a question of was there something that started the Laws of Motion to activate but the question is ... did it start by itself or didn't something provoke it to move. For this reason I do believe there is a God! Wow, I said it ... without movement or forced movement ... a rock will sit in the same place for eternity so thus something had to push or start the Laws of Motion ...
Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...
I speak the way that I speak because I reject mans traditions, but I'm not an atheist either. If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?
The 3 religions I named do not have that answer ... tho Islam knows a lot about Astrology or Astronomy. So does Judaism as they believe Abram/Ibram come from Ur of the Chaldess which means "City of Astrologers".
[quote]
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
''Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...''
Sho' you right on this one.
''If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?''
I sure do see your frustration here because I've said the same thing over the years, as have undoubtedly many tens of thousands of others. However, the ''making an appearance'' aspect doesn't bother me; that's another one of those unknowables that can be attributed to man. That said, many believers cling to the idea of a return; some almost to the point of damning others for having doubts about it.
What I do find interesting though is the seemingly innate belief of multitudes of people who swear by a deity or deities of some kind. Some will kill you just for mentioning that deity in a disparaging light and if I was in another part of the world I would be torched for my special brand of understanding, which is interesting in itself because every time I open my mouth to talk about this stuff ''blasphemy'' is par for the course. And I don't know why I feel the way I do on these matters, I just do.
I've carried this basic idea of a ''we are them'' disposition since I was in my middle twenties (65 now) but didn't really do any ''serious'' thinking until I got much older. With this attitude, this feeling, is there something to the God gene after all? I don't have a clue. Something drives people to see diferently, even looking at the same material. Case in point, most evolutionary biologists, seemingly, can't understand why religious folks need to have a deity of some kind to explain this idea scientists call natural forces. Well, as an outsider, meaning I don't know why and how some can say natural forces when those forces, at least as it pertains to humans, are intelligent to begin with, thus making it not natural in my opinion, I can't get it through my head how it can be said, as per Richard Dawkins, that it is a delusion to believe in a deity or even a whole bunch of them. What I'm saying here is what difference should it make if all evolutionary biologists believed in a deity as a matter of course. Why does it have to be a contentious topic. Can't we say yes, there is intelligent design behind the mechanism of evolution to see it through. After all, there are hominid-type fossils all over the place. So what's a creationist to do with this, sweep it under the rug. I think not. And given my radical ideas on this particular aspect in the sense of the deities not being as super as we would like to think, can it be the hominid fossils are trial and error... kind of like an engineer designing a newer model television but after the first production model realizes there should have been filters in place to correct moiré patterns (lines in a jacket, wire fence diamond shapes that move). But this radical idea certainly separates me from a lot of people in that the human idea of a deity who has all the ''omnis tacked on as descriptors of this deity can't possibly be the one in the Old Testament and other religions.This is so farfetched they moan, all the while traveling in the dark, drenched in their own silent insecurities when someone like me has the audacity to even bring this up and make them think just a little. To this I say, to educated and uneducated alike, I have no insecurities, I have been free all my life. I owe no explanation why I see this topic the way I do. Ockham's razor works just fine for me here. I don't flail my arms and stomp my feet to make others see it. This is my truth. What others can't see is a personal decision brought on by the inner workings of their mind; yet it may not be theirs after all.
Finally, I've long said the creator/s of the universe, if any, and I do find this one very difficult to wrap myself around simply because I don't have the requisite attitude to ''see'' it, surely must have more important things to do than run to and fro on the earth wondering what's up with the latest creators' creation trying to fgure out just what it is humankind can't get right, as if there is any right to be had from the Deities' perspective of creation anyway.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make many points in your post. They provide keen insight into who we are.
The discussion of Jessus' comments are very important. It is written:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
This is the most important lesson we should learn that is that no human is better than any other human including Jesus and Muhammad. This was made clear by Muhammad also, who claimed that we should believe in all the prophets. Jesus informs us that the Creator is our Father and our God.
Although Jesus made it clear we were all the same, his followers teach that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but among some sects God Himself. Given the teachings of Jesus this idea was manufactured by human beings , just like you and me.
Motion has nothing to do with Creation on this plane, breath does. Spirit or breath is the creative principle on this plane. As a result, Creation was set in motion with the word=breath. Thus we read:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void....God said,"Let there be light" and there was light.... God said,"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.
God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them" (Gen 1:1-26).
This statement explains why the Grecians said humans were gods, they probably reached this conclusion due to Gen.1:25, where it is noted that we are made in the image of God. This phrase makes it obvious that humans did not create God.
As I said before, no human has seen the Creator on this plane. For example, in the chapter and verse you mention regarding Abraham, it is made clear that Abraham was visited by three men, probably angels. The same three men later visited Lot.
Just because Abraham addressed them as Lord did not mean they were god. Lord is simply a form of address given people we respect deeply or royals like the royalty in Britain.
Secondly, Jacob did not see god. In 32:35 we read:
"And there was one that wrestled with him [Jacob] until daybreak who, seeing that he could not master him, struck him in the socket..." Granted he named the city where this occurned Piniel, there is no mention of god interacting with him until later. As a result, it is agreed by most Bible scholars that this individual was an angel.
When God appeared to Jacob, he told him again that his name was Isreal (Gen.35:10). He also declared that his name was El-Shaddai 'God Almighty". If the Creator is God Almighty how could Jabob have been able to bind him with his human powers.
.
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Mr. Clyde Winter whom I respect tho many may ask why .. but I do respect him thus I will respond so that I can collab with you on this topic....
Winters wrote:
[QUOTE]First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
Actually Abraham did meet with him personally according to the Torah ...
Verses:
quote:Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, Genesis 18:3 And said, My Lord (adonay i.e. another name for Ha Shem/The Name/God), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
So God according to the bible did meet Abraham and Jacob had a fight with him which ended in a knee break ... The scriptures call him an angel at first but then Jacob named the place Elbethel because as he said:
Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
And for these reasons I declare that God appeared unto men in the past but he hasn't appeared to modern men. Why is that? Did God die of old age or did God just loose communication with humanity or does he send humans who cannot be trusted to give us a message from the angel Gabriel (Christian and Muslim faith Gabriel came as a messenger)? Why should I trust a man whom said God appeared unto him or a man that many proclaimed to be God (Y`shua) and without sin?
Jesus didn't proclaim to be without sin right?
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
This is admission that he is not perfect but his so-called father is which is the only one that man should call good!
We know that Jesus didn't think he was god because he said:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So that is admission that he didn't think he was without so-called sin because he didn't think that he was God as he separated himself from God in the scripture directly above.
Mr. Winter please be patient with me because I write long sometimes ...
The last part of the statement above that you made I want to respond to directly because it goes along with me theory (which is all that it is; not an ounce of proof to this).
When you say creator who are you talking about. If it/he/she wants to appear then it will see fit.
Y`shua/Jesus didn't believe that because according to the Grecian Jesus though we were God which direct you to my statement (did we create god or did God create us).
Y`shua/Jesus said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
But he further said:
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Jesus was saying like many people other then Africans which was adopted from African teachings is "Know Thyself" or "To Thyself be true".
Grumman f6f wrote:
quote:While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
On this particular phrase that you wrote I have to say or even write what John Henrik Clarke wrote, but because I don't know where the original quote is on my computer I will paraphrase:
"Man has always known that their was a force greater then him and he knew it was the spirit, but then someone created the word God. Then someone said my God is greater then your. Then someone said, I have the truth because I have the true God, but then someone said my God is greater then yours and I have the truth ... thus the beginning of the religious wars"
It is not a question of was there something that started the Laws of Motion to activate but the question is ... did it start by itself or didn't something provoke it to move. For this reason I do believe there is a God! Wow, I said it ... without movement or forced movement ... a rock will sit in the same place for eternity so thus something had to push or start the Laws of Motion ...
Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...
I speak the way that I speak because I reject mans traditions, but I'm not an atheist either. If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?
The 3 religions I named do not have that answer ... tho Islam knows a lot about Astrology or Astronomy. So does Judaism as they believe Abram/Ibram come from Ur of the Chaldess which means "City of Astrologers".
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Where specifically?
Right here:
quote:Djehuti wrote By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
quote:That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
According to the rules of biological life. An organism reproduces using its own genetic code as well as it's own material. In that case, it fails the rule because they use host cells to replicate and cannot replicate on their own. They also cannot respond to stimuli, they do not metabolize or perform any other activity besides replication. Therefore they are not organsims and not truly 'alive'.
quote:The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
That the universe has a begging is a given. The question is was the universe always in that state. We have the theory of total entropy which states the universe will come to an end when all the energy is expended into heat. But then recent findings suggest the presence of anti-energy will jump-start the universe again in the form of cosmic condensation back into a point singularity.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: R U 2 religious wrote:
''Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...''
Sho' you right on this one.
''If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?''
I sure do see your frustration here because I've said the same thing over the years, as have undoubtedly many tens of thousands of others. However, the ''making an appearance'' aspect doesn't bother me; that's another one of those unknowables that can be attributed to man. That said, many believers cling to the idea of a return; some almost to the point of damning others for having doubts about it.
What I do find interesting though is the seemingly innate belief of multitudes of people who swear by a deity or deities of some kind. Some will kill you just for mentioning that deity in a disparaging light and if I was in another part of the world I would be torched for my special brand of understanding, which is interesting in itself because every time I open my mouth to talk about this stuff ''blasphemy'' is par for the course. And I don't know why I feel the way I do on these matters, I just do.
I've carried this basic idea of a ''we are them'' disposition since I was in my middle twenties (65 now) but didn't really do any ''serious'' thinking until I got much older. With this attitude, this feeling, is there something to the God gene after all? I don't have a clue. Something drives people to see diferently, even looking at the same material. Case in point, most evolutionary biologists, seemingly, can't understand why religious folks need to have a deity of some kind to explain this idea scientists call natural forces. Well, as an outsider, meaning I don't know why and how some can say natural forces when those forces, at least as it pertains to humans, are intelligent to begin with, thus making it not natural in my opinion, I can't get it through my head how it can be said, as per Richard Dawkins, that it is a delusion to believe in a deity or even a whole bunch of them. What I'm saying here is what difference should it make if all evolutionary biologists believed in a deity as a matter of course. Why does it have to be a contentious topic. Can't we say yes, there is intelligent design behind the mechanism of evolution to see it through. After all, there are hominid-type fossils all over the place. So what's a creationist to do with this, sweep it under the rug. I think not. And given my radical ideas on this particular aspect in the sense of the deities not being as super as we would like to think, can it be the hominid fossils are trial and error... kind of like an engineer designing a newer model television but after the first production model realizes there should have been filters in place to correct moiré patterns (lines in a jacket, wire fence diamond shapes that move). But this radical idea certainly separates me from a lot of people in that the human idea of a deity who has all the ''omnis tacked on as descriptors of this deity can't possibly be the one in the Old Testament and other religions.This is so farfetched they moan, all the while traveling in the dark, drenched in their own silent insecurities when someone like me has the audacity to even bring this up and make them think just a little. To this I say, to educated and uneducated alike, I have no insecurities, I have been free all my life. I owe no explanation why I see this topic the way I do. Ockham's razor works just fine for me here. I don't flail my arms and stomp my feet to make others see it. This is my truth. What others can't see is a personal decision brought on by the inner workings of their mind; yet it may not be theirs after all.
Finally, I've long said the creator/s of the universe, if any, and I do find this one very difficult to wrap myself around simply because I don't have the requisite attitude to ''see'' it, surely must have more important things to do than run to and fro on the earth wondering what's up with the latest creators' creation trying to fgure out just what it is humankind can't get right, as if there is any right to be had from the Deities' perspective of creation anyway.
I like your post and feel compelled to respond.
People are quick to jump for answers and this is simply human nature. Long ago their superstition led them to explain existence in terms of dieties but as our knowledge increases the basis for the old beliefs start to look silly or at best highly questionable. This doesn't mean the beliefs are necessarily wrong just the reasons for them.
People today are no different. We still want answers and we want them to dovetail with what we think we know. Since we don't really know much of anything we turn to the process which underlies our technology as a sort of "god". This is a tremendous error and will lead us even further astray than mystical answers. If science is our religion and we created science then for practical purposes we ourselves are God. It was this sort of thinking that led to the Barbarism practice by Mengele or Pol Pot.
Science can never give us the answers to the important questions because the universe is chaotic and this chaos always shows up in long term or small scale events. There will always be the unforeseen as well as a constant revision of mans understanding of pysical law. Yes, we'll probably learn a great deal more about our past and the likely disposition of the universe but we'll be able to predict precious little along the way.
This isn't to say that scince is worthless. It provides us with the neat little magic tricks which we call technology. It gives us a lot of understanding of controlled events and allows us to see a little way into more foreseeable futures. Science, philosophy, math and logic form excellent ways to analyize and view reality but it should not be mistaken for reality itself.
We are left to determine for ourselves why things are as they are. We can develope cogent theories for almost anything but it seems the more we understand in the context of these theories the more we see the universe as a sort of intelligent thing. Yes, we are probably just projecting our own selves into the cosmos and recognizing the reflection but this occurs at all levels of consciousness to at least a small degree in all probability. Look at the awe in a baby's face as it masters a new talent or sees some wondrous sight for the first time. It's difficult to believe that this isn't really the source for our belief in a creator or a higher power; consciousness, and of course, a means to express it.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
This isn't to say that scince is worthless. It provides us with the neat little magic tricks which we call technology. It gives us a lot of understanding of controlled events and allows us to see a little way into more foreseeable futures. Science, philosophy, math and logic form excellent ways to analyize and view reality but it should not be mistaken for reality itself.
Excellent statement.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine a transient life form that lives four seconds and its over.
1.2.3.4
Humanity is that four-second transient being barely grasping enormity of infinitude and an omnipotent Creator.
(were you a god) How much of your intelligence can you share to that short-lived being?
You could give the miserly lived being a ‘Hello’ and ‘Love You’, before it is dead.(The ‘Hello’ and ‘Love You’, represents revelations, miracles, religions and faiths.)
In the afterlife, we finally understand everything intended by our creation, since there, we join infinity.
Interesting Topic, and excellent contributions.
I just reread some of AlTakruris and Dr.Winters posts. You both are insightful men!
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
According to the rules of biological life. An organism reproduces using its own genetic code as well as it's own material. In that case, it fails the rule because they use host cells to replicate and cannot replicate on their own.
Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
They also cannot respond to stimuli, they do not metabolize or perform any other activity besides replication. Therefore they are not organsims and not truly 'alive'.
On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
That the universe has a begging is a given.
Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The question is was the universe always in that state. We have the theory of total entropy which states the universe will come to an end when all the energy is expended into heat. But then recent findings suggest the presence of anti-energy will jump-start the universe again in the form of cosmic condensation back into a point singularity.
The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe spiral for four dimensionals more so than linear or circular. With linearly there's progressive non-repetative movement. Were time circular events would have to repeat themselves endlessly.
Any beings of more than four dimensions can intersect any point of time be it past or future.
The Infinite Dimensional conceives all times at once.
Yes, time too is a creation. The Creator exists outside of time.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We have been conditioned to believe that time is linear. Past-->Present--> Future. This is false to me. I believe that time is a circle and you can jump in at anytime.
It has to be a circle or how else can some people claim to see the future.
As a result, I believe that when we decide to play a role in the Creator's great Book, we can jump into to any period of time, due to the fact that time Just Is. Time probably does not exist where we came from, it is a phenomena that is necessary for existence on this plane.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Hebrew cosmogony there are orders of angels. Ishiym (men) is one of these orders. Angel, in general, just means messenger (malakhiym translates as angels or messengers pending the context.
In Hebrew, adon, means lord just like in lord and lady. To address someone as adon is just the same as calling a man mister or sir. But see the text for which Hebrew word is actually used where, and in reference to whom. In this instance adoni is simply milord.
To understand the Ya`aqob wrestling the angel passage requires knowing his whole story. Long story short, Ya`aqob was at a crossroads in his life and was wrestling with his conscience over past deeds that would color an imminent, possibly retributive, event about to occur that would effect his entire nuclear family/household. He suffered a midnight anxiety/panic attack which due to its intensity resulted in a physical debility.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before, no human has seen the Creator on this plane. For example, in the chapter and verse you mention regarding Abraham, it is made clear that Abraham was visited by three men, probably angels. The same three men later visited Lot.
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: I can only give you my opinion...
I didn't quote your entire post to save space. I often find atheist/religion threads amusing. Natural disasters are one thing, but you can't blame God (and I'm speaking in general...not about any particular deity) for Man's wars. Atheists often-times pose question they know can't be answered and watch relgious people bend their minds in an attempt to answer it instead of just saying the obvious...which is they don't know.
Questions like..."if God is perfect, then why did he create Human's with faults?" The REAL answer is nobody knows. But I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of God either.
Another common argument against religion are the various relgiously inspired wars that have taken place in the name of a said God. Again, this is Man's perversion of written texts. Most texts like the Bible or Quran were written by oppressed or disadvantaged peoples and portray their belief in a better world. Which is why things like the Bible in their natural state are very positive and moralistic (like don't steal, etc, etc). It's only when Men get ahold of things that they twist the words of Holy texts to agree with their crooked and unholy beliefs. Things like Ham's Curse, the Crusades (which like most things was political and economic before it was religious). What people don't realize is that religion is often-times a secondary excuse for something and not the primary reasoning behind the said event.
To not believe in any kind of higher being is to believe that Humanity is the pinnacle of all things right or wrong. And that is simply not realistic or probable. Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things. I don't know how he works or anything of that nature so don't ask. What I'm talking about is not a specific religion bogged down by a belief system. I'm speaking from a purely spiritual point of view.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
"What evolutionary advantage this may convey (i.e. the gene), or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are yet to be fully explored. However, Dr. Hamer has theorized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children."
Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?
posted
Sundiata says: ''Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?''
Just as I said, my ''is there a God gene?'' was spoken from a position of doubt. My doubt. It may be there, maybe it isn't. I don't know either.
Seems kind of weird we're here talking about this stuff once you realize that everything humanity stands for can be found in ''nothing more'' than seminal fluid. Yet we all offer ideas and thoughts based on the results of that same, yet different fluid. Strange isn't it. So exactly where does the truth lie.
King_Scorpion says:
''Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things.''
If God isn't earthbound then by definition He will be extraterrestrial even if He is ''independent of all things.''
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Sundiata says: ''Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?''
Just as I said, my ''is there a God gene?'' was spoken from a position of doubt. My doubt. It may be there, maybe it isn't. I don't know either.
Seems kind of weird we're here talking about this stuff once you realize that everything humanity stands for can be found in ''nothing more'' than seminal fluid. Yet we all offer ideas and thoughts based on the results of that same, yet different fluid. Strange isn't it. So exactly where does the truth lie.
King_Scorpion says:
''Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things.''
If God isn't earthbound then by definition He will be extraterrestrial even if He is ''independent of all things.''
God, in the traditional sense, is not a being at all. ET's would be considered intellectual beings with physical and mental limits.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
I said that biologically speaking they are nonliving. But again, 'living' can imply many other thing so is a matter of semantics. The fact that they are mobile and perform certain activities is one argument of living.
quote:Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
According to the rules of biology an organism must be able to reproduce using entirely its own genetic code as well as its own organic materials. Viruses fail in this regard as they use the genetic code and materials of the host cell.
quote:On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
Viruses do not grow but remain the same size from the moment they are constructed. Adaptation is the only rule they truly follow but even then this adaptation is solely the result of random mutation of DNA usually in the genes of capsule protein surface.
quote:Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.[/qb]
Yes, again according to the theory the universe has no specific or initial beginning and no specific or terminal end.
quote:The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Dude, I'm not the physicists who postulated the theory. I'm just repeating what I've read from their works. You've heard of the theory that the entire universe will come into totall entropy where all the energy is expended or loss in the form of heat. There's a new theory which states anti-energy will condense everything again. Actually it's more of a hypothesis to be precise since it is so new and of course we have no way of testing.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
''God, in the traditional sense, is not a being at all. ET's would be considered intellectual beings with physical and mental limits.''
I would think at some point God would have some limited mental and physical attributes because there is no way of knowing which one is being discussed; the ''who came before who'' conundrum. If the Old Testament Deity is being discussed then there are limitations on who he is. The ''traditional sense'' merely keeps God as something that can't be discussed thereby keeping the mystery intact. I'm just trying to understand how it can be determined God is traditional, when man sets the parameters for that description. If man does set the parameters for God then he can't be talking about the God/s in the Bible who seems to have limitations that we can see. In other words there is no sense of awe that would let me know these guys are truly beyond limits of understanding. Now there may be a Deity somewhere in the universe who can actually live up to the traditional sense but I don't believe it is the one we are familiar with.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
I said that biologically speaking they are nonliving.
Makes no sense. Was it not biology that we were discussing? So, you were under the impression that when you said this:
They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'. - Djehuti
..., that you weren't discussing biology?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
But again, 'living' can imply many other thing so is a matter of semantics. The fact that they are mobile and perform certain activities is one argument of living.
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
According to the rules of biology an organism must be able to reproduce using entirely its own genetic code as well as its own organic materials.
No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
Viruses do not grow
Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
but remain the same size from the moment they are constructed.
See above and learn.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Adaptation is the only rule they truly follow but even then this adaptation is solely the result of random mutation of DNA usually in the genes of capsule protein surface.
False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.
Yes, again according to the theory the universe has no specific or initial beginning and no specific or terminal end.
It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Dude, I'm not the physicists who postulated the theory.
dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I'm just repeating what I've read from their works. You've heard of the theory that the entire universe will come into totall entropy where all the energy is expended or loss in the form of heat. There's a new theory which states anti-energy will condense everything again. Actually it's more of a hypothesis to be precise since it is so new and of course we have no way of testing.
Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is really simple. Chances that life originated based on simple organic compounds arranging themselves (under the best situation) into RNA is 10 to the power of 60. That is a number greater than all the atoms in the Universe.
To be an Aetheist requires a great deal more faith than to believe in an entity of energy or of some other unknown substance with the ability to think without the need for an organic body and can move through time and space instantly.
Without struggle there is no improvement. Thus Evil is allowed to exist in order to allow this programming that we are a part of to run its proper course - optimization routines.
We could all just be part of someone or somethings very elaborate computer program.
SIMUNIVERSE.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Without struggle there is no improvement. Thus Evil is allowed to exist in order to allow this programming that we are a part of to run its proper course - optimization routines.
We could all just be part of someone or somethings very elaborate computer program.
SIMUNIVERSE.
Or playing roles on this plane we agreed to play from the great book written by the Creator.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics". You however seem to have poor reading comprehension. Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms. It's as simple as that. The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities. Hence their "borderline" status between life and nonlife. I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.
quote:No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
LOL Nope. The official rules in biology all state that viral replication is not true biological reproduction.
quote:And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
All true biological organisms must be able to reproduce on its own without the genetic or organic material of others for it to be biological reproduction.
quote:Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
To the sources, yes. To you, NO. Viral growth is NOT the same as biological growth. The sources merely speak of viral development and assembly. They do not grow in size the way biological cells do. Nor do they perform any major, that is metabolic functions.
quote:False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
Your answer is false; see my above replies.
quote:It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
But I thought your questions were already answered. Repeat is what YOU are doing with your questions.
quote:dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
No, but I don't understand why your questions seem so silly. The big bang theory explains how the universe starts or rather forms. Does it explain how it got that way in the first place? No. The theory I presented only states a possible answer to what will happen to the universe once total entropy occurs.
quote:Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Nope. Your questions lacks any coherent thought this seems to cause more confusion.
You know 'Mystery', you've been repeating the same questions lately that have already been answered and so I'll have to agree with Rasol that you are just simply one of those folks who argue for the sake of arguing when you disagree with any facts or findings. I will leave it at that.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics". You however seem to have poor reading comprehension.
Demonstrated by what set of citations?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms. It's as simple as that.
You don't seem to have any sort of intellectual organization. How can you admit that viruses are "borderline" b/n the living and non-living in one breath, then say that they are non-living and that it is a matter of semantics?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities.
What is the semantics involved with:
1)Viruses containing their own genetic instructions.
2)Viruses are able to reproduce more of themselves, in a host cell.
3)Viruses grow as exemplified.
4)Viruses do undergo genetic mutations, and hence adaptable to their environment.
To any normal-thinking person, these are concise biological traits that make viruses unmistakably tread into the living world, but what's your excuse for not getting this, and understanding that we are talking about biological traits?
I'll address the rest later, when I get time.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Answer: There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics. Source: BIOLOGY, by Neil Campbell, third edition Ellen Mayo
And viruses are >>alive, although they're dormant most of the time. ... >Viruses are alive in that they evolved from living organisms. ... www.bio.net/bionet/mm/comp-bio/1992-July/000004.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
From Djehuti: ''Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms.''
And just where is it you think the rebuttal argument is coming from after the above lead off link? You aren't aware of this?: There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer.
How do you reconcile your argument with the posted link above? Your view is specific, other links aren't. Your argument is based on your acceptance of favorable-leaning material. This means you have been ignoring what other scientists say and think about viruses and why they are controversial.
In an attempt to sway the argument Djehuti says this: ''I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.''
Well the simple answer is you have to get it right yourself to make others see what you see and you can't do that—because of the controversy... just as it's been said all along.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.[/qb]
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics".
You are right, "awkward gymnastics" was a pleasant way of describing your incoherent contradictory statements.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You however seem to have poor reading comprehension.
as examplified by citaton(s)....?
However, I know what you seem to have...a poor functioning brain, and I can provide a very specific example of this:
1)One minute you admit, upon being pressured by facts contrary to your fantasy, that viruses are borderline b/n the living and non-living, and the next minute you claim that they are non-living.
2)You say that the idea of "borderline between the living & non-living" and that of "non-living" is just a matter of semantics. Even an idiot can make clear distinctions between the two ideas; what's your excuse for not getting it?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms.
According to which *official scientific consensus*, which ignores all the aforementioned biological facts presented, namely - recap:
1)Viruses containing their own genetic instructions.
2)Viruses are able to reproduce more of themselves, in a host cell.
3)Viruses grow as exemplified.
4)Viruses do undergo genetic mutations, and hence adaptable to their environment.
If the above ain't biology, pray tell then, what is it, Djehuti?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It's as simple as that.
The only thing simple here, is your mind.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities.
How do biological traits translate into semantics. E.g. you are supposed to have an organ called 'the brain'; should it be said that this biological reality is matter of semantics? LOL...or plain & simple, biological reality?
You are going off the cliff, as far the capacity to think is concerned on the ongoing discourse.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Hence their "borderline" status between life and nonlife.
And how does that equate with your conclusion that the "viruses are non-living".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.
You can spew a nonsense multiple times; it doesn't change the fact it is just that - incoherent rambling on.
But entertain me and call out a poster who doesn't see the contradiction in your acknowledgement of viruses being 'borderline between the living and non-living' and your conclusion that they are "non-living". Maybe this poster has more intellectual prowess than yourself to reconcile the two distinct conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
LOL Nope. The official rules in biology all state that viral replication is not true biological reproduction.
Which organization made this "official" rule, and stated where about virus reproduction.
You are in effect attributing to science, that the idea of replication, as a result of coded genetic instruction, doesn't constitute reproduction. Cite the *scientific* source for this bizarre rationale.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
All true biological organisms must be able to reproduce on its own without the genetic or organic material of others for it to be biological reproduction.
See above; this is a wild daydream of yours, as to what 'reproduction' constitutes in biology; a primary school kid could tell that.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
To the sources, yes. To you, NO. Viral growth is NOT the same as biological growth.
Another incoherent incomplete thought. If the growth that the source is laying out isn't "biological", then what is it?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The sources merely speak of viral development and assembly. They do not grow in size the way biological cells do. Nor do they perform any major, that is metabolic functions.
How is "viral development" not growth, as the source cites, which you seem to be far too ill-intellectually equipped to understand? Genetic instructions are used, not only to replicate the the DNA instruction, but also other physical attributes of the original virus; how does this not constitute "biological" growth, as the citation correctly notes, but you are too ill-intellectually equipped to take home?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
Your answer is false
Which answer, and why?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
; see my above replies.
You mean the incoherent hodgepodge; you bet.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
But I thought your questions were already answered. Repeat is what YOU are doing with your questions.
Where was this answered:
The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back. - Mystery Solver.
Undoubtedly, those points seek to question your citations about an essentially eternal universe, without a beginning or an end, which goes against basic premise of the majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang" theorey, that states that the universe indeed has a beginning, and will certainly have an end. You simply responded that you have no idea what your link is about, since you aren't a physicist. Do have a habit of posting things that you don't understand? That's essentially what you're telling me.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
No, but I don't understand why your questions seem so silly.
Because intelligent thinking and questioning thereof is a silly notion to you, perhaps.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The big bang theory explains how the universe starts or rather forms. Does it explain how it got that way in the first place? No.
Does your 'loop' theorey provide a definitive evidence of what the universe looked like before the unstable dense point, that the Big Bang theory calls the universe's beginning? The Big Bang theorey pretty much has come to objective observation that the universe is expanding. Common sense tells us then, it cannot be attempting to go back to the unstable dense form again, if it is trying to attain most efficient energy and move away from instability.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The theory I presented only states a possible answer to what will happen to the universe once total entropy occurs.
You proclaimed that the universe *ends*, only to regenerate itself. It makes no sense for something to *end* and then regenerate itself again. If this is the kind of thought that you're attributing to your citation, then both you and your source are superbly incoherent.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Nope. Your questions lacks any coherent thought this seems to cause more confusion.
Which specific question lacks coherency, and why? Elaborate. The issue is that you are too thick to get the questions. But hey, I await your elaboration.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You know 'Mystery', you've been repeating the same questions lately that have already been answered and so I'll have to agree with Rasol that you are just simply one of those folks who argue for the sake of arguing when you disagree with any facts or findings. I will leave it at that.
Jibberish, non-sequitur and logical fallacy. You know Djehuit, you've been dodging the questions and/or not even reading them correctly. This leaves you with the only tool in your bag, that you are well known for using: attack the person, rather than the idea being communicated. So, I'll have to agree with Clyde and others, who claim that you are troll who is only capable of frequently attacking people, and al Takruri about your knack for making premature judgement on things that you rarely understand, especially about people you've never even read. Two can play this game, that you are starting. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic