It has been around 2 and half years (give or take a couple months) since I posted this blog the first time. I want to know if opinions have changed and what people on this site now think.
One of the biggest question in my mind is whether God is a male or a female?
Most people go along with the belief that God is a male but why?
Some people think that God is a female. why?
Some people believe that God is genderless. why? If God is genderless then why is it's name masculine?
Why call the entity God? Why not Deity or Spirit?
I still lean more towards a female than a male because God is supposedly a benevolent God. God can forgive and God created life. The only male species that I know of that actually can carry life is a seahorse. Therefore we are made in a likeness of a Goddess who made females create life. There are other things that point towards a female God.
This blog is lacking a lot of content but its more of an interactive one where people can voice their opinions on this interesting topic. Voice your opinion.
Is God Male or Female of Genderless? What do you believe?
Old post: http://www.progressiveu.org/003608-is-god-a-man-or-woman
...is that unless you can FIRST prove that "god" actually exists, then this kind of speculation is meaningless. Its sort of like wondering if Superman is stronger than The Incredible Hulk. As for the reason that people have different ideas on the subject, that's because when you're making shit up, you can project whatever assumptions you wish into your fantasies.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Thanks for the laugh! But you are being too judgmental. How is talking about God making shit up? I think you dismiss the question of God without just cause. Rejecting Christianity is understandable and I stand by you there. However, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is ultimate truth and there may be a God.
...that lives in my back yard and waters my roses for me. BUT, I've never seen any actual, objective evidence of one, and thus I also suspect that anyone who tries to tell me that its mane is silver is probably just making shit up.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It is nonsensical to ponder the gender of God. God does not have a gender. God, if real, transcends time and space and exists as the ultimate, all powerful, and all-loving being. I would recommend viewing God as a force rather than a person. God is referred to as "he" because people feel the need to personify God and "he" is what we default to when no specific gender is involved. Also, people want to think of God as a father figure who will keep them safe, reward goodness, punish evil, etc. Catholics and Christians personify God and consider "him" to be an individual intelligence, but that is because they don't see who or what God really is. I've just started writing a book about this stuff that I plan on completing and publishing in April. Also,, I apologize for Blackout's comment. Yes I thought it was funny but it was also out of line and unfair. From Blackout's comments about this stuff on various blogs, I observed that he is sometimes as hard-headed and close-minded as evangelical Christians.
I agree with the middle of your comment, but on both ends I don't think we see eye to eye
God, if real, transcends time and space and exists as the ultimate, all powerful, and all-loving being.
While reading the bible, there is an impression that God isn't as omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, as he is said to be.
Also,, I apologize for Blackout's comment. Yes I thought it was funny but it was also out of line and unfair.
I don't get that impression at all. I see it as a very valid argument to bring up. It's the word "shit" that wasn't very pleasing, but it got the point across.
I observed that he is sometimes as hard-headed and close-minded as evangelical Christians.
I don't necessarily see how arguing for a certain objective should be considered closed-minded.
Yes, according to the bible, especially the old testament, God seems to have flaws and is belligerent rather than benevolent at times. I'm not a biblical scholar since I was raised Roman Catholic but I know that much. While I have rejected the Catholic church for multiple reasons, I have not rejected God. Doing so would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. As for Blackout's comment I must stand by my original impressions. Here is what he said:
As for the reason that people have different ideas on the subject, that's because when you're making shit up, you can project whatever assumptions you wish into your fantasies.
Everything we say is made up shit. The time of day, the color of the carpet, etc. is all made up. However Blackout was being condescending to people who have different beliefs than him. He is making up that God doesn't exist and religious people are making up that God does exist. In my humble opinion, it is immature to draw such definite conclusions on a matter that is largely separated from the power of the human mind. God knows (pun only partially intended) how far even the greatest thinkers' minds are/were from understanding ultimate reality. I think I'd have a better chance of getting my dog to understand astronomy than me myself understanding ultimate reality. It is no secret that I am an agnostic so that's why I see dismissing the existence of God as close minded. It takes a smart man to realize how little he really knows and can know.
While I have rejected the Catholic church for multiple reasons, I have not rejected God. Doing so would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In order for your metaphor to have meaning, you would first need to prove that there actually was a baby (i.e. "god") sitting in the bathwater (i.e. your religion) when you threw it out. Otherwise, you're still engaging in exactly the same logical fallacy that led tauruschild8927 to ponder whether or not "god" has a gender.
Everything we say is made up shit. The time of day, the color of the carpet, etc. is all made up.
The difference, of course, is that if I say I will meet you at the movies at 8:00pm, there's a pretty good chance that when you arrive you will acutally see standing outside the theater. Also, the word we use to describe the color of the carpet may be "made up," but the color we perceive is an actual, objectively observable phenomenon that doesn't require me to just believe in it because some book told me to.
Blackout was being condescending to people who have different beliefs than him.
You are incorrect. I have great respect for many people who disagree with me in a rationally supportable way. I was being condescending to people who make irrational, baseless assertions about the nature of existence without any actual, objective evidence to back them up.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
In order for your metaphor to have meaning, you would first need to prove that there actually was a baby (i.e. "god") sitting in the bathwater (i.e. your religion) when you threw it out. Otherwise, you're still engaging in exactly the same logical fallacy that led tauruschild8927 to ponder whether or not "god" has a gender.
Please specify the logical fallacy you speak of. In the meantime allow me to point out that your accusation of a fallacy, much less "exactly the same logical fallacy that led to tauruschild8927 to ponder. . ." is absurd. Moving on, I don't need to prove that there is God in order for my metaphor to have meaning. The bathwater is Catholicism (or any other religion for that matter) and the baby is God. What I am saying is that it would not be proper to dismiss the idea of God in, Its pure sense automatically,along with the teachings of the Church. The church is riddled with hypocrisy, greed, sexual abuse of children, and a method providing "answers that cannot be questioned" with immature stories and absurd notions at the backbone of it all. The problems with the Church have nothing to do with God but rather with humans. Over a thousand years of inherently flawed human ideas, teachings, scandals, hypocrisy, atrocities, etc. plague the Church dogma. For that reason, I am tossing out the bad bathwater, the church dogma, but keeping the baby, and that baby is God. My love of God, if indeed God exists, should not go out the window with the bad dogma of the church. Do you really suggest it is appropriate to reject God automitically upon finding severe faults with Catholicism? If yes than I feel sorry for you, for you are destined to never find the truth if you give up the search. Doing so would be a very good example of why the cliched metaphor "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" applies very well to this subject. How I am I to "prove" God is real if I automatically reject It because of my disdain for the church? I've scrutinized the Church and decided the leaders are, and have been throughout history, full of shit so I threw it (the dirty water) out. Now am I to punish the baby (God) because of dirty bathwater (Church dogma)? Or should I make a decision, independent of the bathwater (Church Dogma), about what to do with the baby (God)?
The fallacy is called Begging the Question, a.k.a. Circular Reasoning, a.k.a. Petitio Principii. The fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed to be true without first establishing the truth of the premise. You ASSUME that some sort of "god" actually exists, even though you have no actual, objective evidence which would suggest that this premise is true. You are assuming that there is a "baby" in the "bathwater." In this respect, you are engaging in the same fallacy as tauruschild8927, who assumes the existence of "god" while speculating as to the "gender" of that unproved entity.
Moving on, I don't need to prove that there is God in order for my metaphor to have meaning.
You do UNLESS you acknowledge that you are speaking in PURELY SPECULATIVE TERMS. And even then, the metaphor would fall short of any reasonable speculation, since the object of the speculation is in real terms a completely undefined quantity.
The church is riddled with hypocrisy, greed, sexual abuse of children, and a method providing "answers that cannot be questioned" with immature stories and absurd notions at the backbone of it all. The problems with the Church have nothing to do with God but rather with humans. For that reason, I am tossing out the bad bathwater, the church dogma, but keeping the baby, and that baby is God. My love of God, if indeed God exists, should not go out the window with the bad dogma of the church.
Once again, you are begging the question of "god's" existence. Unless you can prove that "god" actually exists, you cannot reasonably speculate as to what influence that alleged being might be having on the church that operates in "his" name. I will grant that at least you have begun insert the qualifying "if" into your argument, which helps.
Do you really suggest it is appropriate to reject God automitically upon finding severe faults with Catholicism?
Not at all. Logically, one should reject catholicism because as a philosophy it begs the question of "god's" existence. The other more relative issues that you mention might lead someone (such as myself) to reject catholicism for its many ethical and moral foibles. This would however be a personal, rather than an objective decision. As for "god," that argument should be rejected because despite centuries of seeking, NOT ONE WHIT of actual, objective evidence has been discovered (or if discovered, preserved) that would legitimately suggest that such a being actually exists. The possibility remains open, of course, but the burden of that assertion lies with those who seek to promote it.
If yes than I feel sorry for you, for you are destined to never find the truth if you give up the search.
No less, I assure you, than I pity you for any portion of your life spent in seeking the supposed "truth" behind the snake oil of this world's many religions.
How I am I to "prove" God is real if I automatically reject It because of my disdain for the church?
You aren't. If you really feel driven to this seemingly pointless end, then your obligation is to find a way to prove it...at least, if you want to be seen as a rational seeker as opposed to just another religious moon-bat inventing statistics about angels and pin-heads.
I've scrutinized the Church and decided the leaders are, and have been throughout history, full of shit so I threw it (the dirty water) out.
And you you still buy into the core premise that these leaders have used through the centuries to enable their abuses...interesting.
Now am I to punish the baby (God) because of dirty bathwater (Church dogma)? Or should I make a decision, independent of the bathwater (Church Dogma), about what to do with the baby (God)?
There you go, begging the question again. Before you can do ANYTHING with "the baby (god)," you must FIRST prove that "the baby (god)" actually exists. Until you do, your time spent in these speculations is no more meaningful than those who wonder "what kind of saddle fits best on a unicorn" or "does bigfoot prefer loafers or sandles?"
To quote one of my favorite religious philosophers...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
God does not have a gender.
Both this and your other speculations are equally as baseless as those of tauruschild8927. There is no more reason to think that "god" is generless than there is to think that "god" is male or female. The logical fallacy in both arguments is exactly the same.
From Blackout's comments about this stuff on various blogs, I observed that he is sometimes as hard-headed and close-minded as evangelical Christians.
I'm hard-headed with everyone, not just evangelical christians. I would suggest, however, that what you see as "close-minded[ness]" is just me applying the exact same standards of rational argumentation that are commonly applied to any subject of discussion...unless of course that subject is religion. Many religious people seem to think that their beliefs should not be subject to the same level of critical scrutiny that is applied to other fields of study, and feel put upon when asked to rationally respond to what are frankly basic and very simple questions about those beliefs.
If an evangelical christian cannot provide actual, objective evidence for their belief in "god," then their assertions are no more convincing and deserve no more respect than someone who claims to believe in magical pink unicorns, big foot or flying spaghetti monsters.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If an evangelical christian cannot provide actual, objective evidence for their belief in "god," then their assertions are no more convincing and deserve no more respect than someone who claims to believe in magical pink unicorns, big foot or flying spaghetti monsters.
Don't forget those who believe that Elvis is still alive! haha
There is no more reason to think that "god" is genderless than there is to think that "god" is male or female. The logical fallacy in both arguments is exactly the same
Which informal logical fallacy are you referencing here? Anyway, you are wrong. If somebody asked you what gender the Atlantic ocean is I would say it is irrational to proclaim that the ocean has a gender (male or female). If I then said the ocean has no gender, would that be equally irrational? According to your illogic it would be. Now Einstein, what answer would you suggest to answer the question about the ocean's gender. Whatever your answer is, it will be, by your standards, fallacious. No it wouldn't and its the same thing with God. God does not have a gender because the idea of gender is not applicable to the circumsatnces of God's essence and existence. Either God has a gender or it doesn't and it doesn't. What other answer would you put forth that is not fallacious in you arrogant ... I mean humble ... opinion?
I'm hard-headed with everyone, not just evangelical christians. I would suggest, however, that what you see as "close-minded[ness]" is just me applying the exact same standards of rational argumentation that are commonly applied to any subject of discussion...unless of course that subject is religion. Many religious people seem to think that their beliefs should not be subject to the same level of critical scrutiny that is applied to other fields of study, and feel put upon when asked to rationally respond to what are frankly basic and very simple questions about those beliefs.
You are wrong. Religious people and their ideas are, in a way, subject to much harsher scrutiny than any "other field of study" and folks with your attitude prove that. Many reputable people,past and present, have had mystic (religious) experiences and these experiences are scrutinized and doubted by non-believers so much more than anything else. For if you applied the same standards of proof to everything else, you would see how absurd your standards are. However, in another sense, I absolutely agree with what you've said above asking religious nuts questions, but do not forget that you would not be able to rationally defend your hardened denial of God's existence if you applied the same standards to mystic experiences as you do to reports of physical experiences.[/quote]
If an evangelical christian cannot provide actual, objective evidence for their belief in "god," then their assertions are no more convincing and deserve no more respect than someone who claims to believe in magical pink unicorns, big foot or flying spaghetti monsters.
If you can provide me with objective evidence that you have a consciousness then these arguments could be considered further. Demanding objective evidence from this universe for God's existence is innapropriate because God exists in a reality that is not contained din this universe. Open your mind and you'll see evidence of God. If you can otherwise answer questions like: Where is our universe located? What is it expanding into? What was before the universe? with objectively verifiable evidence then you would be famous.
Which informal logical fallacy are you referencing here?
Begging the question. I went into this extensively, above.
Anyway, you are wrong. If somebody asked you what gender the Atlantic ocean is I would say it is irrational to proclaim that the ocean has a gender (male or female). If I then said the ocean has no gender, would that be equally irrational? According to your illogic it would be. Now Einstein, what answer would you suggest to answer the question about the ocean's gender.
That's an easy one. We can say definitively that the ocean does not have a gender because we can objectively prove that the ocean actually exists, and that it is not, if fact, a independent life form that possesses a gender. You cannot do this for "god," because (obviously) you have no actual, objective evidence at your disposal with which you could prove that this alleged being actually exists.
Whatever your answer is, it will be, by your standards, fallacious.
So, you judge the argument before you've even heard it...hmmm...what was that you said earlier about being "closed-minded?"
No it wouldn't and its the same thing with God. God does not have a gender because the idea of gender is not applicable to the circumsatnces of God's essence and existence. Either God has a gender or it doesn't and it doesn't. What other answer would you put forth that is not fallacious in you arrogant ... I mean humble ... opinion?
Logic requires neither arrogance nor humility. In this argument, you not only beg the question of "god's" existence, but you also utilizing a fallacious false analogy. The quantity you refer to as "the ocean" actually exists and can be objectively examined in order that we may determine its actual characteristics. The quantity you refer to as "god," however, is objectively undefined, thus excluding the possibility of make ANY determinations about the qualities of that proposed quantity.
You are wrong. Religious people and their ideas are, in a way, subject to much harsher scrutiny than any "other field of study" and folks with your attitude prove that.
You should read more closely. I said that, "Many religious people seem to think that their beliefs SHOULD not be subject to the same level of critical scrutiny that is applied to other fields of study...". And, I would go on to posit that those same religious people certainly do not apply such a level of scrutiny to their own religious beliefs. If they did, then there would not be any religions in the world today. The most basic assumption of ALL religions, i.e. the belief in supernatural beings and forces, is completely irrational. It cannot stand up to even the simplest challenges of logic or empirical scrutiny.
Many reputable people,past and present, have had mystic (religious) experiences and these experiences are scrutinized and doubted by non-believers so much more than anything else.
And yet, not even ONE of these supposedly reputable people have ever produced even ONE piece of actual, objective evidence to support their claims. One can excuse, perhaps, our more primitive ancestors from this failure, but for a modern theist there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of baseless assertion.
For if you applied the same standards of proof to everything else, you would see how absurd your standards are.
Are you referring to the standards of informal logic, or of the scientific method?
However, in another sense, I absolutely agree with what you've said above asking religious nuts questions, but do not forget that you would not be able to rationally defend your hardened denial of God's existence if you applied the same standards to mystic experiences as you do to reports of physical experiences.
There you go, making assumptions again. I do not deny the existence of "god." I simply acknowledge that there is no reason for me to believe in such a being. I fully accept and acknowledge the possibility of such a being. After all, its a BIG universe and there's still a LOT of it left to explore. But I am NOT willing to put the cart before the horse and begin speculating about the qualities of a being that may or may not exists, and I CERTAINLY am not willing to make decisions about the way I live my life based on those assumptions.
If you can provide me with objective evidence that you have a consciousness then these arguments could be considered further.
I think the fact that we are having this discussion satisfies that challenge adequately.
Demanding objective evidence from this universe for God's existence is innapropriate because God exists in a reality that is not contained din this universe.
For one, I'm not asking the universe for anything at all. I'm asking YOU to back up your assertions. And, you're begging the question again, since you cannot logically state that "god" exists outside of our universe unless you can FIRST prove that "god" actually exists.
Open your mind and you'll see evidence of God.
If by "open your mind" you mean "abandon all reasonable expectations of logic and evidence," then I'll pass, thank you. If you THINK, however, that you have actual, objective evidence to support your assertion, please share it.
If you can otherwise answer questions like: Where is our universe located?
The easy answer is that our universe is located right here. But on a deeper level, this is a meaningless question unless you specify another object in a different location so that a spacial relationship can be determined.
What is it expanding into?
That's a very interesting question. Personally, I like Dr. Michio Kaku's answer...
What was before the universe?
This question is also based on a misconception. Time is a quality of our universe (or rather, space-time). The concepts of "before" and "after" have no meaning without a linear sequential relationship of the sort that exists within space-time. The concept has no meaning "outside" of our space-time (and really, neither does the term "outside") since those qualities cannot be assigned to the undefined existence outside of our known reality.
with objectively verifiable evidence then you would be famous.
Well, we could go through the math...but that would take ages and would surely bore all of our readers to tears. In short, however, a burden of proof only exists once someone makes an assertion. I do not assert the propositions you provided, and so have no need to prove them. In fact, the only assertion which I vigorously defend in this area of philosophy is the Descartes' axiom..."Je pense donc je suis"..."Cogito Ergo Sum"...or if you prefer the common English, "I think, therefor I am.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...Can you meet it?
"We can say definitively that the ocean does not have a gender because we can objectively prove that the ocean actually exists, and that it is not, if fact, a independent life form that possesses a gender."
What do you you base this claim of proof that an ocean is not a life form? Or is your claim baseless?
I can see how you would not perceive it as one, but like all of the various perceptions of God that is NOT objective proof as you so repetitively state.
Do you know what the largest known life form on our planet is? Do you know how recently science discovered it? Has science discovered everything, or is the pace of discovery still accelerating?
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
It sounds like you get it. Can Blackout really give us any truth that can be truly objectively verified? He fails, at his own peril, to realize that belief in science requires just as much faith as belief in a deity. From other blogs, I take it you are a Christian, so we'd have our own disagreements but you definitely know how to reach higher levels of thinking than most non-theists -- particularity atheists -- do. Atheists are the polar opposite of "free-thinkers" in my humble opinion. I am frustrated with my fellow agnostics and atheists for many reasons and I am always quite entertained how they manage to make even the most religious people look rational, intelligent, and mature. Also, you quoted William James at the end of your post. I just wanted to point out that my comment about non-theist responses to religious experiences as evidence for God was rooted in William James's "The Variety of Religious Experiences."
Evidence is that which tends to prove something, or argument.
objective is that which is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Therefore, Objective evidence is that which tends to prove something without influence from personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
He fails, at his own peril, to realize that belief in science requires just as much faith as belief in a deity.
Science does not require faith, it requires unbiased, fact based evidence. The reason faith is associated with deities is because faith is belief that is not based on proof. Science IS based on proof.
Atheists are the polar opposite of "free-thinkers" in my humble opinion.
There is a reason why "free-thinkers" are known as Atheists. Because there is more of an ability to think for one's self, rather than to bluntly believe what one is told.
I am frustrated with my fellow agnostics and atheists for many reasons and I am always quite entertained how they manage to make even the most religious people look rational, intelligent, and mature.
I don't see any rationalization, nor intelligence, in defending any idea that condemns any questioning of said idea, but you're partially right, with few there is some immaturity.
...which does make an interpretation of objective reality the best that we can do.
That unknowable objective truth is as close, if not closer, to the definition of God given by Jesus as any other interpretation IMHO.
A really rational person would have to speak and think of almost everything as indefinite. This is not only a bit cumbersome, but runs up against those most common human vices of arrogance and laziness. Thinking of ourselves and our limited understanding in a realistic way requires more humility than most are capable of. Most Atheists, especially those which insist on spouting bigoted put downs toward people of every other faith, actually think of themselves as the most God like beings in the universe, just as religious bigots think God only loves people that believe exactly as they do.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
...and if there is a unusually large number of those people among those who consider themselves "faithful," I am SURE that it is merely a coincidence. [/sarcasm]
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
What do you you base this claim of proof that an ocean is not a life form? Or is your claim baseless?
the characteristics of a form of life are:
* Living things are made of cells.- Ocean/water is made up of atoms not cells
* Living things obtain and use energy.
* Living things grow and develop.- Ocean/water cannot grow and develop, but collect
* Living things reproduce.- self-explanatory
* Living things respond to their environment.
* Living things adapt to their environment.- well if you consider the properties of a liquid to be adapting to the environment.
Yes, we know that science is always discovering new things and challenging what we know today, but that's what science is discovering and asking questions. We accept science as truth because it is the closest we have to understanding the truth; rather than simply looking to the supernatural because we don't have all the answers yet. It takes what we do know and it finds out more so that we can see what else there is, or what we may be wrong about.
It's not just a matter of science always making new discoveries. Science as we know and accept can only take us so far. For any realities outside of the universe, science is no longer useful to us. The "supernatural" is necessary to consider because science confines us to our universe, and our universe may not be where our pure consciousness exists. Our universe is huge and if you want to limit yourself to it, rest assured that you will practically never run out of things to discover and places to visit. BUT you are blinding yourself to everything else that is out there. Open your mind I can't do it for you!
Science as we know and accept can only take us so far.
Science has a long history (in human terms) of solving problems that had heretofore been thought unsolvable.
For any realities outside of the universe, science is no longer useful to us.
Actually, scientists are already experimenting and gathering data about the "regions" beyond our own universe. My brother is doing his doctorate work in the field of quantum mathematics, and has been working on a team that... (*aside* Well, okay...My brother is so much smarter than me than I really don't know WHAT they're doing. I know it has something to do with quantum mechanics, and branes and such.) ...is delving that very question. The theoretical framework for exploring these regions is already being laid out.
The "supernatural" is necessary to consider because science confines us to our universe, and our universe may not be where our pure consciousness exists.
It seems to me that the "supernatural" is just a mechanism for weak minds to excuse themselves from the exacting burden of actually having to face the reality that we as humans don't know everything. Rather, religion fills in the gaps very neatly...probably related to some distant ancestor's fear of the dark, combined with a need for firewood...and tigers.
Our universe is huge and if you want to limit yourself to it, rest assured that you will practically never run out of things to discover and places to visit. BUT you are blinding yourself to everything else that is out there.
Well, if you ever actually find anything where your looking, let me know and maybe I'll come have a look. I've tasted my share of snake-oil, and yours is the same piss-color as the last guy's.
Open your mind I can't do it for you!
I think when you opened your mind, your brain fell out.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It seems to me that the "supernatural" is just a mechanism for weak minds to excuse themselves from the exacting burden of actually having to face the reality that we as humans don't know everything. Rather, religion fills in the gaps very neatly...probably related to some distant ancestor's fear of the dark, combined with a need for firewood...and tigers.
It seems you are misunderstanding my overall message here. My philosophical viewpoints are based around the reality that we humans don't know everything. I never claimed to know what the nature of supernatural truths -- that may or may not exist -- are. I'm just following my own principles and saying that there is no way we know for sure that God does not exist. Your denial of God's existence and/or relevance is where you seem to forget that humans do not know everything, most likely can never know everything, and what we do know is probably an infinitesimal fraction of knowledge and reality. If God exists, which it very could, than I would argue that such a reality is an important one to know and live by. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. God is a mysterious idea that should not be ignored by humans and there are a few solid reasons for this beyond the fact that God can't be adequately disproved. Organized religions, tainted to the core by human vice, can be thrown out since the proof needed to see their fatal flaws are evident in present and past. God itself cannot. And if there is God, I personally speculate that it is entirely unrelated to the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim belief systems. I just can't accept the "God was lonely one day so he created humans with free will but one those humans disobeyed God by eating a piece of fruit and god had a temper tantrum and is still mad at humans over that piece of fruit." Or the "God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh." Oh isn't that nice how God took a nap? Why was he was tired? So the God I speculate upon is one that has nothing to do with Christian fairy tales told seriously to, and accepted by, adults in worship services.
I never claimed to know what the nature of supernatural truths -- that may or may not exist -- are.
Actually, yes...you did.
In fact, you have made several assertions of special knowledge, and your entire argument is based on using these assumptions as the ground to dismiss the logical burden of proof which reasonably applied to those assumptions.
I'm just following my own principles and saying that there is no way we know for sure that God does not exist.
There are lots of things that we "don't know for sure," but that doesn't make any old thing you pull out of your imagination can be asserted as a fact.
Your denial of God's existence and/or relevance is where you seem to forget that humans do not know everything, most likely can never know everything, and what we do know is probably an infinitesimal fraction of knowledge and reality.
This just shows that you haven't been reading my responses very closely.
I personally speculate...
As long as you continue to recognize that your speculations are just that, and no more...then there is nothing in your opinion that would prompt me to challenge your logical skills (or rather, lack thereof). When you make argumentative assertions, however, you really should learn to expect that you will be challeged to back them up. That's the way that rational arguments work, my volatile little friend.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Science is the best way to discover truth, rather than emotional, superstitious bias.
Yes, I agree with you. Science CAN only cake us so far. There is no possible way for science to take us to some fairy world. It can only take us to whatever actually exists. As long as something exists.... there is evidence of its existence.
The "supernatural" is necessary to consider because science confines us to our universe
First, science does not confine us to solely our universe. Cosmologists (a form of science) are taking serious steps into the question "do other universes exist?"
Second, the supernatural is not natural; it is what exceeds, or contradicts, nature. Just because we may consider some things fantastical, it does not necessarily make it so. If it is proven to be true then it is natural. I understand that science is not always right on everything, but it is the closest to the truth that we have.
I am an open-minded person. I never simply accept what I am told. I always encourage people to question everything, and not accept the status quo. It is people that ask those questions that find the answers to them, and make the world a much easier place to live for future generations.
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.- Ayn Rand
"We accept science as truth because it is the closest we have to understanding the truth;..."
I see science as a way of seeking the truth, but cannot logically discount every unknown possibility merely because science does not understand it yet. The current theories of science, for the most part, replace older discredited theories. While the present theories are the best current understanding there is no reason to believe that they will stand the test of time. Some certainly won't.
"...; rather than simply looking to the supernatural because we don't have all the answers yet."
Actually thinking that you know, or in this case can prove, things that you can't is superstitious, while recognizing that an assumption is not proof leaves the door open for further increase in knowledge. The ocean is a vast biological system. Every year hundreds of new discoveries relating to it are being made. Few areas are as little known as our oceans, which may be the origin of all life on this planet.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
The ocean is a vast biological system.
"The ocean" is an imprecise term that refers to an object/phenomenon that refers to certain large bodies of water that exists on our planet. It is NOT a "biological system."
The ocean does not have organs, though it contains many life forms that do.
Every year hundreds of new discoveries relating to it are being made.
And yet, to date, not even ONE of those discoveries could be rationally extrapolated to suggest that "the ocean" is a living organism.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I see science as a way of seeking the truth, but cannot logically discount every unknown possibility merely because science does not understand it yet.
I agree, but we cannot just allow the implication that those possibilities, or personal assumptions, trump over what we do know.
While the present theories are the best current understanding there is no reason to believe that they will stand the test of time. Some certainly won't.
No argument here. I will not accept just any answer. If many more theories are proven to be imperfect, I will be the first to stand and applaud. The whole point of science is to find truth, and to question everything.
Actually thinking that you know, or in this case can prove, things that you can't is superstitious, while recognizing that an assumption is not proof leaves the door open for further increase in knowledge.
I do not claim to know everything. I recognize that many things we do today were at one time considered science fiction. I have no doubt in the human capacity to discover. My point was that we shouldn't count on things such as deities demons or angels to have any responsibility. These were the old theories when mankind could not explain why it rained, thundered, quaked, or snowed, nor could they explain seizures, mountains, animals or even the origin of life. So in it's place came immortal supernatural beings that made all things possible. It's kind of like saying "I don't know what this is for, so God must have done it!"
But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. -Ayn Rand
"My point was that we shouldn't count on things such as deities demons or angels to have any responsibility. These were the old theories when mankind could not explain why it rained, thundered, quaked, or snowed, nor could they explain seizures, mountains, animals or even the origin of life. So in it's place came immortal supernatural beings that made all things possible. It's kind of like saying "I don't know what this is for, so God must have done it!" "
That is a good observation.
My point is that replacing one term for the mysterious and misunderstood with another does nothing to make the people using those terms any less superstitious. The vast majority of people understand the principles, and reasoning behind many scientific theories about as well as they understood God. Both occupy the role of reassuring themselves that there is an underlying order to the chaotic world around them.
All rationality and categorization done by man has an underlying emotional basis. The act of trying to simplify the world, and thus understand it better, inherently leads to an illusion of a simpler world than the real one.
This essay by William James discusses that tendency, and relates to the Ayn Rand quote that you are using for a signature.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VxK3Dx1NNy4C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=willia...
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
okay i think we are going off on some other tangent. I'm not for the complete exclusion of a god in our quest for knowledge, but I also don't think it should be our ignorant answer to everything. Until any such being is proven, I will be living the rest of my days assuming that there is no god.
What I do consider to be false is the organized religions that claim to know everything and use a deity as a platform. Especially when their teachings seem to be contradictory. But there must be a limit to what we can keep into consideration; otherwise, by that logic, we will never know if we know the truth, even if we do because those alternatives can be absolute and unknowable, yet still false (possibly).
"Until any such being is proven, I will be living the rest of my days assuming that there is no god."
Unless things change quite radically within your lifetime, any proof of God could only be found within your own subjective perception of such things. That subjective opinion is properly called faith rather than proof.
When you consider any possible objective 'evidence' of God, even that which might be quite remarkable and 'miraculous', how would you EVER know that it came from an actual God, and not merely from a lessor creature that possessed much higher technology than any you had ever seen?
---
"What I do consider to be false is the organized religions that claim to know everything and use a deity as a platform. Especially when their teachings seem to be contradictory."
There do seem to be quite a few layers involved in most of them. An awful lot of their detailed rules and knowledge seem to benefit donations to, and recruitment for their organizations.
---
"...we will never know if we know the truth..."
That is the phrase that all honest people should agree with.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Pretty much everything great that we know today is considered a theory because they have all been tested and the results have shown agreement with those theories.
We know if you pour some sort of a liquid into a lesser dense liquid that the liquid of higher density will sink to the bottom. There is no rational reason, especially through reasonable expectation (which many confuse with faith), to assume that the water and oil will take on any number of alternatives, including: spontaneous combustion, conversion into another substance, create complex life, or even control time.
Or if you place one apple on a table, and add another apple right beside it, would the sum of the apples be anything other than 2, such as the alternatives (-∞,1] or [3,∞) or even a letter for that matter? Many things we consider true are because they have been tested and have yet to be proven false.
If we go by your logic, there would be no point in attempting progress because whatever we "learn" is likely to be a one in an infinity chance of being the right answer; as if we pick a theory or answer out of an enormous hat. But we do not learn things at random, we learn through previous experiences with every test telling us if we are getting colder or getting warmer in discovering what is true. We don't cherry pick what we want to know, or feel comfortable knowing... we test hypothesis to find out if it works or not; therefore objective.
"If we go by your logic, there would be no point in attempting progress because whatever we "learn" is likely to be a one in an infinity chance of being the right answer; as if we pick a theory or answer out of an enormous hat."
I'm not sure which logic you are referring to. It seems to be generalized, or this specific.
Is this the 'logic'?
There is nothing wrong with attempting progress, in fact we humans cannot help ourselves, the problem lies with assuming that any given conception we arrive at is inviolate truth. Whether that conclusion is the result of what we have been taught like religion or any other education or it is the result of circumstantial evidence like science or any other deduction every conclusion or fact we have should be subject to review and doubt.
The reasons that we must do this are several.
First; even the best human mind is an imperfect lens.
Second; perspective changes. How you see anything is influenced not just by the angle and distance (resolution), but also prior knowledge and assumptions.
Third; We have limited ability to take in the 'big picture' at any given moment. As human knowledge has grown it has become more specialized. There are just more facts that relate, even to seemingly simple things, than we have the ability to hold in our minds at any given time.
The Truth does exist, and there is no alternative to it, but it is never going to be fully known. That is NOT an argument AGAINST curiosity, or rational thought, just a recognition that they represent a process not a means to an end.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Sorry, I think when I wrote that i was thinking of something I saw somewhere else.
I just think there are things we can definitely rule out when it comes to knowledge and reason. Especially in organized religion when their teachings have plenty of contradictions. I know that this is not just my bias because when i was a young catholic boy I always wondered why some things didn't add up, but I was always too afraid to ask for some sort of clarification. I am open to the idea of a god, or more; there may very well be a god that created the cosmos, but has since restrained from intervention. I do not doubt that humans are an imperfect species, but I still wouldn't underestimate us. We may understand more than what is known.
What do you you base this claim of proof that an ocean is not a life form? Or is your claim baseless?
Let's start by reviewing the most common definition of the term "life" as it applies in scientific examinations...
The massive system known as "the ocean" does not regulate its own internal environment. In fact, it is extraordinarily vulnerable to changes in temperature, pollutants and other external factors. If the ocean were homeostatic in a biological sense, it would not for example be frozen at the poles and warm at the equator.
The massive system known as the ocean is not composed of cells. In fact, the ocean really isn't organized in any way that could reasonably denoted as biologically consistent with the term. The water and its dissolved or carried contents can be freely moved from one area to another with no significant impact on the water itself.
The massive system known as the ocean does not have a biological metabolism.
The massive system known as the ocean does not grow in an anabolic manner. External actors can pour more water into it, or take more water out of it, but the ocean itself does not "grow."
The massive system known as the ocean does not show any signs of adaptation. The interaction of the ocean with its surrounding environments is completely passive.
The massive system known as the ocean does not respond to stimuli. If it did, we'd all likely be in a lot of trouble.
The massive system known as the ocean does not reproduce. It has no offspring, and in fact has no biological systems at all.
I know these things because a) I have studied the ocean in an advanced setting, and b) because I have been to the ocean many times, and everything that I saw there personally aligned sufficiently with that study to engender a confidence in the objectivity of the material. Honestly, these petty challenges only go to show either a) how little your know about the world around you, or b) how truly bizarre and out-of-touch your view of reality actually is.
Do you know what the largest known life form on our planet is? Do you know how recently science discovered it?
Unless there has been a newer discorvery, I believe the armillaria ostoyae holds the record for largest life form (by area) found on the Earth. The largest example known of these species was reported in a published study in 2003.
Has science discovered everything, or is the pace of discovery still accelerating?
Of course science hasn't discovered everything, and if you had actually read the discussion above before commenting, you would not have needed to ask such a ridiculous question.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First you cherry pick a part of a definition omitting the quallifier it begins with: "Since there is no unequivocal definition of life". Then you repeatedly admit that "The massive system known as the ocean" is a single system like any living thing. Note that the ocean does regulate temperature by sweating, contain most of the electrolytes on the planet, convert energy by photosynthesis and decomposition, adapts to changes in environment, and responds to stimuli. Only two growth and reproduction are hard to see. Of course we are not trying to provide proof that the ocean IS alive.
Then you add a second purely subjective 'proof':
"I know these things because a) I have studied the ocean in an advanced setting, and b) because I have been to the ocean many times"
Which is eerily reminiscent of the reason for faith in God given by the church going masses you constantly deride. They engage in study in an 'advanced setting' weekly at church, and experience God directly in their daily lives. Just like you and your subjective and definitional 'proofs' of the dead ocean.
Strange, you could have such a strong faith that the current state of science knows about every possible form of life when you are aware that "science hasn't discovered everything," Is your faith really so strong that it can properly be called proof?
You are correct that science has only recently discovered the organism that is presently considers the largest know life form. Also I think it wise that you prefaced your answer with "Unless there has been a newer discorvery" since it is more likely that such a discovery will be made soon, than that armillaria ostoyae will hold the record even for the remainder of either of our lives.
Fun Fungi Fact:
Some mushrooms have as many as 36,000 diferent sexes:
http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/feb2000.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scientists-discover-why-fungi-have-360...
Think how hard finding a date is for a homosexual fungus.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
...which scientists use to define the term "life," however NONE of those definitions as asserted by any significant body of said scientists could be used to claim that the ocean is living thing. And, I did NOT "admit" (and your dishonesty in this regard is truly galling) that the ocean is "a single system like any living thing." The world is composed of MANY systems...some of them are alive, and some are not. The ocean falls into the latter category, as any first semester student in a biology 101 class would be able to tell you. You also have a very strange way of delimiting (or rather not) the inhabitants of the ocean from the ocean itself. The ocean does not engage in photosynthesis. Plankton, which IS a living thing, lives IN the ocean and IT is the life form that is engaging in this process. Honestly, your argument here is so ludicrous and frankly ignorant that it belies description. I trust that our readers can see for themselves how ridiculous your counter-points really are.
Then you add a second purely subjective 'proof':
"I know these things because a) I have studied the ocean in an advanced setting, and b) because I have been to the ocean many times"
Which is eerily reminiscent of the reason for faith in God given by the church going masses you constantly deride.
The difference, of course, is that you don't have to take my word for it. You can go to the ocean and see it for yourself. It doesn't require any special revelation, skill or knowledge to experience the ocean for yourself. And unless your senses are in some way deficient due to an injury or illness, your experience of the ocean with be essentially the same as every other human being who has ever done the same.
Strange, you could have such a strong faith that the current state of science knows about every possible form of life...
This is of course a meaningless comment, since this is not my position at all. This is just one more example of your annoying habbit of making positions and applying them to your opponents in the hope that you can rebut your own invented argument instead of what your opponent actually said.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"NONE of those definitions as asserted by any significant body of said scientists could be used to claim that the ocean is living thing."
Perhaps, but they also could not disprove it any more than you can. Some scientists do consider The Great Barrier Reef to be the largest living thing on earth, despite the fact that it is composed of a vast colony of different individuals that are not all currently alive, or even of a single species. A single sponge can hold as many as 16,000 separable living things, and is considered a single life form.
Both of these composite life forms exist repeatedly within the vast system that is called the ocean. Even if it is alive the ocean may be only an organ within an even larger system.
---
"I did NOT "admit" (and your dishonesty in this regard is truly galling) that the ocean is "a single system like any living thing." The world is composed of MANY systems...some of them are alive, and some are not."
The phrase I quoted you used repeatedly. All life forms are a collection of systems. The line which separates those systems within you which you consider to be alive from those which you consider not alive would be an interesting one.
---
"You also have a very strange way of delimiting (or rather not) the inhabitants of the ocean from the ocean itself. The ocean does not engage in photosynthesis. Plankton, which IS a living thing, lives IN the ocean and IT is the life form that is engaging in this process."
Try to digest any of YOUR food without the symbiotic bacteria in your gut. Within the vast array of known life forms more survive by a relationship with other living things than could survive independent of any other life forms. This is called interdependence.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
You ham-fisted attempt to lure me into the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative will not work. The way that one determines whether or not an object meets a definition to do list the qualities bounded by that definition, and then compare the object to them. If the qualities found in the object do not match the qualities bounded by the definition, then yes in fact you CAN say that the object does NOT meet that definition. The "proof" in this case comes from the comparison.
Some scientists do consider The Great Barrier Reef to be the largest living thing on earth...
I think you are taking some liberties with the assertions of these scientists, but at least the organisms found in The Great Coral Reef have cells, react to stimuli and reproduce. These organisms have all of the basis characteristics which are commonly bounded within the common defintions of "life." The ocean," on the other hand, does not.
The phrase I quoted you used repeatedly.
Like I said...dishonest. I never said "a single system like any living thing." You are attempting to quote mine a position to which you can respond without sounding foolish (and you're failing).
Try to digest any of YOUR food without the symbiotic bacteria in your gut.
The symbiotic bacteria in my gut are composed on living cells. So am I. That's the difference. The creatures living IN the ocean have cells (and exhibit the other characteristics of life). The ocean itself, however, does NOT.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...to rephrase your statement or admit that you couldn't prove it to begin with, but I have come to expect a certain relentlessness from you, even in the face of an untenable position, that I admire.
"You ham-fisted attempt to lure me into the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative will not work."
As anyone can clearly see you started yourself off in this Ham-Headed position to begin with. Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy, it is possible whenever all possibilities can be accounted for. That is clearly NOT the case here, so it would be impossible.
---
"I never said "a single system like any living thing." "
I did not quote YOU saying that, that quote is YOU quoting ME. Look back at what I actually said, and what I quoted, which is an exact phrase you used repeatedly.
---
"The symbiotic bacteria in my gut are composed on living cells. So am I. That's the difference. The creatures living IN the ocean have cells (and exhibit the other characteristics of life). The ocean itself, however, does NOT."
So, like the ocean, you rely on other living things within you to survive. I disagree that the only possible forms of life MUST have cells that are easy for us to identify.
Your narrow non scientific definition eliminates life forms we already know of, from being called alive.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."
- William James
...and so I will reply to your irrational blather, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
He explained exactly what the "logical fallacy" was in several different posts. Please stop asking, your making yourself look like an idiot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Put your best foot forward, just watch what you step in..."
Personally I am an atheist, but I was raised as a Catholic. Although, if I were asked this question, I would have to answer male.
And here's why: If you go by the bible, God created a man in his image, and created a woman from man. That would be my "evidence" to support that.
I think it was written that way because in those times men, and only men, had the voice of authority. They felt the need to empower themselves, and make themselves feel closer to God by giving Him their gender as well. Plus, women in those times, were not respected; now ask yourself this: why would they want a god, who is responsible for everything in existence, and is someone that they would consider inferior to themselves. That wouldn't make sense. So they made God into a male figure.
...Of anything, that one was never born, never reproduces, and has no mate it seems a but immaterial which sex that one is.
The Monotheistic references to a God rarely describe any perceptible body, often describe the being as pure spirit, pure Truth, etc.
'He' is used as a default in most patriarchal societies when sex is unknown, or inapplicable.
So, I conclude that we definitely don't know, and in all likelihood it doesn't matter. Why would it?
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
"'He' is used as a default in most patriarchal societies when sex is unknown, or inapplicable"
Yes and that is why an individual intelligence God is referred to as "He." I mean does it take a rocket scientist to make the connection?
Which God are you talking about??
i think that you have to understand which is your position with your belief. If you follow Christianity there are many verses in the Bible where God is written as Male.
Isn't there a part where it specifies also that the church is God's wife? Since Christianity does not condone homosexuality then God should be male, no? Plus, God is the father in the Holy Trinity. I know some people, however, that mention the Holy Trinity as basically Father, Son and Mother (holy spirit) all in one being, so God is both male and female.
(I kind of call BS on this since triad deities are just common all around the world specially in ancient times and this is a regurgitation of such).
As an agnostic, to me God is... well in your mind (some might say your heart!). As such, you give him your own gender and sex! Hey, make him a lesbian or a transvestite for all anyone cares. What is important is your belief in him.
...that even the mtthical Heracles would have trouble completing such a labor. There is nothing untenable in the position that "the ocean" is not a living thing. One need merely apply one of the many common biological defintions of "life" to the question, and the answer that follows is obviously not in agreement with your assertions.
Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy...
You might want to read up on your logical fallacies, starting with Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise. Then you might want to check out the Fallacy of Composition. Then, you might want to dig up a biology textbook and look up the defitions of terms such as homeostasis, metabolism, cellular organization, cellular growth, biological adaptation, stimuli response, and reproduction. With the level of ignorance that you have demonstrated in regards to this term thus far, it is pointless to continue to belabor the point further with you.
I did not quote YOU saying that, that quote is YOU quoting ME. Look back at what I actually said, and what I quoted, which is an exact phrase you used repeatedly.
More dishonesty. You said, "Then you repeatedly admit that 'The massive system known as the ocean' is a single system like any living thing." Note my emphasis. I never said anything of the sort, and nothing that I DID say could be rationally construed to mean this. Your comment is disingenuous in the extreme.
So, like the ocean, you rely on other living things within you to survive.
My eyes are also brown, like dirt. That doesn't make the dirt alive. This kind of casual similarity is not sufficient to radically alter the basic definitions by which we delimit living organisms from unliving objects.
I disagree that the only possible forms of life MUST have cells that are easy for us to identify.
Your disagreement with scientifically defined terms is irrelevant, unless you possess compelling, objectively demonstrable evidence that would compel a change in those definitions.
Your narrow non scientific definition eliminates life forms we already know of, from being called alive.
Really? Can you name one?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Your narrow non scientific definition eliminates life forms we already know of, from being called alive.
Really? Can you name one?
If he says a virus, I'm going to slap the closest person to me! haha
Some viruses:
Viroid- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid
Mimivirus- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus
It is reasonably certain that other viral scale life forms share acellular existence with these, since most viruses have yet to be categorized by scientists. These small scale self-replicating creatures and chemicals such as RNA and Crystals are a transition from inanimate chemicals to life as we know it.
On the same scale as common cellular life is Syncytium such as slime molds in which many nuclei share a large single pool of cytoplasm rather than forming individual cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytial
On the other end of the size scale are composite life forms or Diffuse organisms.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mLxhPkcyjFoC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=composit...
Nearly every complex life form relies on symbiotic relationships with other organisms. "Life is complex and often involves a delicate balancing act between hosts and symbionts, in associations that range from parasitism to mutualism." Some such as Siphonophorae appear to be a single individual while in fact they are a colony of individuals which actually specialize in much the same way organs in complex life forms such as humans do.
Life is diverse. Science is still in the process of discovering just how diverse, and there is no reason to believe the end is near.
Simple minded people try to simplify things to a level they feel comfortable with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism
“I think the next century will be the century of complexity.”
Stephen Hawking
Actually, the question of whether or not viruses are living organisms is still out, and there is a great deal of debate and research going on regarding that very subject. Why? Well, to quote an interesting source that I found (emphasis mine)...
Your assumption that the common definition of life cannot encompass the virus is true when talking about virons, and not true when talking about active viruses. These two stages represent an an interesting quandary, but there is NOTHING in their example which could be construed through similarity to increase the validity of your ridiculous assertions regarding the ocean.
"Life is complex and often involves a delicate balancing act between hosts and symbionts, in associations that range from parasitism to mutualism."
If I take an apple and place it in a bowl, the bowl doesn't magically become "alive." A symbiotic relationship requires (at least) TWO living organisms. The fact that a living organism exists WITHING a medium does not render that medium ALIVE. No matter how you try to spin this, the ocean simply doesn't exhibit the kinds of characteristics that are associated with living organisms.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"These two stages represent an an interesting quandary, but there is NOTHING in their example which could be construed through similarity to increase the validity of your ridiculous assertions regarding the ocean."
I have not said that the ocean is alive, just that YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS NOT.
I'll accept your ABANDONMENT of ANY EFFORT to defend that position as the closest you can come to admitting your error.
---
A couple more interesting areas where science is investigating the genomes of collective organisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagenomics
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome_project
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
I have not said that the ocean is alive, just that YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS NOT.
Your challenge carries an implied premise, which is of course ludicrous. And, simply stating that I "cannot prove" that the ocean isn't alive doesn't mean much, when I have in fact done just that. The way that you reach a conclusion to a question of the sort you asked is you compare the object of consideration (i.e. "the ocean") against the definition of the quality to which you question (i.e. "life"). I have done this, and the object you offered up for question did not meet the definition. Thus, the question is answered, and you are (as usual) wrong.
A couple more interesting areas where science is investigating the genomes of collective organisms:
Is there a respected scientist working in either of these fields who has published in any of the major scientific journals the assertion that the ocean is a living organism? If not, these sources really do nothing to support your argument.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Your narrow non scientific definition eliminates life forms we already know of, from being called alive.
Really? Can you name one?
If he says a virus, I'm going to slap the closest person to me! haha
Someone somewhere is getting slapped right now!
Archaeoalon
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It’s the only way to make progress.
What do you see, feel, experience, expect, wish while yourself to be?
Is a she/he in the real’m...?!?!?
God is that A the tool used, you are that which the tool is suppressing!
Go beyond