Life is emergent, not created

Originally posted by TheGrandWazoo
If there is a god, what makes you think he has human emotions?

If god is infinite then it has everything, including but not limited to human emotions.

If you believe in the Big Bang, you must believe that the universe is not infinite.

I used to think this too, but now I wonder if we were to start going back in time, would we ever reach the big bang? What if it's like counting to 0 sequentially using fractions? 1/1, 1/2, 1/3... etc. We won't ever get there. Flip the fractions and you get the reciprocals which would be counting sequentially towards infinity.

We cannot understand concepts like infinity and nothingness.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean we can't have an understanding of them. That's the fun part! We're always increasing our understanding but there's always room for more. A constant goal, one that will never end.

reply to post by circlemaker

Indeed, but that doesn't mean we can't have an understanding of them. That's the fun part! We're always increasing our understanding but there's always room for more. A constant goal, one that will never end.

Yeah, but at the same time any attempts towards trying to know these things will never leave the realm of speculation.
I guess thats what reminds us of our place in such a vast universe.

So - basically .... Life is just the universe experiencing itself?

Our perception of life is the fact that we think, our ability to think is based on experience and memory, experience is based on reactions, action is based on reaction.

Yup nailed it.

Good thread OP.

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by TheGrandWazoo
If there is a god, what makes you think he has human emotions?

If god is infinite then it has everything, including but not limited to human emotions.

Hatred, Pain, Illness, Mortality, Blue, ADHD, Schizophrenia, Addiction to 4chan.

Infinite God has everything, makes absolutely no sense. No one believes that. A god as a sentient creature would not automatically have everything a part of it, and given that, wouldn't be obligated for human emotions.

~
Not that I believe in any deity, but here's a more rational response:
"I believe god has human emotions, because he made humans, and obviously would give us emotions similar to the ones he has capacity for." Christians may cite "In his own image".

Of course, that goes against the point of this topic, that we came to be without any supernatural process molding us. But it is what most theists believe.

isnt life 'just' measurable existential sentient force thereinofitself?

reply to post by circlemaker

Proof isn't always physical. It can be logical/mathematical as well, until such time as the idea may be proven physically (a partial proof?). Also, I don't expect anyone to believe me, I expect them to consider the possibilities.

All well and fine but in your initial statement you declared it as a absolute truth. I just opposed that and declared it as a bad initial discussion point and an erroneous conclusion over the facts we understand as truth.

A thinking God can't create something infinite because the very act of "thinking" requires time, making that so-called "God" a finite being (at least the thinking part of it). See the paradox?

I see the paradox on your fallacy, God in todays definition is unlimited and all powerful, master of all in fact you would be even less to a God than an ant is to man, how can one make affirmations or imposes limits in something one do not understand and by definition will never do, to fully comprehend God one must become God itself.

Personally I like to think in some form of master designer but I do not place my existence as being of any consequence or special relevance to that design. I do not believe in an intervening deity but something like being part of God, for instance God may well be our universe (since for it to exist must be inside our universe or outside of it), also if we accept that there can be more than one universe we must accept that there may be more than one God. God my also not exist anymore imagine it as the creator of basic form of a mathematical function that generates our universe, we may be only exist in something like a thought in a self sustaining computation. One thing I am as certain as you is that if God exists, or existed, I will never be able to explain it and probably we will never ascertain if it does, or did exist, until and if we can evolve to equal him. The other certainty I have is that the order we see in reality is truly divine, even in its more chaotic forms.

In order to think, time is required! But timelessness is more fundamental than time. Time is a measurement, requiring at least two "somethings" to measure between. Timelessness on other the other hand is pre-existent. Time is our perception of timelessness splitting into an infinite number of distinctive parts.

So you not only define limits to your God but place it in a linear time existence, since time and space are the same you can probably tell us where your God resides...

No we really don't need multiple universes, just a single infinite one.

I did not say we need them (even if physics tells us that they probably exist), what I said is for this one to exist there must be possible for other to exist also. I will chose to place my "faith" in something that has good arguments for than for your view that there is only one universe with an infinite time-line (this goes against all the common accepted theories I've heard and I would like you to provide the source for you information). Since time and space are intertwined and we can establish more or less the creation (at least the cool down period) of our universe, time had a start somewhere and most theories do point to an end of time, in fact there is no infinite outside of mathematics all things end (entropy). See also Time and the Big Bang and Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang.

I believe in infinity.

I do not, and find no way one can prove it exists outside of mathematics since we do not get to experience infinity in our existence. Ultimately reality is the product of observation, my reality is distinct from everyone else and I do believe than when I die that reality dies with me, I would like to believe in an afterlife but I do not, facing and accepting my finite nature is extremely rewarding and provides me endless amusement to see what devices others create to avoid dealing with that fact.

See Theoretical applications of physical infinity.

One thing I do not do is try to impose my personal reality on others, this also permits me to be more open to execute changes and adapt to new information, I see myself as all inclusive, questioning and discarding only the parts that collide and I am highly aware that we get to know and understand very few things in our existence, in fact one of the aspects of life I most cherish and take joy is in the activity of attempting to understand reality even if ultimately I see it as futile since I also accept that I will not get to keep any of it forever, this view also influences my view of the purpose of life beyond the basic functions but that is another discussion...

What is life really? A complex system of carbonmolecules, divided into supposedly autonomous groups that for some reason are all working together.

A good example.. The heart (the heart is semi-autonomous of the body and brain and has its own nerve system) doesn't know what the kidneys are doing and vice versa, but they are connected and both have a part in the animal they are sustaining.
This animal is autonomous to the world it lives in, but the method it uses to survive help sustain the environment it is in (humans to a degree excepted from this).

This works all the way up to the outer atmosphere. But why does it have to stop here? The earth orbits the sun, the sun must be a part of the life on earth too. And i'm sure that the sun is depending on some system (now my knowledge is lacking) to sustain it, that lies outside our solar system... And so on

Does this mean that whole universe is life? Or is it just my angle that makes it seem so?

Originally posted by circlemaker

If god is infinite then it has everything, including but not limited to human emotions.

But the number chain 1,3,5,7,9,11... etc. is infinite but does not contain 2,4,6,8.. etc.. Something can be infinite without being everything.

(...) I wonder if we were to start going back in time, would we ever reach the big bang? What if it's like counting to 0 sequentially using fractions? 1/1, 1/2, 1/3... etc. We won't ever get there. Flip the fractions and you get the reciprocals which would be counting sequentially towards infinity.

This is a very good point. Hadn't thought of that.

We cannot understand concepts like infinity and nothingness.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean we can't have an understanding of them. That's the fun part! We're always increasing our understanding but there's always room for more. A constant goal, one that will never end.

Like another poster said, this is a belief system too, because we will never have the "facts". What is the difference of this and believing in a god?

Due to the physics and chemistry of our universe. I would say life was inevitable.
Ive been working on a massive thread about this for a while op, i'll be sure to give you a heads up when i post it.

I think life is created , but than again i think who created god, so that confuses me so much, the only option is, everything just emerged on its own.

reply to post by circlemaker


The universe is not infinite.
This is proven by the simple concept that if the universe was infinite in size and duration, then the night sky would be completely white due to all of the stars/starlight we would see. However, we knows thats not the case. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by circlemaker

 

The universe is not infinite.
This is proven by the simple concept that if the universe was infinite in size and duration, then the night sky would be completely white due to all of the stars/starlight we would see. However, we knows thats not the case. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite

And if we had better eyes, we indeed would see the night sky as totally lit up. But since our eyes differentiate between the levels of light, we only see some stars. This is pretty smart actually, otherwise we would be constantly snowblind.

Other than that, dust and other stars block the light from far away stars, and black holes if they exist, supposedly suck in light.
Edit: Adding this, the path of light can be bended by strong electro magnetic fields or even stopped if filtered through the right material

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo


you have essentially disproven or proven nothing. This has nothing to do with human eyes since my theory dirrectly correlates with what SATELLITES have shown, who can see much much farther than we can, and it still shows that the night sky is not entirely filled up with stars.

in an infinite universe, there would be an infinite number of stars, and an infinite amount of time for their light to have reached us.

You cant worm your way around this. The universe is extremely massive, but it is not Infinite.
Nothing physical can be infinite. infinite is an abstract mental model that technically cannot exist physically. Because no matter what you come up with to equate to infinite, infinite would still be bigger, by definition, even for the universe.

reply to post by VonDoomen


I'm not trying to prove anything. Proof leaves people blind and self satisfied. I'm trying to make people think, instead of defend.

Using your own logic, if there are an infinite number of stars, there is also an infinite number of black holes which suck in the light, and an infinite space between the stars, where infinite mass of dark matter to absorb light and an infinite number of electromagnetic fields of varying size, from infinitely small to infinitely big, too divert the light in other direction, creating an infinite merry-go-round of light.

From Northwestern Universitys website (www.qrg.northwestern.edu...):

Why don't we receive light from all the stars in the universe?

There are about 6000 stars that are clearly visible to the naked eye above Earth. Yet we know that there are millions of stars in the universe. Since all stars are putting out light and other kinds of electromagnetic radiation and since light can travel for huge distances in space, why can't we see all the stars?

All stars, like our Sun, send out a huge amount of electromagnetic radiation, including light. However, that light spreads out with distance, making it so that only a tiny fraction reaches us. In addition, depending on the temperature of the star, the main color of light sent out by the star changes. Cooler stars put out redder light, hotter stars put out blue or white light. Generally, colors like white or blue are stronger colors (shorter wavelength, higher frequency) and can be seen more easily at far distances than reds, oranges or yellows. Also, some stars are simply larger than others and send out more light.

In addition to all the stars in space, there is a lot of other matter, called dark matter, between us and the stars that can block starlight. This dark matter can include nebulae which are clouds of gas, interstellar dust or planets.

Finally light can be pulled aside by gravity. Black holes, which are massive gravitational centers, have gravity so strong that they will pull in light itself and trap it there, keeping it from getting to us.

Hope people don't mind the 7-grader explanation, i'm not trying to talk down to anyone.
Again, this is not to prove anything, but to further a discussion in which hopefully we all get smarter.

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo


Still doesnt change anything though. Even if there are an infinite number of stars or blackholes, it would still be at the ratio we observe. All of this light and dust would be illuminated by all the light its blocking out.

99.9% of space is empty space. Matter makes up only a tiny fraction of the universe. Quit convoluting this simple theory and confusing people. If the universe was infinite, we'd see way more stars, and this nonsense of black holes and dust blocking out things is rubbish. Theres a reason we can only see structures dating back to roughly 13-14 billion years ago. Because the universe is not infinite in duration. If what your saying was true, we would eventully have discovered a few structures older than this. Unless this magical dust of yours only selectively blocks out starlight after its a certain age?

reply to post by VonDoomen

Originally posted by VonDoomen
Still doesnt change anything though. Even if there are an infinite number of stars or blackholes, it would still be at the ratio we observe. All of this light and dust would be illuminated by all the light its blocking out.

Oh yeah, like when we have a solar eclipse, and the moon is illuminated

99.9% of space is empty space. Matter makes up only a tiny fraction of the universe.

In between matter is empty space. We don't know how there can exist nothing in the empty space when matter attracts matter, that is why we have "invented" 'dark matter' to fill in the gaps. I agree that space looks to be mostly empty, at least so it appears to the instruments we have available.
Dark matter and dark energy accounts for 96% of the known universe. Link: www.space.com...
Another link, National Radio Astronomy Observatory : www.nrao.edu...

Quit convoluting this simple theory and confusing people. If the universe was infinite, we'd see way more stars, and this nonsense of black holes and dust blocking out things is rubbish.

Yeah ok, each to his own opinion, but this 'rubbish' is generally accepted through the scientific community.
Did you read the quote from the article from Northwestern Uni?. It stated we can only see 6000 stars in the night sky, even though there a trillions of them. Hubble can see a lot more, but light from far away stars is still much less intense, and less photons from far away will hit the lens. Search for the hubble deep-field pictures.

Anyway I never said that I believe that the universe is infinite, just that IF it were, then this and that. Stop putting words in my mouth. Like I said before, I'm NOT trying to PROVE anything. I'm trying to think. Please read my posts.

Theres a reason we can only see structures dating back to roughly 13-14 billion years ago. Because the universe is not infinite in duration. If what your saying was true, we would eventully have discovered a few structures older than this. Unless this magical dust of yours only selectively blocks out starlight after its a certain age?

And I'm not saying so. I'm saying WHAT IF. What I am doing is conducting thought experiments to try and grasp these concepts. you are twisting my words.
Anyway, if we take the big bang theory, the universe is expanding faster than light (seen from earth), and if there are some things older than 13-14 billion years, we will never get to see them. Link: en.wikipedia.org...

If you have no sources for you facts, then your facts are merely opinions.
And your opinions are as valid as mine.
That is why I try to come up with links to sources when I post facts.

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo

what are you babbling about?

"Oh yeah, like when we have a solar eclipse, and the moon is illuminated "

yea, during a solar eclipse, the moon IS illuminated, since it is between the earth and the sun. So half of it is very well lit up. Secondly, try attempt at arguing apples and oranges. Comparing how dust clouds block out light does not equate to how planets would block out starlight. Sorry, terrible comparison on your part. also, eclipses are very temporary and would only block out startlight for a very tiny fraction of time.

"Dark matter and dark energy accounts for 96% of the known universe."
they still have no idea what dark matter is or if its real. There's no proof for its existence. Its still hypothetical. dark matter is simply a place holder for our lack of understanding the universe in terms of what its made of. just like magic was a placeholder for science.
.

And I dont need to provide links to "prove" anything. Its a simple mind experiment that anyone can do that shows the universe is not infinite. nothing physical can be infinite. I dont see how your having trouble understanding this.

IF THE UNIVERSE WAS INFINITE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF INFINITELY FAR AWAY STARLIGHT TO REACH EARTH. THE NIGHT SKY WOULD BE COMPLETELY LIT UP. WHICH WE SEE ITS NOT. THIS FACT, AND THE FACT THAT NOTHING PHYSICAL CAN BE INFINITE IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED.

these are facts, not opinion. and you have provided no facts. your link on dark matter is not fact. its theory. so adding a link doesnt necessarily make it a fact. Also, all opinions are not equal. some are more plausible than others. case in point.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
THIS FACT, AND THE FACT THAT NOTHING PHYSICAL CAN BE INFINITE IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED.

But if it really is all the proof you need, why do you enter a discussion?
If you are satisfied with your own explanation, then why can you not accept that others are questioning it?

Maybe you are just trying to force your opinions onto others?

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
Creation is a man made concept formed out of our own fear, controlling nature and supreme arrogance at dominating the food chain. There are trillions of stars upon trillions of galaxies and within each of those trillions of possibilities for the spark of life to evolve from energy to living form.

It is our human arrogance and ego that force our "faith" and belief into such an outdated concept of MAN being the son of "god" and being created in his/her likeness all the while being the only life in the universe.

No matter what side you speak to, neither has absolute proof, but the scientific community at least does research and tries to revise their data once in a while where as creationists, well....
SNIP
King

edit on 1-11-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)

I rather feel that the man made theory of evolution, which has been spoon-fed to us since birth, is what bolsters humans to become so arrogant and egotistical to believe that we WEREN'T created by Our Creator. Evolution has served it's purpose - to deny the Glory of God and His Creation.
Evolution also supports the religion of Ufology - either that aliens created us and/or that there MUST be life elsewhere in the universe - because if we evolved ourselves then it stands that there must be life evolved elsewhere.

The same ones responsibility for the theory of evolution are the same ones giving us "ETs".
A very strong delusion.

I love how everyone in this thread KNOWS the fundamental answers to life. I believe the true answer to the question raised in this thread, is too complex for us to conceive. Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough.