"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

[Enmos]

No.
I view it as a Holy Trinity.
Life is one aspect of the Trinity.
You have influence over your dog. Does that make you your dog?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1957239#post1957239

Hmm I thought you mean that like you have control over yourself.
This is maybe besides the point, but I keep wondering why people feel the need to call something they have a deep respect for holy, or divine, or worthy of reverence. Seems to me those are religious terms.
I wonder if many don't feel exactly the same way only they don't call it holy or divine.

It is a result of our actions.
It is not some cognizant being with a will and intention.
What you do will contribute to it.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1957228&post1957228

Yep, the butterfly-effect. But why is it godlike to you ?
Also, "I don't worry about it because if it is, whatever I am thinking and saying is pre-determined anyway". Doesn't that require you to view the universe as essentially "dead" in the absence of a cognizant god ?

You should probably just join in on that thread rather than me keep linking to it.

Hmm maybe, I didn't get much of the OP though.. I might try again later

Not humans per se, the power and the realtionship of the Trinity.

But it includes humans. Does it also include rabbits, trees, bacteria, etc ?

hmmm...
That which is regarded as sacred and is revered for it's power, I suppose.
Tough one to define.

That's why I asked.. people use these words all the time, but they rarely know what they mean with them.
Sacred and worthy of reverence require explanation as well in my opinion.

 

[Hapsburg]

But you don't believe in gods, as you said..

What, people can't change their minds?

 

[Enmos]

What, people can't change their minds?

Huh ? :bugeye:

 

[Hapsburg]

I...honestly don't think I can make that any simpler than I already have.
Nevermind.

 

[Enmos]

I...honestly don't think I can make that any simpler than I already have.
Nevermind.

I don't think she changed her mind, I may not have understood correctly.
Besides, you can't just change you mind in mid-discussion without saying so.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

It's too vast and disorderly. It doesn't function or self-regulate like an organism does. Neither do stars, nor planets. They're too chaotic to be a concious being. Living organisms, however, do self-regulate. Homoeostasis, in a word.



I also think that the current manifestation of the universe is just one stage of an endless cycle of universes, which chaotically destroy themselves through a sub-cycle of expansion and crunching.

The universe is very orderly everything is set in cycles and orbits, everything has life cycles and transformations including stars. nothing is random cause and effect are always in action, even down to a quantum level it is not random blips into and out of the physical universe in chaotic randomness there is always a cause to every action.


peace.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Worship: The first level of idolatry. I worship nothing as there is nothing to worship. All Is One.
On God and Goddess: In ritual I will call upon the god and the goddess and I use the Welsh Celtic names of Cerridwen (feminine) and Cerrnunnos (masculine). But I don't see them as corporeal beings, rather as archetypes, and I like the concepts these two represent. I often describe them as "sorta like yin and yang. Sorta."

And yes I can claim both Wicca and pantheism.
And though I hold no "God" to be supreme, I think there is a consciousness in the universe directing things in a way that allows evolution and creation to coexist. Things were and are created and they evolve. Maybe the big bang was a burst of creative insight of the "cosmic mind" and a pattern was set; then allowed to progress from there unaided.:shrug: Or maybe what happened is...
"In an Infinite universe all things are possible."

Maybe "having life" is like having gravity. All things have gravity all the way down to quarks and electrons. (And individual grains of sand. ) However, it is such a small amount we don't notice the gravitational field of a grain of sand. Now take enough sand to make a planet and their combined gravity can be felt. Galaxies can be referred to having a gravitational field, singular.
Think of it like this: Say that there are "life-ions" like gravitons, but, a grain of sand's "life field" is too insignificant to be observed. Now "being alive" might be when there are enough 'life-ions' where the object's 'life field' can be observed.

Come on Enmos, you're not slow or dense. Usually you're quite perceptive, yet all of a sudden... You are asking the same questions over and over. So either there is a concept that evades you, and taking a page from the Physicists: "Go read some books".
OR, you're enjoying all the attention, hummnn

 

[Enmos]

Worship: The first level of idolatry. I worship nothing as there is nothing to worship. All Is One.
On God and Goddess: In ritual I will call upon the god and the goddess and I use the Welsh Celtic names of Cerridwen (feminine) and Cerrnunnos (masculine). But I don't see them as corporeal beings, rather as archetypes, and I like the concepts these two represent. I often describe them as "sorta like yin and yang. Sorta."

Forgive me for saying this but that sounds like role playing..

And yes I can claim both Wicca and pantheism.
And though I hold no "God" to be supreme, I think there is a consciousness in the universe directing things in a way that allows evolution and creation to coexist. Things were and are created and they evolve. Maybe the big bang was a burst of creative insight of the "cosmic mind" and a pattern was set; then allowed to progress from there unaided. Or maybe what happened is...
"In an Infinite universe all things are possible."

This universal consciousness or "cosmic mind" sounds a lot like a god to me..

Maybe "having life" is like having gravity. All things have gravity all the way down to quarks and electrons. (And individual grains of sand. ) However, it is such a small amount we don't notice the gravitational field of a grain of sand. Now take enough sand to make a planet and their combined gravity can be felt. Galaxies can be referred to having a gravitational field, singular.
Think of it like this: Say that there are "life-ions" like gravitons, but, a grain of sand's "life field" is too insignificant to be observed. Now "being alive" might be when there are enough 'life-ions' where the object's 'life field' can be observed.

Hmm ok, but those "particles" cannot be responsible for life as scientifically recognized. Your "life" and scientifically defined "life" are then two completely unrelated things.
As an aside, "small", "insignificant" and "weak" are relative terms.. so I'm not sure what to think of that last paragraph. It seems to put humans at the center of the universe. I know you probably don't mean to say that but it still comes across as such.

Come on Enmos, you're not slow or dense. Usually you're quite perceptive, yet all of a sudden... You are asking the same questions over and over. So either there is a concept that evades you, and taking a page from the Physicists: "Go read some books".
OR, you're enjoying all the attention, hummnn

Attention ? lol
No, I'm genuinely interested and trying to comprehend this stuff..
I know I'm asking things over and over again, but that's because I feel I'm not getting any real answers.
This post of yours may have helped somewhat though, but it depends on your reply to this post..
Even if you agree with my conclusion about the "life particles", it still evades me how and why you believe this. And of what significance these "life particles" are if they cannot be equated with scientifically defined life.

I'm sorry for my "stubbornness" in this thread, but as I said, I'm really interested to understand this stuff.
Please don't give up on me..

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Forgive me for saying this but that sounds like role playing..

Not usually, but sometimes it is. Usually it's an invocation of the masculin and feminine principels

This universal consciousness or "cosmic mind" sounds a lot like a god to me..

That's because, umm it IS. That's pantheism!

Hmm ok, but those "particles" cannot be responsible for life as scientifically recognized. Your "life" and scientifically defined "life" are then two completely unrelated things.
As an aside, "small", "insignificant" and "weak" are relative terms.. so I'm not sure what to think of that last paragraph. It seems to put humans at the center of the universe. I know you probably don't mean to say that but it still comes across as such.

It's an analogy...
:wallbang:

Attention ? lol

Well, how many people have tried to help you understand?

No, I'm genuinely interested and trying to comprehend this stuff..
I know I'm asking things over and over again, but that's because I feel I'm not getting any real answers.

Yes you are. You just don't like them. They don't fit into what you, as an atheist, hold true. Besides what would qualify as a real answer?

This post of yours may have helped somewhat though,...

Well that's encouraging...

but it depends on your reply to this post..

:/

Even if you agree with my conclusion about the "life particles", it still evades me how and why you believe this. And of what significance these "life particles" are if they cannot be equated with scientifically defined life.

It's an analogy...
:wallbang:

I'm sorry for my "stubbornness" in this thread, but as I said, I'm really interested to understand this stuff.
Please don't give up on me..

Again, I'm going to have to recommend you read a book or three...
Look, I believe you are trying to understand. (If I didn't I'd have asked you to SiTFU a looong time ago. lol)
But my head is starting to hurt from hitting the wall of atheism that surrounds you.
Dude, step outside your box and take a breath of (fresh) air.

Finally, after everything is said and done, this thread is about Theism.

 

[Simon Anders]

Imagine a couple of mites in the forest discussing whether everything is alive.

'Oh, not this, says one mite, tapping on a very dry jagged piece of brown stuff (bark).'

Then then waddle over the hill with trees on it (a caterpiller's back).

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Hmm to be honest I'm not that interested in your definition of "magic" anymore

Now you tell me.:bugeye:

Would you consider yourself an atheist ?

Absolutely not!!

In other words, do you believe in actual gods or not ?

True, I don't believe in a god sitting outside and watching, but, and I'll type real slow for youlol, Take everything that exists and (maybe a few that don't) put it all together, And that is "GOD"; in a word, PANTHEISM

 

[Simon Anders]

And of what significance these "life particles" are if they cannot be equated with scientifically defined life.

Science makes a list of qualities of life not unlike the one you made pages earlier. Science assumes that life is limited to things that fit these qualities AND that some people, scientists among them, also assume that life, if it appeared in front of a scientist would be detectable. In other words, all life forms could be tested to see if they fit the criteria.

I have several differences with this set of beliefs. I think that there are life forms - meaning, if we go back to my definition, creatures that have preferences and are aware - that do not fit all the criteria on that list - or, as a footnote to that, it might also be the case that these lifeforms have versions of things like cells (complicated unit blocks of life that contain organizational abilities and in a certain sense identity), but that these are not like the 'cells' we or other creatures now considered life by scientists. I consider the entire universe to be alive and a unit - hence I am a pantheist. This would be God. I consider all portions of the universe alive. Either these regions are part of the living body of God or are ALSO separate units with their own identity.

If for example scientists develop AI to a degree where they get the sense the AI is alive - something many of them seem to believe - this life form may not have cells, but might or might not be able to reproduce itself - unlike mules, which are also life forms. If this were to happen scientists might have to reevaluate the list of criteria and try to determine on a more abstract level perhaps how some of the criteria now need to be viewed.

My beliefs are not hinged on the assumption that AI will be created. I am using it as an example of a potential bridge so you might consider how the definition might broaden. Also tossing in the fact that at least some scientists think that it is possible that 'we' will create life in this way and that it seems likely this life will not match the list as it is currently conceived.

I have my doubts this will cause the slightest wiggle room in your openness to the possibility that that list is not like Moses' tablets, but at least it is an interesting exercise looking for bridges.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Simon, Point of Clarification: pls define "has preferences" .
Thx.

 

[Enmos]

Simon, Point of Clarification: pls define "has preferences" .
Thx.

HA !

 

[Enmos]

No time now.. I've read the replies though.. I'll be back later

 

[Enmos]

Yes you are. You just don't like them. They don't fit into what you, as an atheist, hold true. Besides what would qualify as a real answer?

It's not that I don't like them. Like I said, I'm interested.
They are just unbelievably vague to me.
For instance, I don't think any of you have yet answered this question:

Ok, but you agree that life defined in the mainstream way is different from "dead" matter right ?

Well actually Simon did.. he answered with a confident "no".
And this is where I lose you guys.. :shrug:

It's an analogy...

Of what ?

But my head is starting to hurt from hitting the wall of atheism that surrounds you.
Dude, step outside your box and take a breath of (fresh) air..

Wtf.. dude ?

Imagine a couple of mites in the forest discussing whether everything is alive.

'Oh, not this, says one mite, tapping on a very dry jagged piece of brown stuff (bark).'

Then then waddle over the hill with trees on it (a caterpiller's back).

Oh come on.. mites do not define life.
Humans have to the best of their ability. If you want to call anything outside of that definition "life" then you will have to able to show why. Right ?

True, I don't believe in a god sitting outside and watching, but, and I'll type real slow for youlol, Take everything that exists and (maybe a few that don't) put it all together, And that is "GOD"; in a word, PANTHEISM

Thanks
This is what I thought Pantheism was before this discussion.. some posts just made me think I was wrong.

Science makes a list of qualities of life not unlike the one you made pages earlier. Science assumes that life is limited to things that fit these qualities AND that some people, scientists among them, also assume that life, if it appeared in front of a scientist would be detectable. In other words, all life forms could be tested to see if they fit the criteria.

There is no assuming, it's defining a concept.
People are not just assuming that the ozone layer is separate from the surrounding atmosphere, the ozone layer exhibits certain characteristics that allow us to define it as a separate concept.

I have several differences with this set of beliefs. I think that there are life forms - meaning, if we go back to my definition, creatures that have preferences and are aware - that do not fit all the criteria on that list - or, as a footnote to that, it might also be the case that these lifeforms have versions of things like cells (complicated unit blocks of life that contain organizational abilities and in a certain sense identity), but that these are not like the 'cells' we or other creatures now considered life by scientists. I consider the entire universe to be alive and a unit - hence I am a pantheist. This would be God. I consider all portions of the universe alive. Either these regions are part of the living body of God or are ALSO separate units with their own identity.

That's all fine and dandy but you are misusing the concept "life".

If for example scientists develop AI to a degree where they get the sense the AI is alive - something many of them seem to believe - this life form may not have cells, but might or might not be able to reproduce itself - unlike mules, which are also life forms. If this were to happen scientists might have to reevaluate the list of criteria and try to determine on a more abstract level perhaps how some of the criteria now need to be viewed.

Granted, but until then the current definition holds.

My beliefs are not hinged on the assumption that AI will be created. I am using it as an example of a potential bridge so you might consider how the definition might broaden. Also tossing in the fact that at least some scientists think that it is possible that 'we' will create life in this way and that it seems likely this life will not match the list as it is currently conceived.

I'm not saying the definition will never broaden, I'm saying that there is as of yet no evidence that suggest it should be broadened. Certainly not to include sand grains.

I have my doubts this will cause the slightest wiggle room in your openness to the possibility that that list is not like Moses' tablets, but at least it is an interesting exercise looking for bridges.

I'm completely open to new and wonderful lifeforms..

You see if you would say that everything has pife and some pifeforms have life, I would have less of a problem with it.
Although I would then still like to know what characterizes pife

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon, Point of Clarification: pls define "has preferences" .
Thx.

Would rather this rather than that happened?
Yearns and/or strives for this experience or outcome rather than that one?

 

[Simon Anders]

HA !

Come on Enmos, don't just give us a glimpse. Why not approach the issues directly and from how you feel?

 

[Simon Anders]

That's all fine and dandy but you are misusing the concept "life".

You seem incapable of saying you disagree. You respond as if you were answering for the universe or all humankind. I am not misusing the term life. I could say you are, but that seems a silly line. The set of what you consider is alive is smaller than mine.

Granted, but until then the current definition holds.

For you.

I'm not saying the definition will never broaden, I'm saying that there is as of yet no evidence that suggest it should be broadened. Certainly not to include sand grains.

I guess you did not listen to the toe nail analogy. As one possible respons amongst many.

Enmos. You are not simply 'trying to understand'. I don't know why you play the coquette. I prefer the 'Ha' above. That was more honest.

I'm completely open to new and wonderful lifeforms..

You see if you would say that everything has pife and some pifeforms have life, I would have less of a problem with it.
Although I would then still like to know what characterizes pife

Again. 1) You assume you own the word. 2) would you not also say that anything that is aware and has preferences has life? I am not talking about pife. My definition is actually more strict than yours. Our difference is really over epistemology.

 

[Simon Anders]

Besides, Enmos...
not once have I heard you say why we should decide that most things are inanimate and were work from this standard and test to see if things might actually be alive

rather than the opposite.