How life on earth started?

[lightgigantic]

This "outside of time" claim really has no meaning and is a pure strawman, constructed by the religious to throw off those that argue against their baseless and superstitious claims.

google "transcendental philosophy"

"Outside of time" itself is a claim, to which the claimant has a burden to produce evidence for. Show us that which can be demonstrated to exist "outside of time," please.

as long as one holds empiricism as a sacred cow, it will surely remain a blasphemous notion

Such behavior of agency and causation would require that one, even a god, be a member of "time."

Even a rudimentary investigation of the nature of god reveals that the phenomenal world (including time) is a contingent potency of his. Seems you are out to deconstruct a notion of god that theists don't even hold.

Moreover, a "timeless" entity would not find it necessary to change the course of events to begin with since these events are all happening at once, already happened, and have never happened to the entity outside of time. Further, if the Christian god were "perfect" (as Christian apologists are fond of reminding each other), then he would know that humanity and the universe, being his creations, cannot be flawed and require no change.

hence the suggestion that the nature of change in this phenomenal world is cyclic, much like the seasons.
In other words change (as we observe it in this world) simply gives facility for the expression of different phenomena at different times through a series of repetitive cycles.
Demanding that god exist within these repetitive cycles seems to only serve the purpose of bolstering atheistic arguments.

 

[Warrior61]

This "outside of time" claim really has no meaning and is a pure strawman, constructed by the religious to throw off those that argue against their baseless and superstitious claims.

It has meaning. I can see how it alludes to not being apart of time, but the claim is that God is not bound by time, which I equate with the word eternal.

"Outside of time" itself is a claim, to which the claimant has a burden to produce evidence for. Show us that which can be demonstrated to exist "outside of time," please. Claims like this are speculative at best and, when asserted firmly, are pseudo-intellectual.

My evidence would be that there has to be something constant, or that has always been and always will be. In that same note I would like for you to prove to me that you are a human. I am serious. Prove to me that you are a human.

In addition, this certainly doesn't describe the Christian god, to which you are clearly a devotee based upon your avatar. This is because this particular god is described by Christian mythology as interacting with humans, causing changes in the daily lives of humans, demanding actions and intentions from humanity, and all manner of interaction with the physical universe around us.

Sure it does. Take for instance the Commissioner of a sports league. He is not bound by the time within contests, only his actions that are to take place within the preset time is bound. Thus the Commissioner of the NFL is outside of the time. God is outside of time. No birth/beginning and no end.

Such behavior of agency and causation would require that one, even a god, be a member of "time."

Ok then give evidence for this claim.

Moreover, a "timeless" entity would not find it necessary to change the course of events to begin with since these events are all happening at once, already happened, and have never happened to the entity outside of time.

I don't recall mentioning that a "timeless" entity changing a course of events. I think with the above quoted you are mixing up perfect and eternal, or showing that they go hand in hand.

Further, if the Christian god were "perfect" (as Christian apologists are fond of reminding each other), then he would know that humanity and the universe, being his creations, cannot be flawed and require no change.

Ah HA! So now you bring up the problem of evil. How bout we argue God's relation to time and then we can debate His actions.

If there is a god in the universe, it isn't the one invented by those that call themselves "Christian."

Also show evidence for this claim.

His son,

Warrior61 <><

 

[swivel]

I am confused about number 1. How does the ability to create go hand in hand with simplifying?

Also the definition of God, or at least concerning the creation, would say that God is outside of time. So you can exist before something and still be eternal.

His son,

Blair M. Smith <><

It doesn't, that is why "simplifying" was in quotes. The attempt to explain away the universe is done by positing something more complex than the universe, which is illogical. An idea that crazy would need a little more than the zero evidence going for it as of this moment.

God existing "outside of time" leads me to believe that you don't know what 'time' is.

 

[Warrior61]

God existing "outside of time" leads me to believe that you don't know what 'time' is.

Then give me your definition of time and we can talk.

 

[swivel]

Then give me your definition of time and we can talk.

Time: A measure of changes in the states of any system.


If a system is dynamic, it has time. If it is in complete stasis, there is no time. A universe devoid of fields, with a single, featureless particle of no constituent parts would not have any time. A universe with at least two particles that were moving relative to one another, or a universe with a single particle that had a dynamic feature (such as color) would have time.

What is your definition?

 

[cosmictraveler]

I am not that concerned with how life started here , I just wonder more about when mine will end, so to speak.

 

[Warrior61]

Simply I would define it as the mesure of duration, which neccessitates a starting point. So i would differ on the "any system" part of your definition, or atleast to a degree.

 

[SkinWalker]

A "timeless god" is both nonsensical and meaningless. It is, in the context Warrior61 uses, a pseudo-intellectual term and one posited with the intention of creating an argument that cannot be won by an opponent. It utterly fails on this, however, since the proponent of such a concept never defines either what they mean by "timeless" in a way that is demonstrable or how they know a "timeless" entity can exist where. Moreover, even if we were to accept that a single timeless entity could exist, there's no reason to believe this entity should be alone -if one can exist, so can more than one.

In addition, if a "timeless" entity existed which were complex enough to "create" a universe, and if it were necessary that a universe be "created" by such an entity, there must, therefore, be another, even more complex entity that exists not only outside of time but outside of whatever dimension the first entity exists in, which created it. And so on to infinite regression.

A far more simpler explanation is that there is no "timeless god" (whatever that is), and that those who argue this to be the case are blowing smoke up the asses of those that dare question their superstitions.

 

[lightgigantic]

A "timeless god" is both nonsensical and meaningless. It is, in the context Warrior61 uses, a pseudo-intellectual term and one posited with the intention of creating an argument that cannot be won by an opponent. It utterly fails on this, however, since the proponent of such a concept never defines either what they mean by "timeless" in a way that is demonstrable or how they know a "timeless" entity can exist where.

given that you refuse to even admit the possibility of empiricism not having the monoply on all claims of knowledge, its obvious you simply have the intention of creating an argument that cannot be won by an opponent.

 

[Ophiolite]

In addition, if a "timeless" entity existed which were complex enough to "create" a universe, and if it were necessary that a universe be "created" by such an entity, there must, therefore, be another, even more complex entity that exists not only outside of time but outside of whatever dimension the first entity exists in, which created it. And so on to infinite regression.

This does not follow. You have made an assumption that it requires a more complex entity to create a simpler one. You have de facto rejected the possibility that a simple entity could create something more complex than itself. Such a presumption does not match observation and is at odds with the current scientific understanding of the universe.

 

[SkinWalker]

You're right and I was carried away in personifying the argument that so many creationist nutjobs use, which is that for the universe to be created, there must exist some "being" that is at least as complex to "create" it.

In my haste, I neglected to go into careful detail and it would certainly seem that the argument from complexity is necessary to beget complexity is mine. I should have prefaced with something along the lines of, "since a core argument for a god is that the complexity of the universe necessitates a complex creator (some say "prime mover," others say "first cause," etc.), then if such an entity were timeless...."

I confess, I was in a hurray to get off the computer and read to my 7-year old before bed. We're on the third chapter of The God Delusion. Naaah. It was actually a chapter from Old 'Yeller.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're right and I was carried away in personifying the argument that so many creationist nutjobs use,

Fear not. I shall be alert to guard you from the heinous sin of infallability.

 

[swivel]

Simply I would define it as the mesure of duration, which neccessitates a starting point. So i would differ on the "any system" part of your definition, or atleast to a degree.

You can't define a concept with a synonym for that concept.

You are claiming that time is a piece of time (duration). You haven't said anything yet. Please try again.

Another common mistake is to say that time is some amount of its arbitrarily-chosen standards. People will say that time is a period of seconds, or a slice of the required stuff necessary for the Earth to rotate once. None of these definitions work, because they are self-referential.

I do appreciate you voicing this because it verifies my initial observation: you have no idea what 'Time' is, which shields your god from a very obvious paradox.

 

[cosmictraveler]

These beings brought us here....

inside of this......

 

[Sarkus]

Doh! I think I got here by bus... does that count?

Anyhoo, why do people find it so difficult to say "I don't know" ?

Question: "What was the cause of life on earth?"
Now then, everyone practice...
Answer: "I don't know yet."

There - not too difficult, was it?

For any other answer - please show your workings so that we can at least give you credit for as far as you got....

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Doh! I think I got here by bus... does that count?

*************
M*W: Was it in the backseat of a Greyhound bus rollin' down highway 41?

 

[leopold]

Demanding that the first events of life formation be reproduced in a lab is ridiculous. It demonstrates a startling ignorance of scope and statistics.

i disagree.
solving the riddle of life is what this thread's about, yes?
it might be hard but it isn't ridiculous.

Early Earth was one giant laboratory. With every single range of toxicity, temperature, wetness, acidity, chalkiness, etc... Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of individual petri dishes. Each one had thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individual trials. We are talking about experimental data that would require scientific notation to even discuss.

aren't the conditions pretty well dictated by the "big bang"?

I recommend "Vital Dust" to anyone genuinely curious about how life began.

man has been trying to solve the riddle of life since he started thinking, i doubt if you can do it in one sentence.

 

[Warrior61]

You can't define a concept with a synonym for that concept.

Really? I never knew that. (sarcasm)

You are claiming that time is a piece of time (duration). You haven't said anything yet. Please try again.

LoL you asked how I defined it, and thats how I define it.

I do appreciate you voicing this because it verifies my initial observation: you have no idea what 'Time' is, which shields your god from a very obvious paradox.

So obviously you think your definition of time pretty much scratches out the whole "God" thing. OK.

Time: A measure of changes in the states of any system.

God is not in a "system."

LoL what is a system?

 

[Ophiolite]

man has been trying to solve the riddle of life since he started thinking, i doubt if you can do it in one sentence.

Dear me, you're talking crap again Leopold.:shrug:
Vital Dust, by Nobel laureate Christian de Duve IIRC, is considerably more than one sentence about the origin of life.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Dear me, you're talking crap again Leopold.

Indeed. You said in a thread a while back....

(to leopold99) ...I've taken you off ignore. I can't even remember why you were on it.

In reply to your memory lapse I said:

Ask him about abiogenesis and the Miller-Urey experiment, then you'll remember....

Now do you remember?