the origin of life (Page 7)

oh_good_laughs: Semantics and hypocrite, VERY common terms of yours.. but impertinent none the less. A failure to furnish this dialog. Simply quibble.

Yan26: @Burt_Reynolds - It is not the idea that something/someone created life on Earth that I find wrong it is the reason that is given for it.For eg you said "But everything has a begining and an end and more often than not it's at the behest of something or someone. " If this is true and you say life had to be created by someone/something then who created that someone/something. And then who created that creator and so on. This would create an infinte loop which would make it impossible to logically accept your argument. Hence I reject your current premise of god not becaus I am against god but because the reason you have put forward for its existence is not logical/rational.
If on the other hand you told me " that so and so is the proof that god existed" and I found the proof credibe or logical I would be willing to believe what you say.
Therein lies the main problem. For me to believe something it has to be logical and rational. Whereas belief in god is based on blind faith which can never allow anyone to question it. That is why it is practically not possible to get rationalists and people who believe in god on the same page.

CoIin: Credo quia absurdum

oh_good_laughs: Nonsense.

'It is practically not possible to get rationalists and people who believe in god on the same page.'

Where do these people come from? Wire should be called the Bumpkin club. Why do i feed my mind this excrement?

StuckInTheSixties:

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

xapim: i came up with a theory......

xapim: reasoning ???

Nathaniel Nirvana: my opinion is life has no origins it was always here,
no start & no end, it is only our perception of linear time that makes us think anything has to have an origin

StuckInTheSixties:

Are you a Hindu? Or is there some other religious dogma from which your opinion comes?

Or do you hold that opinion just because the elegance of it appeals to you, and you're willing to entertain beliefs for which there is no evidence, and are in opposition to scientifically derived models for which a great deal of evidence exists?

Nathaniel Nirvana: intuition?
the big bang is when time began, but there was something before that, even if that something was nothing ~ a zero
everything that ever was or will be exists at the infinity point ~ the big bang,
so I suppose if life has to be pinpointed at an origin it is that point, even tho it was there before just in a different form

StuckInTheSixties:

Intuition, the basis for the rest of that fluff, isn't the best way to arrive at the "truth".

Nathaniel Nirvana: truth is only a perception, it has no inherant existence, else we would all agree all the time

oh_good_laughs: Famous quote (suits Easter as well), "What is truth?"

StuckInTheSixties:

In reply to both nathanielornament and risen:

Hence my usage of quotation marks.

oh_good_laughs: Ah, i see. Not really wanting to step on toes, but i think.. "Truth" can only be obtained at a faith level. So really, everything in this world is opinion and ideas. Kind of like a philosophy.

StuckInTheSixties:

I tend to see the world in two different, coexisting ways. It's the basis for my "so-called agnostic" stance.

On one hand, anything is possible, that there is no truth, or that every perception is as valid as any other perception.

On the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and I can see how the scientific approach to figuring out how the world works has produced much better results than things like "intuition" and "faith." It's got a better track record, so to speak.

oh_good_laughs: A professor i listened to one time, quoted Socrates (or perhaps it was a student of his), one or the other, and was doing this lecture on 'Truth'. He said, in order for something to be considered true, it must have always been true, and must continue to be true for all eternity.

Nathaniel Nirvana: I don't think I have any religious dogma, the elegance of my opinions appeal to me, yes,
scientific proof & evidence are not bullet proof,
science experiments,for example get differing results depending on observation; and science is often in later years disproved

oh_good_laughs: Science, biology and the like, has done wonders to extend our health and lives. Very beneficial. Faith, as in accepting a life given purpose with a deity, gives us some kind of light to the dark, obscure future that proceeds us in death.

Aside from being ridiculed for faith, why not chance and play around with certain possibilities after death? Why not look into certain beliefs and deities earnestly? If something so big and unknowing such as death lurks before us, why not sate the human mind, and wonder?, experience. Perhaps be enlightened.

Nathaniel Nirvana: the origins of life after death??

oh_good_laughs: hmm, it has a certain ring to it.

StuckInTheSixties:

risen says:
"Why not look into certain beliefs and deities earnestly? ... It seems an ironic thing for to close the door of wondering about death and it's possibilities.

I once opened that door, and entered. I spent perhaps fifteen or twenty years wandering around inside that door.

I came to the conclusion that it was a waste of my time.

oh_good_laughs: Of something so big and unknowing though, how did you mind allow you to leave? It seems we were built for wondering, what bigger and better than death to wonder about?

Likeitornot: my feet were built for wandering and my mind for wondering. Its not the wether but the whether …hahahaha

There is nothing to wonder about death, it is inevitable and for a good reasons.
like my humour, imagine having to put up with it for eternity lol