11 Dec 08
Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.
Therefore I start this thread here so we can discuss the "spark of life" in the spiritual point of view. the scientific aspects of it in Science Forum and and spiritual aspects here in the Spiritual Forum. Good idea, isn't it?
Since we don't know exactly what life is, then we start here.
What is life? What differs life from non-life? What does it mean when something dies? If we find extra-terrestial 'life', how do we recognize it as life? Is there a 'spark of life' in spiritual terms in any life?, from human beings to insects, to bacteria and virus?, how about prions nad naked DNA?
Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real?
Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas😵
Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.
Therefore I start this ...[text shortened]... agical, of is it real?
Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas…Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real? .…
Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.
Therefore I start this ...[text shortened]... agical, of is it real?
Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
The answer to all those questions is “no” -to believe otherwise would to believe in a superstition.
11 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonlol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
[b]…Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real? .…
The answer to all those questions is “no” -to believe otherwise would to believe in a superstition.[/b]
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettMine too. Scientists can always do experiments, christians look it up in their bible. If they don't find anything they just have the global answer "Because god wanted it to be that way".
Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
Scientists have searched for the 'spark of life', not found anything, which is not a proof by itself. So the question remains, what is that spark?
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut why Fabian have we to think this way?
Mine too. Scientists can always do experiments, christians look it up in their bible. If they don't find anything they just have the global answer "Because god wanted it to be that way".
Scientists have searched for the 'spark of life', not found anything, which is not a proof by itself. So the question remains, what is that spark?
Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
Or not?
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettThe smart money looks at the argument and the evidence, not at the man.
Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleBut why do we have to stop? 🙂
But why Fabian have we to think this way?
Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
Or not?
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs opposed to "it must be true as the code of beliefs developed from the moral interpretations of various translated stories written many years after the actual events guides me to believe that an unseen omnipotent power did it"?
lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlebb: "But why Fabian have we to think this way?"
But why Fabian have we to think this way?
Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
Or not?
Do you mean 'the Fabian way' or do you mean 'the scientists way'? Or do you just mean 'the wrong way'?
bb: "Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing"
'Nothing' I wouldn't say, we know a lot. I'm not in the opinion that life began out of pure energy. For that we have to rely on a religious vew. (Therefore I created a new thread so we could discuss this with this view in mind.) So I would rather say, 'or not'. Or perhaps we are talking about chemical energy?, bindings and stuff? In that case... because 'life', as we know it, is chemical...
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI mean why do we have to limit ourselves. Over here we need Science as much as Philosophy
bb: "But why Fabian have we to think this way?"
Do you mean 'the Fabian way' or do you mean 'the scientists way'? Or do you just mean 'the wrong way'?
bb: "Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing"
'Nothing' I wouldn't say, we know a lot. I'm not in the opinion that life began out of pure energy. For that w ...[text shortened]... dings and stuff? In that case... because 'life', as we know it, is chemical...
I was specific regarding what we know and what we ignore. In fact the elements and the conditions required for the emanation of Life on Earth are going all the way back to the Big Bang. Whatever we know -any element/ prerequist/ conditions required for Life as we know it- derives from that singularity. Therefore, the "edge" of Life derives from there. This is all we know.
Or do I miss something?