Originally posted by DasaActually most of those have to do with consciousness specifically. I think you will find that the typical scientific definition of 'life' typically includes plants and single celled organisms neither of which groups would fit most of your list.
When a body is exhibiting signs of life, what are those signs?
For all life.....birth, growth, reproduction, dwindling and death.......and also for a greater percentage of life.... consciousness, self will, pleasure seeking and the avoidance of pain, seeking shelter, seeking sex, seeking food, defending, sleeping.
And for humans these additional functions ...[text shortened]... tutes living ....... for some if not all, and science cannot and will no create these functions.
For science to present that these functions are the product of evolution, and /or are chemical reactions.... is wildly fanciful and unscientific.
How do you define 'scientific'? Surely the product of 'science' is by definition 'scientific'? If so, you are not making much sense.
As for whether or not science can create those functions, depending again on exact definitions, I think you will find that science has already created a number of them.
It is actually quite trivial to program a robot to seek shelter.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot.
Actually most of those have to do with consciousness specifically. I think you will find that the typical scientific definition of 'life' typically includes plants and single celled organisms neither of which groups would fit most of your list.
[b]For science to present that these functions are the product of evolution, and /or are chemical reactions.. ...[text shortened]... ated a number of them.
It is actually quite trivial to program a robot to seek shelter.
I said that firstly all life exhibits birth, growth, reproduction, dwindling and death..... theses include plants....and then I went on to explain other life and their further characteristics.
Science prides itself on facts...and it is unscientific for science to present that life is simply chemicals and their reactions, for this is not the facts.
Originally posted by Dasa“....The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot. ….”
The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot.
I said that firstly all life exhibits birth, growth, reproduction, dwindling and death..... theses include plants....and then I went on to explain other life and their further characteristics.
Science prides itself on facts...and it is unscientific for science to present that life is simply chemicals and their reactions, for this is not the facts.
that simply doesn't have to be true. A robot could be programmed to 'seek' something WITHOUT that program nor the designer of that program telling the robot where that something is and then we just let the robot look for it with a systematic search. What barrier would there be stopping us from doing that?
“...Science PRIDES itself on facts... “ (my emphasis)
science by definition is knowledge gained through scientific method. How can “knowledge” (gained by scientific method) have “PRIDE” about anything? That doesn’t make any sense.
“...and it is unscientific for science to present that life is simply chemicals and their reactions, for this is not the facts ...”
since we have gained the knowledge that life is made of chemicals and their reactions (as their physical building blocks) through scientific method, it is, by definition, a “scientific fact” that life is made of chemicals and their reactions.
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWatch out because your wandering off the path of truthfulness......
“....The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot. ….”
that simply doesn't have to be true. A robot could be programmed to 'seek' something WITHOUT that program nor the designer of that program telling the robot where that something is and then we just let the robot look for it with a systematic search. What barrier wo ...[text shortened]... t is, by definition, a “scientific fact” that life is made of chemicals and their reactions.
What ever the robot is doing...there is first cause...the scientist and his program.
Science often gloats when they put forward their findings of an experiment, and part of the debating system is their pride when they put their facts on the table.
They are that proud that they climb over each other to get the Nobel Prize.
Come on now....your wandering off the path, because life is absolutely Not chemical reactions...and you know this.
Originally posted by DasaFirst you said;
Watch out because your wandering off the path of truthfulness......
What ever the robot is doing...there is first cause...the scientist and his program.
Science often gloats when they put forward their findings of an experiment, and part of the debating system is their pride when they put their facts on the table.
They are that proud that they climb o ...[text shortened]... r wandering off the path, because life is absolutely Not chemical reactions...and you know this.
“....The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot. ….”
then I said:
“that simply doesn't have to be true. A robot could be programmed to 'seek' something WITHOUT that program nor the designer of that program telling the robot where that something is and then we just let the robot look for it with a systematic search. What barrier would there be stopping us from doing that? ...”
and in response you now say;
“....What ever the robot is doing...there is first cause...the scientist and his program. ...”
-which is irrelevant. What has “the first cause” got to do with the robot searching for something? It doesn't change the fact that you can make the robot do a search so your first comment is wrong.
“...Science often gloats when they put forward their findings of an experiment, ….”
firstly, shouldn't the word “Science” above be “scientists”? How can a system of knowledge “ often gloats”? That makes no sense.
Secondly, IF you meant “scientists”, then HOW would you know they “ often gloats”? And if they do “ often gloats”, can you give just a few or even just one specific example of this? -I mean, if they “often” do that, then there should be absolutely no difficulty in you giving us an example.
“...and part of the debating system is their pride when they put their facts on the table. ...”
what “ debating system”?
And what does “pride” got to do with the facts presented? The facts are the facts.
“...They are that proud that they climb over each other to get the Nobel Prize. ...”
even if that is true, so what?
“...Come on now....your wandering off the path, because life is absolutely Not chemical reactions...and you know this. ...”
really? How do “I know this”? Where is the evidence for this? Perhaps a better question is, How would YOU know this?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe evidence is ...that I have not got my ant yet.
First you said;
“....The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot. ….”
then I said:
“that simply doesn't have to be true. A robot could be programmed to 'seek' something WITHOUT that program nor the designer of that program telling the robot where that something is and then we just let the robot look for it with ...[text shortened]... is”? Where is the evidence for this? Perhaps a better question is, How would YOU know this?
I will make it easy, it can be a retarded ant with no legs...ok.
All that hokus pokus about the robot.....look the robot has the scientist setting everything up and it cant do anything out side of its program...and if it does, it can be traced back to first cause (the scientist) switching the robot on.
I know what I know because Vedanta is the authority and I subscribe to the authority.
If you subscribe to the authority as well you will not have to speculate and fabricate.
Its very childish that a man called a scientist can buy a telescope and look through it, and then tell the public that they know how the universe came to be.....very suspect indeed.
Originally posted by Dasa“....and if it does, it can be traced back to first cause (the scientist) switching the robot on. ...”
The evidence is ...that I have not got my ant yet.
I will make it easy, it can be a retarded ant with no legs...ok.
All that hokus pokus about the robot.....look the robot has the scientist setting everything up and it cant do anything out side of its program...and if it does, it can be traced back to first cause (the scientist) switching the robot on.
...[text shortened]... it, and then tell the public that they know how the universe came to be.....very suspect indeed.
...and then the robot does a search, therefore, your claim that “The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot” is false.
“...I know what I know because Vedanta is the authority and I subscribe to the authority. ...”
then what you “know” is based on superstition rather than logic.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue.
“....and if it does, it can be traced back to first cause (the scientist) switching the robot on. ...”
...and then the robot does a search, therefore, your claim that “The program by the conscious scientist is doing the seeking not the robot” is false.
“...I know what I know because Vedanta is the authority and I subscribe to the authority. ...”
then what you “know” is based on superstition rather than logic.
It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.
It is not superstition that God is first cause and then every other cause after that indirectly, and dead matter is not living.
Oh there are too many to post up....and Iam tired.
Originally posted by DasaI think it is you that is wondering off the path of truthfulness......
Watch out because your wandering off the path of truthfulness......
What ever the robot is doing...there is first cause...the scientist and his program.
First you assert that scientists cannot create certain properties of life. Now you essentially admit that they can (and have) but assert that they do so by being alive themselves and passing on those properties somehow. But if this passing on of properties is permissible, then your original assertion is clearly false (as scientists are living things).
Originally posted by twhiteheadI told you what the properties of life are.....consciousness and awareness and free will, and knowledge seeking and so on, and science cannot and will not create these....ever, ever ever.
I think it is you that is wondering off the path of truthfulness......
First you assert that scientists cannot create certain properties of life. Now you essentially admit that they can (and have) but assert that they do so by being alive themselves and passing on those properties somehow. But if this passing on of properties is permissible, then your original assertion is clearly false (as scientists are living things).
What ever they are doing in the lab is not creating life, for life is spiritual and the spiritual cannot be created.
The consciousness and the awareness are symptoms of life, and where ever there are symptoms of life, you will find the living force the soul.
If there is no soul you will not get the symptoms of life.
When science talk about creating life, they are giving us a blank cheque.
And what ever the robot is doing, is nowhere near life.
Originally posted by DasaIt is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue.
It is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue.
It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.
It is not superstition that God is first cause and then every other cause after that indirectly, and dead matter is not living.
Oh there are too many to post up....and Iam tired.
Oh yes it is! We have no objective evidence that a 'soul' exists, let alone that it will persist after death.
It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.
Well, I'll give you that one.
It is not superstition that God is first cause and then every other cause after that indirectly, and dead matter is not living.
Oh yes it is! We have no objective evidence that God is anything other than a figment of the imagination.
Oh there are too many to post up....and Iam tired.
Likewise.
--- Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinMaterial apparatus cannot detect the spiritual.
[b]It is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue.
Oh yes it is! We have no objective evidence that a 'soul' exists, let alone that it will persist after death.
It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.
Well, I'll give you that one.
It is not superstition that God is first cause and ...[text shortened]... ion.
[b]Oh there are too many to post up....and Iam tired.
Likewise.
--- Penguin[/b]
The spiritual can be contacted through purified intelligence and mind and heart.
If you never purify these then its no wonder you cannot find any evidence.
So really you are working against yourself if you dont do what is necessary to purify yourself, and then your stating there is no evidence, is like a person with their eyes closed saying I cant see.
And science continues this way to pretend that they are the keepers of the truth.
So your lack of evidence is self created, and therefore your statement there is no God is false.
Originally posted by Dasai see a therefore. i see a lot of points. i don't see the logical threads connecting those points. what is sad is that he doesn't see those logical threads are missing. more sad is that some of the points are flawed as well. the most sad thing is that someone will again try and explain why his post is retarded but it would again be pointless.
Material apparatus cannot detect the spiritual.
The spiritual can be contacted through purified intelligence and mind and heart.
If you never purify these then its no wonder you cannot find any evidence.
So really you are working against yourself if you dont do what is necessary to purify yourself, and then your stating there is no evidence, is like a ...[text shortened]... So your lack of evidence is self created, and therefore your statement there is no God is false.
Originally posted by DasaI know Penguin has already answered this but:
It is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue.
It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.
It is not superstition that God is first cause and then every other cause after that indirectly, and dead matter is not living.
Oh there are too many to post up....and Iam tired.
“...It is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue. ...”
here are a couple of definitions of superstition:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=superstition “an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear”
(and belief that you will not die (because of the afterlife) comes from fear of death. Plus no flawless logic deduces that there must be an afterlife so it certainly is irrational! )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition “Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge. “
(obviously the belief in the 'afterlife' conforms to that above definition)
“...It is not superstition that this world is a world of suffering and death.....”
who says there is no suffering and death in this world? Not I! Not anybody! And nobody is claiming it is “superstition” to believe there is suffering and death. So there is suffering and death -your point is...?
“....It is not superstition that God is first cause and then every other cause after that indirectly, and dead matter is not living. ...”
See the above definitions of “Superstition”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonVedanta does not teach or accept superstition.
I know Penguin has already answered this but:
“...It is not superstition that after death your soul shall continue. ...”
here are a couple of definitions of superstition:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=superstition “an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear”
(and belief that you will not die (because of the afterl ...[text shortened]... ndirectly, and dead matter is not living. ...”
See the above definitions of “Superstition”.
It does not believe in black cats.... walking under ladders.....horse shoes,....rabbits feet.... evolution,....life from dead matter, ....random complex accidents,... etc.,
But I do know for a fact that many atheists do accept these.
Science can fool some people some of the time....but not all people all of the time.