The Challenge

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But it takes matter to have life? Without matter, no life?
And this matter consists of atoms, which in turns have neutrons, protons and electorns of various number?
And these atoms, together, in a sufficient amount, combinated in a very specific way, to have life?

How could I ever disagree with you over here, my Gota enemy? No matter, no life. However, matter in the quantum realm of existence has mind-only properties😵

Originally posted by black beetle
How could I ever disagree with you over here, my Gota enemy? No matter, no life. However, matter in the quantum realm of existence has mind-only properties😵

It's always so pleasant to debate with you. And as noone else disagrees, then we have settled some kind of truth, haven't we?

The reason I conduct this line of reasoning is the following: Our dear friend OP told us "Ok, so all the dishonest atheistic scientists, say that life comes from matter", I would answer: Where else would life come from?

We have concluded that it takes matter to have life, that life is nothing but an highly organized matter, nothing more. It doesn't take any divine interaction to have life out of matter. That 'life' is not a mysterious property among the atoms that build up our bodies.

He says scientists are dishonest. I would say that this statement is very dishonest in itself.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's always so pleasant to debate with you. And as noone else disagrees, then we have settled some kind of truth, haven't we?

The reason I conduct this line of reasoning is the following: Our dear friend OP told us "Ok, so all the dishonest atheistic scientists, say that life comes from matter", I would answer: Where else would life come from?

We ha ...[text shortened]... ys scientists are dishonest. I would say that this statement is very dishonest in itself.

😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We have concluded that it takes matter to have life, that life is nothing but an highly organized matter, nothing more. It doesn't take any divine interaction to have life out of matter. That 'life' is not a mysterious property among the atoms that build up our bodies.

I would agree that life is not 'mysterious' nor is it more than a pattern of organized matter, but I wouldn't go so far as to belittle patterns or to even tie them too heavily to matter.
The number two it seems to me exists almost independently of matter. Similarly all patterns, though they must be represented by matter in order to be communicated, nevertheless are in some ways independent of the matter that communicates them.
The whole is most definitely more than the sum of its parts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would agree that life is not 'mysterious' nor is it more than a pattern of organized matter, but I wouldn't go so far as to belittle patterns or to even tie them too heavily to matter.
The number two it seems to me exists almost independently of matter. Similarly all patterns, though they must be represented by matter in order to be communicated, never ...[text shortened]... matter that communicates them.
The whole is most definitely more than the sum of its parts.

It is very much easier to define life after its life properties, than to try to define life after its material properties.

Take a goldfish, put in in a blender along with water to support its life. The goldfish is alive, this far. Then start the blender and let it go for a minute or two. Now you don't have living goldfish anymore. Now it's dead. (*)
What happened? All its material, along with its life supporting water is still there, isn't it? So the spark of life is not to be found within its material content.

Life itself has another definition. A definition of life can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions and not even this definition is non-controversial.

But I think that there is nothing supernatural about life. It's just - life.

(*) This is a thought experiment. Don't do it.

Stop all the nonsense talk....and produce my ant!

If dumb matter can do it, then a conscious scientist must do it, and if they dont, then that is the lie exposed for all the world to see.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Stop all the nonsense talk....and produce my ant!

Yes, please, stop all the nonsense talk. Get a grip on yourself. Stand firmly on your two feet on the ground.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Stop all the nonsense talk....and produce my ant!

If dumb matter can do it, then a conscious scientist must do it, and if they dont, then that is the lie exposed for all the world to see.

Gold is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Just ordinary components of matter. Nothing else.

Now please produce for me some gold. If you don't then the lie is exposed! Gold is supernatural in origin!

Surely if dumb mater inside stars can do it then a conscious vishvahetu can do it! Maybe then you won't have to trawl these forums trying to sell your books!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Gold is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Just ordinary components of matter. Nothing else.

Now please produce for me some gold. If you don't then the lie is exposed! Gold is supernatural in origin!

Surely if dumb mater inside stars can do it then a conscious vishvahetu can do it! Maybe then you won't have to trawl these forums trying to sell your books!

umm gold is inanimate, an ant is not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Gold is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Just ordinary components of matter. Nothing else.

Now please produce for me some gold. If you don't then the lie is exposed! Gold is supernatural in origin!

Surely if dumb mater inside stars can do it then a conscious vishvahetu can do it! Maybe then you won't have to trawl these forums trying to sell your books!

You have two choices,.. show me the ant, or give up the lie!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm gold is inanimate, an ant is not.

Then it should be even easier for him shouldn't it? Or are you able to explain why the logic is different for inanimate objects?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You have two choices,.. show me the ant, or give up the lie!

Thats called a false dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Now you have two choices:
Show me the gold you have produced, or admit that you are using a faulty argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then it should be even easier for him shouldn't it? Or are you able to explain why the logic is different for inanimate objects?

easier for whom? the creator? or you, the scientist/mathematician or Vishy the illustrious?

Wheres my ant!

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Wheres my ant!

You have to be patient. The Earth took a while - hundreds of millions of years - and lots of space, to just get simple cells.
Ants took another couple of billion years of evolution.