The Theory of God: Obsolete
August 4, 2007 by Alpha Orionis
So, this is my first submission. I tend to move from one subject to another in the course of an essay(I guess that is the best term to describe the work here.), but for the sake of convenience, will try to limit myself to one topic per essay.
My topic of discussion is God, specifically, the theory that is obsolete, but refuses to die.
As most everyone here knows, the basis of science is the scientific method, by which we establish conclusions based on our observations of and experiments with various things. Even before it was written up and the kinks and little problems ironed out, humans were doing something quite like it. However, long before we had perfected(or as close to it as we can be) the method, we tended to make up things that we had nothing for. We wanted theories, when all we could work with were laws.
So, we made theories that seemed to work, didn’t have any obvious flaws at the time. These were myths. For example, Vulcan, god of the forge, did his work in mountains, and whenever he was doing serious work, he would cause volcanic eruptions. What we knew about eruptions was that they always occurred on mountains, so naturally the idea of a super-powerful being named Vulcan disrupting the mountains and causing devastating and seemingly random eruptions from said mountains, made a lot of sense to everyone.
We were inventing why and how (and who) to go along with our what, where, when. But also, we made assumptions, say for example killing a goat(though I don’t know as this practice ever occurred) to beg Gaia to protect your crops, you had no idea it would work, but your crops were safe that year, so it became common practice to sacrifice the goat.
Then, we invented a more grandiose theory (and a more powerful meme) than the Greco-Roman pantheon. This was Christianity. Using those same ideas, being applied in new fashions, on larger and more impressive scales, and we got everyone working together to make certain those goats were sacrificed properly and nobody starved, even though we no longer believed it was Gaia that heard this plea. Over time, the dogma/theory became more entrenched, and more protected by many people, and hardened the theory of Christianity: To the point where it could not be torn down when it no longer applied.
As we moved past making up why, how, and who, we started to discern the actual causes, and create theories that were much stronger than the myths/theories we had. Volcanic eruptions happen as a direct result of plate tectonics, or from mantle plumes. I’m not an expert on volcanic activity, and I have no idea if there are more options, but there are people that do.
So, now we have these newer, more accurate theories, we can determine that our old theories/myths don’t hold up to our standards, and so must be stricken. There is just one problem, these old theories are protected by many people, and not allowed to rest as they should. Worse yet, some groups insist on these theories being unchangeable, so they cannot accommodate new information, and cannot change.
God, the obsolete theory. The theory that won’t die, because it is beloved by the masses. A theory that still has weight because it appeals, a complicated meme that offers a simple solution to everything, never mind that it is wrong.
~Alpha Orionis, a.k.a. Betelgeuse
standard argument. Can you go deeper?
What are your thoughts on Good and Pain?
[Reply]
Of course I can go deeper… It’s my first post, I wasn’t aiming to wow anyone(not that I expect I ever will). The real question is: In what direction?
Good and pain, eh?
Good is a moral designation that marks an event as beneficial in some sense, or the least detrimental. Sometimes, people disagree over what events are good.
Pain(physical) is a signal sent by neurons that are in a harsh environment(such as in a bodypart being struck, or sitting on a hot stove) to the brain to notify the brain and have it remove the afflicted body part from the stimulus if able.
Pain(mental/emotion) is a feeling generated by the brain whenever something disastrous occurs, such as a life-long partner leaving. It also goes by the names anguish, angst, agony, etc..
Pain(universal suffering) is the knowledge that everyone is going to suffer, and probably suffer a lot. Life sucks, life’s cruel it seems. We can’t eliminate this suffering, but if we try, we can ease it.
So, what Pain and what Good are you referring to?
[Reply]
God and Evil are just terms for whatever side you are currently rooting for and against.
[Reply]
I like the idea and I like your writing but I agree with the above. I think they mean pain and good in relation to the subject. What do you think of people who cause pain for god or think god causes or ends pain?
[Reply]
Ah, that is an idea. I would still need feedback from the original poster, I don’t do terribly well with vague questions.
What do I think of people who cause pain for god?
This depends highly on the situation, as they may unintentionally cause pain for god, such as by taking advantage of a grieving family. In this case, they are liars, and have robbed a family, possibly of material wealth, and possibly of peace of mind. I would quite like to set them straight.
Then, there are those that are being more direct. People that harass people that are hated by their holy book (read: homosexuals), or injure or even kill. People that drive out undesirables(such as in Just Another Salem). These people, really, what is there to be said for them? Bigotry, hatred, supported by a false theory which had extra bits tacked on. There is no excuse for them, nothing good to be said. I cannot imagine trying to help them, sometimes it seems they are too far gone, nuttier than squirrel poo as some say.
God causes/ends pain?
Well, God(the theory of) certainly causes pain, thanks to the people above, and also to the people duped. As for a magical sky papi(hereafter referred to as MSP) intentionally bringing pain, this goes back to the bigotry and sin. Generally, they’re just assholes that say you deserved what you got.
God does not end pain. Any solace someone finds from God is generally destroyed, either from a takeover of their life, or something happening, such as atheism. It is a temporary solution, passing everything off to your MSP so you don’t have to deal with it.
‘Scusi. I must go figure out how to create a post, and then I will make my second contribution.
[Reply]
You seem like an intelligent person and I’m a pretty young person who hasn’t experienced very much of life as an adult at this point, but that really has nothing to do with what I’m about to say except don’t bash me for saying what I say.
Having said that… What does God(Christianity) have anything to do with the scientific method? He is not something that explains a phenomenon in nature like Vulcan, the volcano god, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at with this explanation of nothing.
Sorry if I seem out of line… I just don’t believe there isn’t a God, really it’s impossible and if you want to do it your way… it’s scientifically impossible~
The earth just far enough from the sun that we don’t burn up from the heat, but just close enough so we don’t freeze to death either.
Everything is SO perfect that there just can’t be a divine creator of some sort or another, it’s simply impossible.
[Reply]
Edit: Everything is SO perfect that there just can’t ***not*** be a divine creator of some sort or another, it’s simply impossible.
[Reply]
1) God explains the origin. It’s also a convenient way to control people. Meh.
2) The “The odds are too great” argument fails to take into account two things:
The odds are not *zero*
There are billions, trillions (quadrillions? more?) of stars, those odds will be beaten multiple times, in different ways.
As for the Irreducible Complexity argument-which I have a feeling you may want to use-we have come from many forms over time, DNA was not the first system of directing information in a cell, or even in a single-cell organism, indeed, nor were most of the parts a present day cell or single-cell organism has.
An example: The eye is often used as an example for the IC argument. After all, if we’re missing a piece, the eye is useless, correct? Wrong. Even if it is missing most pieces, the eye could still pick up on light, thus you may be able to orient yourself with it, and it could be used to have a vague view of a sudden change, such as something blocking your light.
‘Scusi. Anything more?
[Reply]
Zoloe,
Your arguments would make it seem amazing that a puddle of water is exactly the same shape as the hole in which it forms.
(I just came across this concept, attributed to Dawkins who was referring to Douglas Adams… I’ll look for better attribution)
In any event, we could perceive of this world as “perfect” because some mystical architect designed it that way, or we could conceive of it as “perfect” because we have become so well adapted to it: Creatures who were less able to adapt to this - less able to fit as a puddle fits in its hole - would have died off. If you ask a Giant Panda or a Whooping Crane if this world is “perfect” they would probably disagree with you.
[Reply]
Well, can you prove the scientific method by the scientific method? Also, Good and Evil can be explained this way: Light can be measured, correct? Darkness cannot, because darkness is just what we call the absence of light. To measure the amount of darkness, you measure the amount of light in a room (or where ever you’re measuring) and subtract whatever space is unoccupied by light. Cold doesn’t exist either; cold is what we call the absence of heat. Evil is the same. Evil is the absence of God. Good is the enbodiment of God, for God is good.
Science cannot be used to falsify God, because science is now becoming a key role in the belief and faith in God for many people; almost all being scientists.
About DNA: nature can create patterns but it can’t create information. Walking on a seashore, you see the ripples in the sand that’s attributed by the waves beating against the shore. Then you see in the sand written ‘John loves Carey.’ You know that the waves didn’t make that; it’s information. Evolution can’t be the cause for DNA, for it’s too complex.
Another argument for the credibility of God is this: the conscience. What natural process gives way to the fact that, when doing wrong, we immediately acknowledge such? Also, in great sinning, like having sex with all the people you can, (both sexes) you start to feel mentally and emotionally handicapped after prolonged use. The sinful nature leads to death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus….
For more information about how science in the areas of cosmology, biology, the falseness of Darwinism, and great references of atheist-turned-Christians read “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, Zondervan publishing, copyright 2004. You could also go to Leestrobel.com.
[Reply]
Errith,
Your comment sounds fairly reasonable and rational, however I do have several rebuttals for you:
1. The properties light and heat can be measured because they cause a quantifiable effect. There is no effect that can be conclusively demonstrated to have been caused by God.
You are correct when you say that science cannot falsify God. The absence of proof is not proof of the contrary. Science cannot falsify the Flying Spaghetti Monster either: Should we all become Pastafarians?
Carl Sagan wrote “The Dragon In My Garage” to further demonstrate the necessity of falsifiability. Read his story here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Summarized, though, the “Dragon in my Garage” has a person making this claim, and being challenged to prove it. The neighbors offer up several tests, and the person explains that these tests are infeasible due to certain traits claimed of the Dragon. For instance, you can’t see him: he is invisible. You can’t get his foot prints because he only flies. You can’t see feel his fire because it is heatless. For any test one can offer, the person can provide a “rational” solution for why that test cannot be performed.
2. You admit that nature can create patterns - what happens when one of those patterns is interrupted? For instance, a ripple in the surface of a pond hits a rock sticking up out of the water. The pattern doesn’t just cease to exist - it is transformed into a new pattern. The ancient Polynesians used the information encoded in these reflected waves to navigate between distant islands. An experienced navigator would be able to determine the direction and distance to an island by the properties of the waves reflecting from it.
Today, DNA stores information, yet natural processes can alter it - certain processes, like ionizing radiation, can damage DNA to the point that cancers develop in the person, and subsequent offspring are born with birth defects. DNA itself is rather simple; the specific information encoded in that DNA can be quite complex. Science can show us how long it takes to alter DNA patterns to create new “species” - most species of dogs are less than 400 years old. Life “originated” on the planet about 2,000,000,000 years ago. Think about this: take the differences between the St. Bernard and the Chihuahua and multiply a million times.
3. Right and Wrong are not hard and fast rules - is slavery good or evil? Today, most would consider slavery to be immoral, yet the Bible does not explicitly condemn it. Instead, it explains the proper method of owning slaves.
Morality is completely subjective: good and evil are just terms for the sides you are rooting for and against.
Hooray, Beer,
Rival
[Reply]
Errith:
Goodness, the illogic, the goggles, they do nothing!
Okay, hysteria aside, I’ll answer you.
Can the scientific method prove itself? The scientific process is not something that is proven, rather it was an invented system of logic. A way to think, you either reject this methodology or you embrace it. Its existence is irrefutable as it is a mere idea, and all *ideas* (not necessarily what the idea describes) exist from the moment they are first thought. This is different from God, because God supposedly is more than a way of thinking.
Good =/= God
Evil =/= Absence of God
To claim that God is in good is basically to attach more significance to good than there actually is. It’s making god a primal deity like Vulcan or Gaea. Do you want to do that? Attach your god to an ideal which can be ripped in half?
Of course science cannot falsify god, there’s nothing to falsify. God is supposedly immaterial, unobservable, and a number of other properties. See the aforementioned “Dragon”. That will explain all about it.
Nature creates information constantly. Everything is information. Even if it is merely “this space is occupied by a carbon atom”. Further, the reason why Nature does not create “John Loves Carey” on the beach is that there is no reason for it to do so. Water goes through sand, sifting through it at nearly even rates all over. It then recedes, leaving behind a surface flattened by the water passing through it and allowing it to settle into the uninterrupted surface you see. To expect to see “John Loves Carey” come out of that is to be… well… an idiot.
However, Evolution can certainly cause DNA, because it didn’t jump from nothing to DNA. We started with single celled organisms which could hardly be called alive, as there most likely weren’t any organs to speak of, just a collection of chemicals that collected other chemicals. Then things started refining, as they are wont to do, through the ‘forces’ Darwin describes. Eventually we most likely had some sort of chemicals that indirectly caused cells to behave certain ways, and really, DNA does just that. It’s a collection of chemicals matched up in certain ways which causes other chemicals interacting with it, through its own way of being set up, to respond in certain ways. It is not intentional nor intelligent. It really just happens.
Do you know why you say “This is wrong?” It’s not because of god. It’s because society has ingrained a set of morals in you since birth that have become part of your basic pattern. Your conscience exists as a byproduct of your upbringing, and is a rather base response.
Have a nice day,
Betelgeuse
Adopted Child of Fundamentalists
[Reply]
Interesting points. But, you said God cannot be observed. Take an example: You’re flying a kite on a day that gives you the result of the kite flying high above the clouds. (Of course, this is extreme but proves a point.) The kite goes high above and you can’t see it anymore. Now, you feel the kite tug every once and again, reassuring you that it’s still there. The same is with God. We can’t see him, but, every now and then we feel him tug at our hearts.
Take the wind. You can’t see it regularly, but you can feel it and see the effects it has. You can also measure it. God can’t be seen, unless he so reveals himself, but he can be felt and you can see the effects he has. You can measure God in a person by seeing how living for him has affected one.
Now you can say, “Oh yeah, I see what God does, destroying people and being tyrannical and such.” But, that would be irrational to say at any point because all our problems are our own fault. AIDS is something that has had major outbreaks in history and even now in Africa because of sin. The 1980s saw an increase in homosexuality and even in the 70s mass drug use was in motion. In Africa, many people are unfaithful to whatever sexual partner they have. Seeing what we’ve done, how can we stand back, blame God, and say, “Why’d you do this?”
Now, thank God he doesn’t go around smiting people; he’s given us free will of choice and he has the patience to wait on you, and look at all the ridiculous stuff that you’re trying to disprove him with, even though all this is his creation, and you yourself are such, and do little more than bat an eye and say, “When will they see what I’ve done for them?”
It’s only by God that you can say he isn’t there, because you wouldn’t even be here without him. Also, we’re not some computer, and we don’t have some “‘Micro’-conscience software” that we get a conscience from. In some ways, morals are taught, because parents would do good to teach a child about Christ and God, but what about the people Paul observed that lived in Greece and Rome that lived already as if taught good morals, wven though they weren’t? They lived like this, even within the sick society that was filled with all sorts of unethical things.
And, if we’re taught morals, what would be wrong with pedophiles? If that’s how they’re taught, who’s to say they’re wrong and can’t do those things? What if they were taught to disregard others’ rights? What you say gives pedophilia justification. Does that make you think ‘A job well done?’
[Reply]
Errith,
We’ve stepped away from all the evidentiary positions you originally presented, and we’re back to “God exists because I say he exists”
Atheists don’t see God as a tyrant, genocidal maniac. We don’t believe that God even exists! The tyranny and the genocide we point out were not conducted by God, but by people - why should we lessen the guilt of these evil people by assigning their behavior to God?
You’re not seriously bringing out the old “God made AIDS to kill sinners” argument are you? AIDS is well understood - it’s one of the most studied diseases of all time, and its method of transmission is very clear. Tell me: What do you say to the Christian paramedic who acquired the disease from a victim of a car wreck? What about his wife and children? Are they all heathens because their husband and father had the nerve to save someone god marked for an early death?
That argument is quite possibly the most offensive thing I have ever heard, and to hear it repeated today, despite the more than 30 years since the nature of the disease was first understood, is absolutely galling.
But, I digress…
You claim that no “`Micro’-conscience software” exists - do you have any evidence to support this claim, or are you just relying on that same, 2000-year old assumption?
Your point about pedophilia fails, as do arguments about incest and rape. The Bible is chock full of illicit sexual encounters, including pedophilia, incest, and rape. Man’s Laws far exceed the moral codes described in the Bible.
We are not taught to disregard others rights because we are societal animals. Look at every other societal species, from fish to buffalo, apes to zebra, and you’ll see some kind of respect for other members of the species, even members of other species. If you’ve been browsing this net long enough, you’ve seen images of a cat leading a blind dog, lions raising pigs, dogs raising deer, and ducks befriending puppies. (And that’s just in today’s stumbles.)
You expect me to pick and choose my morality from a book that supports racial bigotry, and sexual impropriety and discrimination when looking at the world, I can find more admirable examples in virtually any “lesser” beast - You better have a damn good reason if you want to convince me.
[Reply]
Errith,
The erroneous nature of your statements can be hard to comprehend at times.
First and foremost, wind can be observed. Wind can be tested, we have determined that of all possible explanations, the movement of gases causes those events with the kite.
The only effects of god I’ve ever seen are those delusions of some Christians, sorry, but you’ll need to provide some really concrete evidence of what he does.
Further, you attribute all good to god and all evil to humanity. Isn’t that a bit unfair? After all, many good things have been wrought solely by human hands, and many bad things have been wrought in the name of god, though admittedly by humanity.
AIDS is an STD, a virus which has found its best means of transmission through sex. It does not care about the faithfulness of either participant, nor can it. We don’t blame god for this, we take it at face value as a serious illness and we do all we can to combat it. It’s really quite a simple matter.
As for god granting us the ability to refute him, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. The burden of proof is on you, Errith. It is up to you to assert your claim and back it up with proof. If you offer no proof of any viable level, your claim can be dismissed with no further experimentation. This is called not wasting our time.
Did you not read a word I said about conscience? You need to understand that when I say “programming” i mean that in the human sense, that we have been exposed to and conditioned to respond to certain things as abhorrent and certain things as good, on a level that we often don’t comprehend in our day to day lives, hence the apparent “unthought-out” nature of the conscience. You can thank society and your parents for shoving morals down your throat before you can comprehend them, not god giving you basic morals.
Further, you assume that all morality is directly tied to god. Yet you can look at the prison populations of any country where atheism(just a lack of belief, nothing else) is not illegal and you will find that atheists make a tiny fraction of the prison population in comparison to their religious brethren. A smaller percentage of the prison population than they are in the actual population, which suggests a greater percentage of atheists are good, moral people.
As for pedophilia, you obviously don’t know me very well at all. First, about Rome and Greece. At the time, it was assumed what they did was moral. Indeed, the very book you tout offers advice on how to treat your slaves and subjugate your women. They were no more or less moral than this ‘Paul’ you speak of. But on to pedophilia, nobody is taught to be a pedophile. It is not ingrained in their conscience that it is a good idea. It is probably ingrained that it is a bad idea, just like with everyone else, but they have come to ignore it. Due to the abuse almost always inherent in adult-child sexual relationships, it is safe to assume that the child has been harmed in some fashion, and so the pedophile must face punishment as agreed upon by society’s moral standards.
As for does it make me think a job well done, yes it fucking does. Because I have arrived at, through my own mind, a set of moral rules which I feel are for the good of humanity. These rules disagree with pedophilia, despite what you think.
Patience,
Betelgeuse
L^3
[Reply]
Sorry if offense was taken; I was merely trying to show how morals can be taught and they are, but that you can be taught to do something wrong, despite what are accepted ethics, and then think that those things taught to you are right. Racism and stereotypes are taught but are wrong.
Christians are imprisoned in atheistic countries such as China because people hate Christians, though REAL Christians don’t hate anybody.
I could throw more arguments around, have you guys try to refute it and then myself repeat the process, but am I showing the love of Christ? People look at the ‘you’re going to hell’ Catholics and think that’s what a REAL Christian is. Being a REALChristian means showing love and caring for people.
I’m going to leave the argument altogether (The Bible says arguments ruin those who listen; where have we gotten in this argument? I haven’t come one step closer to atheism and the same can be said with you and God) with these statements: First off, I love you as Christ would have me, and I grieve that you will ( if you keep continuing on this path) stay away from God and be where you may regret such. Secondly, at the End Times, at Judgemet Day, you’ll be surprised who you’re standing before asking you “Why should you enter mine hallowed gates?” Thank God if you see the love Christ showed with His blood being spilled upon the ground and actually enter heaven, but if you don’t, my soul rests secured knowing that I tried to show you all the love I could by, not trying to convince you, but trying to show the truth to you.
I at times want to say God isn’t real, but looking at all the earth, and the complexities and beauty, I can’t say “Wow. Random chance made this!” I am forced to believe, by the greatness and evidence shown, that God is real. I’ll keep you in my prayers, but I hope you learn that God loves you so much, he gave his only son to die for you, so that you may not be lost.
Love you all, and God bless!
<
Note: Do not reply.
[Reply]
Errith,
“but that you can be taught to do something wrong, despite what are accepted ethics, and then think that those things taught to you are right. Racism and stereotypes are taught but are wrong.”
This is true because morality is subjective, not objective.
“Christians are imprisoned in atheistic countries such as China because people hate Christians, though REAL Christians don’t hate anybody.”
All Christians are Salad Bar Christians. The Bible offers adequate justification to support any number of behavior you would not attribute to “Real” Christians.
“The Bible says arguments ruin those who listen; where have we gotten in this argument? I haven’t come one step closer to atheism and the same can be said with you and God”
There are other purposes for discussion: to arrive at the truth, to understand your adversary’s position, to contemplate alternate viewpoints, to challenge our own preconceptions, and to illuminate stereotypes. If you entered the discussion with the sole purpose of converting an Atheist, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
“First off, I love you as Christ would have me, and I grieve that you will ( if you keep continuing on this path) stay away from God and be where you may regret such.”
Don’t cry for me, Argentina. I take full and sole responsibility for my actions, both admirable and despicable. The Bible has no more sway over me than the Koran, or the Necronomicon.
“Secondly, at the End Times, at Judgemet Day, you’ll be surprised who you’re standing before asking you “Why should you enter mine hallowed gates?” Thank God if you see the love Christ showed with His blood being spilled upon the ground and actually enter heaven, but if you don’t, my soul rests secured knowing that I tried to show you all the love I could by, not trying to convince you, but trying to show the truth to you.”
Carrot and Stick?
If only all Christians left it at words. Your kind of proselytizer is annoying, but ultimately harmless. You come in, talk a bit, and leave with a “heartfelt” warning about impending doom and damnation. “Spam Proselytization” at its finest.
“I at times want to say God isn’t real, but looking at all the earth, and the complexities and beauty, I can’t say “Wow. Random chance made this!””
Random Chance. What a stumbling block your religious leaders have dropped in front of you. The world is so big and complicated it couldn’t have possibly come from random interaction, right?
You can’t see the trees through the forest. Instead of looking at the whole, complicated world, look at one tiny little portion of it.
I don’t care if you start from th standpoint that God did it. Start asking HOW he did it. Ask yourself how a German Shepherd came into existence - no German Shepherd went on board the Ark, the history of the breed originates in the 1800s.
Ask how God built the Sun, then compare it to all the other stars visible in the night sky. Ask how a tree grows. Again, I don’t care if you start from the premise of “God made it” - Tell me how God did it. If you don’t know exactly how God did it, do some experiments, do some research, and develop an answer.
You say “Random Chance” like it was one throw of the dice - every possibility that could have ever happened was decided instantaneously. Your friend comes back from Las Vegas and tells you he won $150 bucks. So what, right?
Then he tells you HOW he won that $150 bucks - he was walking by a casino, found a quarter and dropped it into a slot machine. It paid out 50 bucks, which he took over to the blackjack table. After several hands, he had turned that original quarter into $400 bucks. He bet it all on 23 at the roulette wheel and won $14,000. He took that to the craps table, and three hours later, he had $150,000. He cashed out and left for the airport. He had a layover in Chicago and started chatting up a young man. He was down on his luck, flying home after a disappointing job interview. His family was barely getting by, bills were piling up, and creditors were calling. Your friend got on the phone and transferred his $150,000 winnings to this young man. Where’d the $150 come from? The airline overbooked the flight, and offered $150 to the first three people to give up their seats.
Stop looking at the forest, and tell me about the trees.
[Reply]
“just a collection of chemicals that collected other chemicals. Then things started refining, as they are wont to do, through the ‘forces’ Darwin describes. Eventually we most likely had some sort of chemicals that indirectly caused cells to behave certain ways, and really, DNA does just that”
Uh.
I’m just wondering…
How does a collection of chemicals collect other chemicals? I’ve always wanted to know if my the chemicals residue in my cologne bottles would suck up some dust so I could sell magical dust to people. Maybe if you would be so kind as to help me understand this concept of chemical attraction I could help the process move a little faster and not take years and years.
Is it the same way a farmer collects apples? ‘Cause I understand that.
Also, how do cells “behave”, or respond, or anything else.
And what makes certain chemicals know that they need to go this way or that, or perform such and such a task, and so on? I mean, does money know that it can use itself to buy me something, or try to change itself to be more durable so it would be harder for people to destroy?
Ah. Well. I suppose not. I mean, it’s not living right? It will be living eventually though and eventually dealing with those problems I suppose…right?
Stop looking at the forest, and tell me about the trees.
Wouldn’t seeing that the forest is there and realizing it is even made up of trees, prove the forest existed, even if you didn’t know how them trees got there?
If you understand and see and know that forest is real, but couldn’t understand or classify or figure out the answers to the quetions the trees pose, does that dissprove that the forest exists?
I know this is almost completely off the orignal subject (or is it?!) but I sure would like to know what you think.
[Reply]
Chemicals are, as you may be aware, made up of atoms. Atoms follow a series of rules in their interactions with each other. Covalent/Ionic bonding can occur between atoms to make compounds, or atoms can stay with similar atoms to make noticeable quantities of an element.
They hardly attract each other except in the case of ions, but when they connect and have the appropriate electron arrangements, they stick to each other. This goes on until an atom has reached its capacity (Carbon is especially versatile because it is so abundant and can make numerous combinations with its electron arrangement).
That’s really how chemicals would collect each other as I described. Initially, it is entirely possible that even a celled organism didn’t exist as such, but was merely some chemicals packed together, and in that arrangement they interacted frequently with chemicals outside their area, and assimilated them into the pattern through the bonds mentioned previously. It doesn’t always work perfectly, so changes happen. Evolution.
Cells do not behave or respond as such, there is really no intelligence directing a cell. However, the chemical interactions within a cell determine what it will do. With the highly refined cells in existence today, the nucleic acids do this, as they are specific arrangements of chemicals which interact and bond and break with nearby chemicals to create patterns not unlike directions.
Chemicals do not know they have to do anything, they simply behave in a certain way, and their environment shapes those reactions. It is a series of if->then statements in physical form. As previously stated, when chemicals interact, patterns emerge, this causes these apparent ‘behaviours’. Your money example is incorrect, to sum it up.
Chemical attraction and bonding and such is something covered in most secondary school text books. I can go into the minutiae of explanation if you so desire, but I really don’t feel like it.
~Alpha Orionis
[Reply]
Okay, let’s see if I’m a good student.
Chemicals made up my cells because they were attracted to each other by electromagnetic bonds. Right?
I hope so.
Okay, then, these cells with the attractive chemicals in them, attract to each other because of the chemicals, and when they form something like my hand, it’s because that’s the way they attracted, and that’s the limit of that groups of cells attractiveness.
…Or something.
How’d my hand get made? How did my fingers not get attracted together like the rest of my hand did? If so, how? I need some more trees before I figure out this forest.
Or do I need more trees to figure out the trees to figure out the forest doesn’t exist?
Anywho, how’s the money thing incorrect? As far as I understand it, from my humble education and the brief education provided here, my understanding is that these attractice chemicals, that have now formed some kind of material, can eventually form some form of “life”, and then form more complex life, and then change to keep its life.
“I can go into the minutiae of explanation if you so desire, but I really don’t feel like it.”
That’s very disapointing!
I come here to gain true knowlege from people who assert they have it and want to proclaim it, in order to better humanity, and now one of them doesn’t feel like it!
Am I accursed to be an ignorant foolish knave forever, because the task of educating my lowly self is to great a one?
I realize I must be exasperating. And knowing how you despise (or at least, don’t like) waisting time, I would ask that you educate me with the utmost care and logic, and use only the explanations that could possibly unlock the closed door of my mind.
[Reply]
Boy oh boy.
My writting is redundant. “As far as I understand it….my understanding is”.And don’t mind that “If so, how?” ’cause I don’t know what I mean by it.
Ah. But I digress.
Let’s try not to digress.
[Reply]
It is not that it is too tiresome or annoying a task, rather I am so used to thinking of this abstractly that putting it into words is difficult.
And you’re close in the fourth paragraph. The idea is that the chemicals have interacted in such a fashion as to create a cell of a certain shape and color and so on, and when a sufficient number of these get together we can see some skin tissue for a hand, many many many more cells go into creating a hand. It’s not simply the chemicals being attracted to each other that makes a hand, its the slightly larger portion of cellular interactions (consider this the woods section in your trees and forest example).
Your hand was created in the same way as the rest of your body, but with different cells. You started out as two sex cells merging and releasing chemicals which formed your unique nucleic acids, and then the cell attached to your mother’s placenta and replicated itself in numerous ways, sometimes splitting into different types of cells from its base stem cells. Nerves, skin, internal organs, blood, etc. are all different kinds of cells that interact on the cellular level. Chemicals are still an observable medium of interaction, but it starts to get complicated and head-ache inducing, and so it is simpler to look at things from the cellular level for bodily interactions.
The reason why your money example is incorrect is that you assume that money reacts. Money is comprised of dead plant cells that no longer interact except to decay (there is also a surface film of bacteria and grime and so forth, but that is not important). Your money does not care about being spent, nor does it act in any fashion towards being spent. Indeed, the only reason it is money is because your government says it is. Now, the chemicals inside a bill will still interact, but most of the energy and intricate patterns of cellular life have decayed from lack of supplied food and/or trauma to the point that they no longer do much of anything, and most chemical reactions with it simply detract from the money in a process known as decay.
And bob, don’t be patronizing. I do not claim to have ultimate knowledge, indeed, far from it. I have a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.
I hope this has helped explain some more. However, if you will continue to question you will have to wait a while for an answer, probably 3/4ths of a day. I must depart.
Best wishes (and not patronizing in the least),
~Alpha Orionis
[Reply]
Bob,
Your question would be best answered by high-school and/or college level chemistry and biology classes. I admit, that’s a bit of a cop-out, and I apologize for that. Unfortunately, this is hardly an adequate forum to discuss the numerous methods in which chemicals can “gather” other chemicals.
What I can do is point you in the right direction. I’ve reviewed the following links, and found them to be pretty useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry
Based on your questions, though, it seems like you’re more interested in how these chemicals could combine in such a way that eventually Humans could come into existence.
There are numerous scientific hypotheses that explain how this could occur. The exact details are, as yet, unknown. If you would like a good starting point for some of the various theories surrounding this issue, I recommend this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Chemicals make up molecules, molecules make up amino acids, amino acids make up proteins, proteins make up cells… I’ve probably skipped a few steps along the way… Ultimately, though, your cells are made up of VERY complex combinations of chemicals.
Not really - you’ve skipped numerous details between these two events - you’re approach seems like you are trying to build a frankenstein - assembling all the individual parts. Frankly, if evolutionary theory actually called for the processes you described, I would call it absolutely ludicrous.
But, evolution DOES NOT operate in this method. Evolution is a slow, gradual, purposeless process. Genetics indicate that the offspring of a creature will generally be quite similar to that creature. Any slight mutation that gives a creature a better chance at procreation will generate more offspring with the propensity to possess that trait, and interbreeding will ensure that trait thrives in the population. But what happens when these creatures are geographically separated, say, after a typhoon, two of these creatures wash up on distant islands. Any mutation in one line WILL NOT be present in the other line. In addition, the micro-environment of one island may make certain traits more effective to survival than the same traits on the other island. This was part of Darwin’s original research, and has been demonstrated in numerous locales, and subsequently employed by breeders of various animals.
I realize that I’ve skipped most of your question - unfortunately, until you understand the theories behind evolution, your question just doesn’t make sense. Suppose we saw a sky-blue car drive down the road. I turn to you and I ask “How did he tack the sky onto the side of his car?” - To answer this question, you would first have to explain the difference between “sky-blue” and “sky”, move onto paint, then pigments… And in the meantime, I ask you things like “How tall was the ladder he used to reach the sky?”
Again, you would be better served by taking some chemistry courses, some biology courses. I believe the field you’re looking for is Organic Chemistry.
You will be as you wish to be - if you desire knowledge, you must ask the questions, and learn how to incorporate the answers you get. Some of them will be garbage, some will be insightful - you’ll have to test the answers, find out what works.
On the other hand, if you expect someone to spoon-feed you knowledge, you may as well be a theist. Dogma is the antithesis of Science - If you’re thinking a certain way because that is how you were told to think, you might as well stay away from real science so that your dogma doesn’t unduly affect someone who might actually accomplish something.
A bit. That’s OK, really. Your tone and logic makes me think you really don’t care about the answers, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can demonstrate your “good faith” by actually reading some of the various links I’ve pointed to, I would be more than happy to try to answer your questions and critiques.
Covalently,
Rival
[Reply]
All your talk about trees and chemicals, origins and causes and science reminds me of an Emmerson quote on history- I don’t have it in front of me so I’ll paraphrase-
“Just as a thousand forests are in a single acorn, so is the history of the human race whithin every man.”
and
“Every question is it’s own answer.”
I’ve spent much of my life driving myself mad asking questions similar to yours and have never come close to an answer. Knowing about chemicals and attractions and bonds will only give you a technical understanding of life, of the mathematics behind it. But it would still mean nothing without you- your sentient thought- there to observe it, to give it meaning. An understanding of the way a thing works will never explain why it is.
I know I exist. I did not will myself into existence. I refuse to believe that chemicals willed me into existence. It is the burden of every person to give their life meaning, to find their own truth. My truth is the knowledge that something greater than me exists, that I am part of it and should love and nurture it in all things.
[Reply]
Evan,
You’re starting from the wrong assumption: that sentience is special.
First, a reminder:
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
We are not the only sentient (or, for that matter, self-aware) species on this planet, and every animal has a brain. As the brain develops, it becomes more complex, until self-awareness (a few bright species like elephants and bonobos), and then to real intelligence (or the facsimile thereof).
Sentience is nothing special, it’s just another trait created through evolution.
Now, since you obviously mean more consciousness rather sentience, I can pretty much repeat myself.
Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment.
Consciousness is mostly limited to humanity, but perhaps the more intelligent species have it. It is simply a development of the mind past a certain point, where it is able to achieve consciousness according to the definition.
Consciousness is not special, it is just another trait created through evolution, and then worshiped by its bearers.
Does that explain it?
~Alpha Orionis
[Reply]
Evan,
“I refuse to believe that chemicals willed me into existence. ”
Strawman. Who said that Chemicals had the ability to “will” anything?
“Every question is it’s own answer.”
Maybe in the religious world, certainly not in the scientific or logical worlds. Questions that lead to their own answers are logically fallacious, and are to be avoided.
““Just as a thousand forests are in a single acorn, so is the history of the human race whithin every man.””
In a sense, this is true - every living thing is a product of a successful line of evolution. Every extinct species is a failed line of evolution. “Only the Strong Survive” and “Adapt or Die” are quite appropriate phrases to describe the process.
There is no deeper meaning in a hinge, or a doorknob. I know how a hinge works, but what can I say about the meaning of the hinge? I know how a car works, but what can I say about the meaning of the car? The “Why” is usually quote boring - to provide the ability to open a door of some sort; to provide the ability to travel rapidly. The “How”, on the other hand, is incredibly interesting.
In any event, what does it say of the meaning if discovering that meaning requires one to ignore parts of reality?
[Reply]