Thread: How to counter skeptics' statements on Astral Projection?

But none of these things are rational and scientific. A theory is just that, a theory. Assumptions have to be made. If it did indeed happen by random occurrence, why is it a theory? Because it is science fiction as far as knowing the truth is concerned. That self-replicating cell as I've talked about in my previous post, is quite the smart fellow, containing no brain and yet capable of doing all these things in such an harmonic way. Plants first, oxygen breathing life second, with no knowledge of what either of those things are. It simply decided, "I'm going to breathe air, and create things that let me breathe air, and from there I'll create all kinds of things that are nothing like me, we will eat each other, and no one will be able to find me, the miracle cell, and use me for anything other than what I'm going to do right now over some billions of years." ???

If life did not start out DNA based, why is it that we cannot find a single living thing that does not contain it? All the DNA'less organisms became extinct? How exactly does any organism NOT have instructions for it's initial growth and ability to reproduce? This is starting to lose rationality very fast. A computer can do nothing without instructions. With instructions it can do incredible things. A cell is the exact same way. They cannot do anything without instructions, because the only thing cells know how to do, is obey instructions. The easiest way to prove this is by saying the following: Show me a cellular organism that is alive (even a single celled organism), that also does nothing. You cannot, because even the ability to move the way cells move through fluid is part of their instructions, as is the same with their ability to reproduce and split apart from each other, stacking in the millions and creating a living being. DNA by definition is instructions. Without them, something as simple as a cell or as seemingly complex as a computer does nothing.

One thing for you to think about is that if our minds are non-physical, then since they can obviously manipulate our brains, which are physical matter, why can't they manipulate other matter outside of our bodies, resulting in telekinesis for instance?

What faculty of the brain does dreaming use? How long does it take to fully develop and activate those areas to gain a level of skill and stability in lucid dreams so that you can dream at will and wake when you please? What faculty of the brain would be required to be trained to manipulate the energy around us? Our brains are physical matter sure, but the manipulation of and signals sent from the brain to any part of the body is contained in electrical pulses, aka energy. It is hardly acceptable that sending billions of small charges around your body through your brain would result in your ability to lift 2,000lbs of mass (a car) with focused concentration. Even something small such as a pencil would be tough. How often have you moved one with your mind? Never? Kind of hard to do 20+ years into having no clue of where to start huh? Learning how to focus your mind completely and to eliminate thought and bask in pure peace is a skill that takes discipline, certainly a feat of this grandeur would require practice and discipline as well? Can you use the energy of the mind to manipulate outside energy? I have not been able to do it myself, but at the same time, I have not practiced a skill like that for the amount of years it would require to do so. Have I seen evidence of it being done? Nope. Does that mean it is not possible? Nope. What skill have you ever learned that did not require practice and dedication to do anything other than basic or intermediate actions? How many people do you think practice this sort of thing? How many of them if capable of doing it would reveal that to anyone other than their most trusted friends and family for fear of being researched in a lab like some sort of creature? Sure this is all hypothetical, but the possibility is there. I deny the possibility of nothing, you deny the possibility of anything past your comprehension.

I don't even deny the possibility of all existence being a random occurrence, but the more questions I ask and the more I look at the basic structure of things and how it all comes together, random seems much less likely than intent, and that is all. Thus far, everything said to be impossible has been proven possible given enough time.

Embracing the unknown is the hardest thing for people to do. What do you do in your lucid dreams? What do you use them for? Do they serve a purpose for you? Are they simply a playground for your mind? Have you gained the discipline necessary to lucid when you want and wake when you please? If so, what importance did you find in the ability to lucid dream, that would drive you to gain discipline in it? If not, do you intend to? Why or why not?

2. We dream when we sleep, for one, because this increases our ability to learn. I guess it also has some organizing effects, but I'm not a sleep expert.

Then why is dreaming not taught in every school system in the world? Why doesn't every parent inform and train their children to become lucid dreamers?

3. As for the rules of dreaming, life is entirely experiential and subjective. You can easily imagine and believe that you can fly, etc. because of our imaginative capabilities. It's probably because of the fact that we aren't born knowing the laws of nature that we are easily able to manipulate our mental experiences if we're 'convinced' that something is true.

The self-replicating cell apparently had the laws of nature down pact, it created it all through its infinite instructions.

Once a self-replicating molecule comes into existence, it is then able to start to produce copies of itself, which are able to reproduce copies of themselves, and so on. After some time, different versions of the molecule get altered by, I presume, gamma rays (I only assume this because that's how DNA gets altered). Most of the time, the alterations would cause the molecules to cease to be able to reproduce, and even if the modification made it better able to survive, it can't reproduce, so it eventually gets eliminated. But sometimes, the molecule is modified in such a way that it can more easily reproduce, or it is better able to use the resources at hand. So I presume this continued and allowed many variations to occur in these molecules. After some time, a couple of molecules might have evolved a variation which enabled it to occupy a different niche, giving it certain advantages over other molecules, thus being better able to survive and pass of its offspring. Once something is better able to survive and reproduce, its population goes up, and all of the produced organisms undergo mutations just as its predecessors did. But there is a limited amount of resources, so that only allows the organisms with the greatest perks to survive, thus causing evolution to be directed toward survival qualities, leading to the survival of the fittest. So you can see, although things are random, they are actually inherently directed toward evolving better traits.

What resources? How did this organism get resources to work with in the first place, and why were these resources there before it was, when there was no reason to create anything that would sustain its life? What exactly caused the DNA instruction of predator and prey types, preceding them a basis for an ecosystem, plant life with fruits and herbs and trees, all of which provide the oxygen they needed to live? Why did cells form lungs to breathe oxygen? Why did they form brains? Stomachs? Reproductive organs? Were they so smart as to create these things with imagination? Or is that solely a feature of the human mind?

How can something random be inherently directed? This is an oxymoron. The definition of random is without direction. Haphazardly. It is either inherently directed, or it is random. There is no partial randomness, and partial inherent direction, because any non-randomness in this case, indicates intent. If any piece of it is intended, all of it is intended.

In order to form a bird, what did these cells inhabit, niche-wise? Did they hang out on the branches of trees and learn they needed wings to fly? How were they able to design themselves so well, so capable of moving swiftly and gracefully? Creating feathers where the material of a feather did not even exist. The concept of feather did not exist, and yet, they were able to conceive and produce the instructions for them? Or is their ability to fly at all, random? Their knowledge of physics is quite spectacular if the former. Did they start out as some weird thing and over time simply learn and evolve? If this is the case, why haven't creatures kept evolving into more alarmingly smarter, faster, and stronger versions of themselves with increasing rapidity as they continue to learn? We did apparently, and then just hit a stalemate. Surely nothing is limiting this almighty cellular starting structure from advancing how it deems fit? Shouldn't a conscious mind actively increase the collective power of this cell? Shouldn't we be able to morph at will? It has infinite understanding of energy, matter, mass, physics, etc. It knows everything that is required to build any living form. So why exactly do we need to learn?

These cells, were they scattered abroad the Earth and all started their various evolutions? If so, what exact reaction went off in every single location where one was created that happened to create them? Why do they all contain the same basic structure of obeying DNA instruction? Did all the DNA'less ones get wiped out? Why? They don't need anything to live, other than themselves. Surely they would continue to replicate and struggle to survive. But wait, they cannot, because they contain no instructions. If the instructions are inherent, in a structure unlike DNA, how did that come to be? There's another unanswered question. Why is survival a driving factor? This cell started out with no conditions needed to live, otherwise it would not have existed. It could easily replicate in a way that does not require it to eat to acquire....oh...energy. Was it a need for energy that drove creatures to become predator and prey? Who knows? But how did this all come to be? Something that required absolutely nothing else in order to exist, except for a random reaction of things that existed on their own to occur...that were not alive, and did not need anything to exist themselves...and this non-life reaction of who knows what created, a self existing, living thing, that also did not need anything to sustain its ability to live, that then created all life? In an orderly, harmonic, balanced fashion? Hmmm.....that's a concept I remember hearing a lot, only it didn't require a reaction in the cosmos (which came to exist how?). Then, as soon as replication and evolution began, a need arose to survive for oneself? What gave that organism a sense of self so as to need to care enough to survive? It started as one whole, it does not recognize this?

These cells seem to be both simple simon and infinite knowledge at the same time.

So how exactly did plant life make it to almost every area of this planet? These simple cells were carried by the wind? When they landed they decided the first order of business was plant life? What caused these cells to form plant life, when there was no need for oxygen, nor anything that creates it in the first place for these cells? All of the things these cells did were so orderly and organized. Oxygen breathing life could not exist without having plant life first, so how is it that this happened, when there was no reason for plant life because no oxygen breathing life existed? They can replicate and live in a way that doesn't require plants, and yet we have plants. These gamma rays, managed to do what? Grow different species of plant and animal based on altering the DNA of...but wait, what DNA? How did this simple self replicating cell get any DNA instructions in the first place? How can it replicate with no instructions? What originated DNA, the basis of any cell being able to reproduce into a multi-celled, living organism that breathes oxygen? And how did these same cells know beforehand that production of oxygen would be through plants? Plants just sprouted and shortly after, oxygen breathing life?

This was done in random order, but in the only order that could take place for an oxygen breathing species to live? Why was oxygen chosen as the source of breathing, and breathing required to live? Why is breathing even a process? Did these cells analyze the atmosphere and chemical make-up around them and make a consensus vote on oxygen? What about the heart, what was its need? Blood? Why does every animal have blood? Every human? Why are the two linked together in any way in regards to evolution into complex organisms? Why does the blood need oxygen? Why does almost every organ in the body need the others? Surely the cells could replace anything lost, they have the instructions and their abilities are unmatched.

Actually no, we cannot conceptualize anything we want. You cannot conceptualize a new color outside of the visible light spectrum, for instance. Generally, you have to have experienced many different things and organized the information with your pattern recognition skills, and then you are able to combine different information into one new concept based off of already-existing forms. Perhaps you should study neuroscience if you want to learn more about the inner workings of the brain. Imagination is an important part of our ability to survive, since it allows us to create new tools and concepts.

Neuroscience doesn't even begin to define in clear terms what causes the underlying rules of dreaming vs. waking vs. our perception of items in either. Imagination is definitely an important part of our survival, but how did it get there? Mutations created a center of conceptual and abstract thinking? We are mighty lucky creatures, you and I. You cannot conceptualize a new color outside of the visible light spectrum....hmmm...what purpose would doing so serve? If this is the only thing I cannot conceptualize, I'm in very good shape.

As each species evolved, what was the origin of the elephant vs. blue whale? Both are enormous, one very much larger than the other. How did those cells need to drive their evolution to their size and strength? And once they did (or on the way to that form), why are they both not predators? Did they convert from being predator? Is that even possible? Were plants simply here before the self replicating cell? Wait, is that possible considering that a plant started out as a self replicating cellular organism? Look at the most basic of the basic qualities possible for each of these things you describe, and you realize the answer to our existence is as far from your reach as the moon is from the Earth. For all these random events to take place with such order, harmony and organization over time where anything could have gone wrong due to the random element, it sure seems...not so random. There are no rational answers, because the answer is beyond what we call rational. There is no reliable explanation, because in order for it to be science the answer needs to be fact.

As I said before, it's much easier to make something up than to even begin to comprehend the possible truth, isn't it? Call it a fairy tale, but your analysis of the origin of life is all the same a fairy tale. How does something that is not itself alive, create something that is? And upon this, the living being evolves into millions of others infinitely more complex than what it started as, with infinite DNA instructions? What is alive? Is it to have blood pumping through your body and full cognitive function? Or is it simply your energy consciousness which perceives? There is no proof of one, the same way there is no proof of the self-replicating cell that started it all. The consensus however, is that a single source that required nothing else to exist on its own created all life. The concept itself has no difference whatsoever, no matter the explanation behind it.

There is a species of jellyfish in the deep ocean that can revert to its early developmental stage and re-grow into an adult organism (presumed) infinitely. According to this theory of randomness and the self-replicating cell that came from nowhere, we should be able to do the exact same thing because we are made from the exact same cell that had those exact same instructions in its DNA. Why is it that we, and most other species die, when this creature almost certainly does not? Gamma rays? If so, how did this organism get to the deep sea in the first place? Starting there? Randomly? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ish-swarm.html

I would like you to address every paragraph I have presented here. The following question I want you to answer directly:

Why does the basic building block of all living organisms contain a set of DNA instructions? Random?

I like where this is going.

First and foremost, I want to emphasize that my life doesn't revolve around DreamViews and therefore I can't respond to giant fucking walls of text all day. So try to keep your post length down. Thanks. In the meantime I'll respond to this one which I said I was going to reply to.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

As well thought out as that was, and as enjoyable as it was to read, you have taken all of these orderly things, all of these parts of our existence and reduced them down to a random occurrence. You provide your own theory after theory, possibility after possibility, none of which are facts, and then state they are rational and scientific. Nothing is rational about random. Random is chaos.

I never said that these theories were facts. No theory is a fact. Theories simply provide a suitable explanation, given the evidence at hand. They are rational because they don't jump to any conclusions; they simply try to make the best sense of the nature of things.

I don't really see your point with the whole randomness idea. The formation of the state of the universe was a random outcome as far as we can tell, but that doesn't really provide evidence for anything supernatural. Perhaps you can elaborate on this.

Stating that everything we know and experience is a random occurrence and attempting to break it down and rationalize it as such with theories, and possibilities based on what you currently know about each subject is not the real truth of things. It is only the truth you have created for yourself. This random occurrence is as much science fiction as anything I have asked you. Gamma rays modifying the instructions of cells? This is your theory?

As I stated, I don't claim to know the real truth of things. However, scientific theories provide very good paradigms to explain our existence. In fact, they are much better than mere speculation because they are backed by evidence. The existence of life can be traced back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when life mostly consisted of prokaryotic cells. Self-replicating molecules evolving over time are a good explanation for how those cells came into being, and it is the most satisfying explanation. If life came from somewhere else, you would still have to explain how that life came into being. If life was sparked by some divine intervention, well, that theory is scientifically uninteresting since we have yet to see any evidence for any sort of God.

As for Gamma rays modifying the instructions of cells, that is a well-established phenomenon and is the cause of some types of cancer. Other causes for DNA mutation include UV exposure, errors in DNA replication, exposure to mutagens, etc. I'm not an expert on DNA mutation, but it is well known that mutations occur often; otherwise, evolution wouldn't be possible. It surprises me that you're uneducated on this subject, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised after all.

All that was needed in a random sense was a self-replicating molecule. Where did you get this? The movie Evolution? This is not true in the slightest sense. Carbon, sunlight, nor water are ANY of the things that are needed. They are the only things you know, so that is what you assume. Life is not limited to requiring these things, it is how we are made up and how we are to live in the environment of carbon, sunlight, and water that creates all the stipulations for how we maintain life through oxygen for breathing, light for heat and for plants so we can breathe, etc..

You seem to be largely misunderstanding my post. When I say all that was needed was a self-replicating molecule under the right conditions, etc., I am speaking of life on earth. I'm certainly not denying that other forms of life are possible, and in fact I do know of one form of 'life' that is not carbon-based; it's made entirely out of space dust. We haven't directly observed this, but it has been observed in computer simulations.

To be honest, I still don't see the point you're trying to make here.

Non-life cannot create life, meaning there would be no plant life, no sea life.

Lol, is this what you believe? How did life first come into existence, then? If you say a divine being created life then a facepalm is in order, since if a) The divine being is considered to be alive, then it could not exist without a living creator having created it, repeat, and b) If the divine being is not considered to be alive, then according to you it couldn't have even created life in the first place.

Assuming you mean physical non-life cannot create life, it is perfectly plausible that non-life did in fact create life, considering the self-replicating molecule theory. And that theory is looking pretty good to me, considering such a molecule has already been created in the lab. Now as I said before, we don't know for a fact that this was the cause of life on earth, but it is a valid explanation.

A self replicating organism in the environment of Earth itself appearing out of nowhere, randomly, was the start of it all? How did it get its creation?

It didn't just 'appear out of nowhere', that's silly. In my honest opinion, it was probably created under just the right conditions, probably as a result of some sort of violent lightning strike during primordial earth.

There needed to be plant life before we could inhabit this planet. How did it get here before us? Randomly? The organisms that self replicated all decided together that they would create plants that take in light to grow, and that they would turn carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and turn it into oxygen as a waste product?

Your lack of education on this topic amazes me. The simple prokaryotic cells that existed billions of years ago evolved over time to assume many different forms and traits. Plant life came into existence over a long period of time, as a result of millions upon millions of minor mutations, which in turn got selected in nature for having traits that caused them to be able to survive and continue their survival without being wiped out. This is an inherent property in evolution; organisms develop more advanced and complex traits as a result of the diverse tree of life they came from, and their evolution is directed by their ability to survive, since if they died off, they would cease to exist.

The reason why life is so interconnected and why, for example, we inhale the very thing that plants produce is because our evolution was directed by our ability to survive. We couldn't have survived if we needed to inhale cyanide, since there isn't very much of it on this earth. However there is an abundance of oxygen, so genetic mutation progressed in such a way that oxygen became a part of our respiratory functions. The organisms that developed this ability were much better able to survive, and produced many offspring. So all of the minor mutations that occurred in history selected the organisms that were better able to survive and allowed them to thrive and produce generations of ever-mutating, ever-bettered organisms. The organisms that aren't able to survive as well just die off, and that's why we don't see any of them today.

And the gamma rays from the sun modified them in a way that was beneficial to this process? Randomly? And they did this before we were even around, or any animals for that matter? Then the self replicating organisms, smart as they are, decided, "hey, let's grow into larger organisms that breathe the waste products of our brothers, and we will eat each other in an effort to survive."?

The gamma rays in our environment don't just modify DNA for the better. Gamma rays, among other things, are very capable of causing harmful mutations. The organisms who receive harmful mutations simply die off and cease to exist. That's why we only see the organisms that benefited from genetic mutations.

Why exactly does this miracle cell need to survive? Nothing but itself? Then why do we need to eat food? Did it replicate and then eat itself?

Assuming you meant "What exactly does this miracle cell need to survive?" and assuming that you mean single-celled prokaryotic organisms: As far as I know, they need sunlight to survive. They use photosynthesis to obtain energy. The reason why we need to eat is because our DNA mutated over a very long period of time in such a way that the structures in our cells required oxygen to obtain energy. Oxygen is required to break down glucose, which we get from eating, into energy and CO2, the latter of which we exhale. The CO2 is conveniently used by plants to in turn produce glucose. This is the result of billions of years of evolution and constant mutations occurring in the trillions upon trillions of cells in existence at any given time.

You did not answer a very critical question:

Cells only know how to do one thing, and that is follow instructions. If this self-replicating cell organism evolved all on its own into millions of different species and species variants, what gave it the instructions to do what it did?

GENETIC MUTATIONS. Holy fucking shit.

What gave it the instructions to create plants first, and how did it know to create plants, just because there was sunlight?

Cells don't "know" anything. Evolution just progresses in the way that it does because certain mutations give organisms better capabilities which they can use to survive. Mutations are in fact completely random; the only reason why we see all the good mutations is because the good mutations were the only ones that were able to survive and reproduce.

This organism could comprehend that sunlight was all it needed to replicate itself into something that uses light and water to grow? But wait, this cell must have started off in the ocean right? Because otherwise, how would it know it would need water when it created a plant? This single cell with no brain seems to be a very smart fellow. Oh but wait, it actually DIDN'T need water if it so chose to develop plants a different way, but I'm pretty sure cells don't actively make a choice in anything.

No, the organism can't comprehend much of anything at all. All it knows how to do is survive and reproduce, and that's because those functions are coded into its DNA. Lmao, cells don't need to start out in the ocean to "know" they need water to create a plant... the genetic mutations that occur over time happened to create these organisms because there was water in the soil and atmosphere that allowed those mutations to survive and reproduce. Life could have evolved in any possible way, it just so happens that it evolved in the way it did because of the specific mutations that occurred over billions of years. In fact, life as we know it has evolved some very good and robust traits over the course of time that it has existed, and it probably could not have evolved much better.

What exactly is thought? A process of energy? How is it that the cells were able to create a faculty of thinking, that stayed the same with an entire species? Animals can only do so much within their scope of intellect, but that does not mean they cannot problem solve. These cells, I must say, they are incredible. They can do anything they feel like doing. Shouldn't that mean I can sprout wings and fly if I think on it so much as to cause my cells to obey my conscious instructions? Or are they more powerful than me and my collective ability to think? Can I lay seeds? I am made up of those same cells, I should be able to instruct them to do whatever I want, correct?

A thought is a very complex series of interactions between the neurons in our brains. Cells were able to create this faculty of thinking simply because the physical laws allow it. The genetic mutations that occurred over the course of history developed neurons, and since those neurons were helpful in allowing organisms to survive, organisms with brains thrived. All of those organisms produced many generations of more organisms with neurons, and only those organisms that developed more neurons, and more complex systems of brains were able to survive when faced with natural selection. These are basic evolutionary processes.

Our cells do not have the same instructions that, say, birds or plants have. Our cells do not have the genetic instructions to sprout wings or lay seeds. Our conscious thoughts do not direct our genetic mutations, and we cannot tell our cells what to do. Our cells work autonomously, simply carrying out the instructions they developed over the lengthy course of evolution.

You're telling me this single, miracle cell/organism collectively managed to do all of these things, create every existing living being on this planet, and all in a perfect harmony, creating whole ecosystems with humans being chief among all organisms? This is what you call natural selection? This was all just one awesome moment of complete random that developed in the most perfect way possible over time?

Natural selection did in fact develop in this way. Amazing, isn't it? I would like to point out however that the first self-replicating molecules that came into existence simply provided the possibility of life; they didn't dictate what life would be. What life came to be occurred over the course of billions of years of molecular and genetic mutations. So it wasn't just "one awesome moment of complete random". These events have been occurring all the time since the first self-replicating molecules came into existence, and will continue to occur and develop ever-more complex life.

You sit there and try to explain all these various processes of our physiological being as if that is what the cells set out to do in the first place.

Um, no, I never said that at all. It just so happened that cells developed the way they did because certain mutations gave certain cells an increased probability of surviving and reproducing. Cells are just cells; they don't have any particular intentions.

Yeah it's great that you think you can explain all these things, but break them down to their basic nature and explain the origin of them. Break down the basic nature of thought. Energy. Break down the basic nature of objects. Energy. Break down the basic nature of cells. Energy with instruction.

Sure, everything is essentially energy. But it's also matter. What's your point? Energy has no supernatural implications.

Break down the basic nature of a human developing from zygote to adult, and all the instructions needed to attain that. Your only answer will be a single cell that was so incredibly smart, it knew exactly where to start in order to sustain life on an entire planet and in what order everything should be created. Man that's a smart little guy.

Well, cells aren't smart. I never stated that they were. Cells are stupid, like computers, and they only follow the instructions they're given. Those instructions did however develop over a long period of time as a result of selective evolution. Everything came from, in my opinion, very simply self-replicating molecules which evolved over time. The reason why they got "smart" was because there were "smart" mutations that allowed them to be better able to survive. Once those mutations occurred, later generations built upon them with ever-"smarter" mutations. The "dumb" mutations simply ceased to exist, since they couldn't survive.

And let's not even begin to talk about the rest of the solar system in our galaxy that just so happened to also be in perfect harmony with what life needed to continue for any period of time.

No, let's talk about it. Read up on the anthropic principle. Once you've read up on that, you'll realize that the only reason we're able to observe that everything is perfect is because everything had to be perfect in order for us to exist. If we didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to observe that everything isn't perfect. And don't even try and assert that it couldn't have happened as a result of random chance until you can wrap your mind around one googolplex, because that's how many planets have come into existence throughout the course of the universe's history. Actually, one googolplex is probably a huge understatement, considering our universe is billions of years old.

You explained the creation of life as coming from a single source. A type of cell that self-replicated. One, that started out, on its own. Why haven't we found this cell type and given it instructions for new creations?

Life may or may not have been created from a single source. This source, whether or not it was only one molecule, was probably a self-replicating molecule. I never said it was a cell. And in fact we have created a form of self-replicating molecule; see the link I gave you near the beginning of my post. As for a cell, prokaryotes would probably be the best advocate for this type of scientific research, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we actually have modified cells' instructions to do certain things. That is an area of research. For instance, we have modified some cells' DNA so that they can produce fuel. We have done other types of genetic engineering, such as in livestock and in plants. There has even been some genetic engineering in humans. You have to understand however that these instructions are very small and very, very complex and therefore we can't just go all out and start creating new species just yet. There's also the problem of mapping out a certain cell's genome and tweaking certain parts of it to produce different effects.

Why exactly does a single source of another type such as a consciousness make you so uneasy? What exactly is so rational and scientific, both of which require order, in randomness, of which randomness has none, zilch, zero, nada?

I wouldn't say that this makes me uneasy. It just seems very unlikely. For one, the human race doesn't interact with this consciousness on a regular basis, at least not in a two-way fashion, so I see no reason to really believe in it. If this consciousness existed, don't you think it would make itself more evident? There is very little reason whatsoever to believe in a God, to be honest.

I would also like to point out that consciousness probably does not exist outside of the human body. If you believe otherwise, try knocking yourself the fuck out and see if you have any lapse in consciousness. (Wait, on second thought, don't do that.)

Then what exactly, is the purpose for your existence? Why do you engage in human endeavors?

Existence has no purpose, I am afraid. It is very egotistical to believe that we were created inside of this very large universe for some unknown reason. I do human things, simply because I am human. I have to eat, shit, sleep, and fuck, because that's my instinct. It's also yours.



Well, all you've done so far is prove your complete lack of knowledge regarding scientific matters. Have anything to add? And holy fuck, please do NOT come up with that long of a reply next time. Keep it under 100 words, or else don't expect me to reply.

Originally Posted by NonConformist

I like where this is going.

Me too.

None of the previous post holds any weight whatsoever. You say I am uneducated in these matters, yet I ask questions you cannot answer in concrete, factual terms. Who exactly is lacking in education then?

I never said that these theories were facts. No theory is a fact. Theories simply provide a suitable explanation, given the evidence at hand. They are rational because they don't jump to any conclusions; they simply try to make the best sense of the nature of things.

A theory by nature has to jump to conclusions, it is a theory. Try again.

As I stated, I don't claim to know the real truth of things. However, scientific theories provide very good paradigms to explain our existence. In fact, they are much better than mere speculation because they are backed by evidence. The existence of life can be traced back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when life mostly consisted of prokaryotic cells. Self-replicating molecules evolving over time are a good explanation for how those cells came into being, and it is the most satisfying explanation.

So life mostly consisted of prokaryotic cells, approximately 3.8 billion years ago? This is not fact, yet it is evidence? These first cells that came from the self-replicating cells, you speak of genetic mutations. Well, where did genetics come from in the first place? Why was there something there to be modified at all? Random?

Lol, is this what you believe? How did life first come into existence, then? If you say a divine being created life then a facepalm is in order, since if a) The divine being is considered to be alive, then it could not exist without a living creator having created it, repeat, and b) If the divine being is not considered to be alive, then according to you it couldn't have even created life in the first place.

You are alive, and according to you, no living creator created you. The first human was not created by a living creator, nor was the first cell according to you. The living came from nothing according to you, so why would a living creator of the universe need something that created it? It could just as easily come from nothing, as we did apparently. This is a bad assumption, and bad logic.

Assuming you mean physical non-life cannot create life, it is perfectly plausible that non-life did in fact create life, considering the self-replicating molecule theory. And that theory is looking pretty good to me, considering such a molecule has already been created in the lab. Now as I said before, we don't know for a fact that this was the cause of life on earth, but it is a valid explanation.

Does the earth create more earth? Does the ocean create more ocean? Does the sun create more suns? Can't non-life create more non-life, and life? But wait, how is it perfectly plausible that non-life created life if life had to start out alive? The self replicating cell is not non-life, it is life. It can reproduce itself and grow. A reaction of non-life elements creating life is as much a fairy tale as anything else.

Assuming you meant "What exactly does this miracle cell need to survive?" and assuming that you mean single-celled prokaryotic organisms: As far as I know, they need sunlight to survive. They use photosynthesis to obtain energy. The reason why we need to eat is because our DNA mutated over a very long period of time in such a way that the structures in our cells required oxygen to obtain energy. Oxygen is required to break down glucose, which we get from eating, into energy and CO2, the latter of which we exhale. The CO2 is conveniently used by plants to in turn produce glucose. This is the result of billions of years of evolution and constant mutations occurring in the trillions upon trillions of cells in existence at any given time.

So in order for this first living organism to live, it needed sunlight? How convenient that they had just that? This reaction that took place was smart enough to create something that actually needed something else to survive, despite creating this living on its own, at random. So WHY exactly, did they need sunlight? Why did they need to obtain energy? What is it about energy itself that drives life? We need to eat because our DNA mutated over a very long period of time? Well answer the question then:

How did DNA, which by definition is instructions, get into these cells? All they know how to do is follow them. What gave them their very orderly instructions? Oh, that's right:

GENETIC MUTATIONS. Holy fucking shit.

What genetics? The initial nothingness that became something? DNA started out in these cells randomly? They were randomly given orderly instructions to do what they did? Genetic mutations is not fact, yet you say it as if it is.

Our cells do not have the same instructions that, say, birds or plants have. Our cells do not have the genetic instructions to sprout wings or lay seeds. Our conscious thoughts do not direct our genetic mutations, and we cannot tell our cells what to do. Our cells work autonomously, simply carrying out the instructions they developed over the lengthy course of evolution.

In response to the bold, by this logic, placebo is impossible. You are now contradicting yourself. In response to the underlined, developed instructions? How did they develop them, through learning?

Sure, everything is essentially energy. But it's also matter. What's your point? Energy has no supernatural implications.

Energy seems to have not needed a creator, yet it created everything.

Well, cells aren't smart. I never stated that they were. Cells are stupid, like computers, and they only follow the instructions they're given. Those instructions did however develop over a long period of time as a result of selective evolution. Everything came from, in my opinion, very simply self-replicating molecules which evolved over time. The reason why they got "smart" was because there were "smart" mutations that allowed them to be better able to survive. Once those mutations occurred, later generations built upon them with ever-"smarter" mutations. The "dumb" mutations simply ceased to exist, since they couldn't survive.

Then why haven't any creatures continued to evolve into alarmingly faster, smarter, and stronger versions of themselves with increasing rapidity as they got "smarter"?

Life may or may not have been created from a single source. This source, whether or not it was only one molecule, was probably a self-replicating molecule. I never said it was a cell. And in fact we have created a form of self-replicating molecule; see the link I gave you near the beginning of my post. As for a cell, prokaryotes would probably be the best advocate for this type of scientific research, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we actually have modified cells' instructions to do certain things. That is an area of research. For instance, we have modified some cells' DNA so that they can produce fuel. We have done other types of genetic engineering, such as in livestock and in plants. There has even been some genetic engineering in humans. You have to understand however that these instructions are very small and very, very complex and therefore we can't just go all out and start creating new species just yet. There's also the problem of mapping out a certain cell's genome and tweaking certain parts of it to produce different effects.

Then why does all life have DNA? A molecule by definition is a fused element that is non-living. How exactly does a molecule self replicate to become a living cell? And you said that I am uneducated? You are quite literally making this up as you go along, and calling it scientific.

I know they are complex, they are instructions, and instructions that are programmed a very specific way, hence the reason I have continually asked you for their origin. Such instructions would need to be contained in infinite capacity to form all the life that has been formed on this planet. So how did they get there? This random occurrence also happened to include instructions with its creation? How nice.

I wouldn't say that this makes me uneasy. It just seems very unlikely. For one, the human race doesn't interact with this consciousness on a regular basis, at least not in a two-way fashion, so I see no reason to really believe in it. If this consciousness existed, don't you think it would make itself more evident? There is very little reason whatsoever to believe in a God, to be honest.

Everything you have posted seems just as unlikely. How do you know the human race does not interact with this consciousness? What if that's what dreaming was for? If it existed, wouldn't it make itself more evident? Is your very existence on this planet not evident of something beyond your comprehension taking place before you were around?

Existence has no purpose, I am afraid. It is very egotistical to believe that we were created inside of this very large universe for some unknown reason. I do human things, simply because I am human. I have to eat, shit, sleep, and fuck, because that's my instinct. It's also yours.

Life has no purpose you say? Then why did you ponder what you wanted to do with it when you reached a mature age?

Well, all you've done so far is prove your complete lack of knowledge regarding scientific matters. Have anything to add?

If you are talking about yourself, you are correct. I have done nothing but ask questions of you, none of which you were able to answer with anything other than theory, possibility, or speculation. Interesting. I have made no claims. I will not keep the length of my posts to 100 words or less, we are debating, not having a casual conversation. If you cannot bear the weight of the questions I have provided with facts to place in front of me, do not reply.

My post was not mere speculation. It is backed up by facts and research. Perhaps if you were to educate yourself on the topic, then you would understand it better. But skimming over your last post, it's absolutely pointless to respond to you since you just come up with more stupid questions. For instance, "Life has no purpose you say? Then why did you ponder what you wanted to do with it when you reached a mature age?" You demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence. We are able to decide what we want do with our lives, therefore... it has an inherent purpose? What the fuck? I'm sorry, but our existence has no purpose whatsoever. We were simply created as a result of evolution. Our choices are completely irrelevant.

Anyway, you completely ignored my request to start making shorter posts, so I'm done with this conversation unless you want to significantly condense the size of your posts. I might be able to get back to you sometime if I have nothing to do, but that's not the case as of right now.

I understand it much more clearly than yourself, because I have made no claims. I demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence? Now I see you are threatened by the weight of my questions. Yes, we can decide what to do with our lives, but did I say it has an inherent purpose? No I did not. Did I imply that it does? No I did not. I only asked you to explain your thought processes in regards to your own life as you began to mature. Your lack of composure says a lot.

It's pointless to respond because you cannot answer these questions. Right now, no one can. Surely these are "stupid" questions, despite being the same questions scientists are looking for the answer to? Of course. If your post was not mere speculation, point out each individual line of information that is fact, with the information everyone here can look at to prove it as such. Currently, I see a post complete with speculation and theory. Research or not, putting it all together into a theory is not facts about the whole.

It didn't just 'appear out of nowhere', that's silly. In my honest opinion, it was probably created under just the right conditions, probably as a result of some sort of violent lightning strike during primordial earth.

Aka, out of nowhere. Aka, speculation.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

I understand it much more clearly than yourself, because I have made no claims.

A) You make no claims
B) It follows that you understand the topic much more clearly

If you understand the topic so well, then give me a reasonable explanation for our existence? Simply saying "I don't know" doesn't cut it, because there is strong evidence to suggest that life as we know it evolved from prokaryotes. If you're going to assert that God created us, then give me the reasons why you believe so. The diversity and complexity of life is in no way evidence for the existence of a God, since it is easily achieved through natural evolution.

I demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence? Now I see you are threatened by the weight of my questions.

Hardly. You seem to fail to understand even the most basic concepts of natural selection and evolution.

Yes, we can decide what to do with our lives, but did I say it has an inherent purpose? No I did not. Did I imply that it does? No I did not.

Let's put that statement back into context, shall we?

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

Originally Posted by MindGames

Existence has no purpose, I am afraid. It is very egotistical to believe that we were created inside of this very large universe for some unknown reason. I do human things, simply because I am human. I have to eat, shit, sleep, and fuck, because that's my instinct. It's also yours.

Life has no purpose you say? Then why did you ponder what you wanted to do with it when you reached a mature age?

I was initially talking about 'purpose' in the context of purpose of existence itself, indicated by 'It is very egotistical to believe that we were created inside of this very large universe for some unknown reason. You then go on to either a) Twist my words or b) Not comprehend them, and talk about purpose as if I was talking about self-given purpose. That's not what I was talking about, and that's just one example of how you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.

I only asked you to explain your thought processes in regards to your own life as you began to mature. Your lack of composure says a lot.

I'd say it's more of a lack of intolerance for the lack of understanding. I think I've done a pretty decent job of keeping my composure; it's not like I've gotten mad or anything.

It's pointless to respond because you cannot answer these questions. Right now, no one can.

Yes, science can. Meaning, we can look at the evidence we have, look down the evolutionary tree, and predict where it all came from. In fact, all we can do is come up with suitable explanations based on evidence until we invent a time traveling machine. That doesn't mean the theories hold no merit; it just means it's the best available explanation at this point in time without actually having been there. To simply come up with a supernatural explanation is to completely dodge any burden of proof or logical explanation.

Aka, out of nowhere. Also a theory.

...no; as a result of a chemical reaction. Sure, it's just a theory, but it does its job. You've failed to as of yet provide any reason whatsoever to believe in a supernatural explanation for our existence. Simply gawking at the complexity of life doesn't give any real reason for believing in the existence a creator. We already know that the complexity of life was established through evolution and genetic mutation.

Originally Posted by MindGames

A) You make no claims
B) It follows that you understand the topic much more clearly

If you understand the topic so well, then give me a reasonable explanation for our existence? Simply saying "I don't know" doesn't cut it, because there is strong evidence to suggest that life as we know it evolved from prokaryotes. If you're going to assert that God created us, then give me the reasons why you believe so. The diversity and complexity of life is in no way evidence for the existence of a God, since it is easily achieved through natural evolution.

There is no reasonable explanation. There is only the explanation, which no one currently has with proof to accompany it. I could assert that a conscious intelligence crafted from its own imagination everything that exists in the universe, but what good would that do? It would be the exact same concept as life coming from a random reaction of the perfect kind to create all life. There was nothing, and then there was Earth, and from there, life on it. You would not believe a word I said. Futile effort.

Hardly. You seem to fail to understand even the most basic concepts of natural selection and evolution.

I understand them, I only ask for their origin. You give me self-replicating cells. I ask for their origin, and the origin of the instructions they contain, and it boils down to a random reaction of the perfect kind, and then time passing by? This reaction, what about its origin? Natural elements of earth, air, fire, and water combining in the right way? With the universe containing so much non-living mass, all of these things being a form of energy at the basic level, energy must have evolved itself to create the various compounds and other elements we experience here on Earth, right? Was the beginning of the universe just raw basic energy and matter (which is also energy) that evolved into hydrogen molecules and other things from its basic state? Or did each of these various compounds exist on their own, with no starting point or ending point? Something had to exist all by itself with no need for anything in order for our universe to be created, or is that thought process illogical? But if it is, how to even start to comprehend the beginning of the universe if there was no energy and energy somehow had to come into existence?

I was initially talking about 'purpose' in the context of purpose of existence itself, indicated by 'It is very egotistical to believe that we were created inside of this very large universe for some unknown reason. You then go on to either a) Twist my words or b) Not comprehend them, and talk about purpose as if I was talking about self-given purpose. That's not what I was talking about, and that's just one example of how you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.

A human is a self-determined organism. If you have no sense of self-purpose, what do you have? Someone without any self-purpose is usually very depressed, and does not engage in much social activity, but rather spends their time wallowing in their depression, alone. But I guess this matters not. The only purpose I can surmise for humans as a whole in the universe is to create. That is what we do, create. We bring our minds and abilities together to create new things that we can use for our own purposes.

I'd say it's more of a lack of intolerance for the lack of understanding. I think I've done a pretty decent job of keeping my composure; it's not like I've gotten mad or anything.

Then refrain from insulting another, and clarify yourself. This does happen to be text communication with no variant of tone, and context can be misunderstood. A lack of intolerance for the lack of understanding?

Yes, science can. Meaning, we can look at the evidence we have, look down the evolutionary tree, and predict where it all came from. In fact, all we can do is come up with suitable explanations based on evidence until we invent a time traveling machine. That doesn't mean the theories hold no merit; it just means it's the best available explanation at this point in time without actually having been there. To simply come up with a supernatural explanation is to completely dodge any burden of proof or logical explanation.

What exactly is super-natural? At one point in time, it was ludicrous to entertain the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun, or that blood circulated through the body. It was said impossible to go into space. The mere idea of a flying machine made people all over the world laugh to tears, until it happened. These things were not logical in any way to the people of the time. Logical, rational, and natural are words that continue to evolve what their definition encompasses based on new discoveries. I do not deny that everything you have presented here could in fact be true and correct, but the answer is not concrete yet. Science has not advanced enough to answer it completely, and any new discovery might just change the game.

...no; as a result of a chemical reaction. Sure, it's just a theory, but it does its job. You've failed to as of yet provide any reason whatsoever to believe in a supernatural explanation for our existence. Simply gawking at the complexity of life doesn't give any real reason for believing in the existence a creator. We already know that the complexity of life was established through evolution and genetic mutation.

That's because I have not expressed a belief, only asked the questions necessary to gain insight from yours. I cannot force my beliefs upon you, so I will not attempt to do so. In response to the bold, if so, why is the basic question of this knowledge still, "how did it originate"? On top of this, if a discovery is made that changes the theory in many ways, how long until the resulting new theory is accepted within the scientific community? How long will that new discovery be ludicrous?

"...for an empiricist, 'progress' will mean transition to a theory that provides direct empirical tests for most of it's basic assumptions" -Paul Feyerabend (Against method - Google Bøker)

That's the Achilles' heel of the scientific method.

If you want some sound 'anti-science' arguments (from page 459): My big TOE: awakening, discovery ... - Google Bøker

And Brian Withworth's paper on reality as non-physical Virtual Reality is not easy to dismiss: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Am I the only one who doesn't see any conflict between science and consciousness? Science is the how, and consciousness is the media or medium.
Very interesting debate. To me, for a so called 'rational' person to use the word 'random' as an explanation always seemed like a cop-out. Random just means "we have no understanding of the order by which this thing operates'. Also, things look random when it isn't you having the intention. When people who believe that humans have souls and believe that animals do not have souls, they often use the word 'freewill'. When a cat is napping and then opens its eyes and stretches and yawns, the whole thing looks random. It looks random for a leaf to fall out of a tree. If we understand how it happens then we say that it is not random, that a leaf produces a chemical when it gets less sunlight that cuts off the sap supply and the leaf falls from the tree. Or a cat awakes when it cells have and hormones and brain patterns and seratonin etc. have all whatever. We can explain how things work or not, but we don't know why or by what medium. By explaining how something happened, we have not explained anything except how it happened. Not why.

We can say that DNA evolves, that life evolves, but isn't everything in a constant state of change? Hasn't energy evolved into matter? Matter evolved into life? Life evolved into self-awareness? Self awareness is awareness of consciousness. It seems that everything evolves, even what we consider 'non-living' and it has all been evolving to support life or become life. This doesn't mean that there is a God, it just means that this is how it works. This is the purpose of the Universe, to evolve self-awareness.

Just as some people deny the consciousness of animals, many people deny the consciousness of plants, many more deny the consciousness of minerals, and most people deny the consciousness of atoms and energy. But couldn't that be because the consciousness is so much more difficult to recognize or understand? And consciousness is different than self-awareness. It could be that a plant is conscious but not self-aware. It could be that a frog has some self-awareness and that an average human has about a ten percent more self-awareness than a chimp. But no matter how much self-awareness we all have or how little, we all could have the same measure of consciousness, as if we could measure such a thing.

The reason that people see no evidence of a non-material mind is because they are looking in material for evidence. They are looking in the wrong place. To say that there was consciousness prior to life is unlikely because people don't interact with this consciousness is untrue. There is consciousness everywhere, including in you. You are constantly interacting with it for as long as you can remember. You are conscious, well only if you ask yourself if you are conscious. It is kind of like a reality check in lucid dreaming. Ask yourself if you are conscious right now. Yes you are. But it is like the refrigerator light that is on when you open the door. But is it on when you close the door? I say that yes, you are conscious all the time. But you are only self-aware when you ask yourself, when you do a reality check of your consciousness.

Here is a video of a skeptics conference regarding the nature of consciousness. It is very interesting no matter what you believe: Susan Blackmore - The Grand Illusion of Consciousness Video. However, keep in mind the distinction between consciousness and self-awareness.

If consciousness existed before life did, or has always existed, it seems that it evolves into self-awareness. If evolution only occurs in biological processes driven by the desire to survive, why cannot other things evolve like energy or consciousness that don't need to reproduce or survive because they are not biological?

If a radio time traveled back before radio-waves were discovered, a scientist would think that somehow the sound that came out of a radio was a product of all the circuitry and the speakers, etc. And he would be right. But he would be wrong if he said that it was not receiving information from invisible energy that passes through matter just because he doesn't see any evidence of it. He cannot see the evidence because 1: he doesn't believe in radio waves, so 2: He doesn't look for radio waves, so 3: He doesn't find any evidence of radio waves. 4: He also has no way of looking for radio waves besides using the radio itself. He would be wrong if he said that somehow the circuitry and speakers randomly produces the sound of a human being speaking or singing. We now know that he just doesn't understand radios. Really, you need the radio waves AND the radio to listen to a broadcast.The word "random" means "not-understood". It is a convenient word that is illogical. In so-called random events there is evidence of the law of seriality.

What happens when you use the mind to observe the mind? It is similar to what happens when you put the microphone up to the speaker or you point your video camera at the screen that is showing what the camera is recording. Or what happens when you look between two mirrors facing each other if your head wasn't in the way. You get a feedback loop. A feedback loop doesn't occur if you observe the brain, it only occurs if you observe consciousness. This feedback loop of consciousness is what people have called "enlightenment".

Which came first: feathers or flight?

If we only look in material for evidence or explanations we will only see material evidence and explanations. I am not saying that matter is not real, or that there are no material explanations, or that there has to be only 'super-natural' explanations. I don't even believe in super-natural. Everything is natural. Everything is the way it is. Nothing has no reason.

A quote attributed to Jesus:

If flesh came from spirit, it would be a miracle. If spirit came from flesh, it would by a miracle of miracles.

Keep in mind that the words "spirit" and "flesh" are archaic words for "consciousness" and "body" respectively.

As for me, I see no evidence of either explanation, rather I see evidence that matter, energy, consciousness, and self-awareness are all different harmonics of one tone. I see evidence that this Universe is not only a material existence. But I also look for evidence outside of materiality as well as within it.

@dannon

I'd agree that there may not necessarily be a conflict between science and consciousness. But there is obviously a conflict between it's current practice, it's claims, (how they are generally taken as truths) and the different worlds of conscious experiences.

I would only agree that there is a conflict between AL3ZAY and MindGames. This has far surpassed the conflict between science and consciousness.

It seems to me that the all of these debates stem from the assumption that there ever was indeed a begining. If there is no beginning and no end but just different manifestations of all that ever is, was and has been, then all these debates become meaningless. Time is make believe, no?

Originally Posted by BBTriple

Time is make believe, no?

Time is exactly that. So far as conflict, nah.

I don't know if time is make believe. It does exist. But it isn't absolute. It doesn't always exist. What always exists?
I was thinking even more about "random". Who understands "random"? Do scientists even understand what random is? Do they even try to?
No, nobody understands random. That is why it is random.

After careful consideration, MindGames, you just might be ready for the following:

I made several statements about energy and origin to see if it would spark your mind to ask questions. You, unable to be anything other than correct on the subject, did not bother to ponder my constant usage of energy and origin. So I will state the following fact about energy. Energy is the only thing that exists. Every item, no matter what it is that exists in this universe will start at its root the same basic, raw energy that always was and always will be. This energy then compounded upon itself to create new forms of energy. That is because energy itself is alive.

Science is quite devious because the word is associated in most humans' minds with authority on subjects in the most detailed terms possible. Organized information. The search for the reaction that created the self-replicating molecule is futile, because the underlying source of any reaction or molecule that replicates is simply replicating, changing energy. Energy itself evolves, energy itself is conscious. That is how self-aware beings exist, and everything can exist. All the universes and life you could possibly imagine all exist in different configurations of the same basic energy. You are separated from this obvious fact by looking at specific items and saying the rest is random. It is random because it really means, "we do not want you to find this out", or less maliciously, "we don't know how it all works".

In order to find the perfect reaction to explain how the random happening occurred, at first every single element, molecule type and energy type from the most basic on up within earth and our solar system (and beyond actually), would need to be known, in full, and then a computer or similar invention other than a human mind would need to process googleplexes of reactions between every existing type of energy. This is the easiest way of covering up the origin of life, take away the obvious meaning of what energy actually is.

The best way to deter the thought of energy itself being alive, is to throw a name on it that personifies it. God, Allah, etc. are all names that associate the whole of energy itself and the single consciousness that energy is. Energy is interacting with itself in trillions of trillions of complex ways and more. Life experience is simply your interactions with energy as a self-aware matter and non-matter energy being within the whole of energy. I am energy. You are energy. The keyboard you type on is energy, the monitor you view, energy.

The matter that makes up your body? Energy. Your thought processes? Energy. Your dreaming, out of body, astral projection experiences? Energy. Other dimensions? Energy. Your local neighborhoods, stores, other people, the sidewalk, the sky, the wind? Energy. Sunlight? Energy. Moonlight? Energy. Stars? Energy. Your bodily processes? Energy. Other planets? Energy. Gravity? Energy. The inner workings of the planet near the core out to the crust? Energy. Black holes? Energy. Other beings? Energy. Rocks and the ground you walk on? Energy.

All life is connected because everything is alive. You are one cog in an infinite number of cogs and gears, a part of the whole of energy itself. Without you there is no whole, because the entire whole is energy. There is no me, and no you, other than our own self-awareness, which is simply energy. Our consciousness is not tied to our body, because our consciousness is energy and we can move how energy moves when engaging it in dreaming. You can visit any part of the whole of the universe because there is nothing separate from energy. All is energy. There is no need to walk in dreams, and yet we walk like we do while in our matter bodies, because of the energy of gravity and the energy configurations that make up the laws of physics is all we know. Once you abandon what you know and completely engage dreaming, you see how much it would make you happy if only someone believed you, because then they could experience it to. To bend these Earth configurations of energy (laws) to our will requires energy manipulation and skills at a level greater than the influence of the energetic configuration itself. At the moment we recognize it, while dreaming and the rules state only intent is necessary, we only zip around in flight like we should. There is much more to dreaming than you could possibly imagine at this point in time, but you can prove it to yourself with the right amount of discipline. You must practice, you must be disciplined.

The reason why placebo is possible is because everything is energy. Thoughts are energy, the cells are energy, they work in a synergy as does every other form of energy in your body. Adrenaline, among others, all energy forms. Your perception and the center that interprets the energy you perceive, energy. Energy created your perception so energy can also be perceived directly.

Evolution, the self-replicating cell, material items, natural selection, all of these names and terms are meaningless. Time is meaningless. There is no destination. You are energy and energy will never cease to exist because energy is all that exists. You are right that it is egotistical to think we were put into the universe for an unknown reason, and that is because we are not all that exists that is self-aware in the universe, which is an assumption you subtly made. The universe and everything in it, is self aware because all of it, is energy. The origin of life, is energy. The destination of all that exists, is energy and its infinite manifestations and possibilities.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

There is no reasonable explanation. There is only the explanation, which no one currently has with proof to accompany it. I could assert that a conscious intelligence crafted from its own imagination everything that exists in the universe, but what good would that do? It would be the exact same concept as life coming from a random reaction of the perfect kind to create all life. There was nothing, and then there was Earth, and from there, life on it. You would not believe a word I said. Futile effort.

I consider a 'reasonable explanation' to be the best explanation we have based on our current understanding of the universe. For instance, I would consider Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to be a reasonable explanation of how objects interact on a large scale. While we know it isn't an absolute explanation of the workings of the universe, it certainly isn't useless. To simply discard a theory on the grounds that it doesn't explain everything with absolute certainty is absurd. It's simply the best explanation that we can provide, based on the evidence.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure how life began. We can only uncover evidence and formulate theories based on the evidence. We have found that usually the simplest theories hold true, such as when we discovered that the earth actually revolves around the sun as opposed to everything revolving around the earth. This theory took into account the problem of "wandering stars" (planets) which seemed to move across the sky in a peculiar fashion, and thus it made our explanation of the universe more simple. So to go out on a limb and assume that an infinitely more complex intelligence actually crafted the universe or started life is actually faulty reasoning, as we have no evidence for such an intelligence, and because we also understand that intelligence is the result of complex interactions within our brains; it is not the result of some metaphysical phenomenon. So that theory turns out not to be a very reasonable explanation at all.

I understand them, I only ask for their origin. You give me self-replicating cells. I ask for their origin, and the origin of the instructions they contain, and it boils down to a random reaction of the perfect kind, and then time passing by? This reaction, what about its origin?

As I'm only human, I can't provide you with absolute certainty the origin of life. I can only give you a perfectly reasonable explanation, such as self-replicating molecules. Perhaps instead of asking me, you should take a course on the origin of life at your local university. However don't think that creationism is just as good a theory, because there's absolutely no evidence to support that. At least self-replicating molecules have been shown to exist.

When you think about it, a self-replicating molecule doesn't seem that perfect and outlandish. Out of the entire universe, you would think that a self-replicating molecule would be created as a result of a chance chemical reaction on at least one planet. After that, survival of the fittest runs its course and creates ever-more complex life.

Natural elements of earth, air, fire, and water combining in the right way?

Do you actually believe this?

With the universe containing so much non-living mass, all of these things being a form of energy at the basic level, energy must have evolved itself to create the various compounds and other elements we experience here on Earth, right?

Right, the energy from the big bang condensed into hydrogen and helium which then condensed into stars which created the more complex elements we see today as a result of nuclear fusion.

Was the beginning of the universe just raw basic energy and matter (which is also energy) that evolved into hydrogen molecules and other things from its basic state?

Yes, that's the modern scientific consensus. It "evolved" into hydrogen because of gravity.

Or did each of these various compounds exist on their own, with no starting point or ending point?

No.

Something had to exist all by itself with no need for anything in order for our universe to be created, or is that thought process illogical?

The universe wasn't created. You can't create time, since creation requires time. There is a state of nonexistence, and then there is a state of existence. Time passes.

But if it is, how to even start to comprehend the beginning of the universe if there was no energy and energy somehow had to come into existence?

I think that energy has always existed. In any case, just because we don't yet know how the universe began doesn't mean that it was created by a god. That would be jumping to a conclusion. What's wrong with being honest and saying 'I don't yet know'? There is no need for a god, and there is no evidence for a god.

A human is a self-determined organism. If you have no sense of self-purpose, what do you have? Someone without any self-purpose is usually very depressed, and does not engage in much social activity, but rather spends their time wallowing in their depression, alone. But I guess this matters not. The only purpose I can surmise for humans as a whole in the universe is to create. That is what we do, create. We bring our minds and abilities together to create new things that we can use for our own purposes.

True, we do give ourselves purpose. However, that doesn't mean that our existence itself has a purpose. Our existence is only the result of evolution, nothing more. You were not put here for a reason.

What exactly is super-natural? At one point in time, it was ludicrous to entertain the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun, or that blood circulated through the body. It was said impossible to go into space. The mere idea of a flying machine made people all over the world laugh to tears, until it happened. These things were not logical in any way to the people of the time.

Let's use the dictionary definition for supernatural: Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Although those things may have seemed ludicrous at the time, those people had good reason to believe so. Among those things, there might have also been ideas such as the existence of magical unicorns and leprechauns that made people laugh. So as you can see, just because our scientific understanding progresses over time and uncovers new things, that doesn't mean that every supernatural idea holds true. People used to believe that magnets had souls because they attracted and repelled one another. Did that hold true? No. Magnets simply react that way because of their magnetic fields. Just because our knowledge progresses over time does not in any way mean that your supernatural beliefs are true.

Logical, rational, and natural are words that continue to evolve what their definition encompasses based on new discoveries. I do not deny that everything you have presented here could in fact be true and correct, but the answer is not concrete yet. Science has not advanced enough to answer it completely, and any new discovery might just change the game.

And science may never advance enough to answer everything completely. But just because you hope we're going to find evidence for the supernatural does not mean that we ever will. At present, it is irrational to believe in it given the complete lack of evidence.

In response to the bold, if so, why is the basic question of this knowledge still, "how did it originate"?

We have plenty of good theories on how life originated. It's not like there's no explanation for it whatsoever.

On top of this, if a discovery is made that changes the theory in many ways, how long until the resulting new theory is accepted within the scientific community? How long will that new discovery be ludicrous?

I'm still waiting for any such discovery.

MindGames, I am sorry but you seriously took the time to reply to the wrong post? What about the post, directly above yours? I like how you call them my "super-natural beliefs" when you have yet to grasp what natural is. Energy. You think you are slick by reading into implications that are not there, and that was very entertaining, but I was only digging into what you believe by placing an opposite belief in front of you to see just what you knew. The truth of the matter is, everything is energy. Forms upon forms upon forms of the same energy at it's most basic state, compounding and replicating and changing in various ways. This is obvious to me, and has been for a long time. Don't personify the scope and complexity of it all by calling it God or whatever else, and it makes more sense on a rational thinking level. Religion was meant to segregate people based on beliefs. I observe what is around me, and use the information at hand to discover the obvious. You have as well, only the obvious didn't strike you so clearly. Energy is life.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

MindGames, I am sorry but you seriously took the time to reply to the wrong post? What about the post, directly above yours?

Sorry, but I don't have the time to reply to all of your posts. For one, your posts are kind of long, and also I don't like to spend that much time online. The reason why I replied to that one was because I didn't want your reply to go unanswered.


edit: I guess I'll just quote the post I responded to since you like to edit your posts to add text after I reply.

Fair enough.

"human beings have evolved to perceive medium sized things moving at medium speeds over human like periods of time."
-bastardized quote of richard dawkins

i find this debate interesting, but i am not out to read every single one of these huge posts today. i also find it interesting that we have arrived at this place from a newbie post on AP.

i have to agree more strongly with MindGames in the overall sense of scientific skepticism trumping hopeful super natural open mindedness.

THE SUPERNATURAL: super-natural implies among other things various levels of GOD, Angels, Demons etc w personalities, it implies realms and processes WHICH SCIENCE CANNOT UNDERSTAND, IN WHICH SCIENTIFIC LAWS / PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY. One can do their best to say "that's not really what I meant, I'm not a Christian / Muslim etc, I just believe in the super-natural." That's great, it doesn't matter what name you give it, it's still claiming there are things that are above nature. If there are "other dimensions" (and I do believe in the emotional and mental dimensions as non-physical dimensions) and / or Angels and such, if 'God' does communicate with people, if the Universe is 'designed' (which I feel / think / believe it was NOT) then these things are of great interest to Science and are under the Magisteria of science, regardless of whether or not science has the correct theories or technology to explore them. This is a classic question, all of these are, and have been replayed, re-worded and re-explored numerous times throughout history. The above separation of 'natural' and 'supernatural' is called the "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) model of science and religion.

To me, religion and "the supernatural" (for the most part) is historically, socially, politically, and economically motivated delusion.

CREATION / EVOLUTION: The anthropic principle is a very powerful trump card. No matter how unlikely it is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter, it is much more unlikely that some super-being created us. If so, using logic, how unlikely is it that that being itself came to be? Furthermore, no matter how unlikely life on Earth may be, the fact that we are here discussing it means that we are alive and here discussing it, even if no where else in the universe it has happened (and I don't believe this for a minute.)

What's more, the creation of life only had to happen once. One very unlikely event could trigger the entire evolutionary process. These processes operate on time scales that are basically unimaginable to us, we try to use every day common sense where it does not apply. The more i learn about DNA, RNA, bacteria and simple organism reproduction and mutation the more I see that evolution is an extremely graceful and viable Scientific theory.

A THEORY IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS: "theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard."

OBES / AP: AP is a specialized form of lucid dreaming (particularly WILDING) stemming from body awareness. Often when I WILD I 'separate' from my body and end up in my bedroom. It feels like an OBE, it looks like an OBE, but I believe it is foolish to think that one can project their consciousness and thoughts into the physical world apart from their body. The brain is required for you to "think therefore I am." You do have a soul. It is comprised of your genetics, the memory of your experiences, your thoughts, and your emotions. These are a complex dance created by various systems in the body and intersecting at a single point called awareness. Once your brain is offline, you are gone, gone, gone, except as existing in the memories (mental dimensions / thought / emotional forms) of other beings or physical mementos such as photos.

ONE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE AS AN OBJECTIVELY RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. You are filled w/ assumptions, hallucinations, imaginings, and perceptions. Your perceptions and experiences of the world around you ARE NEVER AND CAN NEVER BE absolutely reliable. They are your brain's interpretation / filtering of the incoming (and internal) data. Observe and ponder but don't delude yourself if you claim to want the truth.

ENERGY: the macroscopic difference between molecules is significant enough to render understanding of mass as energy as a moot point IN EVERYDAY LIFE. sure that rock contains "energy" but you cannot eat it and hope to absorb that energy. sure there are "spiritual" underpinnings to all of life consisting of energy, but on the macro level the sun is not a chair and i cant drive a plank of wood to work everyday. you can have energy without life (say, fire) but you cannot have life without energy (say, a fluffy white kitten.)

I recommend reading as many books on OBE's / AP / LDing as possible as well as books on cosmology, evolution, design theories, and the histories of religions. No matter what your argument, someone has probably made it before much more elegantly than you, and someone else has responded much better than me.

good discussion!