So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[Onyx]

As for your quote on God's immateriality, Ray, here goes.

God + spirit-matter + atoms = does not add up.

However if : God + chemicals + atoms + a skeleton or any other conceivable structure for existence within this particular universe + whatever size as long as it does not violate the laws of this particular universe + The highest limit of memorization and intelligence allowable in this universe + the limits of superpowers + part of all nature = it just might add up or it adds up.

 

Dude, all you've done here is describe Superman from the planet Kryton.

 

Faster than a speeding bullet

More powerful than a locomotive

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound

"LOOK! Up in the sky - it's a bird.. its a plane"

 

IT'S SUPERMAN!!

 

dut da Da; dadadada; dut da Da dadadada...

 

A great guy - no doubt - always fighting for truth, justice, and the American way - but hardly the God of the universe worthy of worship, adoration, devotion, love, and joyful service.

 

In a way, God is an ancient version of the superhero. He can divide seas, saves people from lifetimes of misery, dispenses wisdom (superheroes do dispense wisdoms!!*) yet he also is a super villain too if we read the entire Bible according to our modern ethical standards. Almost all comic book writers would kill to create a character as complex as this! He is both good and evil according to the Bible itself ("I create both good and evil" he proudly claims in one verse) so you can't claim to have him as a model of excellent ethical behaviour.

 

Almost all gods/goddesses I read of are superpowered human beings or anthromorphised natural forces and God of the Bible/Torah/Quran is no exception.

I think God either is a super(duper) powered person or an anthromorphised version of Nature (as a He of course, although there is a 'rumour' of a feminine side called Sophia... but somehow that got swept away in the flotsam of history.)

 

Personally, I have a hunch that we shall NEVER find God even if we tried our damnedest, God to me, is an unprovable or a dangerously imaginary thing

 

I agree that we shall never find God thru reason alone - because God is beyond reason (though not against reason). GOd has stated that He will be found only by those who are humble and contrite in heart. So we can look at the data available and ask, "How did this all get here?" and then think through what would be the most plausible explanation.

 

Is it more plausible that all this diversity, intracacy, complexity, etc simply come about by accident - from some unknown perturbation of the equilibrium in the original infinitely dense particle which then resulted in the Big Bang. ANd then the current physical laws take over to generate the amazing and awe-inspiring universe we see? And then on Planet Earth, after physical interactions somehow 'create' life, then evolution takes over - and through a myriad of accidental mutations and supposed niche' selections - WHOA! we get where we are today.

 

Or it it more plausible that an all-wise and all-powerful God designed and created all this complexity, diversity, etc? And that He continues to direct its history.

 

Either in reason or in faith, I feel, we shall never find Him because of Mriana raising the issue of neurology and psychology (a lot more sciences help to make belief in God and Creation less credible) - besides, I haven't seen a whiff of His arse, as Moses did in the Old Testament. And we'd be wasting our time if we tried to find the existence of god scientifically.

 

Anyway, even if evolution is actually inadequate in the end, it's lot more credible than Creationism or Intelligent Design because the evidence so far points it that way and a lot more work would need to be done before either of us find the truth.

[NotBlinded]

BTW, your statement that "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun", is silly. Supremely silly. Earth is a living, breathing, dynamic system that supports organic life. If it were a "lifeless piece of matter" it would be a dead planet.

 

Do you view this planet as dead? Seriously? From where do we gain our sustenance then? Manna dropped from from heaven upon lifeless sand of a desert planet? Or does it grow up from living earth?

 

Again, with your pessimistic view of the world. How can you claim to believe in God if you deny the living its vital essence?

 

Please read my statement again >> "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter APART FROM THE SUN."

 

I believe the Earth to be a magnificant creation of fascinating interactive systems, cycles, societies, etc - which reflects to a degree the glory of its Creator.

 

BUT, from a scientific standpoint >> if the Earth were not constantly bathed by the sun's rays, it would be a lifeless piece of matter. Thus, the reason why I state that sun-worship would be preferable over Gaia goddess worship - because sun worship acknowledges truth - that the sun is the source of life on Earth (mechanistically speaking, of course).

I can nowhere near do the justice in addressing this as Antlerman did, but I just wanted to comment that you are seeing earth mechanistically and as a lifeless piece of matter with or without the sun. You just believe that there is someOne that is winding it up. What Antlerman, Mirana and myself are saying is that the earth is alive by itself. It doesn't need a key out the back of it in order to be wound. Is matter lifeless? What is matter but a bunch of atoms moving at different speeds?

 

To step into the Jewish belief a little, even back in the OT or Tanakh, I believe that it said God breathed life into clay and made it alive. That breath is called "Ruach" and it is the divine in us. So, the clay is alive with the breath of God. I'm not so sure that a separation between what came of the clay and what was left of the clay was meant to be divided. Did God just give this breath to a certain amount of clay or to all of it? The clay must have the potential to come alive. What I am saying is that that can be understood as matter being alive. It has the potential to become and it has done so. I think the mechanistic view is in error myself. The earth may seem to be a lifeless piece of matter without the sun, but it has the potential to come alive.

[rayskidude]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

It would have the potential to be a living thing. As Antlerman stated here:

 

OK. I would agree with this. At the same token, the sun would be nothing without the clouds of gasses responsible for its formation. Or the forces of gravity as well. Or the particles of energy sewn throughout the universe.

 

Just as the acorn has the potential to be an oak tree if all the conditions of its growth are there, the earth (or any seemingly dead rock) has the potential to grow people if those conditions are there also. You can remove the conditions of life for the acorn to sprout, but the potential is still there in the seed (unless you destroy the seed then it has the potential to become something else ). We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

[Antlerman]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

Because it would have energy from the core - friction. There is life down deep in the earth where sunlight has never hit. Of course there we are referring to biological life. As far as 'living' versus 'dead' when it comes to matter, there really isn't anything truly dead. All matter is comprised of atoms, particles, quarks, strings, etc.

 

So in that sense, if a planet found its way into the middle of the middle of open space between galaxies, it would still be living in a sense, just as the whole universe is living. It may be inert, but certainly not lacking potential. I would see it as saying that there is no such thing as complete disorder in the universe too. It's all degrees of more order to less order, but no true chaos, nor no true order. Nothing is totally dead.

 

Again, this is understanding the meaning of the word life to mean more than just biological organism. Where Gaia is concerned, it speaks of the planet as a living system. Just because it doesn't move about with a brain, it functions as a system. I don't believe a planet must have the sun to have some system that could support organic life, just energy of some source. I guess you could say its all alive, just different forms of life.

[agnosticator]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

 

No sun doesn't mean there is no life:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i26/8326notw3.html

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/life-without-the-sun/

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

Because it would have energy from the core - friction. There is life down deep in the earth where sunlight has never hit. Of course there we are referring to biological life. As far as 'living' versus 'dead' when it comes to matter, there really isn't anything truly dead. All matter is comprised of atoms, particles, quarks, strings, etc.

 

So in that sense, if a planet found its way into the middle of the middle of open space between galaxies, it would still be living in a sense, just as the whole universe is living. It may be inert, but certainly not lacking potential. I would see it as saying that there is no such thing as complete disorder in the universe too. It's all degrees of more order to less order, but no true chaos, nor no true order. Nothing is totally dead.

 

Again, this is understanding the meaning of the word life to mean more than just biological organism. Where Gaia is concerned, it speaks of the planet as a living system. Just because it doesn't move about with a brain, it functions as a system. I don't believe a planet must have the sun to have some system that could support organic life, just energy of some source. I guess you could say its all alive, just different forms of life.

Man! Where have you been this last year and a half or so??

 

Order, it appears, depends on this fluctuation of chaos and order. We're all in flux!

[Antlerman]

We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

Which is why I say that the universe is potential, and the resulting forms are not predestined in their specifics, but that forms emerge is the underlying 'intelligence' of the system of the universe. In a sense we were meant to be, as an expression of this system, but not with us directly in mind in our forms that emerged. Once a form takes shape, then the system has it built in to do self-replication. That much is intended, if you will.

 

How the system works is in a sense 'intentional'. But was the whole thing put into motion by a designer? Were the mechanisms, the internal systems 'created by design'? If so, then it utilizes imperfection to achieve all this. There is no way any "Eden", a universe that existed complete and whole without these systems of emergence and collapse at work in it, would resemble anything like this system. It would literally be a different universe, a different system.

 

If the fall created this, then the story of Creation should begin after the fall, not before it. This system is designed as is to work. It's not broken. This is its perfection. It works. Life emerges from this system. This is it's design. How clear is that? If the fall brought this system, then the fall created the nursery for life itself! Adam and Eve's "sin" created the foundation for the living Universe.

[NotBlinded]

We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

Which is why I say that the universe is potential, and the resulting forms are not predestined in their specifics, but that forms emerge is the underlying 'intelligence' of the system of the universe. In a sense we were meant to be, as an expression of this system, but not with us directly in mind in our forms that emerged. Once a form takes shape, then the system has it built in to do self-replication. That much is intended, if you will.

 

How the system works is in a sense 'intentional'. But was the whole thing put into motion by a designer? Were the mechanisms, the internal systems 'created by design'? If so, then it utilizes imperfection to achieve all this. There is no way any "Eden", a universe that existed complete and whole without these systems of emergence and collapse at work in it, would resemble anything like this system. It would literally be a different universe, a different system.

 

If the fall created this, then the story of Creation should begin after the fall, not before it. This system is designed as is to work. It's not broken. This is its perfection. It works. Life emerges from this system. This is it's design. How clear is that? If the fall brought this system, then the fall created the nursery for life itself! Adam and Eve's "sin" created the foundation for the living Universe.

Yes!

 

It's the harmony of perfection/imperfection that is a must. One cannot exist without the other...Yin/Yang. That is why the perfection promoted by adherents to a literal heaven is absurd. Underneath it all, the battle was agreed upon.

[Ouroboros]

Chronos, the balance of Chaos and Cosmos.

[NotBlinded]

Chronos, the balance of Chaos and Cosmos.

As in the software developers or the Greek God. I don't know which to google!

[Mriana]

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

 

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

 

Well, within the last several hours, while I was at work, I think everyone just explained it to you. Not to sound like an obnoxious Xian, but how you can you not see it [the earth] is alive? There is a multitude of life within and on the earth and we are just parasites living off the earth and in the end, we are just "recycled" right back into the earth to create new life- probably plant life.

[rayskidude]

Just as the acorn has the potential to be an oak tree if all the conditions of its growth are there, the earth (or any seemingly dead rock) has the potential to grow people if those conditions are there also. You can remove the conditions of life for the acorn to sprout, but the potential is still there in the seed (unless you destroy the seed then it has the potential to become something else ). We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

 

By what leap of logic can you even begin to equate the potential for life in 'dead rock' to that of an acorn - which is a seed containing a plethora of biochemicals that are arranged in a very precise manner that is designed to await the the arrival of conditions conducive to growth? You can place a rock in any environment you want - and you'll NEVER generate life.

 

If I'm wrong - please tell me the conditions under which a rock will spring forth into life. I'm very curious about the rational, logical, scientific thought process that can devise such condition - and how these conditiond would also arise. Teach me - PLEASE!!

 

Seriously, this conversation reminds me of the 'rap sessions' we had when I was a freshman in college and we were all toked up on the joints we'd been passing around. All just vacuous speculation based on nothing more than hopeful, but specious, 'good & positive thoughts.' Where's the science?

 

Don't you know that these issues have led such prominent scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle to embrace panspermia? Even Dawkins has said he could believe in panspermia - which is no more than a dodge, putting the miracle of life off to somewhere else without ever having the courage to face the question of origins!! It's just so pathetic.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='07 August 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1249668032' post='474062']

Would someone explain to me - in the absence of the sun, how would the Earth be a "living" thing?

 

No sun doesn't mean there is no life:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i26/8326notw3.html

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/life-without-the-sun/

 

Please note the caveats re: the photosynthetic bacteria. Re: the bacteris 2.8 km below - are you saying that they came about by spontaneous generation apart from the sun? And that they developed all the DNA and concomitant enzymic systems and protection from viruses in isolation from the reat of the planet? Where are these viruses that they protect themselves against?

 

And do you believe that the 2 gases mentioned - carbon dioxide and di-atomic nitrogen, must CERTAINLY exist in any rocky celestial body? Where would these gasses come from, and what would kep them from escaping through the pores in the rock? And isn't gaseous nitrogen a fairly inert molecule? What conditions would need to exist to cause gaseous nitrogen to react to from DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc?

[rayskidude]

Because it would have energy from the core - friction. There is life down deep in the earth where sunlight has never hit. Of course there we are referring to biological life. As far as 'living' versus 'dead' when it comes to matter, there really isn't anything truly dead. All matter is comprised of atoms, particles, quarks, strings, etc.

 

So in that sense, if a planet found its way into the middle of the middle of open space between galaxies, it would still be living in a sense, just as the whole universe is living. It may be inert, but certainly not lacking potential. I would see it as saying that there is no such thing as complete disorder in the universe too. It's all degrees of more order to less order, but no true chaos, nor no true order. Nothing is totally dead.

 

Again, this is understanding the meaning of the word life to mean more than just biological organism. Where Gaia is concerned, it speaks of the planet as a living system. Just because it doesn't move about with a brain, it functions as a system. I don't believe a planet must have the sun to have some system that could support organic life, just energy of some source. I guess you could say its all alive, just different forms of life.

 

SO are you equating life with 'potential'? Are you equating life with motion - the frequency oscillations that various sub-atomic and atomic particles exhibit? Haven't you reduced the definition to 'life' to an absurd degree? And are there differences in the value or quality for different kinds of life?

 

I also believe there is no such thing as complete disorder in this universe - by design. And various inert portions do have potential and can be processed in a way that generates life - but this can be accomplished only by an all-powerful & wise Being. There is nothing within inert materials which can generate any form of life (unless we've so degraded the definition of 'life' to include mere motion or potential). Let's get practical >> how does the fact of life = potential intersect with abortion?

 

Do we know that any other planets have a similar construction as Planet Earth? With a hot liquid core which circualtes, thus genarting a magnetic field to protect the surface from cosmic bombardments? With the temperature range that is conducive to carbon-based life? Or are we (just by luck) inhabiting the only place where life as we know it can exist?

 

Does our existence on Earth naturally lead to the conclusion that bioloical life could or must exist somewhere else? What other element could be the basic element of life? How would that work?

 

Are we just placating ourselves with speculation dressed up as certainty?

[bdp]

this can be accomplished only by an all-powerful & wise Being.

 

...you're an IDIOT, aren't you?

[rayskidude]

Which is why I say that the universe is potential, and the resulting forms are not predestined in their specifics, but that forms emerge is the underlying 'intelligence' of the system of the universe. In a sense we were meant to be, as an expression of this system, but not with us directly in mind in our forms that emerged. Once a form takes shape, then the system has it built in to do self-replication. That much is intended, if you will. How the system works is in a sense 'intentional'. But was the whole thing put into motion by a designer?

 

Do you not see all the obvious inconsistencies here? You use all the language of design and Designer - yet cannot bring yourslef to admit the obvious; this amazing universe of so much complexity, intracay, inter-connectedness, etc are teh product of a creative, wise Creator. You can see that easily in all we observe - and yet you want to dance around to explain away the obvious.

 

We see intelligence, intention, meant to be, self-replication because they're all part of the design of the universe - not a serendipitous occurence.

 

Were the mechanisms, the internal systems 'created by design'? If so, then it utilizes imperfection to achieve all this. There is no way any "Eden", a universe that existed complete and whole without these systems of emergence and collapse at work in it, would resemble anything like this system. It would literally be a different universe, a different system.

 

No - these mechanisms were designed to function in the presence of imperfections. There are many mechanisms which 'correct' mistakes. Yes - the world of Eden must have been different in very significant ways - significantly better ways. And we'll once again experience that way of life when God has accomplished all His will with this current imperfect system.

 

If the fall created this, then the story of Creation should begin after the fall, not before it. This system is designed as is to work. It's not broken. This is its perfection. It works. Life emerges from this system. This is it's design. How clear is that? If the fall brought this system, then the fall created the nursery for life itself! Adam and Eve's "sin" created the foundation for the living Universe.

 

The Fall created nothing - it ruined the original Creation. But the world was not destroyed, not rendered lifeless or unable to sustain life. God designed that this current world - even with its rampant sin, evil, wickedness, selfishness, etc - was under His sovereign control such that He can easily accomplish His purposes. The Fall ruined an eternal life in the presence of God Himself - lived in a perfect environment, with meaningful projects to apply ourselves to - all for our good and God's glory. And now, we can see vestiges of that previous Creation - and we long for its return.

 

But as we wait for that Day, we live in ways that demonstrate our love for God and others.

[NotBlinded]

Just as the acorn has the potential to be an oak tree if all the conditions of its growth are there, the earth (or any seemingly dead rock) has the potential to grow people if those conditions are there also. You can remove the conditions of life for the acorn to sprout, but the potential is still there in the seed (unless you destroy the seed then it has the potential to become something else ). We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

 

By what leap of logic can you even begin to equate the potential for life in 'dead rock' to that of an acorn - which is a seed containing a plethora of biochemicals that are arranged in a very precise manner that is designed to await the the arrival of conditions conducive to growth? You can place a rock in any environment you want - and you'll NEVER generate life.

 

If I'm wrong - please tell me the conditions under which a rock will spring forth into life. I'm very curious about the rational, logical, scientific thought process that can devise such condition - and how these conditiond would also arise. Teach me - PLEASE!!

 

What? The earth isn't a rock? It isn't in an environment that grew life?

 

This is exactly what I said, "Just as the acorn has the potential to be an oak tree if all the conditions of its growth are there, the earth (or any seemingly dead rock) has the potential to grow people if those conditions are there also."

 

You don't think it is possible that I could take a tiny little rock that has all the elements of the earth and put it into a simulated universe type scenerio, you know a little- bitty sun and water and ALL THOSE CONDITIONS that I mentioned and have it not grow life a few billion years later? The biochemicals were present on the earth even before they were present in the acorn. Do you find anything not of the earth that are in bodies? There is no way "I" could do this because I can't simulate these conditions because of the enormity of the task.

 

After that snarky reply about the tiny little rock, what I was talking about was the earth being a seemingly dead rock. Not taking any pebble off the street and growing life. Good god...I'm talking about potential here and you take a metaphor literally. Wait, why does that suprise me? The earth is a metaphoric acorn.

 

Seriously, this conversation reminds me of the 'rap sessions' we had when I was a freshman in college and we were all toked up on the joints we'd been passing around. All just vacuous speculation based on nothing more than hopeful, but specious, 'good & positive thoughts.' Where's the science?

 

Don't you know that these issues have led such prominent scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle to embrace panspermia? Even Dawkins has said he could believe in panspermia - which is no more than a dodge, putting the miracle of life off to somewhere else without ever having the courage to face the question of origins!! It's just so pathetic.

 

Please don't assume I'm ignorant because of your own ignorance of what I just said. Panspermia sounds a little like what you do. You put the miracle of life off to somewhere else instead of the earth itself, like from the heavens above. Something not natural. Where's the science? That really is pathetic. At least the panspermians have life coming from the universe or some natural means. Although I do agree that it doesn't address the origins question.

[NotBlinded]

Which is why I say that the universe is potential, and the resulting forms are not predestined in their specifics, but that forms emerge is the underlying 'intelligence' of the system of the universe. In a sense we were meant to be, as an expression of this system, but not with us directly in mind in our forms that emerged. Once a form takes shape, then the system has it built in to do self-replication. That much is intended, if you will. How the system works is in a sense 'intentional'. But was the whole thing put into motion by a designer?

 

Do you not see all the obvious inconsistencies here? You use all the language of design and Designer - yet cannot bring yourslef to admit the obvious; this amazing universe of so much complexity, intracay, inter-connectedness, etc are teh product of a creative, wise Creator. You can see that easily in all we observe - and yet you want to dance around to explain away the obvious.

Oh please, our language reflects how we view reality ray. If there was a language to use that you would understand, like maybe ancient Chinese or Native American, that uses verbs without nouns he could express it better. Don't let our inventions shape the way you look at reality. Reality doesn't care how you talk about it. You think language invented reality?

 

It's just like saying, "It is raining." Who or what is this "it" that is raining?

[NotBlinded]

Maybe this will help:

 

1. Coda : The myth of ‘perfect’ language

 

It is an old myth of mankind that there can be developed or uncovered a type of language that is

‘perfect’ in the sense of completely fitting (being attuned to) to the nature of thought as well as to

the nature of reality mirroring both of them in a sort of perfect coincidence (perfect symmetry). If

one reads the monograph of Umberto Eco (1995) In Search of the Perfect Language one cannot

but be stricken by the permanent re-appearance of this idea in different garbs throughout the last

20 centuries of European history. This idea appears also to have a history of its own in each of

the other main civilizations in the world.

 

Thus, Eco points out that the ‘speculative grammar’ of the Modistae asserted a relation of

specular correspondence between language, thought and the nature of things. For them, it was a

given that the modi intelligendi and, consequently the modi significandi reflected the modi

essendi of things themselves (cf. Eco 1995: 44). The Modistae were, by all means not the only

ones to come with ideas along these lines. For Agrippa von Nettesheim (De occulta philosophia,

I, 74), the Hebrew writing must be considered as particularly sacred; it exhibits perfect

correspondence between letters, things and numbers (cf. Eco 1995: 120). One can continue along

these lines in tracing different aspects of the belief of the perfect language that corresponded to the original one given to Adam by the God, and with which Adam gave the ‘true’ names to the

things in the world, the names that correspond to their essences.

 

We are, however, children of a different world, from this point of view (among others).

We do not believe in such superstitions. We know that language is conventional means for

communication and nobody can expect to find in it high degree of correspondence to reality

outside some quite restricted limits. Just to the opposite. We became accustomed to believe to

the claims of many physicists and philosophers alike that language is rather a hindrance on the

way to ‘proper’ representation of the physical reality, the true reality, the only reality, the final

reality. It is a matter of common sense nowadays both in theoretical physics as well as in the

cognitive sciences to maintain, for example, that the mental space does not actually correspond to

a physical space. “It merely represents the information of a physical space.” Thus we have an

essence that the two still share, the so called “information”; everything else is not necessarily the

same. And we have a residual problem – how to define ‘information’.

 

Vestiges of the myth of perfect and universal language, however, still remain in different

garbs in the modern philosophies up to the XX century (here I will follow again the overview of

Eco 1995). Thus Ludwig Wittgenstein had the ambition to create a language whose signs were

univocal and whose propositions mirrored the logical structure of reality itself (Tractatus logicophilosophicus,

1921-2, 3.325ff. and 4.121). Rudolf Carnap proposed constructing a logical

system of objects and concepts such that all concepts might be derived from a single nucleus of

prime ideas via formal rules (Der logische Aufbau der Welt, 1922-5). Russell & Whitehead in

their Principia mathematica developed a formal language, i.e., a language only with syntax, and

pointed out that it could become a ‘perfect language’ with an addition of a vocabulary. Eco

comments in his brief review of these new reminiscences of old ideas, that above mentioned

philosophers all hoped to construct a scientific language, perfect within its chosen range of

competence, a language that would be universal as well (cf. Eco 1995: 313). These philosophers

and logicians did not claim that such a language would replace the natural language in its

common use. Still, their attempt was based on the belief that the natural language is deficient in

different ways in representing reality, as it ‘really is’, while such a

structure of reality” is possible in making revisions in its structure (to certain extent and in certain

directions, fighting, first of all, such features of natural language like vagueness, polysemy, and

ambiguity and thus clarifying the reference potential of its expressions).

 

2. The rheomode of language – the basic idea

In his most popular book the theoretical physicist David Bohm (1980) proposed inter alia an

experiment with language, and this experiment is strikingly different from those carried in

linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, communication studies, cognitive psychology &

cognitive science, philosophy, logic, etc. He proposes “to experiment with changes in the

structure of the common language” (Bohm 1980: 27).

 

From linguistic, psychological and philosophical point of view, the proposal of Bohm for

an ‘alternative’ language is an unprecedented one along the following lines. Nobody before him

claimed that in order to comprehend how language contributes to the way thought is constituted

it is not enough to follow it; it is necessary actively to interfere with its function in order to

discern clearly ‘same’ and ‘different’ in its structures. The practice with no alternative in

linguistics is to study language in manipulating the acceptability and grammaticality of its units

with different sorts of permutations deletions and additions in their structure. To this status quo

Bohm offers the following Ausweg:

 

[...] one of the best ways of learning how one is conditioned by habit (such as the

common usage of language is, to a large extent) is to give careful and sustained

attention to one’s overall reaction when one ‘makes the test’ of seeing what takes

place when one is doing something significantly different from the automatic and

accustomed function. (Bohm 1980: 28)

 

Bohm starts his argument with the point that subject-verb-object sentence structure is

common to the syntax of modern languages and this structure powerfully builds in us the implicit

and ever present presupposition that action arises in separate entity and this action, in the case it

is described by a transitive verb, crosses over the space between them (the subject and object) to

another separate entity, the object (Bohm 1980: 29). In some ancient languages like Hebrew,

however, the verb was given primary, i.e., basic, importance in the grammatical structure of

language itself, i.e., not in its description only, as the roots of almost all words in Hebrew were

certain verbal forms, while adverbs, adjectives, and nouns were obtained by modifying the verbal

form with prefixes, suffixes, etc. In other words, the ‘inner form’ of these words was directly and

explicitly pointing to some action, event, or ‘movement’ as the ‘pedestal’ (cf. Harweg 1992, for

one of the possible uses of this metaphor in linguistics) of the sense of the word in question.

 

The aim of the new mode of language, the rheomode (from rheo, a Greek verb, meaning

“to flow”) is to develop such structures of language “in which movement is to be taken as

primary in our thinking and in which this notion will be incorporated into the language structure

by allowing the verb rather than the noun to play a primary role” (Bohm 1980: 30). The aim is,

ergo, to create a mode of language with a new structure that is not prone toward fragmentation

as is the case with our native ones.

Emphasis is mine.

 

The Rheomode of Language of David Bohm

[Mriana]

Just as the acorn has the potential to be an oak tree if all the conditions of its growth are there, the earth (or any seemingly dead rock) has the potential to grow people if those conditions are there also. You can remove the conditions of life for the acorn to sprout, but the potential is still there in the seed (unless you destroy the seed then it has the potential to become something else ). We were potential from the very begining. It's not necessary to have an outside "instigator" if the instigator is innate. Trees don't grow because they are pushed, they grow because the "knowledge" is in the seed.

 

By what leap of logic can you even begin to equate the potential for life in 'dead rock' to that of an acorn - which is a seed containing a plethora of biochemicals that are arranged in a very precise manner that is designed to await the the arrival of conditions conducive to growth? You can place a rock in any environment you want - and you'll NEVER generate life.

 

If I'm wrong - please tell me the conditions under which a rock will spring forth into life. I'm very curious about the rational, logical, scientific thought process that can devise such condition - and how these conditiond would also arise. Teach me - PLEASE!!

 

Seriously, this conversation reminds me of the 'rap sessions' we had when I was a freshman in college and we were all toked up on the joints we'd been passing around. All just vacuous speculation based on nothing more than hopeful, but specious, 'good & positive thoughts.' Where's the science?

 

Don't you know that these issues have led such prominent scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle to embrace panspermia? Even Dawkins has said he could believe in panspermia - which is no more than a dodge, putting the miracle of life off to somewhere else without ever having the courage to face the question of origins!! It's just so pathetic.

 

 

The majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (AKA miscarriage). The majority of these happen within the first trimester, sometime before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Thus, the cells that turn into a blastocyst, only have the potential to become a human being capable of living independently from its host. My Ob-Gyn called it a leech and I hate to say it, but before the unborn can live on their own, they live as parasites and even then there is no guarantee that they will survive during the 9 months gestation. Some die en vitro.

[agnosticator]

Please note the caveats re: the photosynthetic bacteria. Re: the bacteris 2.8 km below - are you saying that they came about by spontaneous generation apart from the sun?

 

Yes. The article says they came about using "energy of naturally occurring radioactivity.." rather than the sun.

 

 

And that they developed all the DNA and concomitant enzymic systems and protection from viruses in isolation from the reat of the planet? Where are these viruses that they protect themselves against?

 

 

Here's what the article says:

 

"Confirming earlier inferences, the new work shows that D. audaxviator’s metabolic processes are decoupled from the Sun and the photosynthetic biosphere. This ecosystem uses the energy of naturally occurring radioactivity to split water into hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen peroxide reacts with naturally occurring sulfide in the rocks to make sulfate. The microbes then reduce the sulfate back to sulfide using electrons provided by the hydrogen left over from the splitting of water. This is the only ecosystem known to exist on an energy source other than light or chemical energy derived from the planet itself.

 

Genomic analyses have revealed that the organism’s genes code for everything needed to sustain an independent existence and reproduce, including the ability to fix its own nitrogen, move freely, sense its environment, protect itself from viruses, and even sporulate during nutrient-poor periods. It cannot, however, survive oxic conditions, suggesting it hasn’t been exposed to oxygen for a very long time.

 

Such a community could in principle live in the subsurface of any rocky planet, Mars for example. Radioactivity, sulfide minerals, water, N2 and carbon dioxide—the main things this community needs to survive—are almost certainly common in rocky planets everywhere."

 

 

Your second question could be answered by those scientists, unless you want me to go there and look....

 

 

 

And do you believe that the 2 gases mentioned - carbon dioxide and di-atomic nitrogen, must CERTAINLY exist in any rocky celestial body? Where would these gasses come from, and what would kep them from escaping through the pores in the rock? And isn't gaseous nitrogen a fairly inert molecule? What conditions would need to exist to cause gaseous nitrogen to react to from DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc?

 

Are you saying they are wrong or liars? The bacteria was said to come about in isolation from any sunlight. And that conditions existed down there apart from the sun.

[Deva]

Do we know that any other planets have a similar construction as Planet Earth? With a hot liquid core which circualtes, thus genarting a magnetic field to protect the surface from cosmic bombardments? With the temperature range that is conducive to carbon-based life? Or are we (just by luck) inhabiting the only place where life as we know it can exist?

 

Its a big universe, Ray. How about the planet Gilese 581c?

 

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/070517_seti_planet.html

 

We don't know if there is life there, of course, since its 20 light years away. Exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) are being discovered all the time. I think it is incredibly short sighted to think life has arisen only on this planet given the immensity of the universe, but I admit that so far life is only found here on earth. There is no "luck" involved. Life formed when the proper conditions occurred, whatever they might have been. That is my take on it.

 

In fact, there could even be life on Titan or on Europa in our own solar system.

 

Years ago I did read something on silicone based life. Granted it was speculative. All such discussions are.

[Deva]

The Fall created nothing - it ruined the original Creation. But the world was not destroyed, not rendered lifeless or unable to sustain life. God designed that this current world - even with its rampant sin, evil, wickedness, selfishness, etc - was under His sovereign control such that He can easily accomplish His purposes. The Fall ruined an eternal life in the presence of God Himself - lived in a perfect environment, with meaningful projects to apply ourselves to - all for our good and God's glory. And now, we can see vestiges of that previous Creation - and we long for its return.

 

But as we wait for that Day, we live in ways that demonstrate our love for God and others.

 

There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a thing as a perfect environment. What are these vestiges of the previous creation?

 

Ray, do you ever doubt your salvation in the Day to come or is always anticipation?

[Antlerman]

There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a thing as a perfect environment. What are these vestiges of the previous creation?

OMG, I never thought of that before. Where the hell is the evidence of Eden??? They demand all sorts of evidence from us - which they never accept when we present the mountain ranges worth of it, yet where is there's? Where is the 'on the ground' evidence of a pre-fall world?? It's not there - anywhere.