Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Okay, here in lies our failure to come to a resolution. You have no definition of life. When there is no finite point at which you say that one thing is alive, and this other thing is not. Based on this, my coffee table could be alive. There will be no agreement in this discussion, because when there is no agreement on the definition of the pivitol term in a discussion, there will be no meaningful resolution.

It was enjoyable. I'm glad you got the opportunity to discuss this with me.

Originally Posted by jockeys

??? alright, I'll bite. how is a prion more complex than a human?

I was more talking about being a prion is more complex, not the actual mechanism of the machine that the soul lives in. Like for instance they have to do far more for far less of a result. To gain the same results in terms of actions they would have to complete far more work than a human. Note that I am talking comparativly as one prion would never attain the ratio of work to result in lifetime than a human could create in milliseconds.
The same way a poor persons round the world journey would take far more effort(read complexity) for the same result as an effortless journey of a rich person who owns all the latest forms of transportation.

So im not really saying the mechanisms of prions or single celled little things are mechanically more complex, but life as one of them would be more complex.

I cant really speak about the prions mechanisms, aint even sure if a prion is alive, could be some other explaination for them, but it still counts for the single celled organisms which are definitly alive(read houses soul).
The mechanisms could be at a level of complexity of an entire city, and we cant see that small to regocnise whats going on.
Have to keep an open mind, we should afford each other that in these conversations its highly unlikely we would find a person in here with full perfect knowledge.

Best Regards,
Greg

Originally Posted by GregJDS

we should afford each other that in these conversations its highly unlikely we would find a person in here with full perfect knowledge.

Enter hoglahoo!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Enter hoglahoo!

It's taken us 643 posts to find out that we just simply should have asked Hoglahoo in the first place?!

Originally Posted by GregJDS

So im not really saying the mechanisms of prions or single celled little things are mechanically more complex, but life as one of them would be more complex.

hmm. well, agree to disagree. all a prion does is fold proteins, that's all it can do. it seems to me that humans do a lot more complicated things, but maybe that's just my human arrogance.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Okay, here in lies our failure to come to a resolution. You have no definition of life. When there is no finite point at which you say that one thing is alive, and this other thing is not. Based on this, my coffee table could be alive.

you are incorrect sir, I very much have a definition for life.

I define life as being able to self-replicate and evolve. your coffee table can't make more of itself, unless it's some sort of japanese-robot-table

prions can make more of themselves. virii make more of themselves. rna copies itself. sometimes the copies aren't perfect... they could die off, they could live alongside the old one, they could become more successful. I would define these things as being alive, because they can reproduce and evolve. that is my definition (and indeed, an accepted (though not yet universally) definition in the field of biology).

how do you define life?

Originally Posted by jockeys

I define life as being able to self-replicate and evolve.

Ok, so then what does this mean below?

Originally Posted by jockeys

perhaps, life is not so cut and dry. maybe it's an analog definition and not a digital one. maybe the transition was gradual, and things gradually became more alive. maybe not. I don't claim to know

You don't claim to know, and yet you define it anyway Ok that is my cheap shot of the day

More on topic: Maybe it is just me that is getting a little lost. Can the ability to self-replicate and the ability to evolve be present in such a small degree that you would say you are not sure if it is alive or not? Is there such an example?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Ok, so then what does this mean below?

You don't claim to know, and yet you define it anyway Ok that is my cheap shot of the day

More on topic: Maybe it is just me that is getting a little lost. Can the ability to self-replicate and the ability to evolve be present in such a small degree that you would say you are not sure if it is alive or not? Is there such an example?

it is not so cut and dry as the old six-criteria definition. I think my proposed definition is more appropriate, because it takes into account new things that have been learned in the last 50 years, the old definition does not.

at the same time, there are varying degrees of self-replicating and evolving behavior, so it's not this razor sharp black line. it's a gray and fuzzy line, if it's a line at all.

so, my definition may not be perfect, because I don't completely know where life begins, but I definitely think it is a BETTER definition.

Originally Posted by jockeys

you are incorrect sir, I very much have a definition for life.

I define life as being able to self-replicate and evolve. your coffee table can't make more of itself, unless it's some sort of japanese-robot-table

However, according to your theories, in millions and millions of years, falling into a primordial soup, breaking down into its basic elements, and then somehow forming RNA through the passage of time, my coffee table could become alive. So in essence my coffee table could be, or at least could become, "alive."

Originally Posted by jockeys

prions can make more of themselves. virii make more of themselves. rna copies itself. sometimes the copies aren't perfect... they could die off, they could live alongside the old one, they could become more successful. I would define these things as being alive, because they can reproduce and evolve. that is my definition (and indeed, an accepted (though not yet universally) definition in the field of biology).

how do you define life?

I believe that virii are alive. they are a very basic form of life, but they are alive.

As far as RNA copying themselves, are you relying upon this article?
Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme -- Lincoln and Joyce 323 (5918): 1229 -- Science

If so, then this article was just written. Also, the RNA which could miraculously replicate itself was created in a lab. So we created it. That is not life from non-life. I believe that is creation. (in no way am I asserting that we are becoming like God in the ability to create life).

I agree that life is that which is able to replicate itself and evolve. However, there is no evidence that I have ever found, or that anyone has ever brought to my attention, documenting anything that can do these two things, but did not come from a prior version of itself (IE be a product of a prior replication). If you have such evidence, I would love to see it.

Matt

Originally Posted by jockeys

hmm. well, agree to disagree. all a prion does is fold proteins, that's all it can do. it seems to me that humans do a lot more complicated things, but maybe that's just my human arrogance.

A prion is a protein that has an incorrect tertiary fold pattern. The reason that they are dangerous is that there is no way to denature (i.e. cook or neutralize) them and any other of the same protein that they touch then changes its tertiary fold also.

Not that this has anything to do with God, but we have to know about them for work, so there you go.