PDA

View Full Version : Is the universe a living thing?


Kookaburra Jack
3rd June 2010, 12:42 PM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)

gruber
3rd June 2010, 12:45 PM
I played a game that had that idea..... It was crap:rolleyes:

davo
3rd June 2010, 12:45 PM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)

define living.

davo
3rd June 2010, 12:50 PM
I should really expand that 2 word reply .. I mean, what do you mean by living?

Some people have weird ideas about it .. do you mean all interconnected by something other than natural forces? Or just an expression of the natural forces working together?

atheist_angel
3rd June 2010, 12:50 PM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)It might make you creative. or delusional. or confused. Do we have to debunk this? :)

Then again, it may depend on your definition of "life", I suppose.

Maybe we should discuss the concept to see what its woo factor is.

Kookaburra Jack
3rd June 2010, 12:57 PM
what do you mean by living?
.... woo factor ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

4vturnstiles
3rd June 2010, 01:09 PM
I don't mind Gaia as a metaphor for earth, but the universe is big, really big.

The Wiki link in the above post talks about Schrödinger.
He seems to go a bit to the woo side there.
The article says about Schrödinger "He references The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley as a "beautiful book"
It is beautiful but as I recall it delved into the woo.

Who'd have thought the Bulldog’s grandson would turn to the woo side.

Enginseer
3rd June 2010, 02:44 PM
Mental Masturbation.

That's all this is, your question is to vague to ever mean anything, to vague to ever understand and therefore creates a false sense of mystery that many would like to lose themselves in. Mystery is awe-inspiring, but when you make up the mystery yourself due to wordplay than you're just playing with yourself.

You don't need to make up mystery, for more beautiful things beyond your ability to conceive exist in this world, science is the vessel to that discovery.

Kookaburra Jack
3rd June 2010, 02:58 PM
You don't need to make up mystery, for more beautiful things beyond your ability to conceive exist in this world, science is the vessel to that discovery.

I asked a question. Whether more beautiful things beyond our ability to conceive exist in this universe, and that science is the vessel to that discovery, is another question.

Kookaburra Jack
3rd June 2010, 03:00 PM
I don't mind Gaia as a metaphor for earth, but the universe is big, really big.


Which Gaia? See Kirchner's Spectrum of Gaian Hypotheses (http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html) ... from Weak to Strong

atheist_angel
3rd June 2010, 03:00 PM
Does this living thing have a brain? Or are we comparing it to a ginormous microorganism?

Loki
3rd June 2010, 03:07 PM
what do you mean by living?

I can't think of any way I could label the universe with the attribute "living".

A clearer explanation of what you mean by "living" would be appreciated.

Worldslaziestbusker
3rd June 2010, 03:14 PM
GOHARM is the acronym I carry from my earliest days studying biology.
Life exhibits :growth, organisation, homeostasis, reproduction, adaptation and metabolism.
Viruses only exhibit O and A until they have a host to fuel them, so they exist in a half state somewhere between what I accept as living organisms (humans, flying fish, little dogs, bacteria) and what I perceive in the universe (a bunch of rocks and stuff obeying physical laws but only obviously exhbiting the G of the GOHARM criteria, something even salt crystals can do). The virus reminds me that there is some scope for a spectrum of livingness but the rocks/stars/blackholes component of the universe would fit at the non-living end. The definition might fail to take scale into account (who knows what our universe might get up to in a multiverse sense) but as far as comparing life on Earth with life as a systems of galaxies etc. the universe can't compete.

stewiegriffin81
3rd June 2010, 03:38 PM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)

It would make you an atheist in the literal sense of not having any belief in god(s).

However, you would be at odds with most (but admittedly not all) of the principles that tend to give rise to atheism in the first place. Namely, principles and philosophies that emphasise evidence, skepticism, and use of scientific methodology.

davo
3rd June 2010, 04:22 PM
Interesting, yea if you define life that way as it quite simply shows that there is no need for supernaturalism.

davo
3rd June 2010, 04:24 PM
I read up about Crick, and what is being meant here ..

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1518/thinker-francis-crick



It is all very well saying that a gene can copy itself. But what does it do? What's a gene's job? To make proteins, said Crick and set out to prove how. That code running down the DNA backbone must be a code spelling out the sequence of amino acids in a protein, written in three-letter words and translated at ribosomes by a mechanism involving an “adaptor”, a molecule that can both read in DNA-ish and write in protein-ish. Crick set all this out in 1957 in a paper of sublime deduction and proved some of it himself with experiments of surpassing ingenuity. By 1966 it was all proved correct and the code itself had been cracked and set out in a format devised by Crick himself.
Why do I say this was such a great scientific moment? Because it answered a really big question – what is life? – with a simple, beautiful and unexpected answer. Life is the use of linear digital codes to construct machinery that can cause eddies in the entropy stream. There is a universal genetic code, common to all living things, and what Crick called a central dogma (that nucleic acid sequences determine protein sequences, not vice versa).

The concept seems to break down the barriers between what we would call animate and inanimate .. you kinda gotta read the whole thing ..

GodwinGrey
3rd June 2010, 05:05 PM
I asked a question. Whether more beautiful things beyond our ability to conceive exist in this universe, and that science is the vessel to that discovery, is another question.

All things are part of something greater. That is one of languages systems for labelling. The knife is a part of cutlery, the cutlery belongs in the kitchen, the kitchen is a room in the house, the house is part of a street etc.

The word Universe is the ultimate embracement of everything in it. Therefore as there is life in the Universe, the Universe is alive. I am alive, although my hair, nails and shit et al are not. So having dead stuff in it doesn't preclude calling the universe alive.

that probably leads to some kinda supplementary question along the lines of 'does the Universe have a combined consciousness'?

Science, the best vehicle we have for ascertaining the probable truth of our environment, cannot answer anything with absolute certainty. All it can offer is proof that it is reasonable to believe a thing. If science cannot prove a thing to be useful to believe in, then it's not useful to believe it.

If you think the Universe might have a mind of its own, that's a hypothesis. If you want to verify that, it will be neccessary to do so through experimentation. Good luck with that :)

Jez
3rd June 2010, 05:18 PM
All things are part of something greater. That is one of languages systems for labelling. The knife is a part of cutlery, the cutlery belongs in the kitchen, the kitchen is a room in the house, the house is part of a street etc.

The word Universe is the ultimate embracement of everything in it. Therefore as there is life in the Universe, the Universe is alive. I am alive, although my hair, nails and shit et al are not. So having dead stuff in it doesn't preclude calling the universe alive.

that probably leads to some kinda supplementary question along the lines of 'does the Universe have a combined consciousness'?

Science, the best vehicle we have for ascertaining the probable truth of our environment, cannot answer anything with absolute certainty. All it can offer is proof that it is reasonable to believe a thing. If science cannot prove a thing to be useful to believe in, then it's not useful to believe it.

If you think the Universe might have a mind of its own, that's a hypothesis. If you want to verify that, it will be neccessary to do so through experimentation. Good luck with that :)

I very much agree with this, I just want to expand upon the idea of mind and consciousness for an object to have that it needs this:
Feelings, thoughts, memory, volition, awareness and self-awareness if you can prove that the universe has that well done.

Assuming that you do, well, does that make you a theist, if you call it god and worship it and claims it has power over you life, then yes.

stewiegriffin81
3rd June 2010, 05:55 PM
The word Universe is the ultimate embracement of everything in it. Therefore as there is life in the Universe, the Universe is alive. I am alive, although my hair, nails and shit et al are not. So having dead stuff in it doesn't preclude calling the universe alive.

I disagree. This is akin to claiming that a set must have a certain property because there is a subset within that has that property. The set might have that property, but it is not contingent upon the properties of the subset.

Additionally, you use yourself (as you are composed of both living and non-living components) as an analogy to explain why "dead stuff doesn't preclude calling the universe alive". This is true, but it is also true that having living components doesn't preclude calling the universe dead.

If we use a similar example of soil (which, like you, has both living and non-living components) we can see that the components actually have nothing at all to do with how we would define soil as being living or non-living. Soil, yourself, and the universe can only be defined as living or non-living by looking at whether or not each one has the properties associated with being living. Having living components has no relation to whether or not the object in question is actually alive.

SchizoDeluxe
3rd June 2010, 06:09 PM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)

Sounds like a form of deism but as others have said, depends on what you mean by living.

davo
3rd June 2010, 07:12 PM
Well I took it from what I read about on the links that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the 'living' and what we would call 'non living'

Swirls in the entropy. Interesting, especially when related to complex stuff like DNA and the relationship between order and disorder.

GodwinGrey
4th June 2010, 01:51 AM
If we use a similar example of soil (which, like you, has both living and non-living components) we can see that the components actually have nothing at all to do with how we would define soil as being living or non-living. Soil, yourself, and the universe can only be defined as living or non-living by looking at whether or not each one has the properties associated with being living. Having living components has no relation to whether or not the object in question is actually alive.

Putting my haughtyculturist hat on Stewie:), I have to say that soil that has been abused is often referred to as 'dead'. Earth is a living planet and we have no problem with the concept of a dead, (or lifeless) one. It might be unusual to think of the Universe as a living body because it contains life; nevertheless i think it's accurate.

@ davo - yes I've found philosophical argument that challenges concepts of dead/alive quite blurring when you get down to it. Generally speaking Eastern ways of seeing don't draw such a hard line as Western.

"Two rocks sitting side by side would get sick of each other in thirty years, and who knows what they say now and then when nobody is listening" - Ursula Le Guin 'Gwilan's Harp', which just happens to be the finest piece of short story writing i know of :)

davo
4th June 2010, 10:54 AM
Well like the concept we are stardust, at differing 'views' of reality the concept of 'life' takes a differing meaning, it's just how reality is held together that tells us 'because this thing acts as a 'factory' a specific way, that's life, where another thing that acts as a 'factory' is not .. replication, movement, evolving energy .. as was written in the article I linked too .. it's just swirls in the entropy of the universe when it comes down to it.

But, realistically we have to define life in terms of biological life otherwise it can be misleading without some form of context, and useless really as a term. You might as well just say the universe is the universe.

wearestardust
4th June 2010, 01:20 PM
You might as well just say the universe is the universe.

That's where this suggestion of the universe being 'alive' or 'god' seems to end up.

Is the universe "alive" like you, me, the cat, and a bacterium are alive? No. Is it intentional? Certainly not. Could we define "life" in such a way as to say the universe is alive because it's like, really complex? Yes, but the same goes for a lot of things.

atheist_angel
4th June 2010, 02:27 PM
@K-Jack: Living things can be killed. Can the universe be killed? (I can't imagine how one would "murder" the universe.)

Sully2097
4th June 2010, 04:29 PM
This sounds a lot like Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)to me.

While it doesn't preach that the universe is alive per se, it does make the claim that the 'god' of all humanity is the universe.

I've argued with a couple of them before, but the point of view is generally a harmless one. It relies a lot on romanticising what, to me, seems to be a pretty straightforward thing - but at least it won't tell you to murder your firstborn.

GodwinGrey
4th June 2010, 04:54 PM
This sounds a lot like Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)to me.

While it doesn't preach that the universe is alive per se, it does make the claim that the 'god' of all humanity is the universe.

I've argued with a couple of them before, but the point of view is generally a harmless one. It relies a lot on romanticising what, to me, seems to be a pretty straightforward thing - but at least it won't tell you to murder your firstborn.

Now just a cotton picking moment. :D i'm not calling the Universe a god. I'm just saying that as a body it isn't lifeless and there could well be a lifeless Universe. Just as there's lifeless soil and lifeless human bodies. I said what i said out of accuracy not romanticism.

GodwinGrey
4th June 2010, 05:12 PM
That's where this suggestion of the universe being 'alive' or 'god' seems to end up.

Is the universe "alive" like you, me, the cat, and a bacterium are alive? No. Is it intentional? Certainly not. Could we define "life" in such a way as to say the universe is alive because it's like, really complex? Yes, but the same goes for a lot of things.


davo's, 'we could just say the universe is the universe' sounded to me like he's being spending too much time talking to lion, but i didn't want to rub it in. i'm glad you understand what he meant because I dont and you could maybe explain it.

Far as i know the universe IS called the universe. :)

4vturnstiles
4th June 2010, 05:58 PM
@K-Jack: Living things can be killed. Can the universe be killed? (I can't imagine how one would "murder" the universe.)

Jonathan Teatime might give it a go.
Not inhume
divverse?

Sanity personified
4th June 2010, 07:10 PM
According to the most popular scientific definitions of life, fire fits most if not all of the criterea for life. It requires fuel, produces waste, can reproduce and die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

atheist_angel
4th June 2010, 08:19 PM
According to the most popular scientific definitions of life, fire fits most if not all of the criterea for life. It requires fuel, produces waste, can reproduce and die.Of course there is that little matter of fire having no heredity. :)

Spud Henley
4th June 2010, 11:39 PM
It doesn't really matter how you define. If the universe was alive it doesn't make it supernatural just really big and you can still be an atheist. Have you ever noticed that atoms look alot like solar systems? Galaxy's could just be molocules in a gigantic lifeform. The universe could be cyclical as in our atoms are galaxies and so on.

Worldslaziestbusker
5th June 2010, 12:25 AM
According to the most popular scientific definitions of life, fire fits most if not all of the criterea for life. It requires fuel, produces waste, can reproduce and die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life


Fire lacks - homeostasis:the upkeep and repair of systems. For us, maintaining a constant internal temperature is an important example of homeostasis.
- organisation: fire is an uncontrolled chemical process.
- adaptation: fire will occur where it can. It doesn't have any special features to allow it to occur where it should not.

The article you linked to also cited response to stimuli as a good marker omitted from the list in my earlier post (and from my education).
WLB

AngryAtheist
5th June 2010, 09:31 AM
If I were to believe that the universe is a living thing would that make me an atheist or a theist or something else entirely?


:)


To believe in anything without proof would have to be aligning oneself with a theistic intention (ie nutjob). Therefore one must prove that the universe lives.

In saying that the definition of living - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828172542AAKWVtO

The universe is the producer and encompasses all these things in it's entirety, therefore the universe must live.

So now you know that it is true that the universe lives and if you wish to believe in something where there is evidence for it, then no you are not a theist.

If however you believed that before evidence was provided, then yes your a nutjob.

:)

AngryAtheist
5th June 2010, 09:46 AM
Actually now that I think about it - this really is an excellent question -

What if you call the universe God? - then the theists are right in that the there is a "higher Power".

No-one would argue that the universe is a higher power then say mere mortal man.

However that still does not reconcile that the theist's believe in talking donkeys, dragons, men rising from the dead, virgin births etc etc.

No and it' doesnt exclude them from being nutjob's but perhaps it throws our ideas that there is nothing "out there" controlling our existence into the burning fires of hell. Muahahaha

Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that wil punish our evils here on earth - if we don't "do the right thing" and take care of it.. sounds a lot like theism really doesn't it.

Perhaps our ancestors were close to an answer after all...

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

stewiegriffin81
5th June 2010, 12:09 PM
Putting my haughtyculturist hat on Stewie:), I have to say that soil that has been abused is often referred to as 'dead'. Earth is a living planet and we have no problem with the concept of a dead, (or lifeless) one. It might be unusual to think of the Universe as a living body because it contains life; nevertheless i think it's accurate.

I think you are using a literary definition rather than an actual scientific one. Both planets and soil can be called living or dead when in direct reference to the presence or non-presence of living components, but neither planets nor soil are actual biological organisms. As such, they are not alive in the scientific sense.

Although it isn't entirely clear which definition Kangaroo Jack meant when he said he believed that the universe is alive, I suspect he meant the scientific one, and as such, he is making a non-empirical assumption. There is no reason to consider the universe as being alive at this stage.

GodwinGrey
5th June 2010, 04:19 PM
I think you are using a literary definition rather than an actual scientific one. Both planets and soil can be called living or dead when in direct reference to the presence or non-presence of living components, but neither planets nor soil are actual biological organisms. As such, they are not alive in the scientific sense.

Although it isn't entirely clear which definition Kangaroo Jack meant when he said he believed that the universe is alive, I suspect he meant the scientific one, and as such, he is making a non-empirical assumption. There is no reason to consider the universe as being alive at this stage.

Literal definitions and scientific definitions are in dispute? i never knew that, do you have a link?

stewiegriffin81
5th June 2010, 04:36 PM
Literal definitions and scientific definitions are in dispute? i never knew that, do you have a link?

Let me put it this way, can you fit your definition of life and living into any of the accepted definitions of life and living in science?

For example, if we look at the wikipedia articles on life, and on organisms (both of which are pretty good), you'll see that you couldn't possibly fit your definition of life into the scientifically accepted definition of life. Planets and soil don't replicate, they don't actively seek out energy sources to reduce their entropy etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

If you would like a more academic citation:

Ruiz-Mirazo et al (2004). "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 34, 3.

The definition from the above citation would also invalidate any attempt to claim soil or planets are alive.

So neither of your examples are alive in a scientific sense. In a literary and colloquial sense it is common to hear people saying "living soil" and "living planets", but they don't mean that soil and planets are alive.

Kookaburra Jack
5th June 2010, 05:32 PM
This question has a history of being asked ....
There may be much earlier instances,
this is the oldest that I am aware of ...

And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions;
and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed;
but they replied:


"Of elements."

"Are there then four" he asked.

"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."

"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius,
"alongside of water and air and earth and fire ?"

"There is the ether", replied the other,
"which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made;
for just as all mortal creatures inhale tbe air,
so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."


Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements,
and Iarchas answered:


"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."

"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard
the universe as a living creature?"

"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it,
for it engenders all living things."



Extracted from - Apollonius of Tyana,
by Philostratus, c.216 CE

AngryAtheist
5th June 2010, 07:37 PM
@Angry:



That's plain bizarre. Can you tell us how you might arrive at such a hypothesis?

Actually just pulled that one out my ass..

Loki
5th June 2010, 07:45 PM
Is the universe a living thing?

No.

Short and sweet.

AngryAtheist
5th June 2010, 08:02 PM
Is the universe a living thing?

No.

Short and sweet.

Is that from a Fish's perspective?

GodwinGrey
5th June 2010, 08:38 PM
Let me put it this way, can you fit your definition of life and living into any of the accepted definitions of life and living in science?

For example, if we look at the wikipedia articles on life, and on organisms (both of which are pretty good), you'll see that you couldn't possibly fit your definition of life into the scientifically accepted definition of life. Planets and soil don't replicate, they don't actively seek out energy sources to reduce their entropy etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

If you would like a more academic citation:


Ruiz-Mirazo et al (2004). "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 34, 3.


The definition from the above citation would also invalidate any attempt to claim soil or planets are alive.

So neither of your examples are alive in a scientific sense. In a literary and colloquial sense it is common to hear people saying "living soil" and "living planets", but they don't mean that soil and planets are alive.

From Ruiz-Mizaro - Abstract Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and weclaim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records).The latter is required to articulate a `phenotype-genotype' decoupling that leads to a scenario where the global network ofautonomous systems allows for an open-ended increase in the complexity of the individual agents. Thus, the basic-individual organization of biological systems depends critically on being instructed by patterns (informational records) whose generationand reliable transmission cannot be explained but take into account the complete historical network of relationships amongthose systems. We conclude that a proper definition of life should consider both levels, individual and collective: livingsystems cannot be fully constituted without being part of theevolutionary process of a whole ecosystem. Finally, we alsodiscuss a few practical implications of the definition fordifferent programs of research.

Theirs is A definition, I see no reason for it to be taken as THE definition.
that notwithstanding i see no reason to interpret what's said as precluding the consideration of a planet as 'living'.

Any living body must be viewed as a whole unseperated into its constituent parts.

Can a planet reproduce? Well we have a few billion years up our sleeves yet. I think it probable ( even :) ) that we will, by towing asteroids and/or nudging Mars into new orbits create new planets suitable for Earth style habitation.

I think that the microorganisms present in soil are inseperable from the term 'soil'. I think a pile of soil without life is called a pile of dirt.

I don't think that scale changes the way we should consider a body.

I do NOT hold that Universe is another name for God. I think we can agree to disagree. I see no point in this argument, we are both in basic agreement on the reality. But I think to be right you have to demonstrate that the Universe is devoid of life. A rather ridiculous proposition.

stewiegriffin81
5th June 2010, 11:40 PM
Theirs is A definition, I see no reason for it to be taken as THE definition.

You are correct, but then, your definition doesn't fit with any of the other currently competing scientific definitions.


Can a planet reproduce? Well we have a few billion years up our sleeves yet. I think it probable ( even :) ) that we will, by towing asteroids and/or nudging Mars into new orbits create new planets suitable for Earth style habitation.

Even if that happened, at best that would simply show that planets are part of the extended phenotype of humans, not that they are alive.



I think that the microorganisms present in soil are inseperable from the term 'soil'. I think a pile of soil without life is called a pile of dirt.

My understanding is that the definition of soil often (but not always) includes a requirement for organic matter, but that organic matter doesn't necessarily need to be alive. However, I must admit that this argument on semantics is not particularly relevant to our discussion on the definition of life.


I don't think that scale changes the way we should consider a body.

I agree with this.


I do NOT hold that Universe is another name for God. I think we can agree to disagree. I see no point in this argument, we are both in basic agreement on the reality. But I think to be right you have to demonstrate that the Universe is devoid of life. A rather ridiculous proposition.

No, proving that the universe is devoid of life proves nothing. After all, every living organism currently alive is made up of non-living components, and so the universe could still be alive even if everything within was dead. The issue I have is that your original definition that something is living if it has living components doesn't mesh at all with any of the scientific definitions. I probably should have used different examples: Given that buildings have living components (often humans) are buildings also alive? Cars? Planes? Is a dead and decaying body that is filled with microorganisms alive? The mere fact that something has living components does not mean that it is in fact alive.

GodwinGrey
6th June 2010, 01:18 AM
No, proving that the universe is devoid of life proves nothing. After all, every living organism currently alive is made up of non-living components, and so the universe could still be alive even if everything within was dead.

Not in my book :)



The issue I have is that your original definition that something is living if it has living components doesn't mesh at all with any of the scientific definitions. I probably should have used different examples: Given that buildings have living components (often humans) are buildings also alive? Cars? Planes? Is a dead and decaying body that is filled with microorganisms alive? The mere fact that something has living components does not mean that it is in fact alive.


Now this is interesting but I'd already considered it. When you say house, plane, car, you are not ever suggesting that the people inhabiting are a part of that thing are you? Neither are the microorganisms inhabiting a dead body a part of it, There's a dead body and there's microorganisms feeding on it. When we say Universe are we talking about a place we inhabit or a place we are part of.

If we consider aboriginal Australia in this discussion perhaps it comes down to the way we, as individuals, see and feel.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 10:24 AM
AA
Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that will punish our evils here on earth

@Angry:

That's plain bizarre. Can you tell us how you might arrive at such a hypothesis?

AA
actually I just pulled that out my ass


Black
Would you kindly place it back

Me now..

Well if you insist making me do the thinking for you, here it is..

What I mean is really the anology of religious thinking

We are all part of something greater than ourselves - ie the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe.

We as individuals within the planet are subject to it's laws.

The universe exists in a state of flux, a state of change and of what we atheists would call it - evolution..

We exist within the boundaries of the universe.. therefore we are controlled by it's function, it's laws and as an anology it's will..

As a planet within the universe, earth is subject to the universes laws.

Such laws that state that there is a requirement of a certain level of greenhouse gases, that are required to exist within the framework of a living planet (take whatever meaning of living you wish, but I doubt few would agree that the earth is dead, devoid of life either as a whole or in parts)

Therefore if we continue to strip the earth of it's natural resources and continue to "Ethanise" (hehe, couldn't help myself) the planet - the universe may ultimately punish our behaviour with death.


Now you must notice I intentionally did not use the word 'God' in here, but could you see how it may be used as an analogy?


Like I said, perhaps our ancestors aren't too far from the truth..

stewiegriffin81
6th June 2010, 11:08 AM
Not in my book :)

Well, it still could be. If the universe was devoid of life, but that universe itself lived as an organism within a meta-universe, and produced baby universes etc. it could be a living organism anyway. Of course, it's very unlikely that this is the case, but my point is that the universe could fulfil the actual scientific definition of life even if everything inside was dead.




Now this is interesting but I'd already considered it. When you say house, plane, car, you are not ever suggesting that the people inhabiting are a part of that thing are you? Neither are the microorganisms inhabiting a dead body a part of it, There's a dead body and there's microorganisms feeding on it. When we say Universe are we talking about a place we inhabit or a place we are part of.

If we consider aboriginal Australia in this discussion perhaps it comes down to the way we, as individuals, see and feel.

Exactly. And neither are microrganisms living in soil necessarily a part of it, and neither are organisms living in a planet, or organisms in a cave, or a stream, or a tree. There are organisms, and there is the substrate that they live in. They are two separately defined categories.

However, I take your point that inhabitants of this universe are necessarily a part of the universe. I'm still not convinced that the universe is living as such, as I subscribe to the definition of life that defines organisms, and I doubt that the universe is an organism, but I guess it's really just semantic banter between us over what constitutes the definition of living.

atheist_angel
6th June 2010, 11:11 AM
AA
Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that will punish our evils here on earthAA
actually I just pulled that out my assBlack
Would you kindly place it backMe now..

Well if you insist making me do the thinking for you, here it is..

What I mean is really the anology of religious thinking

We are all part of something greater than ourselves - ie the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe.

We as individuals within the planet are subject to it's laws.

The universe exists in a state of flux, a state of change and of what we atheists would call it - evolution..

We exist within the boundaries of the universe.. therefore we are controlled by it's function, it's laws and as an anology it's will..

As a planet within the universe, earth is subject to the universes laws.

Such laws that state that there is a requirement of a certain level of greenhouse gases, that are required to exist within the framework of a living planet (take whatever meaning of living you wish, but I doubt few would agree that the earth is dead, devoid of life either as a whole or in parts)

Therefore if we continue to strip the earth of it's natural resources and continue to "Ethanise" (hehe, couldn't help myself) the planet - the universe may ultimately punish our behaviour with death.


Now you must notice I intentionally did not use the word 'God' in here, but could you see how it may be used as an analogy?


Like I said, perhaps our ancestors aren't too far from the truth..To say that the universe will "punish us with death" is to say that the universe has an intent and a decision-making process.

If we die because we make the planet uninhabitable to us, before we have somewhere else to go, that's just 'cause and effect'.

If we do the above, but have somewhere to go... Where's the punishment?

atheist_angel
6th June 2010, 11:54 AM
@Ms AA: I'd swear that there's a deist inside Angry, wondering what the heck it did to be thus situated.

This "pulled it out of my ass" thing is the second time, by the way (the infamous... "ha ha fooled ya I is gay" was the first) that Angry has admitted to posting utter rubbish to get a reaction.

That is the definition of "troll", and he would be well advised not to attempt a third time.
@Mr Black: Indeed.

However, I would hope he understand that struggles with deist issues should be voluntarily sorted out on the Island. We have other members that have created threads on the Island to ask for help with lingering issues left over from their days of woo.

Trolling, on the other hand, there's just no place here for that.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 02:14 PM
To say that the universe will "punish us with death" is to say that the universe has an intent and a decision-making process.

If we die because we make the planet uninhabitable to us, before we have somewhere else to go, that's just 'cause and effect'.

If we do the above, but have somewhere to go... Where's the punishment?

It was an analogy !! The cause is us (ie the crime) the effect is destruction of our planet (ie the punishment)

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 02:46 PM
@Ms AA: I'd swear that there's a deist inside Angry, wondering what the heck it did to be thus situated./quote]

Black you are looking to insult me - a deist inside me? I take offence.

Why not answer the argument instead of getting all huffy...

[quote=The Irreverent Mr Black;92403]
This "pulled it out of my ass" thing is the second time, by the way (the infamous... "ha ha fooled ya I is gay" was the first) that Angry has admitted to posting utter rubbish to get a reaction.

And true I did, but I sincerely apologised for that and I had thought we had moved on from then...

Nothing could be further from the truth. truth is I didn't feel as though my statement needed explaining as I would have thought most people would have understood it's implications.

The "Pulled it out my arse" thing was merely sarcasm - of which I am eminently gifted.


That is the definition of "troll", and he would be well advised not to attempt a third time.

Insult away Black "Troll" an ugly dark creature that sits underneath bridges attacking innocents as they pass by? If that is not an insult then I'll be a monkey's uncle... get it .. monkey's uncle hehe.. monkey with a gun.. hehe

I digress.

Who can I report you too. I must proceed immediately..

wolty
6th June 2010, 02:52 PM
Angry, you are just being disingenius. I don't know if you are saying stuff just to get a reaction or saying stuff that you haven't really thought through but it is getting a little tiresome.

Either way you are starting to annoy people again.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 03:02 PM
In this analogy, "crime" and "punishment" are concepts requiring a judge or policeman of some sort: equivalent to theism.

Is this a sort of theism you believe in or another one of those "ha ha i was joking honest" moments?

Seriously - I believe you may be baiting me Mr Black - It would appear that I have done something to offend you - I sincerely apologise if that is the case. ..

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 03:07 PM
Angry, you are just being disingenius. I don't know if you are saying stuff just to get a reaction or saying stuff that you haven't really thought through but it is getting a little tiresome.

Either way you are starting to annoy people again.

I expect you mean disingenuous,

How many questions can I ask before someone will actually answer one of them before insulting me?

Seriously

wolty
6th June 2010, 03:13 PM
I expect you mean disingenuous,

How many questions can I ask before someone will actually answer one of them before insulting me?


I don't know but I could only see two questions and both seemed weird or rhetorical to me.

Seriously
Does that mean they were serious questions? I have no idea. Maybe you could be a little clearer.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 03:16 PM
@Angry: See The Little http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/report.gif At Top Right?

Be my guest.

Come on .. what else but joke can I do when you continue to insult me?

So back to the point, I posed a question..

AA
Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that will punish our evils here on earth

It was an analogy, plain and simple, no need for cops or justice systems, just making an observation that it could conceivably be possible that considering the cause & effect ideology of life that religious thinking may not have been that far off the mark.

No saying we should all be religious, just saying that it is conceivable - that although misrepresented, some of the ideas about life that come from religion (although it's more likely religion stole them from science) might actually have some bearing.

Ideas are not religious, people are religious, and I don't think that just because a religious person says something means that it should be automatically excluded from consideration.

I would think that it was an intelligent quality to consider all information.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 03:26 PM
No. Tell us, seriously if you can, about the "crimes" of humanity and the "punishment" meted out by (you will need to be specific here).

Crimes - as I previously suggested - not taking care of our planet is one for example.. One could consider this to be a crime could one not? I mean there are plenty of laws that state you cannot do harm to our planet ie lighting fires illegally for example, pulluting the atmosphere with certain types of refrigeration coolants,

Punishment (for want of a better analogy) destruction of the planet - you do believe it is conceivable Black do you not?


I am particularly interested in who you suppose to be making and enforcing these "laws", and what they might be.

Not who - but what! The universe . you,... you.... bite you tongue AA


The only offence I see so far is to reason.

Is it just me? Seriously it it really just me .... Am I really that difficult to understand..

GodwinGrey
6th June 2010, 03:28 PM
Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that will punish our evils here on earth


As I said before Angry, that's a hypothesis. If you seriously think the Universe has an individual consciousness the next step is to try to verify that conjecture experimentally. If you can offer no proof that it is reasonable to beleve the proposition then holding such a belief isn't useful.

Personally i don't beleve that. If the universe cared it would rain money and diamonds. :D

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 03:51 PM
So let us examine that.

Let us please then.....


You have "evils" - which implies a set of laws or standards and a judge.

Lets say the law of "every action has an equal an opposite reaction"
We do bad things to the planet = the planet dies - therefore we die (ignoring AA's point that we may find another planet to exist on before we subsequently self destruct as it is highly unlikely in the immediate future however it is currently the hypothesis that we could - if we continue on our current path our planet could very well cease to exist in the near future)

and judge? well - as an anology - the universe could well seem as though it might be a judge based on it's laws - surely not that far of a stretch.. break the laws and the universe punishes you for it. - again just an analogy..


You have "punish" - which implies an authority with executive powers, to act on those who infringe the does of those "evils".

Well the universe does appear to have "executive" powers does it not? I mean try slamming a moon the size of our's into the sun, the 'punishment' then would be extermination of the moon.



You imply that "the universe" will do these things.

Well more over the laws of the universe and considering that they themselves are part of the universe ... absolutely, what else would be controlling the outcomes?


As theists believe the same things, broadly, but attribute the standards, judging, and punishment to a god, your question is either:
(a) hypothetical, in which case you should certainly have stated it as such; or
(b) if you believe in the possibility, you are a theist-in-the-making.

I neither believe nor disbelieve - I am merely making an analogy with the use of religious language to make the point that although our ancestors may have had some of the details wrong, they might not have been far from the truth. And as such perhaps some credit should be given to them.

If we can possibly see the value that our ancestors have given us we may not be far from reconciling with them or moreover them with us.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 04:03 PM
As I said before Angry, that's a hypothesis. If you seriously think the Universe has an individual consciousness the next step is to try to verify that conjecture experimentally. If you can offer no proof that it is reasonable to beleve the proposition then holding such a belief isn't useful.

Personally i don't beleve that. If the universe cared it would rain money and diamonds. :D

Well I expect we may have a limited idea on what consciousness is so it is conceivable that the universe may well demonstrate conscious like behavior not necessarily consciousness as we understand it in our human terms, but perhaps a type of consciousness? who knows I don't. Not saying it does - just saying it is conceivable.

Xeno
6th June 2010, 04:15 PM
Lets say the law of "every action has an equal an opposite reaction" Unrelated unless you propose a consciousness. Do you? What evidence do you have, or what experiments do you propose?

We do bad things to the planet = the planet dies Metaphorically? If so, we can consider it in human terms without wasting time on the metaphors. If you mean literally then please return to my first question so you can explain your context for "bad" and "dies".

Well the universe does appear to have "executive" powers does it not? I mean try slamming a moon the size of our's into the sun, the 'punishment' then would be extermination of the moon. No, the universe has no executive powers whatsoever, unless you wish to respond to my opening queries and explain whence these powers come.

Observing that events may happen does not an executive power make.

Well more over the laws of the universe and considering that they themselves are part of the universe ... absolutely, what else would be controlling the outcomes? Are you seriously saying that the existence of a physical law necessitates a controller?

I neither believe nor disbelieve - I am merely making an analogy with the use of religious language to make the point that although our ancestors may have had some of the details wrong, they might not have been far from the truth. And as such perhaps some credit should be given to them. Please provide some evidence of something or else please stop talking nonsense. Mere analogies are like concepts of god. Without an evidenced point they have no meaning beyond playing with fairies in your mind.

If we can possibly see the value that our ancestors have given us we may not be far from reconciling with them or moreover them with us. I would find it tricky to reconcile most of my ancestors with me. You see, they are dead. Are you proposing you can contact them?

Loki
6th June 2010, 05:36 PM
"every action has an equal an opposite reaction"

: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Newtons third law is referring to forces acting on bodies. It's physics, not morality and has nothing to say about ethics. Perhaps you mean cause and effect or two wrongs don't make a right?

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=92499#post92499)
You have "evils" - which implies a set of laws or standards and a judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=92510#post92510)
Lets say the law of "every action has an equal an opposite reaction"... you missed some... We do bad things to the planet = the planet dies - therefore we die

Unrelated unless you propose a consciousness. Do you? What evidence do you have, or what experiments do you propose?

I see no need to propose a consciousness, we are discussing an analogy ..


Metaphorically? If so, we can consider it in human terms without wasting time on the metaphors. If you mean literally then please return to my first question so you can explain your context for "bad" and "dies".

Oh my if only I didnt have to waste time explaining what I am saying.. this conversation might actually progress somewhere. Read back a couple of pages and see within the context of what I said as an analogy...


No, the universe has no executive powers whatsoever, unless you wish to respond to my opening queries and explain whence these powers come.

does anyone here have an imagination? I mean what is an analogy .... Like executive powers LIKE.. .... of course I'm not saying the universe commands their staff to complete a range of tasks in order to achieve a goal of making money... That would be a literal translation of what Black said -

I said - AS AN ANALOGY - Please follow the logic -

Actually now that I think about it - this really is an excellent question -

What if you call the universe God? - then the theists are right in that the there is a "higher Power".

No-one would argue that the universe is a higher power then say mere mortal man.

However that still does not reconcile that the theist's believe in talking donkeys, dragons, men rising from the dead, virgin births etc etc.

No and it' doesnt exclude them from being nutjob's but perhaps it throws our ideas that there is nothing "out there" controlling our existence into the burning fires of hell. Muahahaha

Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that wil punish our evils here on earth - if we don't "do the right thing" and take care of it.. sounds a lot like theism really doesn't it.

Perhaps our ancestors were close to an answer after all...

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ok then.. follow me without analogy/metaphor

we exist - in the universe - the universe has laws we must follow - therefore the universe controls how we exist - otherwise we would not exist within this universe - (unless of course you can demonstrate any thing that does exist outside the laws of the universe - In which case you may have an argument for theism yourself)
simple without metaphor, without analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Analogy (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) "ἀναλογία" - analogia, "proportion"[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#cite_note-1)) is a cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition) process of transferring information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information) from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) expression corresponding to such a process.


Observing that events may happen does not an executive power make.

You fail to take into account the effect of the cause.. We are the observers, not the universe - unless of course you wish to give it consciousness?? In which case the onus of proof is now on you..


Are you seriously saying that the existence of a physical law necessitates a controller?

What's controlling the atmosphere that you exist in at this moment that prevents you from spinning into space? The laws of the universe .. therefore the universe is the controller....


Please provide some evidence of something or else please stop talking nonsense. Mere analogies are like concepts of god. Without an evidenced point they have no meaning beyond playing with fairies in your mind.

Nonsense - why do I bother..... fairies in my mind - exactly - I mean is that all you can resort to.. really..? insults, truly it demonstrates your..... bite your tongue.. #@!%$*&



I would find it tricky to reconcile most of my ancestors with me. You see, they are dead. Are you proposing you can contact them?

Don't do it AA, don't do it.. you know what happened last time..

Breathe, breathe..

Xeno
6th June 2010, 07:54 PM
AA, you purport an analogy where none is necessary or useful if you have something to say.

I said that an event does not an executive power make, to which you responded You fail to take into account the effect of the cause.. We are the observers, not the universe - unless of course you wish to give it consciousness?? In which case the onus of proof is now on you.. which is meaningless. You would care to attempt to make sense of it?

What's controlling the atmosphere that you exist in at this moment that prevents you from spinning into space? The laws of the universe .. therefore the universe is the controller.... Theist crap. What is your evidence for your transition from law or event to controller?

Nonsense - why do I bother..... fairies in my mind - exactly - I mean is that all you can resort to.. really..? insults, truly it demonstrates your..... bite your tongue.. #@!%$*& Not so much insults as appreciation that you continue to play with fairies in your mind. Try saying something directly if you can do so usefully.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 08:10 PM
Angry: For "cause" (man does wrong) to yield "consequence" (man gets destroyed) there would need to be conscious decision.

how about this then - (cause) a fire ignites as a result of an electrical malfunction --> Effect (the house burns down)

no conscious decision - but definately an effect.

same thing with a conscious decision in the first instance - (cause) a man jumps from a plane (effect ) a man lands on a woman and the woman dies. - a conscious act results in an unconscious effect..

I leave you to think up the last one..


Otherwise, shit is merely happening, and any observer attributing the shit happening to "cause, therefore effect" is merely having a grand dose of apophenia.

Seriously can you not make one valid response to anything I say without insulting me..


You are linking a subjective event: "man does wrong" (and, pray tell, what is mankind doing wrong, where is the rule book, and how come you got told all this privileged information anyway, because I sure didn't vote for you) ... with an outcome you have projected (we'll need to see why you are claiming mankind will be "destroyed", too, because it still sounds very theist to me) but not proven (show why you think this will happen, and while you are at it, show why "destruction" would not be accidental or result of another inevitable happenstance).

It's all very up in the air, and holds no water either.

So, are you serious, or were you merely wiggling a finger to see who reacted?

irrelevant rubbish ..

wolty
6th June 2010, 08:36 PM
Angry, enough!!

You are being deliberately obfuscatory and annoying. Looking for a fight where none existed in the first place and then crying victimisation. You need to provide evidence for your assumptions rather than just postulate your thinking out in the big wide world, have everyone disagree with you and then cry foul.

Please re-think what you are trying to say, then explain it clearly. Having others disagree with you is not a personal attack even if you think it is.

AngryAtheist
6th June 2010, 08:47 PM
AA, you purport an analogy where none is necessary or useful if you have something to say.

Quote:
Well the universe does appear to have "executive" powers does it not? I mean try slamming a moon the size of our's into the sun, the 'punishment' then would be extermination of the moon.
QUOTE XENO -
No, the universe has no executive powers whatsoever, unless you wish to respond to my opening queries and explain whence these powers come.

Observing that events may happen does not an executive power make.
(so I understand you mean that the universe is the observer.. and that just because the universe observes doesn't mean that it has executive powers...)

to which I responded

You fail to take into account the effect of the cause.

We are the observers, not the universe - unless of course you wish to give it consciousness?o In which case the onus of proof is now on you..

If you meant something else then write that and stop trying to appear to know what your talking about.

Quote:
What's controlling the atmosphere that you exist in at this moment that prevents you from spinning into space? The laws of the universe .. therefore the universe is the controller....
[quote=Xeno;92645]
Theist crap. What is your evidence for your transition from law or event to controller?

seriously - have you never heard of PHYSICS? I said WHAT - NOT WHO?

I have control over my bowels but it's not a conscious decision to do it. Therefore there exists a state whereby control happens despite the need for a conscious thought..

I do wish you would control yours..

- expletives deleted -


Not so much insults as appreciation that you continue to play with fairies in your mind. Try saying something directly if you can do so usefully.

no comment.. -

davo
6th June 2010, 08:54 PM
learn to quote Angry that is a mess

Xeno
6th June 2010, 09:24 PM
I understood just enough of the confusion in AA's post to detect that he now posits the universe as an observer, which begs the question again. He also continues to intimate that a law represents control rather than a behaviour in accord.

Your bowels, AA, will cease to operate as you expect when your life ceases. For the present they are supposedly under the autonomic control of a sentient being, just like your presumed ability to walk, or to blind-type (if you can). None of this is evidence for a conscious universe, nor support for your repetition of terms like control, executive power or implied moral determination with regard to the universe.

Please organise your thoughts then give us a coherent statement of your position, and the evidence you have for it.

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 08:13 AM
I'm sorry it will never happen again..

Can I come back now?

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 08:57 AM
learn to quote Angry that is a mess


It all depends on the computer I'm on - don't ask it's annoying me as well..

atheist_angel
7th June 2010, 09:16 AM
I'm sorry it will never happen again..

Can I come back now?Angry A,

"Working your way off of it" may require addressing some issues.

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 09:52 AM
Angry, enough!!...

Please re-think what you are trying to say, then explain it clearly. Having others disagree with you is not a personal attack even if you think it is.

Honestly Wolty I'm not looking for a fight, I am just raising reasonable ideas about a reasonable subject. I thought it was quite interesting and would like to continue to explore it..

I'm having difficulty continually trying to explain metaphor's and analogy's to those who continue to take me literally and want to argue with me literally when I am using these tools to discuss an idea. This is frustrating me to no end.

It's like saying "the world is our oyster "and someone else saying what's an oyster - do you have any proof that there are oysters. It's frustrating.

I try explaining what an oyster is but they are still fixated on arguing the detail and not looking at the bigger picture. And there is a bigger picture here.

So the original question of this post was
Is the universe a living thing?

I posit that it is a living thing by using the analogy of living definitions. As previously posted.

that all living things by which we ultimately define living things are encompassed within the universe,

and that we cannot at this stage identify any living thing that lives outside our universe

it is logical then to conclude that "living" itself is dependent on the universe and whence "living" comes from.

This then leads us to conclude that "living" is a consequence of existing within that universe therefore the universe must live or it could not "produce" life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Life (cf. biota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biota_%28ecology%29)) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body) that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_process) (biology) from those that do not,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-Koshland-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-AHDLife-1) either because such functions have ceased (death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death)), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inanimate).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-2)
In biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism) from inorganic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-3) Living organisms undergo metabolism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism), maintain homeostasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis), possess a capacity to grow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth), respond to stimuli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_%28physiology%29), reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduce) and, through natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection), adapt to their environment in successive generations



It seems obvious to me that the universe contains all of the following parts that one could assume there is life in and without them the universe would not exist.

Biological process

Chemical process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_process)
Organic reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_reaction)
Chemical transformation etc etc
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_transformation)


These things then identify what is living by our definition, these things are identified as being part of the universe, therefore the universe lives..

When I stated that religious thinking may not have been far from the truth - take away the language and what you have left is a similar idea.

For example

The universe controls our existence with it's laws. or as a metaphor/analogy - God control's our existence with his laws

The earth will cease to exist (as we know it) if we continue to rob it of it natural resources which sustain it. or as a metaphor/analogy God will punish us for our sins

so what I'm also alluding to although not condoning is that our ancestors, although misguided may very well have used religious language to try and explain ideas about existence and life.

So we're not really that far away from their ideas as we think we are in terms of ideas although we are worlds away from identifying the actual processes which are used to explain things..

Is that not clear enough?

wolty
7th June 2010, 10:12 AM
Angry, might I make a sugestion. This thread is just a little stupid, analogy or not. Maybe you are thinking about things too much, maybe you are looking for reason that just isn't there.

Anology is ok, but it isn't when you start thinking about the anology more than the reality.


Below is all I am going to say on this topic (I haven't had my say yet).

The universe isn't alive. That would involve a total cause and effect which just plainly isn't there.

However the universe is alive if you take the literal meaning of the word. There is life in the universe.

That is all I am going to say. Read into it what you will, but you are trying to promote cause and effect onto a larger life force (the universe? gods,FSM) which is dangerous ground for someone that professes a dis-belief in gods. There is no difference saying the universe has an ultimate cause and effect and believing in myriad other ideals.


That is my final say. I will not get into a debate with you over this issue as it is a waste of my time.

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 10:24 AM
Very well then I rest my case..

Can I please come back now.. it's quite humiliating being sent here.. when this post is present

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=5946

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 10:32 AM
Angry A,

"Working your way off of it" may require addressing some issues.

AA could you please tell me what that means so I can do it and get on with it..

AngryAtheist
7th June 2010, 03:03 PM
HEY am I off SIN BIN YET??