PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
we miss you already....
‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
we miss you already....
It may seem miraculous to the layman.
But Earth has lots & lots of room. And life at this threshold level involves chemistry that's nearly unsuppressible. Even today our planet's chemistry demonstrates this potential.
one "teaspoon [of ocean water] will contain millions of bacteria, and 10's of millions of viruses. ... when we try to culture these organisms only about a tenth of a percent of them have ever grown in the laboratory. ...
Every 200 miles, 85% of the organisms and sequences were unique to the region.
... each site differs from each other. But the diversity and the amount of organisms is extremely high everywhere. There's different ones that grow in the cold water of the North Atlantic, than in the South Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean is different than the Pacific ocean. ... The most important thing we found is these photo-receptors see the color of light in the region reflected by the sea water.
In the Sargasso Sea, it's a deep indigo blue. The photo-receptors, it's like having one eye, only see blue light. You get into coastal waters, say see green light reflected off the chlorophyll. And a single letter change in the genetic code changes one amino acid in this protein, that changes the wavelength of light that these receptors see." Craig Venter, from his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition
Darth Omar
Russian asset
And what in your opinion have I ignored?
Science is a discipline PP. I'm not a scientist in every field. But a scientist need only be a scientist in one. And with that basic training, ones approach to perception and problem solving is forever advanced.
Again I invite you to cite what it is you think I'm ignorant of. But I know you won't, because I know you can't, because I know I'm not.
Yep.
Some reactions need to be catalyzed, or in other ways artificially sustained or regulated. The types of nuclear reactions that energize commercial power-plants may belong in that category.
But due to chemical volatility, the goldilocks orbit of Earth where ambient H2O is in the very narrow 100C degree temperature & pressure bands where H2O is liquid, and thus promoting convection and other favorable conditions.
Don't forget. Back then there were no predators. So even defenseless life had a pretty good chance of survival.
All the first life had to do was be able to self-duplicate. And in our oceans of organic soup, it's difficult to imagine how that could have been prevented.
We can approximate how likely such first life was, by noting the interval of time between when conditions first became capable of supporting it, to when it seems to have begun. In geological time-scale, that time interval seems to have been fairly brief.
It would never occur to me to prevent you.
Enjoy.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Forgive me for being a Doubting Thomas lol.
Did you mean to say nuclear reactions played a part in the origin of life? To get from lifeless chemical reactions to living things requires a code of some sort or you end up with haphazardly arranged molecules. And almost all of these are too volatile to survive because they would be subject to degradation.
If you believe life can self arrange from chemicals you have faith in miracles.
False....
If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.
So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.
Last edited:
Like most Yank fascists you haven't any notion about what Socialism is - or Christianity, come to that.
I neither suggested nor implied that.
Instead I was reminding that under ambient terrestrial conditions (unlike that in stars) some reactions require precise process controls; whereas others are spontaneous.
I cited it as an example of the distinction.
Such CHEMICAL reactions happen spontaneously on Earth.
Such NUCLEAR reactions do not; thus the counter-example. Capisce?
It's somewhat the reverse.
It starts with haphazardly scattered chemicals. And life might be said to begin when an aggregation within such chemistry begins to duplicate itself.
Yes, we know.
Too stable, and life would not have begun.
Too volatile and the instability would have undermined, overwhelmed, & prevented evolution.
So it might seem to some.
I quoted Venter in #442. All that goes on in one teaspoon full of water. Well how many teaspoons full of water do you suppose Earth had back then? Quintilians? Brazilians?
But it's not merely the vast volume.
It's the chemistry variation, some portions of the sea are fed by fresh water rivers unusually high in alkalinity.
There are variations not just in chemistry, but sunlight, temperature, turbulence, depth, etc.
With a laboratory the size of a planet, and with time scales that are thousands if not millions of millennia, the wonder might have been if it had NOT happened.
UNDERSTOOD.
To the mortal mind, it's difficult to comprehend.
But to the disciplined scientific mind, it's the most plausible explanation.
I repeat: Anyone supposing that someone asserting "there are no gods"...is using reason and science to arrive there...does not understand reason or science.
And anyone who thinks that to be false...does not understand reason, science, or logic.
I have no idea of what a god would be like; neither do you; neither does anyone else.
So...give me the proof that there are no gods.
If there are gods...I have absolutely no idea of what they are like...or what attributes they might have.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
So...please produce the proof that gods do not exist.
If you want to produce stuff that calls the god of Abraham, for instance, into question...and then PRETEND that is proof that gods do not exist...
...do so.
There might be someone here as absurd as you who might buy into it.
Otherwise...produce proof that gods do not exist...or shut the fuck up, because you obviously are not ethically suited to acknowledge you are full of shit.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Oh God are you guys still on this?
1. I'm pretty sure Hawking understood science and logic a wee bit better than you.
2. Re-read what Hawking said.
"Shut the fuck up?" Running away, as I anticipated. ^^^^^
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Yup.
Hawking put it right: it was his *opinion* that science provides no evidence of God. He didn’t say the logic behind it was unassailable. The logic behind it is pretty flimsy, actually; since science, by definition, can’t prove or disprove the existence of a being that existed since before time began.
Last edited:
]If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.
So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.
Since you are unwilling to have an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about, I must infer you have no idea what your have been talking about.
Why am I not surprised?
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.
So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.
Since you are unwilling to have an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about, I must infer you have no idea what your have been talking about.
Why am I not surprised?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Define the evidence that would be required to change your opinion.
Sure a pliable concept that hardens at room temp.
Frank Apisa uses the symbol "gods" and states they are something he can't define, then goes on to assert no proof can be offered as to its existence or not. Well that's very convenient.
Also, I think he was making a more integral claim, that logic itself is constructed to immunize itself from matters of nature and empiricism. They can work together, else logic and philosophy
serve no function. He is making a simplistic binary assertion. Gods, a thing he has no idea about by his own confession,
are As and the natural world is B, and neither can touch the other. On this basis he claims that B cannot prove the existence of A or disprove it. Circular.
I know this is his assertion because he will not admit evidence of lack of A within B is meaningful.
He has chickened out of the debate. He has created a protective wall. That is a wall he has erected, not one that necessarily exists.
If you won't define what you are talking about it's probably not wise to make any assertions, though he has.
It isn't that there is no evidence, it is that he refuses to accept any evidence.