Alan McDougall

Then why the heck are you part of this debate? No one can comprehend an infinite entity not you or I, you asked for a definition I gave it and promptly dismissed it! No matter what definition I give you, you will always respond in the same manner, I never said my definition was correct or any other persons wrong because they differ from it I am frustrated with this topic, it is like trying to debate with a lamp post. What do you mean by pleading?, I want you to think seriously about your own moment of death, and make a sensible response about how you would handle that moment. Also would you invite the likes of Richard Dawkings to your deathbed to give you hope and comfort, what use would this type of person be to anyone in their dying moments? I am not pleading, where do you think I am doing this, I am just making a point about the reality of death, it is a fatal illness that will kill us all. During the Holocaust there were people Jewish traitors "that would do anything","I repeat anything" to live for even one brief moment longer, because of the absolute fear of impending death, annihilation of self and the terror of ceasing to exist forever. When I came so close to dying one sobering and frightening thought emerged blanking out all other thoughts in my mind then it was this, at the moment my heart began to flutter, and stop and start and as a cold sweat of fear came over me "the realization that I was actually dying" took hold. Go there and you will see and feel what I did and if you survive, you will come out a changed person.

I am a huge fan of science fiction,and love the humor of Douglas Adams. You give me evidence and I will add to the evidence I have already posted, although you seem to be blind to anything but your own logic, which is just as wrong as mine is, because God if he exists, is totally beyond our tiny weeny little minute finite quantum brains. Put yourself in a true perceptive when you write about a being of infinite might. Please reply to the comments below! Try to remember what I am writing to you now very very carefully. On the day of your death, when you are gasping for breath, you will sober up very quickly and hope with all the power within your being that there is a creator god and an afterlife. Of course I might be wrong and you have absolutely no fear of death, but a loaded gun to your forehead will soon change this supposition. Why not arrange in your will for Richard Dawkings or his like, to be at your deathbed, to comfort and give you hope in those final moments of cold fear as you breath out your last breath, perish, blink out of this world and cease existing forever. Maybe in the event of the final stages of beloved ones and friends demise,, you could also arrange for Dawking or another atheist of note, to arrive a few hours before during the awful final process of their their death, in order to bring them some real hope and comfort, with his huge amount of wisdom of life and biology to comfort them even further he could tell them in, their very last moments on this earth ,that there is absolutely no God and the idea of a peaceful afterlife, is a delusion of the stupid. Dawkings would most likely also be able to give them a great deal of hope and comfort by informing them in the most trying and fearful moment of their lives, that it is "just their selfish genes" that are killing them and it is that mindless gene that is responsible for their early death death, because they were programed by these very selfish genes to get sick and die early, much earlier that most other people. His wisdom and knowledge and his very learned presence, might also bring about a huge amount of comfort to those full of sadness after the death of a beloved one, with his great intellect and expertise in biology, he could quickly bring them out of mourning and lead them into the sunshine of a new joyful day. He would most definitely also put them right if they believed in God, telling them that this was a delusional lie propagated by religious fanatics, this will comfort them greatly don't you think? My brush with death I would like to repeat a statement I made earlier, during 2011 I woke up sweating with my heart beating extremely irregularly. I began to sweat profusely and could feel my heart actually starting and stopping. My wife called an ambulance and by this time I lapsed into and out of consciousness, and a cold fear like I have never experience before began ti grip me in unspeakable terror. By the time they got me to the hospital, which luckily for me is only three kilometers from my home, my heart had stopped beating completely and I was in a state of total AV heart block. The doctors took two hours to get my heart started again on the resuscitation table and inserted a heart pace maker to keep me alive. When I finally regained consciousness, my doctor came to my bed and said 'You were really really clinically dead and if you had arrived even ten minutes later you would have died and it would have been impossible to get my heart to beat again" This event , really sobered me up on the subject of the existence of God and the possible of a peaceful afterlife. I had a near death experience, but this forum is not the place to write about it. As it would with anyone with even one neuron in their brick hardened brains

Entropy insures that order always descends into chaos, such as the running down of our universe from the time of the big bang, when zero entropy (Total order) existed for the one and only moment, until its ultimate state of maximum entropy. You are right life is an example of entropy supposedly decreasing but life must borrow from the total order of the universe and this seems to indicate that chaos becoming more ordered and entropy decreasing, but the total entropy of the universe remains unaffected. A power-station is another example, heat up the water in boiler and the entropy and within that isolated system decreases,or reverses entropy, but after the steam is used and cooled and vented into a heat sink, the total entropy of the universe continues unabated. Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence, but did I not admit it was circumstance. For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God you really spend a huge amount of time and effort with long posting a religious focus forum. This is not a philosophical forum, why not open one there, where you can debate it wit your intellectual equals and not a little deluded idiot you appear to think I am. You might be right, maybe a large pink elephant was the alpha point or maybe god is a pencil, I twist, you twist , we both twist and I am the primordial Staw- man, just waiting to frighten off logical thinkers like you. OK give me proof that God does not exist, don't avoid the question by asking which god! I an not thinking about the god of religion , but an innate, intrinsic intelligence that created and sustains all things. To keep it simple restrict your answers to our universe?.

Of course not! by saying "alpha point" I mean "a point" from which our limited concept of existence emerged, of course there might not have been an alpha point. There is also the "problem of infinite regression" which I reject, because with linear time the arrow of time would have to go back into the infinite eternal past, and the reality in which we exist would never have come into existence.There has to be a beginning, for linear time to flow. Thus, although we know that time in our universe, is linear from past to present into the future, there must be some sort of "timeless zone" from which all of reality got a push into linear time, with the of the lack of a better word, some sort of cosmic clock, at the moment of the Big Bang. I don't like dogma from any source, I think the below short video would be of interesting to those with an opened mind, it is not about nonsensical spooky ethereal metaphysics but the view of a real modern day scientist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE That is nonsense!, Your logic suggests a scenario where the "designer of the Space Shuttle "knew less about its design", than the "astronauts" who only needed to know how to control and fly it, or the passengers of a great ocean liner knowing much more about its design, than the actual designer who spent years in its design. Yes! that sums up nicely what I am proposing, at the quantum fundamental level, (which underpins all of reality) we do not find certainty, but probability, and thus, science cannot prove anything to the point of absolute truth.

As a monotheist this is my definition of God The creator cause of all existence, the source from which all things emerged. I do not perceive God as some sort of great being. I think this entity more as the infinite alpha point, primordial mind, the prime cause of our particular universe and whatever else might also exist outside of our human knowledge.

I will not go to those obviously links that are nothing but a patronizing attempt to dismiss anything I have said up to now as illogical, if you can go back and read again what I stated, I said there is "more, circumstantial evidence in my opinion", for the existence of God than the reverse. "I have a right to express my opinion" and if you really don't want me to express my opinion, then I will leave the forum, because, according to you, the forum rules prevent me from doing that. Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. Believing in God might just be a comfort to you, when you are on your death bed breathing out your last bit of life? Unlike you I have recently faced that exact situation due to AV heart block stoppage, and maybe if you came this close to death , you would quickly sober up, and have a real rethink about your atheism, why not you would have nothing to lose be doing that, remember the old saying "In the trenches there are no atheists" man believe me there is a lot of truth in that quote!. Or if you are absolutely determined to retain your present belief, you could even arrange for Richard Dawkings to come and comfort you in your dying moments, I suppose he would be a great help to you in those awful final moments before you blink- out and cease to exist forever. Sometimes our human logic falls very short of explaining reality, such things as quantum non-locality or the light speed constant make no sense, to our limited human intellects, but are nevertheless true. Yes I am a theist, but I am not religious and nonetheless, that does not prevent me from been rational! One more patronizing comment from you, will result in me unsubscribing from an forum that is otherwise populated by pleasant polite people, of course this is again just my own limited opinion. Alan

OK your points are noted! In my opinion there is more reason or logic, if you like, to point to a designer or God than there is to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing, and the mathematics that sustain exist it, just by lucky chance. It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about with about due to a mathematical mind behind their equations. The universe is held together and sustained by these extremely precise mathematical laws, and this suggests to me, a mathematician of great intelligence behind the production of these equations and the consequential setting up these as universal constants of our particular universe. I know this is an old argument, but it warrants restating in my opinion.

The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God. In other words, logic is built into God. He did not create logic like he created humans, but neither did logic exist as some sort of entity outside of God. Since God has always existed, and the laws of logic are based in God, then the laws of logic have always existed as well. Can God violate the laws of logic? No, because he cannot not be himself. Whatever God is, he is eternally. God does not shut down various attributes of his being, like cutting off lights in different parts of the house. God is logical, he always has been logical, and he always will be logical. - http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/09/13/is-god-subject-to-logic/#sthash.0mNFBFgH.dpuf In my opinion God cannot do what is not logical, it is not really a limitation, because God is intrinsically logical and if it were not so, we would not exist. The other question often asked can God do the impossible, of course God is confined by logic, but can do what is "humanly impossible", not , not do what is "logically impossible", like making a square circle or making 3+3 =150. This in not a limitation, just a statement of ultimate reality! This dismissal of a simple statement of mine, like "if you exist why cant God exist" as a straw-man argument, is just away to avoid answering the question and really irritated me. Even if it is a straw -man argument at least try and refute it, not dismiss it outright.

If you exist, then why is it impossible for God to exist? I don't think God let us loose, he gave us a free will without any reservations, so that we can choose right or wrong and also make meaningful decisions of our own. If it were not this way, we would have been robots, or controlled by instinct like animals (I love animals by the way) There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial. How can you suppose to know what the attributes of an infinite being are in reality. that sort of logic is useless, like asking if God can make a rock to heavy for him to lift up. God like us must be limited by absolute logic, thus he cannot maker 7 +7 + 15.

Yes I do, according to this theory , non-locality and interconnectivity of electrons, an electron, which is a fundamental particle can exist in more that one place at the same moment, and all electrons have an instantaneous connection with every other electron in the universe, , thus all electrons (Or all fundamental particles in the universe) are in reality just the expression of one thing huge, omnipresent and eternal, like God is supposed to be. I will undertake to pray for you, it is only now that I have read you post! An Atheist, really will prove to be useless at comforting a very sick or dying person, take Richard Dawkings and his new Atheism, imagine him trying to comfort a person on their death bed, as opposed to a person with a firm conviction that there is a beautiful afterlife, which of the two would be more helpful at this very trying moment? Maybe there is an absolute reality?

If you read what I said I said countless people (I should have said many people), however, theists differ greatly in their idea of exactly what their God character is, thus to some God is a remote disinterested great entity who created the universe and let it run on its own , without interfering (God of Spinoza) To some God is a personal loving entity that promises an afterlife, it is this group that gets the most comfort out of believing in God, "even if they are wrong"

Explanation accepted

Of course anyone reading my response, (were I used the brain as an example of an electric driven organism) with even the minutest understanding of biology, would know that I meant electrochemical. Of course I do not believe that if some questions "are presently" beyond the scope of science to answer, that it is some sort of failure due to scientific effort. Questions have been asked by the greatest minds over all off human history, some even apparently simplistic and childlike, such as Albert Einstein imagining riding on a beam of light, a thought that might have led to General Relativity

Belief in God gives peace and hope to countless people, as evidence in the death bed scenarios of people of faith. You don't have to be religious to believe in God, it can remain a quiet inner conviction that needs no proof. I recently had a very close brush with death, my heart stopped one evening due to total AV heart block, which involved a protracted effort by a team of doctors on the resuscitation table to bring me back from the brink of death. I now have a heart pacemaker installed and a much more restrained approach to dying and the possibility of an afterlife, which I will not attempt to prove to anyone, they can make up their own mind on the subject of God and death.

No! I am not a believer in Vitalism, but there must be a scientific biological answer to the question? What caused, some selective "previously nonliving" matter in the primordial past, to become "animated and alive"? Take the brain, it uses very tiny electric impulses to pass messages/parts of messages, between neurons (Of course many other factors as well)

Viruses are the most plentiful biological things known, maybe having more total mass than any other organism, because they exist somewhat in the grey areas between living entities and non-living entities, might they hold the clue how ancient life first emerged from lifeless matter, taking Abiogenesis out of the realms of speculation.

Shades of grey between "alive and 'not - alive, is that not vague just like I stated earlier? In what state, exactly then is a strand of virus RNA outside a host? Viruses can’t accomplish many of the major of functions of life on their own outside of the host cell it has been debated for many years whether viruses are indeed “alive.”

Thus my earlier statement that the exact differences between living entities and dead ones, are vague must be correct, but was dismissed as nonsense by a member What I am trying to understand, during medievil times it was supposed by some early biologists, that some sort of "Life Force" animated living things. (I am not talking about the soul!). Thus is there one sort of "Bilogical Spark" that equates to the hypothetical life force and animates living bilogical entities?

Can one answer after the "death of a single cell", what is "absence" and exactly how does the "dead cell differ from its living state", lets leave out for a while the death of a complex organism, like a human body, which is more complex and progressive. Please this is not to put forward a creationist point of view as some suppose in the thread. However, there is something missing from the dead cell" that was intrinsic or endogenuos when it was it biologically alive. Is this some sort of electric charge or magnetic martix? I am talking here about animal life, plant life differs a little.

Then a virus can be both dead or alive, depending where it is in its evironment. Within a cell it has high Jacked, it is (becomes) alive and "conforms to your definition above". Outside or unattached to anything it is dead! Thus the the diffrence between living things and non living things can be vague. "Of course your personal understanding is relavent here", if not what are you doing in the thread?

Why do you always point me to a link, the link information could be wrong? Give your own understanding of what life really is and exactly at what point, does "dead nonliving matter" becomes alive, or a how a living entity becomes dead matter? It is really entropy that causes death! What about the virus? When studying the phenomenon of viruses, it is noticed that before the viruses come in contact with a host organism, they are just "non living chemical compounds" and do not fulfill the criteria of being alive.On the other hand when viruses start reacting with a host, they start chemical reactions with the compounds of the living cell of the host they are said to be alive. http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about26560.html?p=145957&hilit=Proteinaceous#p145957 holographic origin of life When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.....Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.What would that mean to the way that we see the world?First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals.But maybe not.If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance. At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considered life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.

Thank you Ophiolite! I will remain, but any points of disagreement between me and some members are always dispensed as a "Staw Man" argument , I admit some indeed were just that, but not all and it is that sort of response that irritates me profoundly. We can disagree in a polite manner, not just always dismissing another persons idea on the topic as nonsense, just because it does no concur exactly with theirs. Life is one of the great mysteries of science, there is not an absolute clear unambiguous definition of what exactly life is as opposed to "Dead Matter" A flame could be thought of as a sort of life form , or a crystal, the actual "Edge" between living things and "Dead Matter" is vague. Alan

OK I will eave this topic, although I started it some time ago, maybe you of infinite intelligence really know all the answers to every question, no matter how profound!

It is clear to me that some of you think "I am a science denialist" that is blatant nonsense! My prime interest is science in all its forms. All I suggest in this particular topic, is that no one really "knows for sure" how lifeless matter metamorphed into living organisms , especially as early as it did, only a few hundred million years after the earths formation, and the answer is not a simple as some suppose it is/or will be when finally revealed.

Hi, This is a bit off topic, but how did the eye and the nose agree to drill a hole between them for the benefit of them both, namely creating the tunnel we call the tear duct, that drains the eye of excess fluid and moistens the incoming air through the nose with each breath we take? . Was it like the Channel Tunnel, the nose drilling from its side and the eye from its side , joyously greeting each other at the brake through point, with another victory for evolution?.