zandore, i dont mean to be offensive,

but wouldnt that make darwin a "god" since there are people that follow what he said?

I think man invented the word 'God' to mean anything that appears cleverer than he is 

When I think of the word 'God' I think of the unmanifested, the unknowable, the unseeable, the undefinable, and the intangible.

It is a useful word that helps us to say all the above.
[right][snapback]558444[/snapback][/right]

but yet, u follow what he says, correct mako???

u can believe a MAN that studied animals, but not the God that created the animals to be studied? sorry my friend, makes no sense

Thank you for your welcomes

Quicksand-Do you believe you exist? Then you know God.


The 'veil' is just a forgetting-we chose to forget that we are the manifested God because we are trying to define what that means.
[right][snapback]558527[/snapback][/right]

The universe isn't alive or sentient any more than a burning candle, or the replication of RNA within a cell.
[right][snapback]558414[/snapback][/right]

I like your answer Zandore:

Thank you. What answer was that?
[right][snapback]558605[/snapback][/right]

Since no theists wants to answer let me start.
What makes a God a God?
When a God can find fools to follow Her/Him/It, Then and only then is Her/Him/It God.

why is the universe not alive?

it can be modeled as such.

i am not claiming it is alive, but merely saying that it can be modeled after a living organism. After all, all systems are alive, even if the elements that make it up are not life in and of themselves.

As for darwin: nobody worships darwinism. if one turns a scientific theory into their own religion they are closing their minds off and are no longer practicing science.

I like your answer Zandore: religion is a fools gold. The religious cling to their belief as if it were of great value to all, when it is only of great value to themselves.
[right][snapback]558596[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]558610[/snapback][/right]

The inference you are making is very weak.

The inference you are making is very weak.


The universe isn't goal directed. It just is and just exists.


Sentient beings are goal directed so one might say that a candle is therefor alive. But a candle flamproprigateare that it is consuming energy to proprogate.


Only sentient beings are aware that they exist and exhibit awareness of their activities.

[right][snapback]558613[/snapback][/right]

Correct me if I am wrong Hyper.
I think what Hyper is trying to say is that the universe is sort of like the bio-sphere of earth. All the parts that make a whole.
[right][snapback]558630[/snapback][/right]

But it's not alive nor is the earth aware that it is the earth. Unless it has a brain and nerves shoved somewhere and geology says otherwise.

You analogy is like that of an egg. While its true that shell and yoke and white are parts of the whole, the egg is unaware that it is an egg. We know it, but that's because we precede the chicken laying it.
[right][snapback]558640[/snapback][/right]

the idea is that complex systems take on a "life" of their own.  equilibrium could be viewed as direction.  All systems seek equalibrium. 


It is a philosophical debate as to what really contemplates life.  The reason I introduced it here is such a concept bridges the ideas of science and higher order life without introducing unknown species into the equation.
[right][snapback]558635[/snapback][/right]

yet we do not precede the universe, so how can we have such a perspective on what it is?
[right][snapback]558657[/snapback][/right]

Hhmm...that's a tricky question 'cause you're telling me you're non-existant. Which must mean that I am having one of those whacky dreams again and I must lay off the cheese at suppertime!

Those are words often used in ancient texts to describe the indescribable(in other words a way for the religious to say -don't ask me!) 
[right][snapback]558664[/snapback][/right]

Quicksand-Hhmm...that's a tricky question 'cause you're telling me you're non-existant. Which must mean that I am having one of those whacky dreams again and I must lay off the cheese at suppertime!

Those are words often used in ancient texts to describe the indescribable(in other words a way for the religious to say -don't ask me!) 
[right][snapback]558664[/snapback][/right]

I never made that statement hyperactive that we preceed the universe. To do so would be self-refuting and irrational.

The universe does not need statement to prove that exists. That would be silly and unnecessary.
[right][snapback]558670[/snapback][/right]

i didn't mean that it needs statement to prove it exists.

What I was refering to is since we are within the universe (within a subspace of the universe) we do not have full knowledge of what the universe is.
[right][snapback]558676[/snapback][/right]

You're changing your claim hyperactive.

You said the universe was alive, or exhibits all the qualities that an alive thing does. Which it does not. The Law of Identity says otherwise.

Do you wish to change your claim to something to the effect that "Since we can not know everything about the universe, and since the universe is a complex system, we can therefor safely conclude that the universe is alive."

Its syllogism would look like this:

01. Complex systems are alive and sentient, the universe is complex system.
02. We do not know everything about the universe.
03. Therefore the universe is sentient and alive.
[right][snapback]558682[/snapback][/right]

i am not changing the claim that the universe, as a complex system, could be considered alive. Alive is a product of the interactions of parts of the system itself and does not imply or require the system to be sentient to function. Is a single celled creature alive? yes, yet we don't imply that it is sentient.
[right][snapback]558695[/snapback][/right]

Just following your logic here.

A chicken egg is certianly more complex than an amoeba, although not as complex as the universe. However, we can conclude then that the chicken egg is alive and aware of its surroundings.

~~~~~~~

Actually, the problem with your last post is that it relies on making an argument from ignorance. I can think of a sorts thinks to argue that must be true because they haven't been proven false. That is wrong. It is the asserter that must prove their assertions true.
[right][snapback]558715[/snapback][/right]

proof that the universe matches organic life? no, of course not!
the model is that systems are alive in the sense that they self regulate, self balance, just as organic life does.

I should not have gone down the path of comparing to organic life. the models to compare to are systems such as the earth itself.

As I said, it is a philosophical debate as to whether the interactions of a system define life or not. It does indeed mean expanding the definition of life.

I am not trying to sell you on it as a scientific fact, it is at best a hypothesis.
[right][snapback]558728[/snapback][/right]

But that is the point of it hyperactive!

You can not make the claim that the universe is alive, unless you want to claim that the universe, despite its complexity, is an organic entity.

As you know, complexity isn't a guarantee in itself that such and such system is a living, sentient, aware entity.
[right][snapback]558759[/snapback][/right]

exactly.  that is why it requires a redefining of life to work.

a better question would have been something like "if we create a terrarium with various plants and insects such that it is self sustaining, is the entire terrarium alive, or merely the organic life forms within it alive?" since the whole thing relys on mapping such a system to the universe.
[right][snapback]558766[/snapback][/right]

Well, when the universe (being a complex system that it is) reproduces itself whether it is by asexual or sexual reproduction, or dies because of old age, you be sure to show me the cards you pick out for birthday or its funreal.

If we are going to redefine what life is, then mountain of granite of rocks is alive, since granite rocks has have complex structure and a whole pile of them is complexity upon complexity. Through continental abduction piles of granite rocks continue to be pushed upwards into mountains, therefore, this is could be considered a form of reproduction.


[right][snapback]558789[/snapback][/right]

I have to disagree once again hyperactive, it is not a philosophical debate, but a debate about definitions.

Why is it so important that we have accurate and precise definitions? Because, we are talking about things that have specific qualities and this how we know the world and interact with it.

You've now opened the definition of life up so much that a flame is living, a mountain of rocks is living, and even my late model SUV is a living entity. As you can tell from our discussion, a definition does matter.

Life is axiomatic and therefore needs no redefining or defining really. Please consider this as you work on your new definition of it, or at the very least proffer a new argument what living these are.

The Law of Identity: For things, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

The Law of Excluded Middle: For things, "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"

The Law of contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false."

Just consider these things is all I ask. Otherwise, I enjoyed the discussion with you.
[right][snapback]559473[/snapback][/right]

But it's not alive nor is the earth aware that it is the earth. Unless it has a brain and nerves shoved somewhere and geology says otherwise.

You analogy is like that of an egg. While its true that shell and yoke and white are parts of the whole, the egg is unaware that it is an egg. We know it, but that's because we precede the chicken laying it.
[right][snapback]558640[/snapback][/right]

yes, a good chat.
however, things such as SUVs, mountians of rock or flames would not meet the definition either since it is defining a compex self sustaining environment as alive. A flame can not rach a state of equalibrium (it only consumes fuel, it does not produce it), the same and more can be said of the others you referenced.
[right][snapback]559735[/snapback][/right]

Is a weed alive? Is a tree alive? Is coral alive? YES. Do they know they are there? hmmm... So yes it's possible that the Earth and indeed the Universe is a living system...
[right][snapback]559764[/snapback][/right]

In what ways do the Earth, this planet, and a weed differ? Answer that and you will see how the law of identity works.
[right][snapback]559790[/snapback][/right]

My point was, does the weed know it's alive? Or the Coral Reef? Who's to say, right? Now who's to say the Earth isn't alive? Just because it doesn't have a brain doesn't mean it doesn't live...

You honestly can't see how the Earth is a living system? Weather patterns, Sea currents, Molten Core, Tectonic Activity, Volcanic Activity, Ice Caps which grow and recede, Rock - into dirt - which plants use, along with sunlight to create oxygen for the rest of life to survive? I have made the list considerably shorter for the thread's good. But without this SYSTEM acting around the planet, WE cease to exsist, PERIOD. Take it away, and let's just say, take a look at the planet MARS...

Its streams are its veins, and Rivers are its arteries. The water itself creates life. You are thinking in a sense of Carbon Based lifeforms which is all that exsists on this planet...And that is okay, but you limit yourself. There are more possiblilities for "Types" of life out there. Carbon is just one. Silicon is another. And so on. IT'S AN ECO "SYSTEM", the Earth. A living system which sustains itself by depending on everything that is in it (plants, animals, dirt, rock, oceans, seas, ice caps...etc.). Without it, we die, along with everything else. IT IS A LIVING SYSTEM.

You fail to see the difference between a Living System, and a Living Thing. A weed is a Living Thing. The Earth, and yes indeed the universe, is a LIVING SYSTEM. 
[right][snapback]559862[/snapback][/right]

What makes a small g god a small g god?  Whatever excuse can be made for the sin nature of man to be fallen in nature, and accept the fallen nature as the true nature of man.  Gods and goddesses were created, assimillated, and transmitted by people and societies which decided to no longer follow the unmistakeable evidene for the one God for many.  Through the many, the one is content to call sin and sinning righteousness.  With a seared or broken yet tranquil conscience, the polytheologian now has non-personal methods of coping with the events of the day and his failings for the day.
[right][snapback]559927[/snapback][/right]

LB, while the Earth is an integrated system of living things, you are stating that is a akin to a biological entity like a human, a weed, a plant etc and that a LIVING SYSTEM is a LIVING THING. It is in fact it is none of these things. The dichotomy that you and hyperactive are pressing is false. In fact to use your new definition of life, my mountain of rocks (a subset of the earth with its own complexities), the flame, my SUV, or a virus for that matter is somehow aware of it's surrounding like a biological entity. But you two keep rejecting my examples of LIVING SYSTEMS! I wonder why? I am just using your new definition of a living system is a living thing. Thus, the flame is alive, my SUV is alive and so too are the mountain of rocks.

Using the terminology of "living system" does not change the inference you are making that it is a "living thing." In fact, all you two are really left with is some is an ad hoc argument that the only way that this is true is only true in this case.

Moving on to your analogy of the earth with its "streams like veins, and rivers like atreries." While its a wonderful analogy, it is only an analogy. We have yet to discover silicon based life and that's what this new definition of life, the Earth would have to be. With this non sequitur aside, you can not make the case that while the Earth contains an Eco-system is a similar "living-thing" like a weed, plant, etc.
[right][snapback]559906[/snapback][/right]

alas, no insult intended, but i think you do not fully understand systems theory and its implications. We can not rely on rigid axiomatic logic to explain the universe.
[right][snapback]561041[/snapback][/right]

So anything based upon "systems theory" is a living thing. This is what you are arguing for.

I'm stating that it is simply not so based upon axioms of what life is, to what life is not.
[right][snapback]561350[/snapback][/right]