DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Rapture
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 106, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/01/2009 04:28:53 PM · #51
Well, you are going to have to be a bit more specific. What context are you talking about Kierkegaard? I certainly can't say I've studied him although I've read passages in some of his stuff. I like the way he thinks, but wouldn't say I "adhere" to him or anything.

I agree with you that life on Mars that is distinct from life on Earth would be a good argument that life is in lots of places. However, as I mentioned, the "distinct" would be the critical part. Planets have cross-contamination and even if life were found on Mars one could not automatically deduce that it arose twice.
07/01/2009 05:00:19 PM · #52
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, the devil would be in the details as Martian life could be cross-contamination from Earth life or even vice-versa (we could all be Martian in origin).


It think initially cross-contamination will be the selected theory. But, I believe life arose only one time. It has since been spreading across the universe. There are enough examples of how life can hang on in even the most hostile environments, especially if small, less hazardous micro-environments exist within the substrate of the "pollinating" objects. Recent estimates show that over 83 percent of the content of the universe is so-called dark matter. Perhaps this is the shadow of pervasive life. :)
07/01/2009 05:06:51 PM · #53
Looks like you got yerself some relijun there FireBird. :)

Actually, on the small chance you didn't know the name, your idea is called Panspermia.
07/01/2009 09:40:27 PM · #54
Sorry, should have been more specific since his stuff on religion has a few different flavors. I meant his views on the incompatability of faith and reason, the necessary departure from one to witness the other. I was reminded of this because the strength of evidence against religion should life be discovered elsewhere is extremely strong, even if it is via contamination. If it were by contamination, it would still heavily question the veracity of the idea of God creating the Earth for his own purposes, in that you'd think an additional planet with life would be mentioned in any sort of accurate history. The arguments here border on many different topics, however, and it is straying somewhat from my point, which is that you are pre-emptively negating reasonable answers. Whereas creationism holds onto the absurdity of life spawning itself due to astronomical potentialities, you are already holding that an exploded chunk of rock which would likely be molten, flying through a vacuum for several years and then crashlanding on an atmosphereless (or, if it had an atmosphere, an even harder re-entry) rock and starting again. This seemingly is a departure from reason, which is fine, but that's what reminded me of Kierkegaard.
07/01/2009 11:13:45 PM · #55
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Sorry, should have been more specific since his stuff on religion has a few different flavors. I meant his views on the incompatability of faith and reason, the necessary departure from one to witness the other. I was reminded of this because the strength of evidence against religion should life be discovered elsewhere is extremely strong, even if it is via contamination. If it were by contamination, it would still heavily question the veracity of the idea of God creating the Earth for his own purposes, in that you'd think an additional planet with life would be mentioned in any sort of accurate history. The arguments here border on many different topics, however, and it is straying somewhat from my point, which is that you are pre-emptively negating reasonable answers. Whereas creationism holds onto the absurdity of life spawning itself due to astronomical potentialities, you are already holding that an exploded chunk of rock which would likely be molten, flying through a vacuum for several years and then crashlanding on an atmosphereless (or, if it had an atmosphere, an even harder re-entry) rock and starting again. This seemingly is a departure from reason, which is fine, but that's what reminded me of Kierkegaard.


Except we've found exactly that. Martian rocks on earth. Remember the hubbub of 1998 when we found a martian meteorite that seemed to contain fossilized bacteria? Let's put it this way. If we ever find life on Mars and it uses the same DNA base pairs we do (or even DNA at all), then I would think it would be far more likely life arose (or was created) once instead of twice and happened to use the same molecule for heredity. If we find life which is completely different, then we might be talking.

I find there is no incompatibility with faith and reason. Everybody incorporates both. Our worldviews are all based on the data we have at hand and we fill in the blanks with our best guesses. Some guesses are, of course, poor, but many times I generally think the materialists of the world think their position is far stronger and more sturdy than the rest of us when, in reality, it has just as many blanks to fill. JH offers a great example in his use of the word "arrogant" to describe a position which speculates that we are "special". To read between the lines, he is saying it is foolish to think the universe isn't filled with life when the reality is his position has no physical evidence behind it and is no more logically rational than the position that we are, in fact, the only game in town. I'm being browbeat because he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

Message edited by author 2009-07-01 23:15:32.
07/02/2009 12:18:34 AM · #56
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Sorry, should have been more specific since his stuff on religion has a few different flavors. I meant his views on the incompatability of faith and reason, the necessary departure from one to witness the other. I was reminded of this because the strength of evidence against religion should life be discovered elsewhere is extremely strong, even if it is via contamination. If it were by contamination, it would still heavily question the veracity of the idea of God creating the Earth for his own purposes, in that you'd think an additional planet with life would be mentioned in any sort of accurate history.


I'll have to read up on who Kierkegaard is.

As for alien life, it's compatible with faith and God's plan. Read the article, Believing in aliens not opposed to Christianity
07/02/2009 12:20:48 AM · #57
Referencing the proposed Martian bacteria does not dispell what I said. For one, it was inconclusively evidence of Martian bacteria, and they were fossilized. What I mentioned was them taking the wildest rocketship asteroid ride between planets and remaining viable. Fossils are not viable, and can survive the rigors of interplanetary flight because the only difference between them and any other rock is the specific shape and mechanism of formation. Fossils are minerals, and inert. Big difference.
What you are referencing here about the inability to prove one way or the other is an endorsement of agnosticism.
The specific topic is relating to falsification, and carries over into the concept of what is a blik and what is and is not a justifiable blik.
Further, that you state that there is no more body of evidence to the contrary brings me to ask- what then assures you of your worldview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a selective endorsement of agnosticism going on here. Neither of us can be sure but I am anyway?
07/02/2009 12:35:11 AM · #58
Originally posted by Nullix:



I'll have to read up on who Kierkegaard is.

As for alien life, it's compatible with faith and God's plan. Read the article, Believing in aliens not opposed to Christianity


Kierkegaard is more entertaining to read than many other philosopher's work. He has a certain way with words that others (great example here being Kant) lack. A lot of his writings seem less like a lexicon and more like an honest appeal.

In regard to the article... this strikes me as death by a thousand qualifications. You can only expand the scope of a piece after the fact so much before you destroy the idea itself.

Also forgot to mention; thanks ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' DrAchoo for that link on Panspermia. Hadn't ever heard the term before.
07/02/2009 01:05:48 AM · #59
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Further, that you state that there is no more body of evidence to the contrary brings me to ask- what then assures you of your worldview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a selective endorsement of agnosticism going on here. Neither of us can be sure but I am anyway?


In all my days in Rant I actually rarely content my position is better than another, but rather simply on equal footing. I am not sure of my position, but I choose to hold it. I, however, did not call the other position "arrogant".

Agnosticism is probably the most intellectually honest position, but I do not like the impotence and paralysis of it. Instead, I realize the validity of agnosticism while still choosing to "take a position".
07/02/2009 01:18:16 AM · #60
I didn't mean better. That's why I used "sure" and whatnot; I was legitimately asking because there seemed to be some incongruency and I wanted to make sure I was understanding you. Perhaps I should explain what I meant by "assures;" I personally hold that all people do things for reasons. Now, people may not be aware what these specific reasons are, but they are there. So I was asking what makes you select that as your position. You select it because for some reason it is better, but just better for you. Your circumstances and situation do not apply to everybody, but you have decided it is a better option for you to believe than to not believe. TBH, believers don't often admit what you have about agnosticism, and it seemed out of the ordinary so I felt I should prod it to see where it led.
07/02/2009 01:38:31 AM · #61
Well, the classic saying is "faith in that which is assured is not faith". ;)

BTW, I was not implying the 1998 martian meteorite was, in fact, showing life has come from Mars. It was more a proof of concept. We know for fact that there is cross-contamination of rock between our planets (as proven by the meteorite). We also know of bacteria which are capable of withstanding massive gamma radiation. At the very least I would speculate this puts the idea of cross-contamination of life out of the realm of "absurdity". It's certainly no more absurd than the idea of abiogenesis itself.

Anyway, if we are still talking about the idea that we are the only life in the universe, I hold the position we are because of my worldview. Like everybody else, I choose to fill the blanks with guesses that are congruent with what I believe. It would seem quite odd to run across someone who did not do likewise. I don't hold it against JH for feeling the universe is filled with life. I just take exception that he would consider my own view to be arrogant.
07/02/2009 01:44:30 AM · #62
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, the classic saying is "faith in that which is assured is not faith". ;)
At the very least I would speculate this puts the idea of cross-contamination of life out of the realm of "absurdity". It's certainly no more absurd than the idea of abiogenesis itself.



That's just my point though- theologians contend that abiogenesis is absurd but you are pre-emptively providing an equally far fetched solution to fit extraterrestrial life into your worldview.

ETA: "faith in that which is assured is not faith" is exactly what I was talking about with rationality not being compatible with faith, as well. Faith requires devotion in the face of admitted doubt.

Message edited by author 2009-07-02 01:48:26.
07/02/2009 04:57:27 AM · #63
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't hold it against JH for feeling the universe is filled with life. I just take exception that he would consider my own view to be arrogant.

To clarify. I consider it arrogant that we humans imagine ourselves to be so important in the Universe. Carl Sagan says it better than me in his comment on 'Pale Blue Dot';

"The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.
Carl Sagan".

07/02/2009 06:21:07 AM · #64
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't hold it against JH for feeling the universe is filled with life. I just take exception that he would consider my own view to be arrogant.

Originally posted by JH:

To clarify. I consider it arrogant that we humans imagine ourselves to be so important in the Universe. Carl Sagan says it better than me in his comment on 'Pale Blue Dot';

"The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

This part is what saddens me when I think about how important some think that they are.


07/02/2009 11:31:30 AM · #65
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, the classic saying is "faith in that which is assured is not faith". ;)
At the very least I would speculate this puts the idea of cross-contamination of life out of the realm of "absurdity". It's certainly no more absurd than the idea of abiogenesis itself.



That's just my point though- theologians contend that abiogenesis is absurd but you are pre-emptively providing an equally far fetched solution to fit extraterrestrial life into your worldview.


No no. You are really misunderstanding me. My prsonal solution is the absurd idea that a higher being started it all. ;)

My talk about Mars is stepping out of my worldview and assuming a natural explanation. I am just saying that people often make the mistake of assuming that if we ever found life on Mars it would mean life arose twice. Scientists know that cross-contamination between planets is possible. This scenario, BTW, isn't some wild conjecture from my mind. Scientists definitely have this on their radar. I'll try to find some links for you.
07/02/2009 11:43:06 AM · #66

Rapture

07/02/2009 11:44:24 AM · #67
Here you go spatula. At least an article to say scientists are looking at this. Again, I'm not saying it's what happened. I'm just saying it would need to be considered in the equation if we ever find life on Mars.

Alien Life Can Survive Trip to Earth, Space Test Shows
07/02/2009 11:48:57 AM · #68
Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't hold it against JH for feeling the universe is filled with life. I just take exception that he would consider my own view to be arrogant.

To clarify. I consider it arrogant that we humans imagine ourselves to be so important in the Universe. Carl Sagan says it better than me in his comment on 'Pale Blue Dot';

"The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.
Carl Sagan".


Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is a good essay. Powerful. Yet it is a bit contradictory. On one hand he points to the vastness of the universe to show us our insigificance. On the other hand he says there is "no hint that help (ie. life) will come from elsewhere" which makes us very significant to ourselves at least (and there may be nobody else to be significant to). So which is it?

Message edited by author 2009-07-02 11:49:07.
07/02/2009 01:02:26 PM · #69
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is a good essay. Powerful. Yet it is a bit contradictory. On one hand he points to the vastness of the universe to show us our insigificance. On the other hand he says there is "no hint that help (ie. life) will come from elsewhere" which makes us very significant to ourselves at least (and there may be nobody else to be significant to). So which is it?


It's only a contradiction if you can't imagine a scale beyond humanity with which we can measure significance. On an individual level, many people confuse significane to themselves as significance. I see it at poetry readings all the time.
07/02/2009 01:17:21 PM · #70
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is a good essay. Powerful. Yet it is a bit contradictory. On one hand he points to the vastness of the universe to show us our insigificance. On the other hand he says there is "no hint that help (ie. life) will come from elsewhere" which makes us very significant to ourselves at least (and there may be nobody else to be significant to). So which is it?


It's only a contradiction if you can't imagine a scale beyond humanity with which we can measure significance. On an individual level, many people confuse significane to themselves as significance. I see it at poetry readings all the time.


You are, of course, correct Don. It all matters on how you are using the word "significant". Am I significant to a star in a distant galaxy? Not one iota. Does it matter whether I'm significant to that star? Not at all.
07/02/2009 02:17:35 PM · #71
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are, of course, correct Don. It all matters on how you are using the word "significant". Am I significant to a star in a distant galaxy? Not one iota. Does it matter whether I'm significant to that star? Not at all.


Careful, you're teetering on the brink of poetry.
07/02/2009 02:34:03 PM · #72
Sagan's Blue Dot, Very Small
Sound and fury signifies nothing?
Not in my worldview.
07/02/2009 07:40:38 PM · #73
Yes this is a Christian thread, but then again, Christians shouldn't be talking about Mars should they? I say of course they should, the greatest astronomers are Catholic priests, with access to the most advanced observatories. I was raised Catholic, and broke free from the dogma from all religion when I realized its main messages all preached the same thing; Ignorance is Bliss. And I totally agree of course.

I saw a photo of the Vatican from above on Google Earth and was shocked to see what I saw. The whole building and square was shaped like a Keyhole and Key. Its the most beautiful architecture I have ever seen; but I asked myself, whats with the key and keyhole?

They are the keepers of the key, the keepers of secrets, secrets of our past. I believe we came from Mars, said best by Rush Limbaugh in a popular broadcast a year ago. Martians destroyed themselves all those years ago, probably from technology. And the survivors had the technology to fly here and start a new. When they came here they established a god hood over this planet of the apes, changing the ape into Neanderthal, and then modifying the vocal cords and creating modern man through genetic design. "Adam's Apple" the first man on Earth, not the first man, had advanced vocal cords which helped us become civilized.

Now some might say the Church keeps us ignorant because they fear we will destroy our selves like we did on Mars. Technology is bad, it is why monks and priests choose to live simple, and they don't pay taxes...thats another story. Satanists are Scientists. ANd so, they lock the science away forever...only hoping to do so, and they are failing, and our Earth is probably dying because of it, all though Tech. is necessary in some cases...when a planet becomes overpopulated and we have to migrate. But it is misused mostly, weaponized...and it is why Science is the Enemy of Religion.

The Rapture is occuring already. Jesus is already here...he is a symbol, IMHO, he symbolizes a consciousness....a Christ consciousness..which is a consciousness of simplicity, sealing away all potential doom.

Message edited by author 2009-07-02 20:00:46.
07/02/2009 09:38:03 PM · #74

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:


They are the keepers of the key, the keepers of secrets, secrets of our past. I believe we came from Mars, said best by Rush Limbaugh in a popular broadcast a year ago. Martians destroyed themselves all those years ago, probably from technology. And the survivors had the technology to fly here and start a new. When they came here they established a god hood over this planet of the apes, changing the ape into Neanderthal, and then modifying the vocal cords and creating modern man through genetic design.


Wow. Never knew Rush had the gall to rip off Clarke and Kubrick...

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' DrAchoo-
How would the idea of mutually exclusive isntances of life in the universe effect your current worldview?
07/02/2009 10:06:34 PM · #75
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' DrAchoo-
How would the idea of mutually exclusive isntances of life in the universe effect your current worldview?


Good question. I'm guessing it would shake it to the core, although I'm also guessing I'd stubbornly hold onto it in the end. I'm probably no different than most people.

It probably all depends on exactly what we find. Microbes? Not too uncomfortable. Another civilization? Much more so.
On the other hand, how would you feel if we met that civilization and they also had a story where the creator of the universe incarnated among them to redeem them from their wrongdoing? That would be some crazy action. ;)

Message edited by author 2009-07-02 22:06:55.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/07/2020 07:29:42 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/07/2020 07:29:42 AM EDT.