There will be no Disclosure

[trainedobserver]

Evolution seems like a nice theory ...

I have not mentioned evolution nor am I trying to make an argument for evolution here. What the life processes (evolutionary ones for example) are is immaterial to my thoughts about how they originated.

It makes more sense to me that life, indeed all life, on earth was created by someone else.

Would this God or gods be alive or dead? I assume since they intentionally do things such as creation that they are alive. So they wouldn't have created life itself but rather a life form. Do you agree?

It begs the question who created the creators? Who created the creators creators? And so on.

It also seems that man is already on the path to creating life.

I think you could argue that we are close to creating cobbled together life forms from preexisting material and processes but we cannot create life simply because it already exists. See what I'm getting at?

Did a living thing create life? More than likely.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean life on earth. I mean life (those processes, laws, and circumstances which allows for life forms to emerge) itself not forms of life like animals, plants, and so forth.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

The main problem here is that we only have a single template of life on which to support our theories: life on Earth. Our science is well on the way of replicating life, either through cloning processes or growing organs, but that is quite different from creating life out of inert elements and/or molecules. That failure is also the massive wall against which most of the scientific conceptions about the origin of life have crashed against (since Watson and Crick at least). Nevertheless that shouldn't stop us from looking, because taking the creationist option (that someone or something created life on Earth) as a certainty won't lead us anywhere. The sheer nature of life is still debatable - what can or cannot be considered as a living being? The theory of evolution itself is also permanently evolving (remember, for instance, how the discovery of DNA changed and enhanced Darwin's postulations).

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Would this God or gods be alive or dead? I assume since they intentionally do things such as creation that they are alive. So they wouldn't have created life itself but rather a life form. Do you agree?

It begs the question who created the creators? Who created the creators creators? And so on.

These Gods may not be human. They could be a totally different form of being. Not a physical embodiment of what we would call a human, totally devoid of a physical body. Pure conciousness and totally different to what we would consider life. They could be, to us, neither alive nor dead.
Certainly they would have discovered how to combine the various elements to create what we would call life. Just as we have learnt to build machines or computers that replicate in some way, the actions of humans they may have produced us as a physical manifestation of them.

I think you could argue that we are close to creating cobbled together life forms from preexisting material and processes but we cannot create life simply because it already exists. See what I'm getting at?

But eventually when we understand the processes that are required to combine the elements needed we may be able to create life from scratch. I may take a long time but it is possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean life on earth. I mean life (those processes, laws, and circumstances which allows for life forms to emerge) itself not forms of life like animals, plants, and so forth.

Yes i did mean life on earth. As i said at the beginning of this post it is possible that our creators were not "alive" in the human, physical sense of the word. If you believe that humans have a "conciousness" or a soul then maybe these beings are of a much higher consciousness than us. Possessing knowledge and intelligence that surpasses ours by an infinitessemal amount. And may be devoid of the mechanisms that define life as we know it, such as a physical body.
I think you have to be willing to acknowledge that our creators and or the creators of the concept of "life" itself may bear no resemblance to a physical being whatsoever and that life can be created as long as you know the formula, for want of a better description.
It is also therefore possible that there is an over arching entity or conciousness that is responsible for those beings as well. Who knows where it eventually stops. I don't know. All is just conjecture.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

These Gods may not be human. They could be a totally different form of being. Not a physical embodiment of what we would call a human, totally devoid of a physical body. Pure conciousness and totally different to what we would consider life. They could be, to us, neither alive nor dead.

Assuming that a superior entity created life on Earth, that would still leave us with the question about who/what created that god. Basically, that is replacing a question with a whole new array of questions, many of them unanswerable because God cannot be tested (the concept of a superior intelligence and existence deprived of a bodily structure would prevent us, inferior beings, from understanding our creator). To me, taking a philosophical path here, the idea of superior entities emerges from our concepts of social structure, where we have the need for an hierarchy of existence. In fact, our whole thinking is permeated by this scheme, from the power structures in politics and companies, to the way we aprehend nature (the food chain, for instance). We haven't been able to find anything above ourselves in the pyramid of life on Earth and that uneases us, makes us look for superior entities from unreachable places and realms of conscience. I'm not trying to disprove or even diminish the relevance of faith for humans - that's a given factor of our existence. What I'm trying to underline is that our concepts of God reveal more about ourselves, our insecurities and hopes, than about the hypothetical superior beings. That's why we're asking the same questions that our ancestors asked 2000 years ago and, probably, will still be asking 2000 years from now.

 

[tyder001]

Not to be an ass or a new agey space cadet But, the "who created the creator" always seemed like a silly or simplistic question to me. Maybe, it's because I have "memories" for want of a better word of past lives. Now, I can't prove it and don't even need to. Matter of fact I'm sure of it on Tuesday and very doubtful of it by Friday. But, then again I find that only insane people never question their assumptions and opinions. Anyway, I think the concept of a "creator" or a creation may be beside the point. I have no problem with an uncreated reality "Tell them I Am sent me." Therefore I have no problem as a manifestation of I Am and being eternal in a conscious enerygy manifestation. So, what is the purpose of life on earth and the evolution of life here? Is it to learn lessons? Are we trapped by a fall from grace? Are we animals who just crawled out of a primordial soup? Before ya answer that one take a good look into the eyes of a great ape or great dane for that matter. there's more "spirit" there than we want or are able to understand. Honestly, Trained Observer ask a question that I honestly can't answer. Explain God and who and what god is. I "think" that God is pure "being" itself. But, that really doesn't answer anything. It leaves a great gap where everybody from Slvia Browne to the Dali Lama can ponificate. Also, I have a great dialog with "Spirit" that I"ve had from my youth. But, then again I also have a dialog with myself so which one am I actually talking to? Both? Who knows. I can't even really tell you who "I am" much less give a really good definiction of God. I just honestly don't think life is all an accident and I don't think the good and the bad and the emotion of a human is no more than that of a roach bug once we shuffle off this mortal coil.

I find that Facius and Trained are people who challenge me to think more deeply about who and what I am. I can certainly relate to your questions and even your agnosticim. On the other hand folks like Macdaddy and Surfer Mike who come at you with name calling and cussing and simply slough off with disrespect any world view but their own don't make any dent at all in my way of looking at life. They enforce my own feelings of being right and that is a false comfort. Trust me I had rather go to a new agey board and talk about my "higher self" and be patted on the back. It would be easier to go to a ....Well, maybe not cause I was gonna say a Southern Baptist board and talk about Jesus..but my view of Christ and the meaning of life would be heretical to them. Still, there are easier places to talk about faith and life after death than this one. But, my world view (which is evolving) was hard won so why should my discussion of it be easy?

 

[trainedobserver]

We haven't been able to find anything above ourselves in the pyramid of life on Earth and that uneases us, makes us look for superior entities from unreachable places and realms of conscience.

And of course that notion, that we are at the top of the food chain, or the most evolutionary advanced, is solely from a human perspective and is not necessarily so since it essentially a judgment based on human values. The UFO phenomena certainly suggests that we are not at the top of the food chain.

Not to be an ass or a new agey space cadet But, the "who created the creator" always seemed like a silly or simplistic question to me. Maybe, it's because I have "memories" for want of a better word of past lives. Now, I can't prove it and don't even need to.

I don't see the correlation between the two. What does memories about past lives have to do with the beginnings of life?

So, what is the purpose of life on earth and the evolution of life here?

What is the purpose of an apple? What is the purpose of Hydrogen? Are there even purposes beyond replication and conformity to natural law? I put to you that the concept of a purpose to life on earth is entirely a human creation and has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Purpose suggests some intent. Could some bio-engineer (divine or alien) set up the Earth for purposes of his own? Well, I guess so but how could you tell and could you make sense of it if you did? Does the bacteria in your stomach comprehend the economic system that makes food suddenly appear to them?

there's more "spirit" there than we want or are able to understand.

What is spirit? I have one understanding of spirit that has changed over the years, I'm interested in your understanding of the word when you use it.

I can't ...give a really good definiction of God.

Like I've said before, "Then what good does it do to contemplate the incomprehensible?" These gets to one the core reasons why I have abandoned my faith. Why would a person argue for the existence of something, much less hold a belief in that something that impacts their daily life, which they cannot formulate a definition for or understand well enough to communicate their beliefs to others about? (That is also the major reason I don't argue about evolution.) I couldn't do it anymore. Forget it. I had to say this doesn't make sense to me, I refuse to go on just because, just for faith's sake or anything else like that. "God" is just such a useless term unless you get very specific. People should not criticize others for refusing to believe in things that they themselves cannot define or communicate. It's just silly. I'm not picking on you specifically here tyder but you understand my sentiment. Much the theist/atheist rhetoric (and it goes both ways) is just simply unreasonable in this regard.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Much the theist/atheist rhetoric (and it goes both ways) is just simply unreasonable in this regard.

Excellent point.

 

[tyder001]

I do understand Trained. I just don't agree. I do agree that memories of past lives don't in themselves require or prove a creator. As for spirit I am and that's as far as I can go with it right now. As for defining God or not using the term I have to respectfully disagree with you. I use it because I have an inner dialog. I can't define it but then again I can't define natural selection or even where thought and brain intersect or divide (if indeed they do) I can't "define" why I love somebody apart from biological lust but there is a difference. (sometimes) I can't define myself (as I said before) but I know that I am. So, although I am "agnostic" when it comes to a "sky god" I find that I am a believer in my own inner dialog and the reality of a higher consciouness that I interact with. To define spirit? I can't. Then again I can't define thought either. I really can't even define energy to somebody who has not real understanding of it. It's fine that you don't understand why I should keep talking about a God I can't prove or explain to you. But, I'm still gonna stay on my journey and I still think your wrong. Sorry, I can't give you a formula. We came to a similar cross road in our life from what I can understand. We appear to be close in age. But, I experienced it in my mind/brain/spirit/being as one journery and you expereinced it as another. As I said before agnosticm is something that I can understand but atheistim just doesn't make sense to me. But, that's another looong story that I really don't want to get into cause it really doesn't matter. Ultimate reality will not be won by debates and formulas. Ultimate reality is. Kind of like I Am.

---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

What does memories about past lives have to do with the beginnings of life?

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
I misread this. Answer? Nothing.

But serioulsy, I do think that "if" and that's a big IF we are eternally evolving and coming and going through various life times and incarnations then it may well speak to "no beginning" at all. Just a thought. 8)

 

[Trajanus]

...because God cannot be tested

It can be, inasmuch as something must be epistemically necessary to be worthy of being believed in. In the past, "god," although wholly unseen itself, was assumed to exist because there was no other way of explaining the origins of the world, life or man. In recent times however, the steadily expansion of rational explanations has practically eliminated the gaps which were the only basis for the "god" myth. By now, the holy bs is not only unobservable, it's wholly superfluous.

We haven't been able to find anything above ourselves in the pyramid of life on Earth and that uneases us, makes us look for superior entities from unreachable places and realms of conscience.

An apparent lack of anything superior shouldn't unease us but flatter us. It's just that for most of his existence, man, despite being at the top as far as he could see, was just often helpless and ignorant, hence needed to invoke some "higher power" for help.

I'm not trying to disprove or even diminish the relevance of faith for humans - that's a given factor of our existence. What I'm trying to underline is that our concepts of God reveal more about ourselves, our insecurities and hopes, than about the hypothetical superior beings. That's why we're asking the same questions that our ancestors asked 2000 years ago and, probably, will still be asking 2000 years from now.

No, I think we'll have definitive answers fairly soon, and a final end to old myths which are already waning.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

Where did the process or concept of life begin? I have no idea.
But it is hard to believe that life on this planet happened by mere chance. That is to say that every living creature here on this planet gradually evolved from some primordial slime into the extremely complex beings that inhabit the earth today.

But this is precisely what the geological/paleontological record indicates. The only fossils c 3.5 billion years ago were bacteria/stromatolites. Complex life only appeared in the Phanerozoic and there is ample evidence for evolution--much of it dictated by pure happenstance like chicxulub.

Or that bacteria from Mars or such just happened to navigate its way to here.

I don't buy that.

It makes more sense to me that life, indeed all life, on earth was created by someone else. Some may call that someone God or Gods. Evolution seems like a nice theory and indeed it may explain some of the subsequent processes of life here but it doesn't seem to explain everything.
I am indeed no expert on life or the creation of life.

I'll say. If some allpowerful creator was present, he could just say "presto" and get what he ultimately wanted without all these eons of gradual change and repeated extinction events. You'd think the process would be much faster and efficient if a supreme intelligence was behind it.

Therefore mans creator(s) may have come from an environment(s) that is totally different to earths.
It's just a theory.

Doesn't seem likely as only earthly conditions appear habitable e.g. no evidence for Venusian , martian or lunar biospheres.

 

[trainedobserver]

No, I think we'll have definitive answers fairly soon, and a final end to old myths which are already waning.

Vallee makes the argument that it doesn't matter from a social science viewpoint whether extraterrestrials or the supernatural powers of Jesus (his phrase I think) actually exist or not. Too many people already believe that they do making the distinction pretty meaningless except from an empirical science point of view. Even if they do not exist, people act as though they do, making their reality, for all practical purposes, moot.

 

[tyder001]

Trajanus, Dude for somebody who beieves in spaceman spiff your awful certain about ultimate realty. There may be one more "myth" to your thought than you realize.

 

[Trajanus]

Vallee makes the argument that it doesn't matter from a social science viewpoint whether extraterrestrials or the supernatural powers of Jesus (his phrase I think) actually exist or not. Too many people already believe that they do making the distinction pretty meaningless except from an empirical science point of view.

Which is critical. Belief in holy joe has been waning in part precisely because there's no empirical basis; even the gospel accounts are clearly tampered with and phony. Meanwhile, belief in ET, although facing an uphill fight, is gaining precisely because it has an empirical basis. Unlike holy joe 1 people can actually see and experience the phenomenon. Yet another key difference is that "jesus" is supposed to be forever superior to man, whereas an exalted spacefaring status is something humanity can aspire to, indeed is heading for now.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Meanwhile, belief in ET, although facing an uphill fight, is gaining precisely because it has an empirical basis. Unlike holy joe 1 people can actually see and experience the phenomenon. Yet another key difference is that "jesus" is supposed to be forever superior to man, whereas an exalted spacefaring status is something humanity can aspire to, indeed is heading for now.

What was that oh so famous quotation.....you know, from those "Holy Joe" phonies who like to put God in the formula, screwing up that perfect humanistic approach to life and the pursuit of little gray aliens....

"Pride Cometh before the fall."

Gee Professor Plum look at me, I'm an empirical Captain Video....Let's go Space Rangers, into that Jesus hating spacefaring status which makes us stay up at night and look into atheist heaven for that day when we too can have our own special anal probe and metal insertion....Whooooooppieee!!!!

No thanks...I'll stick to eternal life with Jesus any day:exclamation:

 

[tyder001]

It's amazing to me that folks can laugh at religion and faith and yet the spaceman "myth" gets creedence because of a few lights in the sky and some folks who think they were butt smacked by an alien life form. There is NO, nada,zero evidence for alien life visiting earth. But, word of mouth and witnessness are all good enough if we are talking about the space bros. But, God? or spritual reality? Why ya can't take word of mouth that would be stupid. where's yer formula and where's your physcial proof? But, space aliens? Why don'tcha see the crop circles and didn't 25 folks in a small town in Arizona see lights in the sky? Silly, of course there are aliens.

Sheeesh, and they make fun of fundie's around here.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

I guess I find myself thinking alien life visiting earth would be cool. But, with all sarcasm aside I just don't see the evidence of it. Matter of fact I'm not sure there is life (this drives my wife crazy cause she disagrees) anywhere else period. But, for sure I haven't seen anything here that convinces me we are being visited by people from space. I enjoy movies and books and even discussing it. People have abduction expereinces and I don't doubt something psycological or perhaps spriual is happening to them. But, I truly doubt it's space men/women. But, I could be wrong and I am willing to think about it. It's just when people get so snarky and act as if they know everything there is to know about faith and life on earth and they are so critical. But, then when it comes to life from space they are so gullible.

Reminds me of a friend of mine. PHD and very, very smart. Loves Scientifc American and collects the Schermer articles. Agnostic and very level headed. Yet, he got (imo) taken in by the Landmark Forum and goes aroung spouting silly jargon all day long. It's like everybody has some point where they are ready to "loose their mind" even though they are very critical in other areas. Oh well, mabe it works for him and mayby spaceman spiff works for others. Singing works just fine for me.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's amazing to me that folks can laugh at religion and faith and yet the spaceman "myth" gets creedence because of a few lights in the sky and some folks who think they were butt smacked by an alien life form. There is NO, nada,zero evidence for alien life visiting earth. But, word of mouth and witnessness are all good enough if we are talking about the space bros. But, God? or spritual reality? Why ya can't take word of mouth that would be stupid. where's yer formula and where's your physcial proof? But, space aliens? Why don'tcha see the crop circles and didn't 25 folks in a small town in Arizona see lights in the sky? Silly, of course there are aliens. Sheeesh, and they make fun of fundie's around here.

You say that tyder, but when someone expresses how he accepts neither without proof, you say they are a scientific fundamentalist. Do you see what I mean? You accept one, but not the other. Why can't someone not go vice versa or accept neither?

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Reminds me of a friend of mine. PHD and very, very smart. Loves Scientifc American and collects the Schermer articles. Agnostic and very level headed. Yet, he got (imo) taken in by the Landmark Forum and goes aroung spouting silly jargon all day long. It's like everybody has some point where they are ready to "loose their mind" even though they are very critical in other areas. Oh well, mabe it works for him and mayby spaceman spiff works for others. Singing works just fine for me.

I went to a Land Mark forum meeting for a friend. During the break I called the speaker out on his bullshit. He did not like me.

 

[tyder001]

I went to a Land Mark forum meeting for a friend. During the break I called the speaker out on his bullshit. He did not like me.

Same thing happened to me.

Your right about the former. You can be neither. I just don't see life as a cosmic accident. I could be wrong but I hope you are. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig --><!-- END TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig -->

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

Also, in all fairness Angelo I have related certain expereinces in my life which to me put the lie to materilism as the ultimate truth. But, I hope I'm not sarcastic about it. I honestly try to be respectful of others beleifs. But, somtime I do have a little fun.

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Buh the bye Angelo according to my friends who like Landmark you and I are "running a racett" and just "don't get it." If we "got it" then we would have to stop "running our racet" and we would "get it."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

With regards to Landmark we also need to know what we don't know that we don't know or some sort of bullshit like that.

 

[trainedobserver]

With regards to Landmark we also need to know what we don't know that we don't know or some sort of bullshit like that.

I didn't need to know that.

 

[tyder001]

Your Running a Racett or else you would "Get It." That's part of what you don't know that you know or whatever. What they do reminds me of an old (not that she was old)(not that theres anything wrong with that) Phsycology Prof from my younger college days. I was sure a friend of mine was just "eat up" with issues. He needed to confront. So, she asked me "are you willing to stand by him and spend hours and months and years in therapy holding his hand?" Are you willing to be there every day and make sure he's doing o.k.? What? I said. I don't have that kind of time and don't want that kind of responsibitliy. Well, she said then you shouldn't "open" up somthing that deep that your not qualified or willing to address. :redface: That reminds me of what Landmark does. They play the role of opening up shit with no real responsibilty or credential to deal with what they open up. As somebody who works kind of close to the mental healt field it runs me nuts. (no pun inteneded.)

 

[Trajanus]

Gee Professor Plum look at me, I'm an empirical Captain Video....Let's go Space Rangers, into that Jesus hating spacefaring status which makes us stay up at night and look into atheist heaven for that day when we too can have our own special anal probe and metal insertion....Whooooooppieee!!!!

What a demagogue.

No thanks...I'll stick to eternal life with Jesus any day:exclamation:

Lol, the "eternal life" is scientifically verified no doubt. Eternal life, in the real world, may be possible through genetic engineering, not mythology.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 AM ----------

It's amazing to me that folks can laugh at religion and faith and yet the spaceman "myth" gets creedence

No, the truth is the opposite: The idea of alien visitors is ridiculed--even though we are gradually approaching their status ourselves-- while out and out lunacy like "I am the living bread..." is respected.

because of a few lights in the sky and some folks who think they were butt smacked by an alien life form. There is NO, nada,zero evidence for alien life visiting earth. But, word of mouth and witnessness are all good enough if we are talking about the space bros.

You're completely misrepresenting the case for ETs. There is ample physical evidence like landing impressions, radar sightings and photos.

But, God? or spritual reality? Why ya can't take word of mouth that would be stupid. where's yer formula and where's your physcial proof?

"god" isn't just unverified itself; as I pointed out already, it's epistemically unnecessary.

I guess I find myself thinking alien life visiting earth would be cool. But, with all sarcasm aside I just don't see the evidence of it.

I don't think you're well enough informed.

It's just when people get so snarky and act as if they know everything there is to know about faith and life on earth and they are so critical. But, then when it comes to life from space they are so gullible.

No way; I reject many reports like those of meier.