Creation of Life vs Creation of the Universe

[Dante]

When I think about religion, god, life, the universe, humanity I wonder about what it is that drives people to...

For several decades it has been believed that life originated on the earth billions of years ago in soups of water and chemicals which interacted with energy from the Sun. This would make the formation of life an improbable event.

However, a number of scientists, including the present author (Sidharth, 2009, Journal of Cosmology Vol 1, Vol 10.) have been arguing for a dual mode origin of life, that is key ingredients like amino acids, but not yet fully formed life had reached Earth from outer space and chemically interacted with other ingredients present to form life.

As similar conditions could have taken place on other planets, this would mean that the formation and evolution of life may be far more probable than thought earlier, particularly on planets located in habitable zones.

For example, complex molecules have been discovered in interstellar space, for example, in the cool dust clouds of the Orion Nebula and in the constellation of Sagittarius.

Observations with telescopes, spectroscopes, radio telescopes and even orbiting observatories have confirmed the presence of molecules like methyl cyanide, water vapour, formaldehyde, methyl alcohol and even the potable ethyl alcohol.

Clearly there are several organic molecules in the cool dust clouds spread across outer space.

-Scientists weigh in on Hawking's alien warning

Did a god create the universe, and was humanity maybe created by a collision of random events?

This is where I think religion is headed as science makes things more clear. I think we will find an answer to how human life was created before we ever find our way through the competing theories of the creation of the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do people keep getting this backwards?

Life got together one day and decided to create the universe so it would have a place to exist. Then we forgot.

Thou Art God.

 

[JW Frogen]

Life on Earth was created in a random accident.

God is an alcoholic driving on a suspended license.

 

[Dante]

Why do people keep getting this backwards?

Life got together one day and decided to create the universe so it would have a place to exist. Then we forgot.

Thou Art God.

 

[Dante]

Life on Earth was created in a random accident.

God is an alcoholic driving on a suspended license.

God's an illegal alien because he was not naturally born.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Well Hawkings is way off base here, he thinks more like Star Trek, or Aliens, the Movies, as far as alien visitors goes, but if I was going to have to go with a fictional Movie, I would go with, *Close Encounters of the Thrid Kind*. buuuuwaannnnnannnnnn,......
2. But I don't buy into it at all, if I was going to buy into there being other creatures.
3. I on the other hand think this is it, God did it, and we will have to get used to what he's made.
4. Otherwise, those who don't go with it, find themselves in a heap of trouble in the *Afterlife*.
5. Sure dream about how God is false, and how these Aliens will come here and make us all slaves, that would beat having yourselves thrown into a eternal fire I suppose.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Dante]

Sorry bout that,


1. Well Hawkings is way off base here, he thinks more like Star Trek, or Aliens, the Movies, as far as alien visitors goes, but if I was going to have to go with a fictional Movie, I would go with, *Close Encounters of the Thrid Kind*. buuuuwaannnnnannnnnn,......

2. But I don't buy into it at all, if I was going to buy into there being other creatures.

3....
...
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1) very little difference. Aliens if they exist will look humanoid in some way---to have perfected travel through space would they will have to have built things. That dictates some form of digits to use tools, etc...

the rest of your post is not worth responding to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[JBeukema]

very little difference. Aliens if they exist will look humanoid in some way---to have perfected travel through space would they will have to have built things. That dictates some form of digits to use tools, etc...

Or tentacles or telekenesis or a body unlike anything we've ever seen

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry bout that,


1. Well Hawkings is way off base here, he thinks more like Star Trek, or Aliens, the Movies, as far as alien visitors goes, but if I was going to have to go with a fictional Movie, I would go with, *Close Encounters of the Thrid Kind*. buuuuwaannnnnannnnnn,......

2. But I don't buy into it at all, if I was going to buy into there being other creatures.

3....
...
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1) very little difference. Aliens if they exist will look humanoid in some way---to have perfected travel through space would they will have to have built things. That dictates some form of digits to use tools, etc...

the rest of your post is not worth responding to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Way out on a limb there, Dante. Alien life may be.......Alien.

 

[Dante]

very little difference. Aliens if they exist will look humanoid in some way---to have perfected travel through space would they will have to have built things. That dictates some form of digits to use tools, etc...

Or tentacles or telekenesis or a body unlike anything we've ever seen

Maybe through evolutionary stages...but...

but in order to start out from scratch...early aliens (think apes) would have to have been able to build things...rudimentary things, then later on, complex things. any telepathy or telekinesis would come later.

I read a theory once about what it would take for aliens to progress in the same way we have. It proposed that like us they would need certain attributes.

Of course if aliens were telepathic or had telekinesis I doubt they would travel as we do or need teh same things.

think of the weird Alien encounters we hear about---advanced civilizations that need to probe orifices in order to study human biology. Hello? Possessing technology to travel across great distances, yet have only a rudimentary understanding of techniques to probe for biological evidence?

If you pay attention to alien stories on earth, they always involve stories about alien technology that mirror the current technology at the time of the stories, or the stories mirror theories about what is thought possible at the time. no where do we even get stories that mirror technology we see on earth decades later. If we do hear something it is always so vague as to be up there with astrology and palm reading

 

[JW Frogen]

I think it is a mistake to take the starting point for life on Earth, whether you believe it caused by a Sky God who looks like an angry Jerry Garcia on a six day working week, a primordial soup left on the boil too long or a comet orgy of intergalactic amino acids as proof or non proof of God.

The start of life on Earth is not the start of universal existence.

Even taking the Big Bang as a starting point is a mistake, that is simply the start of present unfolding time and space, the present Universe (or maybe one of many), but what did it arise from, what was before the Big Bang?

God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Its easier to swallow down that aliens with big heads and black bug looking eyes are among us rather than God who made us.
2. God is everywhere.
3. I heard recently that some people from Korea found, *The Ark*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JBeukema]

early aliens (think apes) would have to have been able to build things...rudimentary things, then later on, complex things. any telepathy or telekinesis would come later.

So you assume.

I read a theory once about what it would take for aliens to progress in the same way we have

You assume they'd resemble us at all

 

[Dante]

I think it is a mistake to take the starting point for life on Earth, whether you believe it caused by a Sky God who looks like an angry Jerry Garcia on a six day working week, a primordial soup left on the boil too long or a comet orgy of intergalactic amino acids as proof or non proof of God.

The start of life on Earth is not the start of universal existence.

Even taking the Big Bang as a starting point is a mistake, that is simply the start of present unfolding time and space, the present Universe (or maybe one of many), but what did it arise from, what was before the Big Bang?

God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all.

Is being more than consciousness?

 

[Dante]

early aliens (think apes) would have to have been able to build things...rudimentary things, then later on, complex things. any telepathy or telekinesis would come later.

So you assume.

I read a theory once about what it would take for aliens to progress in the same way we have

You assume they'd resemble us at all

Assuming alien life that would travel in spacecraft would look something like us is an educated guess. You have to presuppose certain things if the starting point is aliens visiting earth with spacecraft.

I think you are going far off by arguing about alien life in general, and that is not what I or Hawking were speaking of.

The assumption I make, based on some readings and discussions with people, is that aliens would have to either resemble (not be carbon copies) humans or they would at least have to have digits and other extremities.

Even if aliens sent robots for somehow learned to exist inside of robots, a life form would have had to build the robots---how would they build them?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think it is a mistake to take the starting point for life on Earth, whether you believe it caused by a Sky God who looks like an angry Jerry Garcia on a six day working week, a primordial soup left on the boil too long or a comet orgy of intergalactic amino acids as proof or non proof of God.

The start of life on Earth is not the start of universal existence.

Even taking the Big Bang as a starting point is a mistake, that is simply the start of present unfolding time and space, the present Universe (or maybe one of many), but what did it arise from, what was before the Big Bang?

God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all.

Is being more than consciousness?

Is consciosness a result of being?

 

[Dante]

I think it is a mistake to take the starting point for life on Earth, whether you believe it caused by a Sky God who looks like an angry Jerry Garcia on a six day working week, a primordial soup left on the boil too long or a comet orgy of intergalactic amino acids as proof or non proof of God.

The start of life on Earth is not the start of universal existence.

Even taking the Big Bang as a starting point is a mistake, that is simply the start of present unfolding time and space, the present Universe (or maybe one of many), but what did it arise from, what was before the Big Bang?

God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all.

Is being more than consciousness?

Is consciosness a result of being?

I don't know. I was making Humus at the time.

 

[JW Frogen]

Is being more than consciousness?

Yes.

But which I mean existence rather than nothingness.

Rocks exist, they are not concious nor nothingness.

Why does the Universe exist and not nothingness? That is where God questions start.

When life started and how is too small and narrow a question to confine any notion of God, imaginary or real.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Sure the secrets of life are not easy to find, nor does it come to one over time, with age.
2. Wondering how all this came into being is enough to blow your mind, unless you don't have a mind to be blown.
3. People choose the easy way out, the way that requires no evidence, no truth, nothing redeeming about it, seeing isn't believing either, its deeper than seeing, to be able to see.
4. Auto Living, put it on cruise control, find out when its all over.
5. What is lifes lessons leads you to a solid end, and when you leave this world, you infact are turned into stone?
6. We mark graves with a *Headstone*, we write your name on it, after your dead, when you were born, when you died, bring you flowers, even thou you will never see them.
7. I wonder if thats a precurser to a more permant reality.
8. If you were a student of the Bible, (as I am), you might want to look into the portion which describes the, *Bride of Christ*, because if you did, you would know that the, *Bride of Christ* is the rather large structure that Jesus Christ says he will bring down from heaven, and reside in it as his *Temple on Earth* for *Eternity* in the land of Israel.
8. But people want whats easy, eww, look what is that strange light in the sky, ewww, its a UFO, there are *Beings* inside that light, I wonder where they came from???
9. Its a trick I tells ya.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Dante]

Creation of Life vs Creation of the Universe

I wrote: Creation of Life vs Creation of the Universe: "When I think about religion, god, life, the universe, humanity I wonder about what it is that drives people to..." and I trailed off into a quote from a linked page:

For several decades it has been believed that life originated on the earth billions of years ago in soups of water and chemicals which interacted with energy from the Sun. This would make the formation of life an improbable event.

However, a number of scientists, including the present author (Sidharth, 2009, Journal of Cosmology Vol 1, Vol 10.) have been arguing for a dual mode origin of life, that is key ingredients like amino acids, but not yet fully formed life had reached Earth from outer space and chemically interacted with other ingredients present to form life.

As similar conditions could have taken place on other planets, this would mean that the formation and evolution of life may be far more probable than thought earlier, particularly on planets located in habitable zones.

For example, complex molecules have been discovered in interstellar space, for example, in the cool dust clouds of the Orion Nebula and in the constellation of Sagittarius.

Observations with telescopes, spectroscopes, radio telescopes and even orbiting observatories have confirmed the presence of molecules like methyl cyanide, water vapour, formaldehyde, methyl alcohol and even the potable ethyl alcohol.

Clearly there are several organic molecules in the cool dust clouds spread across outer space. -Scientists weigh in on Hawking's alien warning

I go on to write: "Did a god create the universe, and was humanity maybe created by a collision of random events?"

"This is where I think religion is headed as science makes things more clear. I think we will find an answer to how human life was created before we ever find our way through the competing theories of the creation of the universe."

---

you wrote" "I think it is a mistake to take the starting point for life on Earth...as proof or non proof of God. The start of life on Earth is not the start of universal existence. Even taking the Big Bang as a starting point is a mistake...simply...the present Universe...what was before the Big Bang?"

"God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all."



Then we picked up here...

Is being more than consciousness?

Yes.

But which I mean existence rather than nothingness.

Rocks exist, they are not concious nor nothingness.

Why does the Universe exist and not nothingness? That is where God questions start.

When life started and how is too small and narrow a question to confine any notion of God, imaginary or real.

Using what we think we know now, ""the Big Bang" is the start of our universe. I made a clear distinction between "The start of life on Earth" and the start the Universe.

For me, "universal existence" is our awareness of ourselves and the universe around us. The idea that "God questions must start with why there is being rather than nothingness at all," is a premature leap forward in the conversation.

When I ask "Did a god create the universe, and was humanity maybe created by a collision of random events?" I am making a clear distinction between two things people assume their God made---life on earth, and the Universe. I do this because I want to separate the idea that human life and the physical universe around us are one. I think science is bringing us closer to understanding how we, mankind, came into existence. Understanding how 'we' came into existence is I think, a separate question of how our universe came into existence.

I think religion will eventually have to let go of trying to hold onto a god purposefully creating humankind. Religion may end up using an argument that acknowledges mankind came about by a series of random events, that stemmed from a god's creation of the Universe. Here they can hold onto the notion that a god created life---the Universe.


note: more later...