h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

pauses to wonder why they are quibbling over adjectives

I understand perfectly well what spontaneous means. I would question whether most people do, however, naturally think of something that takes a long time to happen as "spontaneous".

Another look at those definitions:

"1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause."

Would you describe a burst of applause as "spontaneous" if it started as a single person clapping and built up into a whole crowd clapping over the course of, say, four hours?

"2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses."

Would you use a word whose definition includes the word "sudden" to describe a process which happens in tiny incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of years?

"3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting."

We reach the third definition before one that could be applied honestly to natural processes.

"4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous."

Not sure this one is in any way relevant.

"5. produced by natural process"

By this definition, everything in the universe that was not manufactured was generated spontaneously. Which is fair enough.

Given the rather specific nature of the primary and secondary definitions, I propose that it is perfectly reasonable to question the use of this word by someone who is attempting to suggest that the origin of life was a sudden, miraculous event.

So... can we move on? And if so, can anyone remember where we'd got to and more importantly, does anyone care any more?

SoRB

I kind of wonder whether I was a bit hard on Sorb earlier, and if so I'm sorry, but I felt provoked. We can quibble over words, and it may seem tedious, but it is important to be clear about what we mean.

I think we have at least established that we can apply the word spontaneous to describe the supposed formation of life by abiogenesis and evolution.

Regarding the 5 definitions of spontaneous, the second definition is not relevant to our discussion, as I already stated in a previous post, since it applies to people.

Anyway, although I don't subscribe to Sorb's belief in abiogenesis I don't want to misrepresent what he's saying, 'cos were not going to get anywhere like that! So abiogenesis as presented by Sorb, while spontaneous (natural and unconstrained; unplanned; self-acting), is not a fast process as we understand fast.

(Of course, time is a very subjective thing. On the human scale abiogenesis and evolution would have taken a huge amount of time, but on a cosmic scale the quantity of time may be said to be short.)

Perhaps I should have inserted a comma after abiogenesis, for the sake of clarity:

I think we have at least established that we can apply the word spontaneous to describe the supposed formation of life by abiogenesis, and evolution.

Found this link on the problems of finding extraterrestrial civilizations

http://eng.savefuture.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=5

"I don't subscribe to Sorb's belief in abiogenesis"

Can you then please make clear precisely what it is you do believe about:

1. the origin of life on earth?
2. the origin of life in the universe?

and if the answer's what I think it's going to be...

3. the origin of who/whatever was responsible for the non-spontaneous creation of life on earth/in the universe?

SoRB

Very good questions from Sorb.
What precisely do I believe about the origin of life on earth?

The best answer I can give is "God did it".

What precisely do I believe about the origin of life in the universe?
Same answer, if there is life elsewhere, God will have been behind it.

What is the origin of who/whatever was responsible for the non-spontaneous creation of life on earth/in the universe?

God.


Beyond that, I don't believe we know yet precisely how life came about. It may have happened much as Sorb envisages it to have done, except I believe there must have been a divine guiding force behind it. Otherwise the likelihood seems too far-fetched to me.

Ultimately there are two options: The "God did it" option and the "God didn't do it" one.

It may be simplistic to say "God did it", but if you believe in a creator that is basically what you are saying.

That's not to say I don't think there is any merit in Sorb's position.

Now, apart from doing Sorb's head in over the correct meaning of the word spontaneous, I'll admit that I am interested in understanding Sorb's.

Whoops! Didn't finish that. I'm interested in Sorb's ideas.

"What precisely do I believe about the origin of life on earth?

The best answer I can give is "God did it"."

OK. We're getting somewhere. And question 2...

"What precisely do I believe about the origin of life in the universe?
Same answer, if there is life elsewhere, God will have been behind it."

Again, fair enough. Let's see if you understood question three...

"What is the origin of who/whatever was responsible for the non-spontaneous creation of life on earth/in the universe?

God."

Oh dear. Since you're able to read and express yourself reasonably clearly, I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse. You see how conversation with people like you can get tedious?

Let me explain again the point of question 3, since you clearly didn't understand it.

Answer 1 was "God created life on earth".
Answer 2 was "God created life elsewhere, if there is any".

Question 3, I repeat, is - who/what created God?

Because, you see, all you've done with answers 1 and 2 is move the question back a notch. You haven't *answered* it. You believe there was an agency responsible for certain chemical reactions and their progress on earth. But that agency must have had an origin. THAT is what I'm asking you.

Care to attempt question 3 again?

SoRB

God works in natural ways

Thats a phrase i have lived by and, even though now i am an agnostic, i still believe... only now it's IF there is a god, that god works in natural ways. The god i believed in when i believed in a god was big enuf to set in motion everthing that has happened since the big bang... AT the big bang.

So i have never had a problem with abiogenesis or evolution.... especially since i am a science freak.

No, I wasn't being obtuse, honest. I quite deliberately gave my answer to quetion 3 as God. I thought perhaps I should expand on it, but then decided not to as I thought it would be fun to see your response.

My point is that God, if he is God, must be self-sufficient. Otherwise he isn't God. In the Bible Jesus says "I am the alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." (To Christians Jesus represents God, remember).

so what was god doing all that eternity before he made the universe?

We're getting well into theological territory here with Fluffy K's question. I'm not really a theologian, but then I'm not a biologist either and that hasn't stopped me being opinionated, so here goes:

God is not subject to time; time is subject to God. He is eternal, and as Christians we believe in a triune God (posh for Trinity). So God has been involved in an eternal dialogue between the father, son and holy spirit.

Might be worth your reading some of the prophetic books of the Bible, eg. Ezekiel for a glimpse of the majesty of the eternal God.

This is the second time Sorb has talked about "moving the question back a notch". In post 130 I addressed this point thus:

Contrary to what you claim, the assertion that God created life on this planet, if correct, perfectly adequately answers the question as to how life originated HERE. If it’s moving the question back a notch, that’s irrelevant as far as the discussion about how life on EARTH originated is concerned. If God put life here, then he did. Addressing the question of where God himself came from is another, theological debate that can be left to one side for the purposes of THIS discussion.


If you want to go into a discussion about the origin of God, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it was God who put life on this planet. As a Christian I am content to accept that God simply is and always has been.

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you'."

Interesting quote of Jesus about himself: "Before Abraham was, I AM."

When Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I AM" this underlines two things: The deity of Jesus and the timeless nature of God. We are used to thinking everything must have a beginning, and this is true for pretty much everything, but when we come to addressing the question of God, this is not the case. God has always been. He is the One from whom everything else originated.

Just two things I'd like to comment on since last time. When "living God" was mentioned, I think we're refering to Jesus who was God on Earth, touching on the Holy Trinity again. I'm not sure. Is anyone interested or care, just thought I'd clear it up as far an I know.
On the question was did God do in the eternity before the Universe was created, I've touched on that in the H2G2 Astromical Society's Questions and Answers page in the question "What was it like before the Big Bang?". I wont repeat what I said there, here but if anyone wants to have a look it's not hard to find. If you can't find it, you should be able to navigate there from my personal space. As far as I can remember there is absolutly NO mention of God, I promise, that means anyone who doesn't belive in God can comment on it the same as those of us who do.
One slighly different note, has anyone read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. I've been asking a lot of people to read it so I can discuss it with them but they all say they're not interested in Astronomy (or is it Cosmology). I think anyone can find it interesting since it deals in a large way about WHO we are which is as important as our place in the Universe and I think the two do go togehter. But on the subject of this conversation he does mentions a lot about ET life and there are some very interesting points.
On one subject of ET life that isn't quite ET, Star Trek Voyager suggests a life form that once lived on Earth and went extinict actually left Earth and found a new home in the Delta quadrent (opposite side of the Galaxy to us). Since at time of their propsed extinction they must have been advanced enough for interstellar flight, by that time of Star Trek (24th century) they had developed Trans-warp (infinite velocity) and phasing cloaks (invisibity that allows you to pass through normal matter). Does anyone have any views on the likely hood of any technology mentioned in any of the popular science fictions (Doctor Who's 35th Anniversary looked at humans building a Tardis).
I can really see the benefit of previewing what I write before I post it!

The problem you have when you get into a discussion like this is that the superstitious people will guide it into their territory and then simply refuse to answer the question.

The question, such as it is, is "how did life originate"? Trying to falsely make it specific to this planet is not answering the actual question, because if you say "it started out in space", all that does is move the location, it doesn't answer the question.



An analogy: let's say that in ten or a hundred years' time, humans create, artificially, life. Actual independent living organisms, cooked up from scratch in a lab. Unlikely, but stick with me.

Now posit those organisms evolving over millions of years into intelligent creatures. They might, as all children do, think "Where did we come from? How did life such as us *start*, originally?".

If you were able to tell them the precise date on which the test tube was mixed to create their distant ancestors, would that answer their question?

Sure, in one sense, yes. But any of them that had two braincells to rub together would not be satisfied with that. They'd want to know where LIFE started, life as a principle, not just their particular parochial manifestation of it. They'd want to trace their ancestry RIGHT back as far as possible, not stop at some and say "Oh, no need to ask about anything earlier than that...".

All this "God is not subject to time" nonsense take the question away from science and into the realm of fairy stories. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good fairy story. I've got the Lord of the Rings Box Sets, for instance. But - and this is important - I can tell the difference between those discs, and the copy of "Cosmos" I have on region 1 DVD. One of them is an interesting fiction, one of them deals in facts about the real world.

The discussion of the origin of life is, of necessity, a scientific discussion. If it's not, then quite frankly there's no reason to talk about it, because if you choose to simply *believe* something, then you can choose to believe *anything*. And if that's the case, your answers (most of which, as we've seen, boil down to "God did it") don't have any meaning in any useful sense.

"God did it", as an answer, is just another way of saying "I don't know, and I don't *want* to know". Well, I don't know, but I DO want to know, how life started. And as far as explanations go, I want falsifiable, testable ones only. "God did it" is the ultimate unfalsifiable explanation, and to be honest if that's your answer to *any* question, then it's really not worth talking to you about anything. You have the ultimate get-out-of-jail-card. Anything you don't understand, don't know or don't like the sound of - god did it. Why it's your particular flavour of god, and not anyone else's, is of course never satisfactorily explained.

SoRB

If anyone wants to answer any of these questions with "God did it," then although they may be right we can't be sure that it's the only way something happens and it wont satisfy some of us.
Let's take this approach. Let's leave God alone and look for the science behind it. If we can't find a reason we can leave it. After all, the purpose of this conversation is science and not religion. So if we concentrate on science, we can talk about God in a more suitable place.
Working it out in that way, maybe we can discuss things rather than having religious debates where those who belive and those who don't belive are unlikley to change their minds and even if they are, this is not the place to do it.
Does anybody disagree?

First of all, I agree with PSB about this:
"If anyone wants to answer any of these questions with "God did it," then although they may be right we can't be sure that it's the only way something happens and it wont satisfy some of us."

But I'd like to challenge a few points of Sorb's. If, like the imagined descendents of some laboratory-generated life-forms many years from now, Sorb has two brain cells he'll realise that through talking to me he has been made aware that Jesus is a historical figure, and that abiogenesis is about the spontaneous generation of life, something that he categorically denied previously. So I have already enlightened Sorb.

Therefore, although I answered "God did it" to Sorb's question about how life started, surely it's been worth talking to me 'cos Sorb's learnt a couple of things already.

So Sorb's statement "if that's your answer to *any* question, then it's really not worth talking to you about anything" has already been proved wrong, unless he thinks it's better to remain ignorant about the historicity of Jesus and the spontaneous nature of abiogenesis.

You see, I have noticed that Sorb's grasp of logic is a bit faulty. For example, he concludes that saying I believe God created the universe and life on earth means "it's really not worth talking to" me about "anything".

What if he needed urgent medical help in a remote part of Russia, and had to communicate with the locals. Wouldn't it be worth asking me for help. Or if he wanted to learn Russian.

Or if he wanted advice on contest judo. I've won a few fights in my time and could give him some useful tips.

Or if he wanted to know some good places to visit in Turkey or Azerbaijan.

Just because we disagree about one thing it's silly to come out with a statement such as: "if that's your answer to *any* question, then it's really not worth talking to you about anything".