Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Did you know that machinery and technology are the product of engineering? Are you willing to acknowledge that fact?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I'm not sure what it is you want me to so-call "admit" to here. Is it the spark of life? Is it the process of life? Is it a common event in our universe, or God just does it on Earth? What is the point you want to say here?

It's a very simple straightforward question, none of the subjects you asked about are brought up in the question. You can answer it with a simple yes or no. There's no ambiguity here, it's not a matter of having "no way of knowing at this point".

After answering with yes (since you said you get it), would you be willing to specify that that answer is acknowledging a fact, which is the same thing as a certainty/reality/truth, something that is factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error?

I hope you're not expecting me to rephrase the question again. I kept your version simple on purpose. To see if you can be honest with the little things (Luke 16:10), one little simple fact. OK, only a slight rephrase then:

Are machinery and technology the product of engineering? Yes or no?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Are machinery and technology the product of engineering? Yes or no?

Sure I'll play your game... yes... they are a product of intelligent design. It is not the question I have a problem with, it is the fact you feel the need to ask it and assume for some reason I would be uncomfortable to answer. When someone asks a question like this I tend just to say "whatever" since they already know the answer.

Now my question to you....

Let's say life is intelligent design. Do you think Man could ever understand how God did it on a scientific level?

To follow the logic, man-made machines are designed only for a purpose or function. If your god designed the flora and fauna on Earth, for what purpose or function? If you could also point out which generation of life was produced by your god also please.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No game. Just making sure if there is any established fact on which the argument of induction that life's machinery and technology is the product of engineering (or more general, creation) is based, that you are contesting. Or in other words, if there's any component of the argument of induction that you are actually challenging.

Cause if you're not challenging any of it (including whether or not life is made up of molecular machinery and technology), then there is no debate. The argument of induction stands uncontested, as an established fact with no evidence to the contrary. Life is made up of machinery and technology, therefore, it was the product of engineering, which in turn has logical implications regarding who or what actually can perform the act of engineering, and what requirements that would have. Those points were already made before.

I may answer your question later, but I've already answered so many of these type of questions by you in response to my commentary. They are quite distracting and irrelevant to the arguments of induction that I've been making in my commentary; or the (rhetorical) questions I've been asking about it now. There were more questions or points you can respond to of course in my first response to you related to the same argument of induction. You have not really answered or challenged any of these either. You respond to my comments, but apart from perhaps some exceptions that I don't remember that well, not the main points or (rhetorical) questions in them (challenging any), up till now then with this most recent question that I singled out (although for some reason you felt the need to change the terminology that I used and not respond to the follow-up question regarding whether or not this is an established fact/certainty, something that we know for sure, at least not spelling it out). And then you ask questions that have no bearing on the points or questions I was raising.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Here's the thing, there are 2 main points (established facts) on which the argument of induction that life was the product of engineering is based, 2 points for you to challenge in order to contest the argument seriously. 2 things or questions that you can argue. If you bring up other things, you're just evading the actual argument.

1. Are machinery and technology the product of engineering? Yes or no? (the argument of induction above is based on the established fact that they are, i.e. "yes")
2. Is life made up of machinery and technology? (or similarly, is the term "moleculary machinery" as used in the first video of the comment linked above*, correct, without error, a factual/accurate description of a reality?) *: see response to xtrozero above, that's where the link is.

Cause if both answers are yes, then there is only one logical conclusion by induction, bringing us back to the argument of induction described at the start of this comment. Of course, this is the conclusion you guys have most issues with, but not because of a lack of knowledge/science or evidence, and thus not for any logically valid reasons. You present no counter-argument, or proper explanation how inductive reasoning is not properly applied, or for some other reason invalid in determining the truth of the matter. You just don't like the conclusion that life is the product of engineering. So you evade the proper application of logic (inductive reasoning) that leads to this conclusion regarding this "certain truth" (using Newton's terminology, pardon the redundancy). And perhaps you tell yourself that it isn't clear (conclusive).

originally posted by: TerraLiga
To follow the logic, man-made machines are designed only for a purpose or function. If your god designed the flora and fauna on Earth, for what purpose or function? If you could also point out which generation of life was produced by your god also please.

This is a temporary interface meant for the birth of souls into the eternal realm. Just like a seed germinates in the darkness of soil before it re-constitutes itself into a tree ascending into the light.

Plants provide animals with oxygen and food, while animals provide plants with CO2 and fertilizer(feces). Drinkable water literally flows out of the ground from springs and also from the sky. A sun provides warmth, but sets before it gets too hot. I could go on and on.. we live in a beautifully contrived system

originally posted by: whereislogic
life's machinery and technology is the product of engineering

I kind of knew that is the direction you would go. I don't associate machinery and technology with chemical reactions.

Cause if you're not challenging any of it (including whether or not life is made up of molecular machinery and technology), then there is no debate. The argument of induction stands uncontested, as an established fact with no evidence to the contrary. Life is made up of machinery and technology, therefore, it was the product of engineering, which in turn has logical implications regarding who or what actually can perform the act of engineering, and what requirements that would have. Those points were already made before.

Your question to me doesn't establish anything since it is your assumption that life is technology. Is the sun a machine, or is iron rusting a technology? Are all molecules a machine and technology? You are basically wide-brushing everything under two abstract human concepts.

I may answer your question later, but I've already answered so many of these type of questions by you in response to my commentary.

I have seen much of what you post in the past, so I really don't care to review what I found to be lacking over and over even though you find it profound. My other question like yours was a simple yes or no...

When Man creates aware AI are we now a God? We can call it God level 1, or maybe we are level 1 already with GMO.

originally posted by: whereislogic

2. Is life made up of machinery and technology? (or similarly, is the term "moleculary machinery" as used in the first video of the comment linked above*, correct, without error, a factual/accurate description of a reality?) *: see response to xtrozero above, that's where the link is.

To coin a name doesn't somehow change what it is. We will now call it "molecular machinery" and so now that means intelligent design was involved. How about calling it a natural process? The Sun is now called God's lamp, so that means there is a God because we have proof of his lamp...

originally posted by: cooperton

This is a temporary interface meant for the birth of souls into the eternal realm. Just like a seed germinates in the darkness of soil before it re-constitutes itself into a tree ascending into the light.

Plants provide animals with oxygen and food, while animals provide plants with CO2 and fertilizer(feces). Drinkable water literally flows out of the ground from springs and also from the sky. A sun provides warmth, but sets before it gets too hot. I could go on and on.. we live in a beautifully contrived system

Wouldn't that be how evolution worked? Everything in synergy would be proof of evolution because everything is related to each other. Why do humans operate the best with a 20% O2 mix? That is because we evolved within a 20% O2 mix.

When you and others explain why there is God as you did above it always takes me back to the banana.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Wouldn't that be how evolution worked? Everything in synergy would be proof of evolution because everything is related to each other. Why do humans operate the best with a 20% O2 mix? That is because we evolved within a 20% O2 mix.

Synergy defies the necessity of evolution to work in step-by-step mutations. One part of the synergy would need the other part to work, but evolution works piece-by-piece. The endless synergy of our world is another Testament against evolution.

What came first, the flowers ability to attract the bee, or the bee's attraction to the flower? Both these attributes are useless unless the flower has pollen and the bee has a way to transport the pollen.

We live in a well-contrived system

originally posted by: cooperton

Synergy defies the necessity of evolution to work in step-by-step mutations. One part of the synergy would need the other part to work, but evolution works piece-by-piece. The endless synergy of our world is another Testament against evolution.

What came first, the flowers ability to attract the bee, or the bee's attraction to the flower? Both these attributes are useless unless the flower has pollen and the bee has a way to transport the pollen.

We live in a well-contrived system

The old spontaneous life theory. All life was popped into existence by God, got it. I wonder if Whereislogic agrees with you since they tend to not contradict your posts. Evolution would not work without everything being connected. God popping everything into place would not need it outside of his artistic touches, but it is a basic fundamental for evolution.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The old spontaneous life theory. All life was popped into existence by God, got it.

Intelligent Life coming to be from intelligence makes more sense than it coming from unintelligence. I can't logically ignore such an obvious assertion

originally posted by: whereislogic
1. Are machinery and technology the product of engineering? Yes or no? (the argument of induction above is based on the established fact that they are, i.e. "yes")
2. Is life made up of machinery and technology? (or similarly, is the term "moleculary machinery" as used in the first video of the comment linked above*, correct, without error, a factual/accurate description of a reality?) *: see response to xtrozero above, that's where the link is..

1. Yes, of course. Products are designed for a purpose or function, unless they have none, in which case it is art.
2. No, absolutely not. Life is made up of organic molecules following chemical reactions. The sum of those reactions make up complex organisms. By looking at a complex organism now, of any type, it is quite simple to assume that it has been designed simply because of its complexity, but that ignores a few billion years of natural development and refinement - or evolution.

i think it exists as a mechanism to stop the heat death of the universe by consuming energy and producing more energy then releasing that energy when we die, slowly but steadily adding energy to keep the universe warm and functioning.

that's also why we evolved intelligence, to make technology that generates massive amounts of energy.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

2. No, absolutely not. Life is made up of organic molecules following chemical reactions. The sum of those reactions make up complex organisms. By looking at a complex organism now, of any type, it is quite simple to assume that it has been designed simply because of its complexity, but that ignores a few billion years of natural development and refinement - or evolution.

Proteins are like 3D printed microbots... They're quite astounding. They are identical to machines on the macro level. ATP synthase for example is a protein that is literally an energy generating motor:

youtu.be...

Look at that thing... it's a micromolecular motor.

a reply to: TerraLiga
a reply to: Xtrozero

Thanks to both of you in making clear what your point of contention is. I take it that according to both of you, those who refer to these things in the cell as "machine(s)", are therefore incorrect/wrong (or at the least they should make it clear that these things are merely "like a machine", as in an analogy, they are not actual machines)? And any published paper that uses these terms as if they are factual/accurate terms to describe these things (so not pointing out "like a ..."), should not pass through peer review without someone pointing out this inaccuracy?

Such as this one:

Abiotic Chemical Fuels for the Operation of Molecular Machines - PubMed

Abstract

Natural molecular machines require a continuous fuel supply to perform motions and/or remain in a functional state. ...

The term "natural" is referring to the fact/reality that these machines exist in biology, to distinguish them from artificial molecular machines that were engineered by humans. No indication that these machines are not actually machines though in the way things are phrased above. They use the term "machines" as if that's what they actually are. Just like it's done in the educational videos I shared before.

Another example where they talk about "biomolecular machinery of the cell", as if that's what it really is.

Chemical fuels for molecular machinery - PubMed

Chemical reaction networks that transform out-of-equilibrium 'fuel' to 'waste' are the engines that power the biomolecular machinery of the cell. Inspired by such systems, autonomous artificial molecular machinery is being developed ...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Your question to me doesn't establish anything since it is your assumption that life is technology. Is the sun a machine, or is iron rusting a technology? Are all molecules a machine and technology? You are basically wide-brushing everything under two abstract human concepts.

It's not so much an assumption on my part but a logical consequence of the terminology used by the chemists and biologists, such as the ones quoted above. They are the ones appropiately referring to the type of things shown in the videos before, as "machines" or "machinery", as if that's what they are. After all, technology is defined as "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge." (Oxford Languages). At least that's the definition I'm using (obviously words often have more than 1 definition or meaning).

So no need to ask rhetorical questions about things that neither these people nor I have referred to as a machine, nor claimed that they represent technology. Cause then you end up responding to claims I never made or things I never said. It was not part of my argument that the sun is a machine, that iron rusting is a technology, or that all molecules are machines (as if there's no distinction, as if I were "wide-brushing everything" as you put it; I was talking about very specific things in the cell, depicted in the videos, not just any molecule). Asking rhetorical questions about it as if that's what my argumentation boils down to, ends up painting a straw man argument on my commentary. Then if I point that out, you'll just deny it again. Even though it's obvious from my previous commentary that none of these things you bring up now is part of my argumentation and if there's any "wide-brushing" going on, it would be you trying to paint that onto my argumentation.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't understand the relevance of your question.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerraLiga
a reply to: Xtrozero

Thanks to both of you in making clear what your point of contention is. I take it that according to both of you, those who refer to these things in the cell as "machine(s)", are therefore incorrect/wrong (or at the least they should make it clear that these things are merely "like a machine", as in an analogy, they are not actual machines)? And any published paper that uses these terms as if they are factual/accurate terms to describe these things (so not pointing out "like a ..."), should not pass through peer review without someone pointing out this inaccuracy?

Such as this one:

Abiotic Chemical Fuels for the Operation of Molecular Machines - PubMed
Abstract

Natural molecular machines require a continuous fuel supply to perform motions and/or remain in a functional state. ...

Eagerly awaiting their response...

They admitted machinery is an obvious indicator of intelligence, and now their own beloved peer-review is admitting the obvious assertion that proteins act like machinery. If this is not enough to convince someone of design, using their own certainty against them, then I'm not sure what would...

..Perhaps if someone were to rise from the dead on their own volition?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

2. No, absolutely not. Life is made up of organic molecules following chemical reactions. The sum of those reactions make up complex organisms. By looking at a complex organism now, of any type, it is quite simple to assume that it has been designed simply because of its complexity, but that ignores a few billion years of natural development and refinement - or evolution.

We still need to understand at the lower level it is still simple processes that combine into complexity. I think more along the lines of chaos theory where random or unpredictable behaviors are in systems governed by deterministic laws.

originally posted by: whereislogic


Thanks to both of you in making clear what your point of contention is. I take it that according to both of you, those who refer to these things in the cell as "machine(s)", are therefore incorrect/wrong (or at the least they should make it clear that these things are merely "like a machine", as in an analogy, they are not actual machines)? And any published paper that uses these terms as if they are factual/accurate terms to describe these things (so not pointing out "like a ..."), should not pass through peer review without someone pointing out this inaccuracy?

Call it what you will...You can say machine or process. You can say a natural machine. It's you that is defining everything along the way. Naming processes don't change the physical nature of the item. How about chemical reactions? It is your leap here to suggest anything with the term machine is intelligent design. So suggesting "biomolecular machinery" as to parts of a cell and the chemical process that go on is not instantly referred to as intelligent design too.