Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

3 Questions For Atheists | No1

TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:15:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)

Finding a chick that puts out
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:19:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

1) Not all atheists have to deny miracles (depending on how you define miracle).
2) You presuppose miracles happen in this statement.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

Good, just don't switch definitions part way through as that is an equivocation fallacy.

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

By not explicable by natural or scientific laws, do you mean that it is not explained by our CURRENT understanding or that it cannot be explained?
If the former, then it is an argument from ignorance.
If the latter, then there is a BoP for you to demonstrate that.

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Then it is an argument from ignorance, isn't it?

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Good luck.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

How so? You claim it is a miracle, and so YOU have the burden of proof for that.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born?

When a man and a woman love each other very much...

Where does it all start?

Life started with abiogenesis, starting with very simple self-replicating molecules.
Eventually, organisms evolved that could exchange DNA in order to adapt (though, this was not originally used for reproduction) you can see this with some bacteria today.
Eventually, organisms evolved the ability to reproduce sexually (without losing there asexual reproductive abilities), again, something that can be seen with bacteria today.
The organisms that breed sexually had more diversity, and thus were able to survive more. Any genetic flaw that hindered asexual reproduction didn't matter, and eventually organisms evolved that could only reproduce sexually.
This goes on, more evolution, eventually we have humans.

Though, I am sure that your question is very different than what it seems.

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:22:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Step 2
Finding a nearby park or a place to do it ,
Then with a little foreplay , or again drugs blue pill
Place my 4 Inch member inside the man's bum I mean women's you know.

Do I go on?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:23:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:22:08 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Step 2
Finding a nearby park or a place to do it ,
Then with a little foreplay , or again drugs blue pill
Place my 4 Inch member inside the man's bum I mean women's you know.

Do I go on?

Oh to late sorry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 8:25:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.
No; I deny the proposition that you could ever recognise a miracle, or be sure that you hadn't seen one. But one could deny gods yet believe in wonders -- for example, some Buddhists do this.

I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.
Reproduction
Your insistence that conception is a miracle would seem to support my contention. It's a marvel that you want to be a miracle; so you assert that questions can never be explained without identifying key questions or how you can discern things we don't know from things we can never know.

How a child is born? Where does it all start?
It depends on how finely you want the detail, but we understand how the body's cells become sex cells, how they combine during fertilisation, how they divide and reproduce to become the cells of a new body, how genetics direct embryological development, and how heredity and environment can affect the characteristics of the individual so produced.

Which leads me to wonder:
1) Which parts do you think we don't understand?
2) Why does not understanding an answer (if that's so) make it miraculous rather than merely mysterious?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:55:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 8:25:04 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.
No; I deny the proposition that you could ever recognise a miracle, or be sure that you hadn't seen one. But one could deny gods yet believe in wonders -- for example, some Buddhists do this.

I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.
Reproduction
Your insistence that conception is a miracle would seem to support my contention. It's a marvel that you want to be a miracle; so you assert that questions can never be explained without identifying key questions or how you can discern things we don't know from things we can never know.

How a child is born? Where does it all start?
It depends on how finely you want the detail, but we understand how the body's cells become sex cells, how they combine during fertilisation, how they divide and reproduce to become the cells of a new body, how genetics direct embryological development, and how heredity and environment can affect the characteristics of the individual so produced.

Which leads me to wonder:
1) Which parts do you think we don't understand?
2) Why does not understanding an answer (if that's so) make it miraculous rather than merely mysterious?

Maybe he just wanted to know
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:18:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Wow how much you need to sue your old schools for not teaching sex ed to you.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:41:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 9:55:14 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 2/28/2016 8:25:04 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.
No; I deny the proposition that you could ever recognise a miracle, or be sure that you hadn't seen one. But one could deny gods yet believe in wonders -- for example, some Buddhists do this.
I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.
Reproduction
Which leads me to wonder:
1) Which parts do you think we don't understand?
2) Why does not understanding an answer (if that's so) make it miraculous rather than merely mysterious?
Maybe he just wanted to know
It's not unusual to see magic claimed from ignorance, but it's pretty rare to see it claimed from extensive scientific knowledge. :)
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:59:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Most do, but not inherently no.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

Good definition.

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Ok.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Not in the slightest.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

How is a child born? Through pain and anguish. Where do it all start? When the father forgets to pull out.

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

Ok...

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:25:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)

Childbirth has been extensively studied by doctors and scientists and we understand very well how it happens. Also, just because we cannot 100% explain something does not mean it is supernatural. It is because of people like you that all this ridiculous mythology all over the world existed in the first place.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE. To believe such a thing is to hold (as ancient philosophers used to) that language should dictate nature, rather than acknowledging (as scientists now do) that nature should dictate the language used to describe it.

And it's more complicated than even that, since our language also captures our ontology -- our classification of what exists and how it connects; but ontology is build around the purposes to which we mean to put it.

So a legal definition of new life, a medical definition, a biological definition and a chemical definition might be different. For example legally, life might be treated as new and distinct when it's self-sustaining -- so, either at birth or in the last trimester of gestation; medically, life may need to be treated as distinct when a fertilised egg becomes a blastocyst -- that is, an egg attached to a womb wall. Biologically, such life may not be considered new at all unless it is a new species: it may be considered the same life, replicated with minor variation; while chemically, there may be no clear distinction between life and non-life at all.

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:35:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:19:17 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

1) Not all atheists have to deny miracles (depending on how you define miracle).
2) You presuppose miracles happen in this statement.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

Good, just don't switch definitions part way through as that is an equivocation fallacy.

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

By not explicable by natural or scientific laws, do you mean that it is not explained by our CURRENT understanding or that it cannot be explained?
If the former, then it is an argument from ignorance.
If the latter, then there is a BoP for you to demonstrate that.

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Then it is an argument from ignorance, isn't it?

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Good luck.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

How so? You claim it is a miracle, and so YOU have the burden of proof for that.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born?

When a man and a woman love each other very much...

Where does it all start?

Life started with abiogenesis, starting with very simple self-replicating molecules.

How did you establish this? what is the scientific evidence that this a) can happen and b) did happen?

Harry.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)

It's quite simple. A male and a female human have sexual intercourse. The sperm of the male fertilizes the egg of the female. A foetus is created with half of the fathers DNA and half of the mothers. The foetus develops in its mother's womb for 9 months until the baby is born.

This is not a miracle. It is simply sexual reproduction. Something that occurs naturally in many different species. A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by current knowledge.

examples of miracles would be if I was able to float in the sky or teleport myself to Australia. These events would be completely unexplainable by science. Human reproduction however is a completely normal and well understood event.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:40:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE. To believe such a thing is to hold (as ancient philosophers used to) that language should dictate nature, rather than acknowledging (as scientists now do) that nature should dictate the language used to describe it.

And it's more complicated than even that, since our language also captures our ontology -- our classification of what exists and how it connects; but ontology is build around the purposes to which we mean to put it.

So a legal definition of new life, a medical definition, a biological definition and a chemical definition might be different. For example legally, life might be treated as new and distinct when it's self-sustaining -- so, either at birth or in the last trimester of gestation; medically, life may need to be treated as distinct when a fertilised egg becomes a blastocyst -- that is, an egg attached to a womb wall. Biologically, such life may not be considered new at all unless it is a new species: it may be considered the same life, replicated with minor variation; while chemically, there may be no clear distinction between life and non-life at all.

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.

I think our OP really needs to define "life" much better before the question can be answered. Ultimately, I believe he is seeking "I don't know" as an answer so he can appeal to that ignorance as a miracle.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:59:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

Your definition is a perfect demonstration of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

An event not explicable by natural or scientific laws = An event not explicable by natural or scientific laws

To say that "An event not explicable by natural or scientific laws = Supernatural" is a logical contradiction. You're essentially saying "I don't have an explanation for the event, therefore I have an explanation for the event".

Here is a question for you: Suppose a lake turns into wine and back to water. Suppose that there are only two possible explanations for this: (1) A natural event beyond our current understanding of the universe, and (2) an event orchestrated by supernatural forces.

How do we go about telling the difference?
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.

You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?

To believe such a thing is to hold (as ancient philosophers used to) that language should dictate nature, rather than acknowledging (as scientists now do) that nature should dictate the language used to describe it.

And it's more complicated than even that, since our language also captures our ontology -- our classification of what exists and how it connects; but ontology is build around the purposes to which we mean to put it.

So a legal definition of new life, a medical definition, a biological definition and a chemical definition might be different. For example legally, life might be treated as new and distinct when it's self-sustaining -- so, either at birth or in the last trimester of gestation; medically, life may need to be treated as distinct when a fertilised egg becomes a blastocyst -- that is, an egg attached to a womb wall. Biologically, such life may not be considered new at all unless it is a new species: it may be considered the same life, replicated with minor variation; while chemically, there may be no clear distinction between life and non-life at all.

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.

Life : being conscious.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?

Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.
Life : being conscious.
A vague, unsourced, unattributed, unvalidated, unsupported definition that doesn't accord with best practice, is probably subjective in application, and likely buries your conclusion in your definition for circularity.

I think we can do better, TRE, don't you?
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 5:49:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?

Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

I am Not imressed with the answer. Sorry!

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.
Life : being conscious.
A vague, unsourced, unattributed, unvalidated, unsupported definition that doesn't accord with best practice, is probably subjective in application, and likely buries your conclusion in your definition for circularity.

Is there something called 'conscious' in your opinion?

I think we can do better, TRE, don't you?

only if you allow me to.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 5:57:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:10:52 AM, TREssspa wrote:
My First Question -

Atheists deny the fact that miracles happen.

Let us take generally accepted definition of miracle -

'A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (god or gods), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.'

OR say, something unexplainable, atleast with our current knowledge of the world.

Now, I am giving one example, of a miracle, we know happens.

Reproduction

How a baby is born is miracle.

Anyone (theist or atheist) who says NO - tell me:

How a child is born? Where does it all start?

Then, I will reveal what I intend to ask.

(This thread is part of my original series 'Starting Point Difference' posted earlier in the science forum.)

Didn't understand the little talk about the birds and the bees? Poor thing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:02:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:

Life : being conscious.
A blade of grass is not alive by your definition.
Well done you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:12:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 5:49:20 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?
Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

I am Not imressed with the answer. Sorry!
So, following an unattributed vague definition, you've given a vague but categorical rejection to a specific, detailed diligent explanation you can check with a simple web search on 'characteristics of life'?

Should I be very impressed by your unconstructive and off-hand response?

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.
Life : being conscious.
A vague, unsourced, unattributed, unvalidated, unsupported definition that doesn't accord with best practice, is probably subjective in application, and likely buries your conclusion in your definition for circularity.
Is there something called 'conscious' in your opinion?
The question seems off-topic, since life can be recognised objectively through the seven criteria I mentioned, while consciousness appears to be a subjective category of awareness-response, whose main verification is people telling us 'I am conscious!'

Nevertheless, consciousness might be specifiable objectively. However, that work remains in progress.

I think we can do better, TRE, don't you?
only if you allow me to.
What can any member can do to prevent you from:
* researching before you post;
* making specific, significant, falsifiable statements;
* linking references to claims of authority;
* citing independent evidence;
* keeping to topic; and
* reasoning rigorously?

I'm afraid I can't carry any blame for you not doing that, TRE.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:29:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:12:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 5:49:20 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?
Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

I am Not imressed with the answer. Sorry!
So, following an unattributed vague definition, you've given a vague but categorical rejection to a specific, detailed diligent explanation you can check with a simple web search on 'characteristics of life'?

Should I be very impressed by your unconstructive and off-hand response?

So you can have different definitions for different purposes, and this is usual. There's no reason to pick one over another and insist that it's definitive and universal.
Life : being conscious.
A vague, unsourced, unattributed, unvalidated, unsupported definition that doesn't accord with best practice, is probably subjective in application, and likely buries your conclusion in your definition for circularity.
Is there something called 'conscious' in your opinion?
The question seems off-topic, since life can be recognised objectively through the seven criteria I mentioned, while consciousness appears to be a subjective category of awareness-response, whose main verification is people telling us 'I am conscious!'

Nevertheless, consciousness might be specifiable objectively. However, that work remains in progress.

I think we can do better, TRE, don't you?
only if you allow me to.
What can any member can do to prevent you from:
* researching before you post;
* making specific, significant, falsifiable statements;
* linking references to claims of authority;
* citing independent evidence;
* keeping to topic; and
* reasoning rigorously?

I'm afraid I can't carry any blame for you not doing that, TRE.

Let's address your argument.

Tell me which one of these 7 'processes' starts first.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:30:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:02:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:

Life : being conscious.
A blade of grass is not alive by your definition.
Well done you.

And How?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:41:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:30:44 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 6:02:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:

Life : being conscious.
A blade of grass is not alive by your definition.
Well done you.

And How?
Ooh I'll say!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:50:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:29:29 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 6:12:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 5:49:20 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?
Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

Let's address your argument.

Tell me which one of these 7 'processes' starts first.

It doesn't have to be in the same order for each species, but typically 2 & 3 appear earliest. In most eukaryotes, reproduction is sexual, which means two sex-cells merge to form one cell of a new individual. So the production of a new cell (2) with the metabolism (3) to grow (4) is one of the first signs of new life appearing, though by itself that process may not produce viable life.

But a cell is simply a physical arrangement of diverse micro-structures called organelles floating inside a membrane -- and technically the organelles are optional too, since they don't appear in prokaryotes.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 7:05:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:50:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 6:29:29 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 6:12:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 5:49:20 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:45:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:24:07 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:14:24 PM, TREssspa wrote:
I asked when does the new life starts. At what instant?
There is no reason to believe that new life should start in a single instant, TRE.
You mean the life itself undergoes development? Any explanation for that?
Although definitions vary, biologically, life is generally recognised by seven self-sustaining processes, namely:
1. homeostasis (e.g. being able to maintain physical states);
2. organisation (e.g. structural decomposition into cells);
3, metabolism (transforming energy);
4. growth (constructing more replacement molecules than those consumed);
5. adaptation (changing in response to environment);
6. response to stimuli (plants and even bacteria do this); and
7. reproduction (self-explanatory.)

However, note that these abilities may appear at different times as an organism develops. For example, humans can take over a decade before they can reproduce; and adaptation to environment is very limited in infants, and near non-existent in embryos. So life can take time from inception to full manifestation, during which time various facilities may develop.

Let's address your argument.

Tell me which one of these 7 'processes' starts first.

It doesn't have to be in the same order for each species, but typically 2 & 3 appear earliest. In most eukaryotes, reproduction is sexual, which means two sex-cells merge to form one cell of a new individual. So the production of a new cell (2) with the metabolism (3) to grow (4) is one of the first signs of new life appearing, though by itself that process may not produce viable life.

Now, tell me what governs these processes?