[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Now a problem arises here, because this 'wanting' is an attribute of living things. Yet we often project this onto non-living things. (e.g. the oxygen atom 'wants' to fill its outer shell of electrons). Tormod has pointed out the illogic of this by citing the Magellanic Clouds.

Yet there are points when life arose from non-life, and more especially when consciousness arose from non-consciousness, when 'wanting' becomes a potent and literal part of reality. Perhaps, if we are to ever fully understand how these transitions took place we may need to use a combination of faith and science.

The issue here is that you are assuming that there is a difference. Our biology is based on electrochemistry (which is in turn based on physics). Our "wants" are based upon the "wants" of the molecules to form more stable patterns. There simply is no translation, just magnification.

[UncleAl]

want is the source of all things

Gravitation, magnetism, electric charge - stuff wants to clump together? Then what about repulsion of like magnetic or electric poles but not gravitational repulsion? Diamagnetism? If TNT wants to blow up, why does it hold together? What keeps a mountain lake filled above sea level? If water wants to flow downhill, why does it evaporate upward?

http://www.hfml.science.ru.nl/froglev.html
http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scito..._graphite.html
http://www.fieldlines.com/other/diamag1.html

Your thesis is absurd. You are in bed with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, the Keebler Elves, Tinkerbelle, the good Witch of the North, Casper the Friendly Ghost, Superman, AstroBoy... The Nine Billion Names of God... and all that textual crap Tommy Aquinas generated - a combination Barbara Cartland and Louis L'Amour of ditzy Catholicism.

If theology changed at Vatican II, then it never was nor is it infallible. Without an infallible magisterium plus indispensable keys to heaven, the entire human product of Catholic theology is corrupt and worthless by its own rules of engagement.

I challenge you to prove there is even one thing in existence which does not come from want

Consider a camera lens. Put a screen at a proper distance behind it and you see a focused image. Remove the screen - where is the image? Explain formation of the image and its reality/non-reality absent the screen.

Uncle Al says, "Mystics are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent."

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Gravitation, magnetism, electric charge - stuff wants to clump together? ... Your thesis is absurd.

Our standard joke in marketing when it comes to advertising/graphic design is the line, "It *wants* to be blue." Always good for a laugh, but yes, anthropomorhising all sorts of things is taken somewhat more seriously by the anthropocentric. This sort of homochauvinism can however be, ahem, prejudiced.... This is in the same vein as "There is no 'try', only 'do' and 'not do.'" Yoda to the philosophical rescue.

Originally Posted by UncleAl

You are in bed with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...

Hey! Some of us *do* believe in Santa and the Bunny! I "Pbbbbtttt!" in your general direction!

Cheers,
Buffy

[UncleAl]

I "Pbbbbtttt!" in your general direction!

Whoa! Bll the Cat is sacred! The Easter Bunny being an egg-laying out of wedlock bipedal male mammal is positively Aristotelian. Test of faith!

Uncle Al says, "ACK! THBBFT!" - and not a hamster or an elderberry scent in his whole family tree. As for the OP, a dose of Yoda for all possible falsifying counterarguments:

Criticism, "I don't believe it."
Faith, "That is why you fail."

http://www.vatican.va/
To paraphrase James Tiberius Kirk, "Why does God need a website?" (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier )

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

The Easter Bunny being an egg-laying out of wedlock bipedal male mammal is positively Aristotelian.

Do you know why the Easter Bunny hides his eggs?


Highlight-->He doesn't want anyone to know he's been screwing chickens...

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Whoa! Bll the Cat is sacred! ... Uncle Al says, "ACK! THBBFT!"

There you have it: we all have our false idols to bear. I won't call your's small if you don't call mine small...

Scotty: Mr. Spock, a while a go you said that there were always possibilities?
Spock: Did I? I might have erred.
McCoy: Well at least I'll live long enough to hear that.
-- The Gospel of Kirk 3:24

Reverently Irreverent,
Buffy

[Dark Mind]

That's showing us something there .

C1ay IS an actual person . And I was beginning to think he was an omniscient android from the future... Or something...

[Dark Mind]

This thread's first post I think warrants it's inclusion in the Strange Claims Forum.... Anyone disagree?

[emessay]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

"Wanting" is more a function of evolution. Assume that there are two groups of rabbits, one who 'wants' to survive, by eating, drinking, keeping themselves safe, etc. And another who doesn't 'want' at all. Which one is going to survive and breed? Only the ones who 'want'. Thus, wanting will, by necessity, be bred into all future generations, and not wanting will be eliminated.

How can we explain this :

CO2+H20+N2+lightning electric -> amino acids-->RNA/DNA-like-->virus-like--> a life ???

Is it function of evolution mechanism or is it something 'wanting' to drive evolution function then life exist ?

I hope someday we may explain that 'fabric of DNA' is only manufacturing plant, we may discover 'master-print', not only blue-print.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Our biology is based on electrochemistry (which is in turn based on physics). Our "wants" are based upon the "wants" of the molecules to form more stable patterns. There simply is no translation, just magnification.

That is one world view: a strongly materialistic and atheistic stance. There are alternate views that posit a qualitative difference between life and non-life; and between consciousness and non-consciousness. In these alternate views it is not simply magnification. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.