ZOMBIE FORUMS
http://forums.kyhm.com/

Is Fire Alive? (A Debate)
http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=9376
Page 4 of 5

Author:  IcyMonkey [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kerostasis wrote:
Then, is it not conceivable that a Fire is also not life in the same way a Mushroom is, and yet still alive?


No, because it has neither life nor character; it simply displays certain properties that allow it to fit in with a definition of life that's vague enough to encompass both concepts. But a definition so vague would also encompass other things which no one would consider to be life, and thus could not be a good definition.

In the end, we either have to define life as "life-as-fleshiness" or admit that the concept of "life" is ultimately a useless and empty one, and should be replaced by the seperate concepts of fleshiness and character.

Author:  OmnipotentEntity [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fire is a physical thing, so is a Mushroom. If you believe in God(TM) you probably believe that he isn't a physical thing.

There's at least one difference between Fire and God.

Hell, even if you consider things like political parties alive, they do have a physical medium, that being the mouths and minds of humans. However, if God is indeed more than a collective delusion then his "body" would be something other than the minds of humans. So, if God is a nothing more than the aggregated thoughts of His followers then he is arguably more alive than a "real" God.

Author:  IcyMonkey [ Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is sort of beside the point but:

OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Fire is a physical thing, so is a Mushroom. If you believe in God(TM) you probably believe that he isn't a physical thing.


What if I believe the universe is God? The universe is made up of physical things.

(Also, Mormons actually do believe that God has a physical body.)

What exactly do we mean by "physical" anyway? "Pertaining to the laws of the known universe"?

Author:  OmnipotentEntity [ Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

Physical meaning "comprised of a form of matter."

If you believe God is the universe then God is physical.

Author:  egets [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:21 am ]
Post subject: 

what an interesting idea I have never stopped to think about that, first anyways comes to mind that what exactly ismeant by the word life ?

I remember I was watching either movie or documentary or something where the firefighter was talking about fire like its a monster who knows what to do where to go etc, but maybe its the effect of him discribing the fire in that way that made it sound like its a living thing with own mind, but then again.... there is also a saying that fire is a good servant but bad master which also adds the mysterious nature of fire as if it is a character

I could be going around beating around the bush but i couldnt debate properly before somebody defines what is really meant by the word being alive othervice this is more like a debate of what it means to different ppl something being alive i think

well now suddenly my first though however is of course that its not alive because it dont seem to change form but it kind of appears and disappears but something that is alive will always be in some form just changing it, well this is my quick idea about it but Im not going to vote because im still open minded to this idea maybe it is alive after :)

Author:  IcyMonkey [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 

It thinks it's people! How cute!

Author:  RMG [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Is Egets Alive? (A Debate)

Author:  IcyMonkey [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

RMG wrote:
Is Egets Alive? (A Debate)


RMG wins the thread.

Author:  Kali_Ava [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

IcyMonkey wrote:
RMG wrote:
Is Egets Alive? (A Debate)


RMG wins the thread.


:D ditto

Author:  OmnipotentEntity [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kinda makes me wish I had the new captcha in place before it joined. It probably would have kept it out.

Author:  egets [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

:) well its not a competition, u ppl just dont know how to hold on to what Im saying, if you tried you could miraculously see a conversation florish before your very eyes but maybe u ppl just too inbreed to b able to do this -chukles-

Author:  tyciol [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Spreading is different from reproducing. Generally, I call something alive when it has a cell. Whatever it is, fire certainly isn't sentient.

Author:  Valheru [ Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:37 am ]
Post subject: 

IcyMonkey wrote:
This is sort of beside the point but:

OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Fire is a physical thing, so is a Mushroom. If you believe in God(TM) you probably believe that he isn't a physical thing.


What if I believe the universe is God? The universe is made up of physical things.

(Also, Mormons actually do believe that God has a physical body.)

What exactly do we mean by "physical" anyway? "Pertaining to the laws of the known universe"?


Physical meaning it exists in our physical plane of existance.


God cannot have a physical body, because God is metaphysical, God can be called Omnipotent and Onmiscient only because it does not exist in our sphere of reality. If God were to have a physical form it would be finite and therefore, not God.

Now, on to the debate of Fire having life..

Personally, I feel that fire cannot be considered alive because fire is not truly physical, Fire is -energy-, plain and simple. All fire is is the releasing of energy when something is oxidized to release CO2 and heat. The "form" of fire is simply the energy released from the reaction, and the waving pattern is merely the high energy molecules being moved by bombardment by gas molecules. In fact, in a vaccum, fire is in fact a motionless sphere of energy.

Author:  Sivex [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

America's meaning to life. Be a consumer. Fire certainly consumes shit. It's just as alive as we are.

"Shit I need that big screen TV to out do my neighbor."
"Shit I need to burn down a national forest to out do that california forest fire."

Author:  Rusty [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I believe in your snarky pontification you missed the debate. Please read the thread and then see if you have something to contribute.

Author:  Ozymandias [ Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Valheru wrote:
Physical meaning it exists in our physical plane of existance.


God cannot have a physical body, because God is metaphysical, God can be called Omnipotent and Onmiscient only because it does not exist in our sphere of reality. If God were to have a physical form it would be finite and therefore, not God.

Now, on to the debate of Fire having life..

Personally, I feel that fire cannot be considered alive because fire is not truly physical, Fire is -energy-, plain and simple. All fire is is the releasing of energy when something is oxidized to release CO2 and heat. The "form" of fire is simply the energy released from the reaction, and the waving pattern is merely the high energy molecules being moved by bombardment by gas molecules. In fact, in a vaccum, fire is in fact a motionless sphere of energy.

If you want to argue that that which is only enegry is not alive you must argue that nothing is alive; as physics tells us, matter is just a form of energy, like light, heat, or sound. As such to say that fire is not alive because it is just energy is at least a little fallacious, although not terribly so, I admit.

The question requires us to ask another question: What is it to be alive? In science, fire is not alive; for instance it does not reproduce, in fact, it is only the visual evidence of a carbonisation reaction. However philosophically speaking it may be a different matter; so what logical tone of voice are we talking in here? What do we mean by "alive"?

Author:  Sivex [ Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Rusty wrote:
I believe in your snarky pontification you missed the debate. Please read the thread and then see if you have something to contribute.


Bad joke. Chill. Move on.

Author:  Rusty [ Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sivex wrote:
Rusty wrote:
I believe in your snarky pontification you missed the debate. Please read the thread and then see if you have something to contribute.


Bad joke. Chill. Move on.


Inattentiveness to the rules of the forum only makes you look stupid to the people who actually come here for more than omglol'ing. Which, granted, is few. However, when in Rome...

Author:  Tossrock [ Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ozymandias wrote:
Valheru wrote:
Physical meaning it exists in our physical plane of existance.


God cannot have a physical body, because God is metaphysical, God can be called Omnipotent and Onmiscient only because it does not exist in our sphere of reality. If God were to have a physical form it would be finite and therefore, not God.

Now, on to the debate of Fire having life..

Personally, I feel that fire cannot be considered alive because fire is not truly physical, Fire is -energy-, plain and simple. All fire is is the releasing of energy when something is oxidized to release CO2 and heat. The "form" of fire is simply the energy released from the reaction, and the waving pattern is merely the high energy molecules being moved by bombardment by gas molecules. In fact, in a vaccum, fire is in fact a motionless sphere of energy.

If you want to argue that that which is only enegry is not alive you must argue that nothing is alive; as physics tells us, matter is just a form of energy, like light, heat, or sound. As such to say that fire is not alive because it is just energy is at least a little fallacious, although not terribly so, I admit.

The question requires us to ask another question: What is it to be alive? In science, fire is not alive; for instance it does not reproduce, in fact, it is only the visual evidence of a carbonisation reaction. However philosophically speaking it may be a different matter; so what logical tone of voice are we talking in here? What do we mean by "alive"?


So you're Blue Sun Missile's less retarded alt? I think I like you more.

Author:  Ozymandias [ Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tossrock wrote:
So you're Blue Sun Missile's less retarded alt? I think I like you more.

T' answer that... who do you mean by Blue Sun Missile? If you mean the Grim Squeaker of the tagboards... alter ego? Bah.

And how about answering the question, though I guess its not an easy one (there's a reason I didn't try either!)

Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/