Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

I've been slacking a bit, but when I say "Is God Prior?" I mean is the supposed causation of the big bang by God prior to the big bang?
And is there a real transition/change between no Universe and Universe?

I find it difficult to understand how you could ask if there is a real transition/change between no universe and universe. No universe means no space, time, matter of energy. As it says at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ematically, "As we know time began with the big bang. Before that there was no time, no laws, nothing."
I don't believe one can get a bigger change than between nothing and something.
kenblogton

[scourge99]

kenblogton replied: What you seem not to understand is that God is not physical and is eternal, outside of time, not in space, and consisting neither of matter nor energy.

I don't even understand what that means and i doubt you do either. I know what matter, energy, and time is but i don't know what a "timeless, matterless, energyless" thing is or if its even possible. It seems like it you are asserting the existence of something much like someone asserting the existence of a square-circle.

Furthermore, you aren't describing this entity with any positive properties. It appears to be just an idea in your head no different than a square-circle. For example, I am not a toaster and I am not a dolphin. But those descriptions tell you very little about what I actually am. A positive description of me would be that I'm a human male. Is there some way to positively describe the properties of a timeless, matterless, energyless thing?

Space, time, matter & energy all originate with the dense singularity/big bang, as you well know.

The Laws of physics as we know them break down prior to the Planck time.

And prior is a time-context term, as you have previously pointed out. As noted above, since God is outside of the physical, including time, prior is not a term that applies to God. Other term which don't apply to God are space terms, like where is God; God is Spirit, consisting neither of matter nor energy.

1) What does it even mean to be "timeless, energyless, matterless"? Can you describe this at all in POSITIVE terms? For example, a square circle is not a triangle and not an ellipse but that doesn't tell us anything at all about what a square-circle is.

2) Why can't other imaginary things like "timeless, matterless, energyless" fairies be the cause of this universe? Why is only your god the only possibility? Is it not possible that a "timeless, matterless, energyless" X created the universe and X isn't your god?

3) Assuming for the sake of argument that a "timeless, energyless, matterless," entity is even possible. How can such a thing create anything unless it is within some sort of "time" of its own. That is, creation requires some sort of time, a before and after; cause and effect. If an entity if timeless i don't see how it can create anything by definition. It would have to be "in time".



PS - a user's ability or inability to properly use the quote function is regarded as an informal IQ test around here.

[Jashwell]

I've been slacking a bit, but when I say "Is God Prior?" I mean is the supposed causation of the big bang by God prior to the big bang?
And is there a real transition/change between no Universe and Universe?

I find it difficult to understand how you could ask if there is a real transition/change between no universe and universe. No universe means no space, time, matter of energy. As it says at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ematically, "As we know time began with the big bang. Before that there was no time, no laws, nothing."
I don't believe one can get a bigger change than between nothing and something.
kenblogton

So what is there a transition across?
What is meant by "then"?

... it's certainly not time

[kenblogton]

A.

kenblogton replied: What you seem not to understand is that God is not physical and is eternal, outside of time, not in space, and consisting neither of matter nor energy.

I don't even understand what that means and i doubt you do either. I know what matter, energy, and time is but i don't know what a "timeless, matterless, energyless" thing is or if its even possible. It seems like it you are asserting the existence of something much like someone asserting the existence of a square-circle.

Furthermore, you aren't describing this entity with any positive properties. It appears to be just an idea in your head no different than a square-circle. For example, I am not a toaster and I am not a dolphin. But those descriptions tell you very little about what I actually am. A positive description of me would be that I'm a human male. Is there some way to positively describe the properties of a timeless, matterless, energyless thing?




B.

Space, time, matter & energy all originate with the dense singularity/big bang, as you well know.

The Laws of physics as we know them break down prior to the Planck time.

And prior is a time-context term, as you have previously pointed out. As noted above, since God is outside of the physical, including time, prior is not a term that applies to God. Other term which don't apply to God are space terms, like where is God; God is Spirit, consisting neither of matter nor energy.

1) What does it even mean to be "timeless, energyless, matterless"? Can you describe this at all in POSITIVE terms? For example, a square circle is not a triangle and not an ellipse but that doesn't tell us anything at all about what a square-circle is.

2) Why can't other imaginary things like "timeless, matterless, energyless" fairies be the cause of this universe? Why is only your god the only possibility? Is it not possible that a "timeless, matterless, energyless" X created the universe and X isn't your god?

3) Assuming for the sake of argument that a "timeless, energyless, matterless," entity is even possible. How can such a thing create anything unless it is within some sort of "time" of its own. That is, creation requires some sort of time, a before and after; cause and effect. If an entity if timeless i don't see how it can create anything by definition. It would have to be "in time".



PS - a user's ability or inability to properly use the quote function is regarded as an informal IQ test around here.

Reply to A. I have never experienced a non-physical reality, so I lack any intuitions of such.
Regarding the properties of God. If you read point 3. below, you'll find some.
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.

Reply to B. 1) Eternal
Reply to B. 2) I've explained that in A. above.
Reply to B. 3) Since we are not spirits in eternity, we can't describe what that state is like.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

I've been slacking a bit, but when I say "Is God Prior?" I mean is the supposed causation of the big bang by God prior to the big bang?
And is there a real transition/change between no Universe and Universe?

I find it difficult to understand how you could ask if there is a real transition/change between no universe and universe. No universe means no space, time, matter of energy. As it says at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ematically, "As we know time began with the big bang. Before that there was no time, no laws, nothing."
I don't believe one can get a bigger change than between nothing and something.
kenblogton

So what is there a transition across?
What is meant by "then"?

... it's certainly not time

The transition is not a gradual evolution but an abrupt shift from nothing to the physical something.
I'm not clear on the meaning of your question "What is meant by "then"?"
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1278 by kenblogton]


Any kind of transition or shift - as abrupt as you want it - necessitates the existence of a dimension in which they are separate.

You can't refer to a temporal 'jump' to describe how time itself is separate from something.
You have to speculatively invent an 'ontological dimension'.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

"Something from nothing" and "How life began" and "How the universe originated" are different topics from evolution -- though interesting topics in themselves. Let's discuss such things in separate threads.
Rules
C&A Guidelines

______________

Moderator Interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1278 by kenblogton]


1. Any kind of transition or shift - as abrupt as you want it - necessitates the existence of a dimension in which they are separate.

2. You can't refer to a temporal 'jump' to describe how time itself is separate from something.
You have to speculatively invent an 'ontological dimension'.

Reply to 1. The physical and spiritual are not separated by dimensions; that is an unnecessary restriction which you are imposing.

Reply to 2. If time begins at the big bang, there is no temporal jump, and you don't speculatively need to invent anything.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1280 by Zzyzx]

Here is my full reply, which relates well to the forum topic, especially parts 5 a, b & c:

1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
5. Some limitations of current scientific theories. Three areas where current scientific theory is either lacking or inadequate, are:
a. Cause of the origin of the physical universe: There is no generally accepted scientific theory regarding the cause of the origin of the physical universe. The generally accepted theory of its origin is that somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago, there came into existence a dense singularity followed by a big bang explosion or expansion of that dense singularity. Given the first four points, we can state with confidence there never will be a generally accepted scientific theory regarding the cause of the origin of the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy. Causes which are not physical: not in space, not in time, and not material, are outside the realm of Science.
b. Cause of the origin of life: The generally accepted scientific theory regarding the cause of the origin of life is that, from the elemental chemicals present in the primordial soup of planet Earth’s early oceans, life arose spontaneously. The conditions which existed in those early oceans can be accurately inferred. Attempts to create life under conditions which simulate or replicate those early ocean conditions have all been unsuccessful, and theoretical reasons for that impossibility have been put forward. Because there has been no successful replication of life creation in any lab simulation, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the cause of life was not “spontaneous generation� but began with a “big bang.� “Big bang� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of life. Philosophically, one can confidently state life was caused by the creative entity.
c. Cause of the origin of species: The generally accepted scientific theory regarding the cause of the origin of the diverse species of life forms on Earth is that they have all evolved, the more complex from the simpler, by chance mutations, whose success is determined by fitness: the fittest intermediate species survive and continue to reproduce and evolve to become new, or final, species. However, there is virtually no paleontological evidence to support the notion of intermediate species leading to final species; the fossil record reflects only final species. Therefore, again, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the causes of the various species are the result not of “evolution� but of species “big bangs.� “Big bangs� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of the various species. Philosophically, one can confidently state the various species were caused by the creative entity.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1278 by kenblogton]


1. Any kind of transition or shift - as abrupt as you want it - necessitates the existence of a dimension in which they are separate.

2. You can't refer to a temporal 'jump' to describe how time itself is separate from something.
You have to speculatively invent an 'ontological dimension'.

Reply to 1. The physical and spiritual are not separated by dimensions; that is an unnecessary restriction which you are imposing.

Reply to 2. If time begins at the big bang, there is no temporal jump, and you don't speculatively need to invent anything.
kenblogton

It's probably best that you continue this and the above in the Reasons to believe God exists thread, but regardless, this isn't what I meant.

I meant, you're saying that there's "nothing" and THEN "something (inc. time)", but the very use of the word "then", as abrupt as the interval is, necessitates the existence of time.
If you do want a transition between "nothing" and something, you need a dimension to transition across (if they are separate then there is at least one dimension). But you can't appeal to time to do this.

In fact, to emphasise how problematic it is to speculate another dimension, if you (like some theologians) were to say "I mean ontologically prior" - this would be a misleading use of the word prior. Indeed, if we were to use another word for separation for another dimension, we could say "I mean that there was a first cause left of the big bang" - but this doesn't confer the philosophical baggage that is usually attributed by a-theorists onto time. You would be saying "effect follows cause temporally all of the time except really cause is left of effect and sometimes that's not a temporal transition"

For stuff relevant/semi relevant to evolution:

many of the chemicals are known to generate from inorganic conditions.
" Because there has been no successful replication of life creation in any lab simulation, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the cause of life was not “spontaneous generation� but began with a “big bang.� “Big bang� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of life. Philosophically, one can confidently state life was caused by the creative entity.

This is not application of Occam's razor at all. What is even meant by a "big bang" origin of life? If anything, it's the contrary of Occam's razor - take the spontaneous arisal of life, and add in "god did it". It'd be an argument from ignorance regardless.

Obviously abiogenesis isn't going to be easily recreated in a lab, life could've taken up to 500 or so million years to develop. Across the entire planet. But we're expected to believe that if it did that in 5 months we should see it develop in a small lab.

However, there is virtually no paleontological evidence to support the notion of intermediate species leading to final species;

Final species?
The very suggestion that there is such a thing is already taking it as given that evolution is false. Current species that will lead to others are intermediate species. Many fossils observably appear to be transitive between different species.

the fossil record reflects only final species. Therefore, again, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the causes of the various species are the result not of “evolution� but of species “big bangs.� “Big bangs� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of the various species. Philosophically, one can confidently state the various species were caused by the creative entity.

This is not application of Occam's razor - once again, it's an argument from ignorance, and once again, it's hostile to the razor.
Taking "Species arose" and adding "God" flies in the face of Occam's razor.