The Ultimate Truth

[Lionel20]

In my adult years I've always had this visceral affirmation that other areas in my cerebrum could never fully make sense of. I can't shake it, I've learned to embrace it, this idea, that considers itself much more certain than an idea, seems indigestible by the empirical evidence. Yet I insist it to be true.

This is how I define my faith somewhat. A faith in a Source that has empowered the nature of the universe in a way that I cannot fully comprehend. It's not specifically a faith in the Bible, although I credit the Bible for the awakening thoughts. The authors and organizers of the Bible for the most part, I presume were on the same journey that I'm on, trying to understand this seemingly inexplicable belief that empirical sciences don't appear to have the capabilities to satisfy.

[OnceConvinced]

Programming code is the later part of a process that is not as simple as it looks lol, from the trasitstors to the input devices it requires a knowledge of the electromagnetism to build a computer.

What about quantum computing? So much of our world isn't so simple.

The point is, it all comes down to basic building blocks. Nothing complex to start with. Things can become more complex as they develop.

[Lionel20]

[Replying to post 19 by OnceConvinced]

At some point in order there has to be an eternal force.

[Lionel20]

What purpose? No God ever told me that I had any specific purpose in life.

In fact, this is a huge complaint I have with the Bible in general. What was Adam's purpose? It doesn't say. Adam was never given any purpose. Yet ironically it claims that God created for Adam a "helpmate".

Help with what?

What did Adam supposedly need help with? He was never given a purpose.

His purpose certainly couldn't have been to procreate. If procreation was the purpose then Eve would have been created FIRST, and Adam would have been created as a "helpmate" for Eve so that she could go about her business procreating children.

The Bible actually has things entirely backwards. That's because it was actually written by male-chauvinistic pigs. Rolling Eyes

Worshiping the Bible as the "Word of God" is like worshiping the Taliban or ISIS. The ancient Hebrews weren't much different.

I'm not sure of Adam's full purpose, I'm more consumed with trying to find mine. But in the story of Adam, he was clearly instructed to "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth". He oversaw the rest of God's creation Gen 1:28, sounds like a purpose to me.[/quote]

[Divine Insight]

I'm not sure of Adam's full purpose, I'm more consumed with trying to find mine. But in the story of Adam, he was clearly instructed to "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth". He oversaw the rest of God's creation Gen 1:28, sounds like a purpose to me.

Exactly my point. But if that was the purpose then Eve should have been created first and Adam created from her rib as a helpmate for her. Because it's the woman who gives birth and replenishes the earth.

So this shows us that the men who wrote the Bible and tried to make out like women were the second-class citizens who were only created as an afterthought as a helpmate to Adam could have been nothing more than the male-chauvinistic pigs. No creator God would have been that stupid.

So we can see that the Bible cannot be from any creator. So the Bible is out. It's not a reputable source of information.

~~~~~~~

Besides, all your conclusions about science and evolution are wrong anyway so your entire line of thinking is flawed.

As Goat and Once Convinced have already pointed out, complex structures can indeed evolve from very simplistic rules or laws of physic. So your argument that there had to have been a complex creator to give rise to complexity is false.

Moreover, if you truly stop and think about that line of reasoning you should be able to see precisely whey it fails miserably. If you assert and maintain that complexity can only arise from complexity then your complex God would have also needed to have an even more complex creator. After all, where would it have obtained its complexity from?

Clearly complex things evolving naturally from less complex things makes far more sense. So the very ground of your argument fails. That argument alone would never lead to Hebrew mythology anyway. Hebrew mythology demands that our creator is an idiot. And that doesn't fit in with the idea of an all-wise all-intelligent God.

So Hebrew mythology is out no matter what.

That is actually "The Ultimate Truth".

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 19 by OnceConvinced]

At some point in order there has to be an eternal force.

Maybe, but who says it's a God?

[OnceConvinced]

Exactly my point. But if that was the purpose then Eve should have been created first and Adam created from her rib as a helpmate for her. Because it's the woman who gives birth and replenishes the earth.

So this shows us that the men who wrote the Bible and tried to make out like women were the second-class citizens who were only created as an afterthought as a helpmate to Adam could have been nothing more than the male-chauvinistic pigs. No creator God would have been that stupid.

So we can see that the Bible cannot be from any creator. So the Bible is out. It's not a reputable source of information.

It should be obvious to anyone just by the first couple of stories alone that it is written by sexist man. As you have pointed out, Eve was made as the 2nd class citizen. 2nd to man, only there to serve him.

Then you have Eve being the one who lured Adam into temptation, thus making women appear to be big trouble.

Clearly the writer wanted to establish these facts. He wanted to ensure that women remained in servile roles, there as possessions to serve them and provide sex and children. That they needed to be controlled and even looked down upon.

Admittedly I never really thought about this as a Christian. But now it seems so blatantly obvious.

As Goat and Once Convinced have already pointed out, complex structures can indeed evolve from very simplistic rules or laws of physic. So your argument that there had to have been a complex creator to give rise to complexity is false.

One thing I find with Creationists... and it was the same for me when I was one, is that I was looking at Evolution totally wrong. They look at the complexities and think "Wow! How could this have ever become like this?" They look at the complex structure as if it's some ultimate goal... something that had to be achieved. But it just isn't. The complex structures we see are an INEVITABLE outcome, not a cosmic accident.

Evolution has no goal in mind. And this is where I believe Creationists are completely missing the point.

[Lionel20]

Exactly my point. But if that was the purpose then Eve should have been created first and Adam created from her rib as a helpmate for her. Because it's the woman who gives birth and replenishes the earth.

There's too many question in that story to come to your conclusion. For instance if you read Gen 1:27 (depending on the translation), how do you that Adam wasn't asexual at first?

So this shows us that the men who wrote the Bible and tried to make out like women were the second-class citizens who were only created as an afterthought as a helpmate to Adam could have been nothing more than the male-chauvinistic pigs. No creator God would have been that stupid.

You don't quite understand the concept of free-will. The Bible what written and organized by a bunch of misogynist. That really doesn't damper my faith in God, because ultimately they're on the same imperfect journey that I'm on: trying to understand this eternal force and our persistent intuitions about it.

So we can see that the Bible cannot be from any creator. So the Bible is out. It's not a reputable source of information.

~~~~~~~

Untrue, the Bible can be one of many sources if it's put in proper complex. Religion exalts the Bible on the level of God, the two are incongruent. The Bible is a collection of writings from individuals trying to understand and interpret God. The Biblical writings, in that sense, were just like us.

Besides, all your conclusions about science and evolution are wrong anyway so your entire line of thinking is flawed.

As Goat and Once Convinced have already pointed out, complex structures can indeed evolve from very simplistic rules or laws of physic. So your argument that there had to have been a complex creator to give rise to complexity is false.

Moreover, if you truly stop and think about that line of reasoning you should be able to see precisely whey it fails miserably. If you assert and maintain that complexity can only arise from complexity then your complex God would have also needed to have an even more complex creator. After all, where would it have obtained its complexity from?

Clearly complex things evolving naturally from less complex things makes far more sense. So the very ground of your argument fails. That argument alone would never lead to Hebrew mythology anyway. Hebrew mythology demands that our creator is an idiot. And that doesn't fit in with the idea of an all-wise all-intelligent God.

So Hebrew mythology is out no matter what.

That is actually "The Ultimate Truth".

You, and the other two users you mentioned are missing an entire link. What is the code in the origins of the "simple system" that enables it to evolve into something more complex? Whatever it is that lies maybe somewhat obscure in its nature instructing it to transition into something much more complex, to me, is what further testifies of a Creator.

[Divine Insight]

You, and the other two users you mentioned are missing an entire link. What is the code in the origins of the "simple system" that enables it to evolve into something more complex?

What "code" are you talking about? There is no need for any code. That is precisely what has already been realized and understood by scientists.

Whatever it is that lies maybe somewhat obscure in its nature instructing it to transition into something much more complex, to me, is what further testifies of a Creator.

But that's your own misunderstanding of what is required. There is no need for any underlying instructions.

If you're truly open to understanding this concept I can offer you a basic analogy that can be helpful.

Imagine that you have a pair of dice. Each die has 6 faces numbered 1 through 6. When you toss those dice two numbers come up and when you add those two numbers together you get the number for that particular roll.

No mysterious "underlying instructions" are required for this to occur. Everytime you roll the dice you will get a meaningful number. Moreover you will only get a whole number from 2 thru 12. No fractional numbers can come up, nor you can ever roll anything less than a 2 or more than a 12. So even though the outcome of any particular roll is unknown to you, you still know precisely what can come up. (again no underlying mysterious code or instructions are required)

Also note that there are certain patters and probabilities that will also be a result of this situation. This is because you can obtain certain result in different ways. For example, you can obtain a 7 in the following ways:

1 + 6 = 7
2 + 5 = 7
3 + 4 = 7

Also because you are tossing two dice the following combinations could come up:

6 + 1 = 7
5 + 2 = 7
4 + 3 = 7

So you have 6 ways to roll a seven.

Whereas you only have one way to roll a 2 or a 12.

1 + 1 = 2
6 + 6 = 12

Therefore it's perfectly natural that 7 will come up more often than 2 or 12. So there is already "structure" in what can happen here. Yet there is no mysterious underlying code or instructions. Everything thus far has been nothing more than a result of the physical structure of the dice themselves.

So we can see where structured results can be obtained without any mysterious underlying code or instructions.

This same idea applies to the fundamental constituents of the universe. And everything we see around us, without exception, can be explained by nothing more than how these fundamental laws of nature have unfolded (just like rolling the dice).

So there is no need for any mysterious code or underlying "instructions" to do something specific or have a specific goal.

In fact, this is what physics is all about. Physics has discovered the "instructions" of the universe. They are referred to as the "natural laws". And everything can be explained by nothing more than the unfolding of these "natural laws.

No mysterious imagined further code or instructions are required.

So all you are doing when you suggest that further coding or instructions are required is nothing more than displaying your ignorance of the science of physics and what Physics is actually saying about the natural world.

There is no need for any imagined mysterious "code" or "instructions" beyond the natural laws of physics. That's all that is required. It's just like tossing dice. All you need is the dice. No further "coding" or "instructions" are required. Just toss the dice and you'll get a number. That's how it works.

So you objection to "physics" is an objection based upon an ignorance of what physics actually has to say. Your objection does not apply to physics. They already have your objections covered.

Apparently you just don't realize that physics already has this covered.

[Lionel20]

You, and the other two users you mentioned are missing an entire link. What is the code in the origins of the "simple system" that enables it to evolve into something more complex?

What "code" are you talking about? There is no need for any code. That is precisely what has already been realized and understood by scientists.

Whatever it is that lies maybe somewhat obscure in its nature instructing it to transition into something much more complex, to me, is what further testifies of a Creator.

But that's your own misunderstanding of what is required. There is no need for any underlying instructions.

If you're truly open to understanding this concept I can offer you a basic analogy that can be helpful.

Imagine that you have a pair of dice. Each die has 6 faces numbered 1 through 6. When you toss those dice two numbers come up and when you add those two numbers together you get the number for that particular roll.

No mysterious "underlying instructions" are required for this to occur. Everytime you roll the dice you will get a meaningful number. Moreover you will only get a whole number from 2 thru 12. No fractional numbers can come up, nor you can ever roll anything less than a 2 or more than a 12. So even though the outcome of any particular roll is unknown to you, you still know precisely what can come up. (again no underlying mysterious code or instructions are required)

Also note that there are certain patters and probabilities that will also be a result of this situation. This is because you can obtain certain result in different ways. For example, you can obtain a 7 in the following ways:

1 + 6 = 7
2 + 5 = 7
3 + 4 = 7

Also because you are tossing two dice the following combinations could come up:

6 + 1 = 7
5 + 2 = 7
4 + 3 = 7

So you have 6 ways to roll a seven.

Whereas you only have one way to roll a 2 or a 12.

1 + 1 = 2
6 + 6 = 12

Therefore it's perfectly natural that 7 will come up more often than 2 or 12. So there is already "structure" in what can happen here. Yet there is no mysterious underlying code or instructions. Everything thus far has been nothing more than a result of the physical structure of the dice themselves.

So we can see where structured results can be obtained without any mysterious underlying code or instructions.

This same idea applies to the fundamental constituents of the universe. And everything we see around us, without exception, can be explained by nothing more than how these fundamental laws of nature have unfolded (just like rolling the dice).

So there is no need for any mysterious code or underlying "instructions" to do something specific or have a specific goal.

In fact, this is what physics is all about. Physics has discovered the "instructions" of the universe. They are referred to as the "natural laws". And everything can be explained by nothing more than the unfolding of these "natural laws.

No mysterious imagined further code or instructions are required.

So all you are doing when you suggest that further coding or instructions are required is nothing more than displaying your ignorance of the science of physics and what Physics is actually saying about the natural world.

There is no need for any imagined mysterious "code" or "instructions" beyond the natural laws of physics. That's all that is required. It's just like tossing dice. All you need is the dice. No further "coding" or "instructions" are required. Just toss the dice and you'll get a number. That's how it works.

So you objection to "physics" is an objection based upon an ignorance of what physics actually has to say. Your objection does not apply to physics. They already have your objections covered.

Apparently you just don't realize that physics already has this covered.

whoa,

is this an oversimplification. I wish I had more time... how does a roll of dice explain how a fertilized egg grows into a human being, or basic biology?

It's much more complicated.. organisms have specific functions encoded in their DNA, objects have specific properties, even dice are chemically engineered.

How does something exist one way, and then end up another way? What allows for such processes?

[Divine Insight]

How does something exist one way, and then end up another way? What allows for such processes?

It a process called "evolution by natural selection".

This process is most often thought of in complex biological systems and explained at that level of complexity thought things like DNA and Genetics. However, this same process actually gave rise to all that came before biology. It's wasn't "biological evolution" at that time of course, and there was no DNA, but it was simply physical evolution by natural processes.

It's all explained in the sciences of physics, chemistry and ultimately biology and genetics. There simply is no need for any additional mysteries. The "apparent" need for additional magical codes and instructions resides only in the imagination of those who don't fully understand the physics of the situation.

You simply don't need any additional code or instructions beyond that natural laws of physics.

In fact, if you could show that such a thing is absolutely necessary and required, you would then win a Nobel Prize in physics. Because by demonstrating that such a code or set of instructions is absolutely necessary you would have discovered a NEW LAW of physics. One that currently is neither required nor even postulated to exist. There simply is no need to make such a hypothesis because the current physics is already sufficient to explain everything that has thus far been observed.

You would actually need to find something very specific that absolutely requires additional laws of physics, codes, or instructions, in order to bring you hypothesis into the realm of reality.

But obviously right now all you have is speculation based entirely upon ignorance. You are simply arguing that because you can't believe that the natural laws can explain everything that means that you must be RIGHT.

But sorry, that's not a valid claim. That's nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

Certainly NOT "The Ultimate Truth", as you have proclaimed in the title of this thread.

Abiogenists are currently studying the physics of abiogenesis. Until that study is complete we can't just arbitrarily claim that some magical code or instructions are required. On the contrary, if that's the case then this will be discovered in the study of abiogenesis. But currently there is no evidence pointing in that direction.

For you to claim that this is an "ultimate truth" requires that you first obtain your Nobel Prize in abiogenesis by showing that additional coding and instructions are indeed required. Good luck with that.

By the way, even if you were able to achieve that you would have only uncovered more physics.

By being able to prove that additional coding and/or instructions are required you would have necessarily opened a door into precisely what that code and/or instructions would need to be and therefore you would have gained an insight into the nature of that code or instructions.

So if you're truly interested in this topic then you should become an abiogenist. They you could actually study the phenomenon instead of just posting random opinions about it and falsely calling those random opinions "The Ultimate Truth".