Explaining Existence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Explaining Existence

Post #1

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Replying to post Lioness777
Lioness777 wrote: the 'scientific' theory that all the atheists love to quote is nothing but those men and women who have discovered what God has put on this earth to discover. Then they write about it.

Please tho I would like YOUR idea not a link of how you feel that there is a scientific explanation of existence. and I will then reply back to you simply...And who created the elements that has made life....life? For they just did NOT appear by themselves..
Alright. I will not link you to any other website, but will attempt to explain this to you in my own words. However, the question of existence is only the greatest question that we face. Clearly is is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to make my reply as easy to understand as I possibly can. And as brief. But again, given the nature of the question, the answer will not be easy to comprehend. And it is not a question which is possible to answer briefly and still present all of the ideas necessary to make the answer cogent. So you will have to bear with me. And I stand ready to answer all questions after you have read what I have posted.


It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything that we observe is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us however existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

Einstein's famous theorem E=MC^2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse. The existence of other universes is, as yet, only a possibility. The existence of other universes is implied by some of the current research, but is as yet unproven.

How many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.


The stuff that makes up the universe at large and the stuff that makes up life is exactly the same stuff. We call it matter. Matter is made up of combinations of incredibly small energetic bits; negatively charged electrons combined with positively and negatively charged elementary bits of energy scientists call quarks, which have themselves combined together to form protons and neutrons. The reason this occurs is because opposites attract and the positively charged quarks, known as up quarks, are massively attracted to the negatively charged quarks, known as down quarks, and immediately join together into clumps. A pair of positively charged up quarks joined to a negatively charged down quark forms a particle we call a proton. A proton has a net charge of positive. A pair of negatively charged down quarks joined to a positively charged up quark forms a particle we call a neutron. A neutron has a net charge of neutral. While oppositely charged particles are strongly attracted to each other, particles with the same charges are strongly repelled by each other. During high speed collisions, or under the influence of heavy gravity, protons and neutrons are forced closely enough together to become bonded. The energy that caused this to occur is locked into what is now the newly formed nucleus of an atom. A negatively charged electron now becomes attracted to the proton/neutron because of the positively charged quarks it contains. It does not bond with the proton/neutron however, because of the presence of negatively charged quarks. This is the classic model of an atom; a nucleus and a free electron. This is in fact an atom of the basic element known as hydrogen. An atom which contains two protons and two neutrons, as well as two free electrons is an atom of the element helium. Both of these elements are gasses over a very wide range of temperatures. An atom containing three protons, three neutrons and three free electrons however is the metal known as lithium, which has very different properties from hydrogen and helium. Because as the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons increases, the inherent property of the element changes. Two or more elements joined together form what are called molecules. Molecules are the stuff of matter; the stuff of the universe and the stuff of us.

At the heart of matter however, in the realm of quarks and electrons, there is a constant shifting of position, due to the effects of onging attraction/repulsion. Because oppositely charged particles attract each other, while like charged particles repel each other. This causes a constant ongoing roiling to occur at this most basic level, the elementary level of the quanta, which is known as quantum mechanics. It is the engine that drives all change and the universe itself. It is what is responsible for such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind and rain, earth quakes and volcanoes. It's also the reason that plants grow and you have thoughts flying around in your brain. Thoughts are electrical impulses caused by positive and negative charges. This attraction/repulsion caused by positive and negative charges is pretty much responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. It can even be responsible for intelligence like our own. And yet at it's basic level it is not itself intelligent. It occurs because these quantum bits, quarks and electrons, vibrate at a certain frequency. The frequency of their vibration determines whether they are positively charged, or negatively charged. The universe is simply reacting to itself you see. Because the universe itself IS energy according E=MC<2, and because matter is one of the forms that energy takes. And according to all observation and experimentation, energy can neither be created or destroyed. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. Energy is therefore ETERNAL, finite in amount, but infinite in duration. This understanding is neither a philosophy nor a declaration of religious belief. This understanding is simple observation. The universe exists in this configuration because energy comes in different quantum bits and these bits interact with each other. If they did not, then there would be NO CHANGE and NO UNIVERSE. The "evidence" which the universe provides us with tells us of ongoing change caused by quantum mechanics. It DOES NOT tell us that these mechanical causes are the result of intelligent creation. That idea was born in the minds of intelligent creatures struggling to understand the wonder of it all. And beyond that the questions are still wide open.


Now, some might not consider this answer to be brief. Given the nature of the question however, this is about as abridged as one could ask for. So take your time with it. Consider it carefully. I have read the entire Bible. I took my time and considered it carefully.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Post #11

Post by Rufus21 »

William wrote:In regard to the OP, the theory seems to come from a particular world view which identifies with the idea that matter is what 'we' are.

Once 'we' were exploding stars etc.
I always get nervous when someone refers to facts as a worldview. It usually happens when their worldview is contradicted by the facts.

William wrote: it is interesting also how the human body appears purpose built to accommodate consciousness...
And it is interesting that the stars appear to be holes in the sky. Interesting, but not true.

William wrote: The fact that human consciousness even exists in this universe as an accident seems oxymoron - an unnecessary thing and quite at odds with the reality...
Life forms became more intelligent as they evolved. Their brains got bigger. Not oxymoronic at all. It's exactly what we would expect to happen in nature. And the fact that so few life forms have consciousness? Pretty random, huh?

William wrote: I think you are mistaken that life on earth isn't favorable/compatible for human life and the proof of that is in the fact that human life exists on the planet.
But only barely. Over 80% of the planet is uninhabitable. The remaining pocket is constantly trying to kill us (tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, diseases, etc.). Our bodies are so poorly suited to this planet (nearly blind, requires constant food/water/oxygen, can't detect deadly gasses or radiation, various birth defects and deficiencies, chronic degeneration, etc.) that our success is solely due to our relatively strong brainpower. The fact that 99% of all life forms on this planet have gone extinct suggests that we have been temporarily lucky.

William wrote: Which is actually a good argument in favor of intelligent design as it shows clearly that despite conditions, consciousness (human) is able to utilize what is available as raw materials and fashion for itself ways in which to enhance the chances of survival BECAUSE of the particular form it (human consciousness) occupies
So an argument for intelligent design is that were were unintelligently designed but were able to overcome some of our flaws? Not exactly convincing.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 16490
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 1037 times
Been thanked: 1950 times
Contact:

Post #12

Post by William »

Rufus21 wrote:
I always get nervous when someone refers to facts as a worldview. It usually happens when their worldview is contradicted by the facts.
A worldview is just the way an individual or group of individuals see the world and express themselves into that world.

And it is interesting that the stars appear to be holes in the sky. Interesting, but not true.
Well we know that they are not holes in the sky.

But quoting out of context makes any answer less relevant as argument.

I said;
...it is interesting also how the human body appears purpose built to accommodate consciousness and through this process human consciousness is thus enabled to create machinery which gives it at least the potential to move into the Sol system and explore and exploit the resources.

Your answer therefore, is not relevant to my statement, because my statement in context is true. Your answer actually bypasses the context of the statement I made.
Life forms became more intelligent as they evolved. Their brains got bigger. Not oxymoronic at all. It's exactly what we would expect to happen in nature. And the fact that so few life forms have consciousness? Pretty random, huh?
Again the context of my statement was that there didn't seem to be a reason for why consciousness should exist in the universe. It seems oxymoronic. I wasn't arguing that it didn't happen or that the way it appears to have happened was oxymoron. I was stating that consciousness existing in this universe seemed oxymoron.
As to what life forms have consciousness and what ones don't, which life forms are you referring to which do NOT?

But only barely. Over 80% of the planet is uninhabitable. The remaining pocket is constantly trying to kill us (tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, diseases, etc.). Our bodies are so poorly suited to this planet (nearly blind, requires constant food/water/oxygen, can't detect deadly gasses or radiation, various birth defects and deficiencies, chronic degeneration, etc.) that our success is solely due to our relatively strong brainpower. The fact that 99% of all life forms on this planet have gone extinct suggests that we have been temporarily lucky.
Well that supports my saying that it seems oxymoron that consciousness exists, but regardless of that, the fact is that it does, and we also know that great disasters can happen and Earth still produces - and compared to the dinosaurs human beings were a better model for consciousness to express itself into said universe (for reason I gave but you refrained from quoting) and so it follows that if this model fails, a better one can be evolved.

Your world view appears to be rather gloomy. :)

So an argument for intelligent design is that were were unintelligently designed but were able to overcome some of our flaws? Not exactly convincing.
Well no one said intelligence was a perfectly complete thing. Rather it is a way in which one learns.

It is the nature of this universe to start small and gradually get better and better.
So yeah, intelligent design. That is what I was commenting on in regard to human creativity involving modern technologies, medicine, and agriculture. We are able to make conditions on earth far more 'favorable' than they were naturally.

Do you think intelligent design should only have created a universe where consciousness would only ever have everything it could possibly desire at the whim of a thought and 'poof'! Instant manifestation?

Is that you idea of intelligence?

Because otherwise, I don't understand the validity of your argument

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: In regard to the OP, the theory seems to come from a particular world view which identifies with the idea that matter is what 'we' are.

Once 'we' were exploding stars etc.

Now 'we' are extremely complex bodies...

My understanding is that the human body is far more complex a system than Sol...it is interesting also how the human body appears purpose built to accommodate consciousness and through this process human consciousness is thus enabled to create machinery which gives it at least the potential to move into the Sol system and explore and exploit the resources.
What you've just stated above is nothing more than an open confession on your part that you do not understand physics or evolution.

These things aren't just imagined armchair speculation invented by philosophers trying to guess what reality might be like. And for this reason it's false to accuse them of merely being nothing more than an opinionated "worldview".

Our knowledge of physics and evolution come straight from observing how the real world actually behaves. Apparently you aren't understanding this, because if you understood it you would know that its far more than just an arbitrary "philosophical worldview".

Physics and evolution are true, whether you like it or not. If there exists some supernatural "designing consciousness" that has created this universe, then physics and evolution is how this was accomplished.

Moreover, both physics and evolution show clearly that no "intervening conscious guidance" would be required to maintain this evolutionary process. Physics and evolution explains precisely how this process is capable of unfolding on its own via the laws of physics.

Therefore, if there was a "designing consciousness" involved in the creation of this universe all that consciousness needed to do was create the physical world just as physics describes it to be, and then sit back and watch it evolve all on its own.

So you arguments against physics and evolution do nothing more than display your own failure to understand what has actually been discovered and shown to be true.

If you want to argue for a conscious entity that gave rise to this universe you need to realized that you have no choice but to include physics and evolution in that model.

Anything short of that only reveals that you don't understand how it is that we have come to know that physics and evolution are indeed facts of nature.

It's not just "arbitrary philosophical armchair speculation" like you are arguing for. In short, you are simply wrong. Period. There can be no doubt about it.

If you need to reject physics and evolution in order to propose your philosophical speculations, then your philosophical speculations are clearly wrong. It's that simple.

If you want to argue for a mystical view of life you'll need to find one that is compatible with physics and evolution. May I suggest Buddhism? At least that will give you a far better foundation from which to speculate. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 16490
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 1037 times
Been thanked: 1950 times
Contact:

Post #14

Post by William »

William wrote: In regard to the OP, the theory seems to come from a particular world view which identifies with the idea that matter is what 'we' are.

Once 'we' were exploding stars etc.

Now 'we' are extremely complex bodies...

My understanding is that the human body is far more complex a system than Sol...it is interesting also how the human body appears purpose built to accommodate consciousness and through this process human consciousness is thus enabled to create machinery which gives it at least the potential to move into the Sol system and explore and exploit the resources.
Divine Insight wrote:What you've just stated above is nothing more than an open confession on your part that you do not understand physics or evolution.

These things aren't just imagined armchair speculation invented by philosophers trying to guess what reality might be like. And for this reason it's false to accuse them of merely being nothing more than an opinionated "worldview".

Our knowledge of physics and evolution come straight from observing how the real world actually behaves. Apparently you aren't understanding this, because if you understood it you would know that its far more than just an arbitrary "philosophical worldview".
Nothing in my above quote mentions philosophical worldview or imagined armchair speculation invented by philosophers, but does mention how our knowledge of physics and evolution come straight from observing how the real world actually behaves. (I made that bit blue so that you have better opportunity to see what I actually said) and that our bodies allow for us to do such amazing things.
Physics and evolution are true, whether you like it or not. If there exists some supernatural "designing consciousness" that has created this universe, then physics and evolution is how this was accomplished.
That's an interesting observation but how does it relate to my post implying it was different...because clearly you think it does...explain yourself.
Moreover, both physics and evolution show clearly that no "intervening conscious guidance" would be required to maintain this evolutionary process. Physics and evolution explains precisely how this process is capable of unfolding on its own via the laws of physics.
Where do I say otherwise. Please show.
Therefore, if there was a "designing consciousness" involved in the creation of this universe all that consciousness needed to do was create the physical world just as physics describes it to be, and then sit back and watch it evolve all on its own.
Well if that were the case, then the code for such to happen would have been designed into the process, don't you think?
So you arguments against physics and evolution do nothing more than display your own failure to understand what has actually been discovered and shown to be true.
What arguments against physics and evolution did I make in that post. (As shown, the part you quoted definitely refers to that process.)
If you want to argue for a conscious entity that gave rise to this universe you need to realized that you have no choice but to include physics and evolution in that model.
Anything short of that only reveals that you don't understand how it is that we have come to know that physics and evolution are indeed facts of nature.
You appear to be confused. Where in my post was I arguing that intelligent design wouldn't have used physics and evolution in this model?

It's not just "arbitrary philosophical armchair speculation" like you are arguing for. In short, you are simply wrong. Period. There can be no doubt about it.
Where in my post did I even use the expression "arbitrary philosophical armchair speculation"? What is this strawman you have created in order to manufacture an irrelevant argument against.
If you need to reject physics and evolution in order to propose your philosophical speculations, then your philosophical speculations are clearly wrong. It's that simple.
What "philosophical speculations" are these that you accuse me of making?
If you want to argue for a mystical view of life you'll need to find one that is compatible with physics and evolution. May I suggest Buddhism? At least that will give you a far better foundation from which to speculate. :D
Is this just another opportunity you are taking to push Buddhism? *tsk*



Try again.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote:
Therefore, if there was a "designing consciousness" involved in the creation of this universe all that consciousness needed to do was create the physical world just as physics describes it to be, and then sit back and watch it evolve all on its own
.

Well if that were the case, then the code for such to happen would have been designed into the process, don't you think
There is no need for any "code". The laws of physics alone are sufficient for everything to unfold from there. No computer coding required. Apparently this is a large part of physics that you don't understand.
William wrote: Is this just another opportunity you are taking to push Buddhism? *tsk*

Try again.
I'm not "pushing" Buddhism. And besides, if you embrace physics and evolution then your proposal is nothing more than Buddhism anyway. So apparently the Buddhists beat you to it. :D

Why would you argue against them? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 16490
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 1037 times
Been thanked: 1950 times
Contact:

Post #16

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote:
William wrote:
Therefore, if there was a "designing consciousness" involved in the creation of this universe all that consciousness needed to do was create the physical world just as physics describes it to be, and then sit back and watch it evolve all on its own
.

Well if that were the case, then the code for such to happen would have been designed into the process, don't you think
There is no need for any "code". The laws of physics alone are sufficient for everything to unfold from there. No computer coding required. Apparently this is a large part of physics that you don't understand.
Well you do understand that mathematics is useful for decoding the universe, do you not?
Theoretical Physicist Finds Computer Code in String Theory

That there is no direct evidence that such is the case, does not mean that there is any merit in claiming 'there is no need for code' as how do you even know that is the actual case? Do you have access to something other than the interpretations of the surface evidence to back up such a statement? If so, do share. But I am not one to make hasty decisions either way on what is observed and know well enough that the idea of the universe being a simulation is not one which most scientist hand wave away, and they probably have better reason not to than you seem to do.

For most scientists, the idea isn't at all out of the question but being scientists, it would make little difference in relation to science, because science deals with the stuff of the universe, simulated or otherwise.

2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
William wrote: Is this just another opportunity you are taking to push Buddhism? *tsk*

Try again.
I'm not "pushing" Buddhism.


Sure you are and sure you do and sure you will continue to do so.
And besides, if you embrace physics and evolution then your proposal is nothing more than Buddhism anyway. So apparently the Buddhists beat you to it.


Sorry? I didn't realize there was some kind of compitition involved in any of this. More to the point, I know that there is not.
Why would you argue against them?
I am not. I am arguing against you, your making strawmen through misquoting me, and your need to somehow...compete.

Try again.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: Well you do understand that mathematics is useful for decoding the universe, do you not?
I understand that mathematics is useful for describing the universe. I also understand our modern day mathematics is ill-defined, but that's a whole other topic.

As far as James Gates proclaiming that there exist "computer coding" in the equations of string theory, that's just ridiculous. Do you understand how computers work? You can't point to strings of 1's and 0's and call that "Computer Code" unless you have a CPU that can actually execute that particular sequence in a meaningful way.

And besides, looking at mathematics (which is a description of the physical world) is naturally going to appear to be a description of the natural world.

In fact, I strongly disagree with Eugene Wigner's view that it's mathematics is unreasonably effective in describing nature. Are you kidding me? :-k

Why in the world would we ever expect mathematics to not be extremely effective in describing nature? Where do you think we got mathematics from? We didn't just dream it up in a vacuum.

So sometimes these scientists say some pretty silly stuff.
For most scientists, the idea isn't at all out of the question but being scientists, it would make little difference in relation to science, because science deals with the stuff of the universe, simulated or otherwise.
I disagree with the idea that most scientists would agree with what you just said here. In fact, on the YouTube clip you just linked to Niel Tyson and Lee Smolin were certainly not on board with James Gates. I think Gates is in the minority on this issue.

I'm not "pushing" Buddhism.


Sure you are and sure you do and sure you will continue to do so.
I point to it when it fits the bill. That's not the same as "pushing" it. I couldn't care less whether you embrace Buddhism or not. But if you're going to support a philosophy that is indistinguishable from it the least you can do is own up to that fact.

And I can't imagine why you wouldn't. It would actually be in your favor to point to the fact that Buddhism has been supporting your favorite ideas for millennia. Why would you want to dismiss that? :-k
William wrote:
Why would you argue against them?
I am not. I am arguing against you, your making strawmen through misquoting me, and your need to somehow...compete.

Try again.
I'm certainly not in any competition with you. I simply pointed out that physics and evolution already have explanations for what's going on. The idea that we need to imagine that a computer is "simulating" the universe like as if it's some sort of computer game or matrix is simply unnecessary. Physics already has it covered.

And as far as your accusation that I am making strawmen is concerned consider your following comments form your post #10:
William wrote: In regard to the OP, the theory seems to come from a particular world view which identifies with the idea that matter is what 'we' are.

Once 'we' were exploding stars etc.

Now 'we' are extremely complex bodies...
That's not merely a 'worldview'. That is the observed, tested, and verified facts of reality as demonstrated by Physics.

And I'm saying that if you think otherwise, then you are wrong. Physics isn't just a guess.

So there's no 'strawman' on my part.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 16490
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 1037 times
Been thanked: 1950 times
Contact:

Post #18

Post by William »

I see you didn't understand my first post in this thread which was in answer to the OP.

I see too that you haven't understood my posts in answer to your own.

This is precisely what I mean by subjective interpretation of what is observed.

There is little point in my further trying to explain to you your misinterpretation of what I am saying as you obviously wish to continue to put your own spin on it.



:study:

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #19

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Lioness777 has a point. I have repeatedly asked for proof or a explanation from scientists and atheists alike on science or evolution theory.

And none of them can come with more than just theory or a "he said, she said" which has no more validity than if I was to seek a bishop, prophet or pope for answers.

I mean how am I to know that these experiments were done connect, without bias or with a desire to deceive to keep the masses ignorant to make money of them, any more than a religious leader might seek money through tithes and offerings rather than really have any Godly connection at all?

How am I to know that science and religion can not commit fraud? There are countless examples of both throughout history.

So if neither can give evidence, then all there is left is logic or moral reasoning.
And since neither have succeeded in proving their points there either. I can not buy either argument and see "science theory or religion" as anything other than fairy-tales, wishful thinking or even worse a deliberate attempt to manipulate and control.

There is no more logic in everything coming from nothing or at random, than there is in it being organized by a creator. In fact the latter sounds far more plausible to me. However if there is a God, I see no reason to believe that God is at the head of any religion I have investigated, and I have investigated a lot.

So where are we then?

Well as far as I am concerned we are at ground zero when it comes to this question. But it is the most important and interesting question there is.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #20

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 19 by Hector Barbosa]

Ah, my friend, half of that is solved.

Nothing did come from nothing.
Only nothing can come from nothing.

The bit that you are missing is that only something can come from something.
Something cannot come from nothing, neither can nothing come from something.

Everything around you,at least the everything around you's atoms, have always existed in one form or another.

No creation required. Take an atom of Hydrogen in the glass of water you are about to drink. It was hydrogen since at least the beginning. If it was not part of the Big Bang, it may have WATCHED the Big Bang and be many times older than the universe we know!

Post Reply