Explaining Existence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #31

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 29 by William]

Moses was a paranoid schizophrenic, therefore his stance on reality is questionable.

Everyone's stance on reality is questionable. What I said went over your head Willum
Consciousness does exist, but existence does not require consciousness.
So saith a conscious being within it.

Remove all consciousness from the universe, by somehow causing all consciousness to no longer exist, then what is left to acknowledge or even utilize the universe?

We have next to no idea of the extent of consciousness within the universe or even the power of that consciousness. If the universe has existed always, then (because consciousness exists alongside that) all that is required is for one to do the math to see how powerful aspects of consciousness could have become.

There are, for example, star systems which have burnt out - and some of those no doubt had consciousnesses develop within them which succeeded in getting a foot hold into the greater system of their neighborhood.

Some of those might even have worked out all the mysteries to the universe and are so far advanced in relation to our position in the process of conscious evolution that they would appear to be 'like gods' to us.

They might even be so powerful that being in their presence could cause us to drop dead as a matter of natural causes.

There is so much we do not know Willum, but your claims presume to know more than you really can about the subject.

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: No God Required

Post #32

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 31 by William]

I know what I know.
There is no reason to suspect the universe stops existing because there is no consciousness in it.
What would the mechanism be?

Say we used a psychic bomb and eliminated all consciousness in the universe.
What happens to it?

It stops existing?
There is no reason that would happen.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #33

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 31 by William]
I know what I know.
There is no reason to suspect the universe stops existing because there is no consciousness in it.
What would the mechanism be?
I did not say that the universe stops, Willum.
Say we used a psychic bomb and eliminated all consciousness in the universe.
What happens to it?

It stops existing?
There is no reason that would happen.
My point is that consciousness is integral to the universe, or consciousness wouldn't exist.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #34

Post by Neatras »

Am I correct in paraphrasing your argument in this way, William?

"The universe has the physical qualities to produce conscious beings, so there is a logical paradigm that states the universe must produce conscious beings."

The difficulty I and Willum probably ran into is a misinterpretation of your argument.

"The universe cannot exist without having conscious beings in it." This is actually an argument foisted by some, though likely distinct from yourself.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: No God Required

Post #35

Post by benchwarmer »

William wrote: My point is that consciousness is integral to the universe, or consciousness wouldn't exist.
I'm sorry, this line of reasoning makes no sense.

Are pink socks integral to the universe? They exist (and I might have even worn a pair or two) so that makes them integral somehow?

This sounds a bit like circular reasoning or simply jumping to conclusions based on a preconceived idea.

Consciousness exists because it's possible to exist. It wouldn't exist if it was impossible. However, that doesn't mean that consciousness MUST exist.

Do pink unicorns exist? They are certainly possible, it's basically just a horse with a horn on its head and pink fur. With the right genetic manipulation we could probably create one. Since its possible for them to exist does that mean they must?

I'm trying to determine what your real argument here is.

1) If it's possible, it must exist.
2) If it exists, it must be integral.
3) Something else?

It will be interesting to see your actual argument here.

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

Re: No God Required

Post #36

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 35 by benchwarmer]

Well we don't know much about consciousness, but pink socks they are not :)

But what you said made good sense.

Can we however explain existence?

I keep trying to get an explanation from theists and atheists, and I always get disappointed.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Post #37

Post by William »

Neatras wrote: Am I correct in paraphrasing your argument in this way, William?

"The universe has the physical qualities to produce conscious beings, so there is a logical paradigm that states the universe must produce conscious beings."

The difficulty I and Willum probably ran into is a misinterpretation of your argument.

"The universe cannot exist without having conscious beings in it." This is actually an argument foisted by some, though likely distinct from yourself.
Hi Neatras

My commentary is based within the parameters of the theory which says that the universe has always existed.
It never has not being.

Thus, we cannot determine AGE thus we can determine POSITION thus we cannot determine if what we presently see is what has always been, due to the fact of movement and changes re The Big Bang Theory...if indeed we are to retain that theory in relation to this one.

1: "The universe has the physical qualities to produce conscious beings, so there is a logical paradigm that states the universe must produce conscious beings."

This is a matter of fact, yes. If it can then it will....and so therefore it must.
Bearing in mind that this is specific to what we know about consciousness within biological forms...we do NOT know if consciousness exists in other forms (such as the planet itself) but what we DO know is that it can indeed exist within biological forms.

In relation to that, we also know that there are different pockets of evolution occurring all the time in the process, and that there will be varying degres of conscious evolution through biological type forms throughout the universe and that these being at different stages mean that some are still struggling to get out of the pond, while others have evolved perhaps even beyond the need for bodies at all...and we are situated somewhere in between those two points of a timeline...in relation to the star system we are experiencing. Learning about that from our perspective in it all.

2: "The universe cannot exist without having conscious beings in it." This is actually an argument foisted by some, though likely distinct from yourself.

My commentary on this has to do with the fact that it is consciousness alone which determines whether anything exists. Remove consciousness from the equation and the universe 'may as well not exist' and it would be a lifeless thing for that.

This is said to underline the fact that consciousness is indeed integral to this universe - even if but to acknowledge it exists.

Firstly though, consciousness acknowledges its own existence, and we in our positions cannot determine if indeed the fact that consciousness exists in this universe+this universe having no beginning=consciousness also has never had a beginning and indeed no thing in the universe really has had a beginning because all things within the universe must take on the same properties as the universe itself.

So even when biological instruments decay, they are merely transforming into 'stuff' still related (inside) the universe..nothing dies - everything transforms.

If consciousness is part of the 'stuff, then it must have always been around, in one form and in all forms chugging on as the mind of an otherwise mindless thing.

Some of those minds are ours, here in the animal species called 'human'.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #38

Post by William »

benchwarmer wrote:
William wrote: My point is that consciousness is integral to the universe, or consciousness wouldn't exist.
I'm sorry, this line of reasoning makes no sense.

Are pink socks integral to the universe? They exist (and I might have even worn a pair or two) so that makes them integral somehow?

This sounds a bit like circular reasoning or simply jumping to conclusions based on a preconceived idea.

Consciousness exists because it's possible to exist. It wouldn't exist if it was impossible. However, that doesn't mean that consciousness MUST exist.

Do pink unicorns exist? They are certainly possible, it's basically just a horse with a horn on its head and pink fur. With the right genetic manipulation we could probably create one. Since its possible for them to exist does that mean they must?

I'm trying to determine what your real argument here is.

1) If it's possible, it must exist.
2) If it exists, it must be integral.
3) Something else?

It will be interesting to see your actual argument here.
I have clarified more on this in this post benchwarmer.

Q: Do pink unicorns exist?

Given the scale of the universe and doing the math, the logical answer must be that in all likelihood, yes they do.

They are certainly possible, it's basically just a horse with a horn on its head and pink fur. With the right genetic manipulation we could probably create one. Since its possible for them to exist does that mean they must?
Yes. Given the fact that the theory states the universe has always existed, then this has to be the case. Space and Time are properties of the universe, so even given the vastness of the universe as being enough for everything imaginable to exist within it, with the property of spacetime, they are at the very least potentially able to exist at some future time or even have existed in the past, and exist no more (as form).


See?

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: No God Required

Post #39

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 38 by William]
Q: Do pink unicorns exist?

Given the scale of the universe and doing the math, the logical answer must be that in all likelihood, yes they do.
Excellent argument, somewhere in the infinite reaches of space and time, there is a good probability that pink unicorns exist.

Now, since there can only be one all-powerful creator in the universe, our scope for the probability of this creature is also easy to calculate.

Based on observations, the likelihood is so close to zero, that it is zero, given other considerations,like we are unable to find any independent indicators.

Also, though interesting, your consciousness argument belongs in another topic. Given the assumptions of this topic, there is no consciousness needed before the Big Bang. It is impossible during the BB, and un-needed afterwards.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #40

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 38 by William]
Q: Do pink unicorns exist?

Given the scale of the universe and doing the math, the logical answer must be that in all likelihood, yes they do.
Excellent argument,
Yes it is.
somewhere in the infinite reaches of space and time, there is a good probability that pink unicorns exist.
Correct.
Now, since there can only be one all-powerful creator in the universe, our scope for the probability of this creature is also easy to calculate.
Explain 'all powerful' in relation to a GOD within this universe. What do you mean when you claim "since there can only be one all-powerful creator in the universe"?
Based on observations,
explain these observations you are basing things on, Willum.
the likelihood is so close to zero, that it is zero, given other considerations,like we are unable to find any independent indicators.
Explain what you mean by "independent indicators" please.
Also, though interesting, your consciousness argument belongs in another topic.
"Explaining existence" and "no GOD required" are independent to consciousness arguments, why? Please explain.
Given the assumptions of this topic, there is no consciousness needed before the Big Bang.
Please explain then why there is a need for the Big Bang in a universe which has always and ever will exist, please.
It is impossible during the BB,


Are you referring solely to consciousness within biological forms? Why do you assume that biological form must be the only forms in which consciousness can inhabit?
How can you tell this is the case? How can you tell, for example, that the Earth itself cannot be experienced by an individuate consciousness?
and un-needed afterwards.
Yet here it is anyway, at least within the human form. So why do you claim then that human beings are 'unneeded'?

Post Reply