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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #21

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [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!

If this is to be the case Willum, then would you agree that since the universe has never not existed, its age therefore cannot be determined?
Also;
Is the implication there then that the universe can shape-shift in relation to processes involving the illusion of having a beginning, as evidenced in the Big Bang?

In other words, when the process of one universe is completed, does it then make another completely different one...somehow...with the atomic means it has available to do so?

Or, are you saying that the universe has always been the way it has?

iow...what exactly are you saying ?

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

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #22

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 21 by William]

Sorry my friend. I did not see your first post. I am not sure why i didn't appear, for I would have been delighted to answer it :)
If this is to be the case Willum, then would you agree that since the universe has never not existed, its age therefore cannot be determined?
hmm..yes that would seem logical to me, in fact since time might be relative and none of us can go back to "the beginning of time" especially if one does not exist, I would suggest that speculating on the age of the universe is a bit futile, when we have so many more important questions to answers and things to do, which we have far more hope of.

Yes only nothing can come from nothing on that we agree, so there is nothing which suggest that the something we have now has come from nothing.

I have no doubt that only something can come from something, I am just not sure of what the something is the something has come from, or something like that :D

I agree with you that it seems logical that atoms has always existed in one form or another, in fact science seems to suggest this too and that atoms can change and be influenced, but not entirely destroyed.
Is the implication there then that the universe can shape-shift in relation to processes involving the illusion of having a beginning, as evidenced in the Big Bang?
Good question, I can not rule that possibility out since I no of no evidence which can prove it wrong.

Everything I have studied suggest that atoms, the environment, matter etc..CAN be influenced and so can change or shape-shift, and since illusion is a state of the mind it would seem even more likely that this too can be changed.
In other words, when the process of one universe is completed, does it then make another completely different one...somehow...with the atomic means it has available to do so?
Well here we need a defining of "universe completed" and "completely different one". How much or how little is change in the universe is impossible for me to know, I very much doubt that everything would be completely different, and I am not sure there is an "completion" to the universe. But I do think the universe can change. But since it is so infinitely big, I think its unlikely that all of it will change completely at the same time.

I think the universe has always been, but is constantly changing.

So I don't really believe in a beginning or an end, it does not make sense to me and seem far more probably than a evolution theory from nothing, or a God who comes from nothing who creates everything and then you are left with "who created God" or what was before "the big bang".

If time is relative and can be altered and the universe too, isn't it far more logical that there is NO BEFORE! but that either God has always existed or the universe always existed but is constantly in motion and changing?

I find contradiction in the theory of a Big Bang from nothing or a God from nothing. But a always existing ever-changing universe COULD make sense.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #23

Post by William »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 21 by William]
Sorry my friend. I did not see your first post. I am not sure why i didn't appear, for I would have been delighted to answer it :)
Hi Hector Barbosa

I think you might have confused me for Willum? But never to mind, thanks for your answer to my post, as it provides food for thought.
In other words, when the process of one universe is completed, does it then make another completely different one...somehow...with the atomic means it has available to do so?
Well here we need a defining of "universe completed" and "completely different one". How much or how little is change in the universe is impossible for me to know, I very much doubt that everything would be completely different, and I am not sure there is an "completion" to the universe. But I do think the universe can change. But since it is so infinitely big, I think its unlikely that all of it will change completely at the same time.

I think the universe has always been, but is constantly changing.
Well in light of the fact that it is a thing we are experiencing as real, there is no reason why then, that this theory could not be explored.
So I don't really believe in a beginning or an end, it does not make sense to me and seem far more probably than a evolution theory from nothing, or a God who comes from nothing who creates everything and then you are left with "who created God" or what was before "the big bang".
Turtles all the way down eh. I write a bit about that in this thread but for the purpose of this theory, we can dispense with the multi universe theory and assume that this indeed is the only universe ever to exist.
If time is relative and can be altered and the universe too, isn't it far more logical that there is NO BEFORE! but that either God has always existed or the universe always existed but is constantly in motion and changing?
Yes. In that case, GOD=Consciousness and the Universe=where consciousness resides. They have always existed together.
I find contradiction in the theory of a Big Bang from nothing or a God from nothing. But a always existing ever-changing universe COULD make sense.
Thus, when it comes to consciousness within the universe, we only know of one place where that resides and that is here on this planet.

The link I gave to that other thread gets into that subject. an idea of a GOD specific to this universe.

Given though, that the universe is in a constant state of movement and change, when you say that the universe has always existed, you don't mean to say that it has always existed in the state of the moment we currently find ourselves in, do you?

We can observe stars being born and also stars dying so it is feasible that this change is just what the process is for the whole universe constantly with no beginning or end to that process.

The interest I have in this is related to consciousness. If GOD exists as such, then altogether the overall form of GOD could be seen to be the universe itself.

Which of course means that consciousness can survive outside of the biological brain.

But we also know that consciousness is within the human form and enabled through that form to do things with the material within its reach. The earth.

Thus, GOD can also exist within individual forms as ... yes ... consciousness.

Given the natural structure of the universe as observed, we can ascertain that there must be layers throughout the structure which can accommodate consciousness to the degrees that it is able to.

Consciousness could thus experience what it is like to be an individual galaxy, an individual planetary system, and individual star or planet, an individual human being or stick insect etc, an individual atom, an individual quark etc...all simultaneously but also separated by the degrees of layers...both the ONE and the MANY.

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 #24

Post by Willum »

[Replying to William]

It would indeed be a pity for folks to confuse us... you seem nice, and it would be terribly unfair to you.
If this is to be the case Willum, then would you agree that since the universe has never not existed, its age therefore cannot be determined?
Good question... here let's do two examples:
Look at Hector Barbosa's water glass. The hydrogen in it is unchanged, and it's age is indeterminable.
However, we can look back in time and look at events where it could have been exposed to oxygen, thus transforming it from H2 to H2O, thus creating a time-line.
Is the implication there then that the universe can shape-shift in relation to processes involving the illusion of having a beginning, as evidenced in the Big Bang?
Absolutely not. The Big Bang was only a beginning of matter as we know it. If you read the OP, ToN provides an excellent desription. The Big Bang did not create anything, the condition of the universe changed such that matter went from being strange particles, to matter we are familiar with. Mass and energy were conserved. Something like a nuclear reaction, only even more primal.
In other words, when the process of one universe is completed, does it then make another completely different one...somehow...with the atomic means it has available to do so?
Great question, if yes, then this means we can assume the universe is an closed universe, which is only one assumption that explains everything, with no other assumptions (God for example) required.

If the universe is open, this requires more information than man has right now, but still, no God required.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

No God Required

Post #25

Post by William »

"No God required" does not mean no God, Willum.

I take it what is meant is that no creator of the universe is required for something which has no beginning or end?

However, such a theory needs to include consciousness and indeed consciousness would also be the same - just as everything in the universe would have to have the same properties of 'no beginning and no end.'

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 #26

Post by Willum »


User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #27

Post by William »

So your statement at the end of post #24 is incorrect in relation to the whole process of the universe.

All that is redefined is 'what GOD is' in relation to this particular theory being discussed.

Consciousness is obviously required in this universe or it would not exist.

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

Re: No God Required

Post #28

Post by Neatras »

William wrote: Consciousness is obviously required in this universe or it would not exist.
Whaaaaaat? Where'd this come from?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

Re: No God Required

Post #29

Post by William »

Neatras wrote:
William wrote: Consciousness is obviously required in this universe or it would not exist.
Whaaaaaat? Where'd this come from?

The evidence. Consciousness exists in this universe. Therefore it is required. It requires itself, and is necessarily in order that the universe can be acknowledged as existing.

As far as biblical reference goes in relation to that, I would say it is this;

Exodus 3...

…13 Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" 14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.'"

The nature of consciousness is to acknowledge itself as existing.

If the theory is that this universe has always existed, then so too has everything within it.

Because that is essentially WHAT the universe IS. The Universe=Everything within it.

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 #30

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 29 by William]

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

Consciousness does exist, but existence does not require consciousness.

Post Reply