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.

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #2

Post by DeMotts »

I quite like this post as it sums up a great deal of things succinctly without getting too caught up in the details.

I'd like to throw in a dash of the lighter version of the Anthropic Principle if I may. The universe exists the way it does and we exist within it, contemplating it. Some will say the universe is designed perfectly for us to inhabit it (Strong Anthropic Principle, Creationists, Intelligent Design folk, et al). However a simpler rationale is that we observe the universe simply because conditions for us to do so are suitable. One rarely stops to consider the unfathomable number of planets which harbor no intelligent species, the enormity of time that came before intelligent humans (and will no doubt come after), or the potentially infinite iterations of the universe that may or may not have come before where conditions were completely unsuitable for intelligent life to form and think about it's place in the universe. There has been an absolutely vast amount of time and space for human beings to NOT exist in, and during those times and in those places nobody was thinking about how perfect the universe was for themselves, because they did not exist.

Our existence is the result of the universe being in a particular state, at a particular time. As TotN posted above, we would have existed anyhow, but arranged in a very different way. Likely scattered in a gas cloud, or converted to photons in the belly of a sun, or collapsed into the singularity of a supermassive black hole.

The individual odds of anything happening at all ever are extremely long. When you walk along a beach and pick up a stone, the likelihood that the atoms and quarks forming that stone will be arranged exactly as they are is almost infinitely slim. And yet there it is, the stone in your hand. The system must exist in a state. This, right now, is ours.

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

Post #3

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to DeMotts]
DeMotts wrote: I'd like to throw in a dash of the lighter version of the Anthropic Principle if I may. The universe exists the way it does and we exist within it, contemplating it. Some will say the universe is designed perfectly for us to inhabit it (Strong Anthropic Principle, Creationists, Intelligent Design folk, et al). However a simpler rationale is that we observe the universe simply because conditions for us to do so are suitable.
Believers like to assert that there has been supernatural intervention in which the universe has been made just right for our existence. I usually explain this by noting that we exist in a universe which allows for our existence. Which makes perfect sense. Everything about the earth is just right to allow for creatures such as ourselves to exist. Believers have concluded the the earth as made just right for us to exist in. Science has concluded that the organisms of earth, including humans, have evolved to take advantage of the conditions which exist on planet earth, because they happen to be very favorable to the existence of our sort of life. If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
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
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #4

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well put. What the Anthropic Principle types fail to grasp is the reasonableness of prospective statistics and the fallacy inherent in retrospective statistics.

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

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
Not only that but our universe is not favorable to life very much at all. Especially not for human life.

Thus far the Earth is the only speck of dust in the universe that we know of that is favorable to human life. In fact, from what we know about the chemistry and physics of the universe, it is extremely unlikely that very many other planets have evolved into a biosphere that would even be compatible with human life. That alone is extremely improbable.

I would think that if the universe was designed specifically for human life then every planet we see should be compatible with human life.

Not only is the universe at large incompatible or hostile toward human life but so are many places on the surface of the Earth itself. In fact there is actually a quite narrow band of surface on the earth that is favorable to human life without requiring extreme efforts on the part of humans to cultivate and modify the environment. I live in Pennsylvania USA. It's below freezing outside right now and everything is covered in ice where I live. If it wasn't for all the comforts of modern technologies and the fact that there are grocery stores just down the street I would have extreme difficulty trying to survive here in the wild.

So even planet Earth isn't exactly "designed" for human life. Only very small parts of the surface of the earth are truly favorable to human life.

So the idea that the universe is designed for human life is pretty absurd actually.
[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: 14186
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Post #6

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
Not only that but our universe is not favorable to life very much at all. Especially not for human life.
Well then, which one is it. Favorable or not favorable?

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

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
Not only that but our universe is not favorable to life very much at all. Especially not for human life.
Well then, which one is it. Favorable or not favorable?
I think you misunderstood Tired of the Nonsense's point. He's talking about us existing in a universe that isn't favorable to life at all. Clearly there would need to be something "magical" going on to allow for that.

What we do live in is a very "small pocket" within the universe that is favorable to life. Only becasue it is the condition where life "evolved". No magic required.

But clearly the universe overall, is not "designed" for life. In fact, it's pretty clear that even the earth is not "designed" for human life. Human life is merely one life-form that was able to evolve in these conditions.

It should be obvious that the earth is clearly not "designed" for human life. In fact, should we even call it 'favorable' when it's such a struggle to just survive?

I would say that humans survived in spite of the fact that life on earth isn't exactly "favorable" for human life. Thankfully with modern technologies, medicine, and agriculture we were able to make conditions on earth far more 'favorable' than they were naturally.

So we need to take that into account too. :D

In fact, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth the earth was not favorable for the evolution of primates into humans. So we actually have a lucky break due to a meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs and gave us a chance to evolve.

What a lucky roll of the dice for us!
[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
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #8

Post by H.sapiens »

William wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
Not only that but our universe is not favorable to life very much at all. Especially not for human life.
Well then, which one is it. Favorable or not favorable?
The question is more than a mite strange since it was the stresses and advantages of the environment that "designed" all living creatures on earth. That's what Natural Selection is all about. Asking if the environment was "favorable or not favorable" requires placing the proverbial cart in front of the proverbial horse.

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

Post #9

Post by Divine Insight »

H.sapiens wrote:
William wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If we existed in a universe that was not favorable to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.
Not only that but our universe is not favorable to life very much at all. Especially not for human life.
Well then, which one is it. Favorable or not favorable?
The question is more than a mite strange since it was the stresses and advantages of the environment that "designed" all living creatures on earth. That's what Natural Selection is all about. Asking if the environment was "favorable or not favorable" requires placing the proverbial cart in front of the proverbial horse.
I agree. Perhaps the changing the word "favorable" with the word "compatible" might clear things up:

If we existed in a universe that was not compatible to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.

In other words, even evolution wouldn't make sense in that case. :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: 14186
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Post #10

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote:

I agree. Perhaps the changing the word "favorable" with the word "compatible" might clear things up:

If we existed in a universe that was not compatible to our sort of life, now that would strongly suggest supernatural intervention.

In other words, even evolution wouldn't make sense in that case. :D
Compatible. Yep okay.

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.

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 but as the OP says, there is no reason why the chances of it happening shouldn't be 100%...so taking that into account, the chances should be the same for any number of planets to be able to produce the same results.

This would mean that - due to the nature of how the universe is unfolding, there will be species which are far more advanced than ours and also far less advanced as well as systems which could be seen as potential 'nests' for this process.

Also the OP implies (or flat out claims) that the universe has had no beginning and will have no end as it is a self contained system of infinite creativity constantly morphing from energy to matter in an endless loop, or series of internal loops and that black holes represent some kind of connection with another/other universe(s) - correct me if I misunderstood that...

But the assumption regarding consciousness seems to be focused upon one tiny aspect on one infinitesimal tiny speak of 'dust' (relative to the rest of the known) and does not seem to acknowledge the processes broadly enough to recognize and acknowledge that this process most likely is going on throughout the universe at various degrees of development relative to out own known stage of said process.

As you said Divine Insight;
I would say that humans survived in spite of the fact that life on earth isn't exactly "favorable" for human life.
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. You even mention the dinosaurs being the dominant species and that too was favorable to those particular life forms at the time. It is apparent that the Earth is adaptable and quite able to produce life as the conditions are indeed exactly favorable...or it wouldn't be the case.

Now you would probably argue that what you mean is that the universe is not exactly user friendly in relation to biological life forms, and you would certainly be correct in that (not that it is stopping scientist being granted billions of $ in order to create space programs) and we can clearly see that consciousness in human form is able to work out ways in which to circumnavigate the problem by use of machines which can be controlled remotely...sure it is a poor substitute for actually going their ourselves, but at present that is pretty much impossible.

Then you say;
Thankfully with modern technologies, medicine, and agriculture we were able to make conditions on earth far more 'favorable' than they were naturally.
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 we can claim 'coincidence' as a way of skirting the more obvious fact of an intelligent process unfolding depending upon our own world view and how the facts are interpreted through how the facts are observed related to that world view.

Now back to the big picture - the idea that this universe is eternal and that consciousness was an inevitable part of it...it stands to logical reason the consciousness would find a way to exist along with it as an eternal property of the universe...hard to comprehend perhaps, given we focus so much of our understanding of consciousness based on our own particular place in the scheme of things but it is not a great leap of logic to accept that in all likelihood, there are far more advanced versions of the same process happening on other planets, in other systems.

It is even possible that at some point in the process consciousness found ways in which to spread out and utilize the stuff of the universe and transformed that stuff into machines in which it could inhabit eternally and that what we are experiencing as 'real' is really a simulation of what once was when galaxies once existed before they were transformed into machines.

Then of course the question 'why' would need to be asked, and the answer would be 'because it was the only thing consciousness could DO with the universe' and thus it was done...and thus we replay the past as a way of entertaining ourselves (or perhaps being distracted even) or maybe to see if we cannot find a way out of our particular eternal captivity in the machine we (consciousness) built for ourselves.

Post Reply