Quote:
1) Hazel considers the possibility that an infinite number of universes could exist. 2) Therefore an infinite number of universes exist (or have at some point existed) in Hazel's mind. 3) Therefore an infinite number of universes can exist. Here's another example: 1) I can imagine unicorns and dragons. 2) Therefore unicorns and dragons exist in my mind 3) Therefore unicorns and dragons can exist in the outside world. I don't think that kind of logic actually works. |
/Trying not to get flamed every time he opens his mouth.
I personally feel that if multiverses exist, I don't know about about them. I see them as a convenient retreat for long theoretical papers by physicists. The 'Book' says "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth." It doesn't say "In the Beginning God Created 127 Universes and 12,730,204 Earths." So I feel inclined towards one universe. As nearly all of Genesis 1 was written from the perspective of someone standing on planet earth, we are only instructed about this earth. @ntubski: The dimensions are Length; width; height, & time. I know the word 'dimension' has been hijacked by sci-fi, but those dimensions are concrete measurements. I could accept the possibility of existences at other OFFSETS in this universe, but I would agree that we should stick with one Universe. The main object of multiple universes is positing ones more favourable to life, but I imagine you'll find the numbers have been fiddled here. I would specifically mention 4 numbers: Gravity; ElectroMagnetic Force; The Nuclear forces(Strong & Weak). To me, these constitute another reason for belief in the divine, but I'm not going to go there! I'm in enough trouble as I am :). Maybe we'll go there later. @hazel: I made a precise cut, Hazel, when I said 'origin of life.' I noticed you blurring that line in your last post but one. A single celled creature is a very complicated apparatus, as a chemist can inform themselves on. Life can't really have arisen in installments, unless you can illuminate us on what functions it can do without. Food digestion? Self replication? The sac? DNA? etc. Maybe that's one to think over, as it doesn't deserve a one liner reply. So I was thinking of the origin - assembling the first self replicating cell with all necessary features. |
Quote:
You might be interested in looking at some of these: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alkaline+v...tb=v1-1&ia=web. I find them very convincing. |
Quote:
Science IMHO has a very good beginning to grasping how life began on Earth. It appears to be something chemistry over enough time does. The biggest remaining questions have to do with whether or not it has or will occur anywhere else since the required chemistry appears to be nearly everywhere. However the base question is not yet answered conclusively by anyone, at any time, by any time and certainly including Science but also Religion. The evolution of Life is quite well understood and given nearly 4,000,000,000 years it most definitely is by degrees. I truly don't understand how you can go from Science can't answer a question, so Religion.... actually MY Religion! must have the answer. That is not Reason nor a Logical Conclusion. That is a Leap of Faith. Of course this also begs the question as to why you denigrate Logic on one hand, and seek to "raise it's flag" on the other??? Quote:
I ask you again upon what evidence do you describe your specific Creator's existence as certain? You may well believe it is certain but that does not make it so any more than a person believing in vampires, demons, or the tooth fairy makes it so. If you actually do find this discussion a waste of time, I have to wonder why you bothered to post in this thread, but I will respect your decision and not press for an answer again. The above repeated question you then may simply answer for yourself if you so choose. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(of course, replace you in all of the above with any human) |
@ntubski: OK, we'll have to go there. /groan.
The relationship between the 4 fundamental forces is actually very finely adjusted to make things turn out at all. We live in a Universe where small stars burn, but don't burn out. Large stars burn, but don't burn out. Molecules form. Certain things happen (Controlled by Weak Nuclear Force) in Supernovas that (AFAIK)allow heavier elements to form. If you had a different balance of the 4 fundamental forces, some or all of these advantages of this universe previously mentioned in this paragraph wouldn't be there. Molecules is a big one. Fred Hoyle's quote about 'a superintellect monkeying with the physics…' is bandied about, bit I prefer the bit that comes before it, which everyone cuts. Quote:
The fixing of the 4 physical forces (I've detailed EMF, but trust me, they're all fixed!) indicates that before the universe was formed, there was a purpose to it - to allow life. It isn't proof, but it is strong supporting evidence. Who had the purpose? Atheists & scientists always seem to run into a wall at the beginning. How do you give a material explanation before there was any material? |
Quote:
Quote:
To answer your other points: Science doesn't actually have a clue how life formed. By life I mean the first self-replicating cell capable of evolving into better things. There isn't even a credible postulation. Search Google Scholar and you won't find a meaningful paper in the few on the 'origin of life' since Francis Crick's Nobel prize. Saying 'over time' is a cop-out and a fudge, trying to dodge the question. Over time, things die. Not only that but there's several good scientific (biological & physical)reasons why life cells can never form, & many catch-22 cases, making a long string of impossible hurdles. This was stuff I investigated (to the limits of my ability at the time) BEFORE I joined My Religion, as you call it. We have a black & white view - True worship & false. I thought Scientific estimates on the age of the earth were closer to 4.5 billion years, and have no dispute with either figure as an estimate. You don't see a question, and I can't restate it, because there wasn't one. I did say, in my defence Quote:
I think my faith is fairly Logical. Others may examine it and find it's logic lacking but it doesn't hugely matter to me. Faith, as described in 'the book' at Hebrews 11:1, is belief on the basis of the best available evidence. Now, when you want answers and conclude
It seems a reasonable course to study the Bible. Where I ended up we can take up by PM, if anyone is interested. |
The universe started out as mostly hydrogen, and over a long period of time (13.8 billion years) that hydrogen became sentient and conspired to make the universe as we know it (along with other elements of the periodic table; but mostly hydrogen). So what's the line of consciousness and non-consciousness between hydrogen and us?
I think this coincides with an interesting documentary I came across talking about how water has memory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMrQme-DEas), and who's structure seem to change based on your intentions (maybe why religions bless food and water). And like how DNA seems to miraculously spring out of nothing but water. If you ever heard of a wireless internet between humans, I think it could be hydrogen/water. I'll admit I'm just making abstract connections, but there may be something to it. It's also interesting that the universe may be encapsulated in a hypersphere which is essentially a tesseract (a higher dimensional containment vessel). And if we are in a simulation I wonder what role the stars play as astrology seem to get people's personalities to a T. |
I have been actively trying to keep my posts shorter so I'm going to break this down into a couple shorter ones, most of which is in response to business-kid since he seems most active recently and has demonstrated some level of scientific understanding as well as a determined Faith.
The first issue is this from post #9182 Quote:
|
Quote:
If there are other Universes and we may never actually know if there are since they are only predicted in advanced mathematics (which is a whole thread at least unto itself) which does carry considerable weight but lacks any evidence to go any further, at the very least, at this point, it seems likely that some will not harbor life (at least as our limited experience defines it) while others may well harbor life. That this one displays coherence that makes what we view as life possible does not require A Designer. It just requires Physics, Chemistry and an unimaginable span of Time while it all "settles out". The interplay of Locality, Order and Entropy influences how that plays out but it begins with Quantum Fields like The Higgs Field, which gave Hydrogen, and everything else, Mass. Everything resulting is nearly a foregone conclusion only dependent on tipping points in Locality. Quote:
Quote:
For an excellent perspective on all of this, in fact on all of Everything, take a short amount of time, less than 9 minutes out of the 1440 minutes in each day, to view this video that is still 99+% true and unfalsified after more than a half-century. You won't be disappointed regardless of your Beliefs as long as you can even consider real evidence. Incidentally while little has been falsified in 50+ years, a LOT has been expanded and refined, and only serves to bolster what is in the view in this video. --- The Cosmic Calendar --- |
I accept that 'adjusted' presupposes an adjuster, and therefore, a lot more.
When you ponder the implications of the fine balances in the 4 physical forces, and decide what is the most likely, chance recedes as a possibility. Out of all the possible positive or negative settings of each physical force, you are left with possibilities of 1 to (-infinity to +infinity). Statistically that is the chance of each force being where it is. The odds against the four of them being where they are are (in betting terms) a 4-way accumulator, one for each of the 4 forces. If you want a reference, experts in the field grapple with the implications of each force being set exactly where it is. Some of Fred Hoyle's comments near the end of this meandering article http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/527/2/Hoyle.pdf highlight his reflections on the topic. Concerning the beginning, I feel it is impossible to apply logic. To apply logic, you need 'bits,' or 'facts' to move around. But in the beginning, you have no bits, no facts, Déscartes famously tried that, and has egg on his face (or skeleton) to this day. Looking for the best available evidence, I feel entitled to reject chance, when there is a more likely candidate in Intelligent design. That presupposes preexisting Being(s) outside of this Universe. We don't even know that they need a Material Universe to exist in. We only know what they tell us in a language we understand, if anything. Atheists may reject such a notion, but that's because they are often forced to contemplate their own insignificance or contemplate the Unknown. Despite mankind's best attempts the quantum field only applies to quantum sized objects. I somehow feel bigger than that. The Higgs field (now that you mention it) has the unwelcome effect (to atheists) of imploding the Big Bang. A couple of papers were written 5-10 years back that have not been refuted. I frankly don't see how either benefits your case. I think we should stick to one subject until we can come to a resolution on it rather than producing red herrings. I have been dragged from how life began to the 4 physical forces, and the implications of their being set so incredibly finely. Let's stick there. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do not think Science has profited by making atheism an absolute requirement. That's my opinion. Scientists are left with questions they can't answer, like the origin of life that I mentioned previously. They refuse to grow. Some also, like Fred Hoyle, & Michael Behe, are censored & excluded. I don't personally agree with all the positions that either of those men took, but to remove them from the discussion did not advance Scientific insight. |
There is an old saying in Statistics. The odds may only be 1% that a specific event will happen to you but if it does occur, the odds becomes 100% for you. I think religious people see such improbable odds because before they even begin the tally, they accept that "God built this Universe specifically for Us". I say we are latecomers of the extreme so of course it all fits in and worked out this way or we wouldn't exist to ponder the question. We evolved from It... not the other way around. The Universe, in our case, had 10,000,000,000 years to "pave the way" to us. I choose to not put the Effect in front of the Cause.
|
I don't know anything about Michael Behe (I soon will) but I know that Fred Hoyle is a mixed case. He is lauded as a breakthrough scientist in the field of Nucleosytnthesis. He is also, and I think deservedly, denounced not because he initially fought "The Cosmic Egg" for which he coined what he considered a derogatory term, "The Big Bang", but decades later, in fact literally to his deathbed, denied all of the ever mounting evidence that his favorite "horse", "Steady State Universe", was deeply flawed and an obvious loser. Even scientists can be boneheaded, just like everyone else.
Incidentally, it's a bit odd that you find Hoyle important to you, since his virulent objection to Cosmic Egg was that he perceived it implied a Creator. He hated that possibility. The Pope made the same mistake but loved it. Then Georges LeMaitre put him in his place stating in effect "You should stick to scripture and leave Science to scientists" since Georges was apparently not one to leap to unwarranted conclusions not in evidence. Einstein, OTOH, was also a Steady State guy but after meeting with LeMaitre became convinced by his evidence and that of Percival Lowell he had been mistaken and that LeMaitre was right and Expanding Universe is Reality. Edit: Oh right, Behe. I hadn't remembered his name. So does this mean you think Evolution is in error? I hesitate to ask but I think we do need the clarity so I will, does this also mean you think the Earth is ~6000 years old and not ~4.000,000,000 years old? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM. |