The Faith & Religion mega Thread

@sundialsvcs & ntubski: The more we discuss this area, the more differences seem to be melting away. I would accept that we have much to learn and will always be behind in knowledge & wisdom. Likewise I would agree that perspectives can be skewed. Contemplating these matters is a bit like trying to run the circus from the monkey cage.

Further, I would agree the Fundamental Laws could have been always fixed. But I would insist that things have been fixed so the Universe would turn out at all. I have always seen it as matter being fixed and physical laws being variable. If it were possible to vary the properties of matter sufficiently, the laws could have been left alone. An interesting pointer in this area is that matter effectively obeys three sets of Laws: At very small scale, Quantum rules apply; In the middle, Newtonian rules apply; And at a larger scale still, Relativity comes into it's own. Quite frankly, it's above my pay grade to figure out instantly which that would point to being variable, and why. Maybe tomorrow.

Originally Posted by enorbet …instead the Universe eveolved from dense, hot, energy by expanding and cooling to the point where energy could condense into a few particles. Millions of years of evolution took place before any of them could combine to form a simple Hydrogen atom. At one time, and a long time at that, all there was of matter that we know about (excluding Dark Matter and Dark Energy) was Hydrogen. Over millions of years cooling allowed Hydrogen to aggregate and it's gravity to increase accordingly and at some point of accumulated mass, fusion of Hydrogen into Helium occurred, releasing massive energy and stars were born.

FundaMENTALists get on my nerves too, confusing people with their super-righeous codswallop.

Those quoted words may well have been words of some scientist nearly willing the Universe into existence. The concept is flawed in many respects. 'Dense,hot energy' requires explanation in the 0ºK vacuum of space. Where did that come from? In short, somebody is trying to cook a meal without the ingredients or a source of heat. Logical questions arise at every stage. Like I said, no Q.E.D. for any of us.

I personally object to the concept of evolution with regards to the Universe. On earth, evolution is supposed to happen over successive generations. But there's no generations in the Universe. The concept of evolution is used as smooth talk to mean 'change for the better.' Mutation Breeding actually has proved that form of evolution to be 'change for the worse' in fruit fly and plant breeding over 50 years of research experiments.

Originally Posted by enorbet My point is there is at least 2 ways to look at it or speculate. 1) Some Creator designed the Universe just for Humanity, 2) Some Creator designed the Universe and the unfolding sequence of events resulted in lifeforms, including Us, 3) For whatever reason, the Universe evolved the way it did over ~14 Billion years, including the Laws of Physics and Chemistry a fundamental part of it's structure, and numerouslifeforms including Us resulted as a consequence of those Laws and Events....

I can enlighten any discussion of points 1 & 2 and argue against point 3 with This Quote. If anybody is listening, God said the Universe was no accident.

Originally Posted by business_kid matter effectively obeys three sets of Laws: At very small scale, Quantum rules apply; In the middle, Newtonian rules apply; And at a larger scale still, Relativity comes into it's own.

I believe this (i.e., each ruleset only applies at a particular scale) is untrue, see Relativistic quantum chemistry for example, which applies quantum rules & relativity to subatomic particles. Newtonian rules are of course just an easier-to-compute approximation of relativistic ones anyway.

Originally Posted by business_kid I personally object to the concept of evolution with regards to the Universe. On earth, evolution is supposed to happen over successive generations. But there's no generations in the Universe.

I too have a quarrel with the "evolutionism" of modern science. Biological evolution is one thing: there are clear mechanisms that explain how and why such a thing works. The use of DNA and RNA as carriers of heredity, and the competition between lifeforms, which forces the losers to spread into new environments or develop new ways of making a living (making them subject to different selective pressures), provide a convincing mechanism for directed change. But only lifeforms are intrinsically purposive. Before there was even the most primitive form of heredity, there could be no evolution in the absence of a divine plan, only random and directionless change.

Pretending that such change would constitute "evolution" and would therefore be bound to lead to more complex and useful forms is intellectually dishonest.

I have always basically dismissed "evolution" as being anything more than "The Origin of Species." We can readily observe this level of self-tuning, but we also observe the presence of biological controls which cause everything to "reproduce after its own kind." We also observe that sometimes a pregnancy self-aborts – a miscarriage.

You can't arbitrarily mix the semen and the eggs of most animals: mules, hinnys, zebroids, zonkeys, and zeedonks (yes, there is such a thing) are viable but sterile.

So, I see nothing which convinces me that "evolution" caused, say, humans to evolve from monkeys, even though we see many similarities in the genome. Mind you, I have no idea why we see what we do plainly see. I can't explain the monkey nor the genome matches. But I don't think that the process of "evolution" is actually the right answer.

Various other things also arouse my "suspicious cat" ... black holes, singularities of all sorts ... I don't have a substitute explanation, but I decline to accept the ones that have been offered. My instincts tell me that we are "looking through a glass, darkly," and that we're stuck doing so. We don't see "the truth" and maybe we never will – however, may we never, ever stop trying.

Originally Posted by ntubski Religion seems to solve this by declaring that God is self-causing, so the infinite string of "why" is answered with an infinite string of "God". I don't find this any more satisfactory than just admitting ignorance.

I hadn't heard the concept of God being self-causing, some theologian fresh back from his metaphysics course, perhaps. But I would at least try for an answer rather than giving up.

On enorbet's point about other material life forms in the Universe: I, we or the Bible doesn't have any data, save that we are the first planet to rebel, because the issues of precedent are being settled here. Who knows?

Here might be a good spot to state my personal view, as I promised to. We exist. So logically, tracing back past beginnings, I conclude that for anything to begin, there had to be something

1. with no beginning,
2. capable of causing other things.

The material Universe is unsatisfactory as that something eternal, for a variety of reasons. The only other reasonable alternative is God. I don't see him as self-causing (= self creating) but eternal. We know matter can be converted to energy and believe energy can be converted into matter, although humans have never done it. We have a few direct statements in Scripture about God. He is:

• An Extremely Powerful Spirit.
• Eternal.
• He has the full range of personal qualities and emotions we experience.

/Strictly personal opinions henceforth unless indicated otherwise.

We also know other spirits were created before we were. So I see God and other spirits as not defined or confined by the material universe we inhabit. The crowning achievements of this creation in matter, imho, was to get matter:

1. to live.
2. To get original ideas, which is better than the best AI can do.
3. to think, and obey instincts.
4. to exercise free will.
5. and to have feelings and emotions.
6. To exercise a conscience, and judge ourselves favourably or adversely.

Not only that, but we have in turn the power to make life. Athiestic alternatives haven't the first notion about how life, feelings, conscience & spirituality came about. Such qualities have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

There is no dogma here beyond Genesis 1:1, but I feel the creation was a massive guided Energy --> Matter event of which the CMB is visible proof. I know others interpret that differently, but that's a side issue.

What confuses the situation totally in the consequences of a rebellion of sorts. The rebellion was by an angel on earth, so the first humans (and before long some other angels) were drawn in. That's why issues of precedent are being sorted out here, and why the sacrifice of Jesus was so vital. But it explains the alternative realities, cruelty, confusion, abuse & suffering we see and much more. But wherever you all are, you all have access to JW material on jw.org and our folks explain it well. So I won't.

So, in short, I see the material Universe like some big project a father on earth might undertake with his kids. They might have approached the 'living matter' project as teams. Who knows? The rebellion was an unforeseen setback, but a repair is well under way. Only I don't expect the material universe to be tidied away with the other toys by teatime! This perspective is pure speculation, food for thought.

Originally Posted by business_kid Further, I would agree the Fundamental Laws could have been always fixed. But I would insist that things have been fixed so the Universe would turn out at all. I have always seen it as matter being fixed and physical laws being variable. If it were possible to vary the properties of matter sufficiently, the laws could have been left alone. An interesting pointer in this area is that matter effectively obeys three sets of Laws: At very small scale, Quantum rules apply; In the middle, Newtonian rules apply; And at a larger scale still, Relativity comes into it's own. Quite frankly, it's above my pay grade to figure out instantly which that would point to being variable, and why. Maybe tomorrow.

The quest to discover Unified Field Theory (commonly called "Theory of Everything) is the effort to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. This is driven by the realization that there isn't some hard and fast border beyond which one is valid and the other is not. It's not a line in the sand, it is an extended area of transition we don't fully understand yet. It's difficult because we don't experience Quantum Effects with our 5 senses in normal life, so it is by no means intuitive.

What you are referring to as "Middle Level" is literally built on Quantum Mechanics. Also Newton is not bordered by size but by degrees in conditions, mainly Gravity and it's relationship to Mass and also Velocity. Newton works on Earth and can also plot a trajectory to Pluto. Newton simply breaks down at Mass and Speeds greater than experienced on Earth, but also elsewhere.

We don't know yet what causes the progressive transition from Einstein's GR to QM because we don't know if Gravity is Quantum. We are working on it and 40 year careers have dried up and blown away in the process of "A" and "Not A", what works and what doesn't work that ultimately defines a thing.

Originally Posted by business_kid 'Dense,hot energy' requires explanation in the 0ºK vacuum of space. Where did that come from? In short, somebody is trying to cook a meal without the ingredients or a source of heat. Logical questions arise at every stage. Like I said, no Q.E.D. for any of us.

The energy was hot BECAUSE it was dense... compacted. One way to put out a campfire is to spread it out over a wider area, right?. That's a bit loose for an analogy but it does describe the relationship between diffuse energy and dense energy. The Universe is expanding which is why it is cooling. You really should try to grasp the meaning of The Cosmic Background Radiation.

Originally Posted by business_kid I personally object to the concept of evolution with regards to the Universe. On earth, evolution is supposed to happen over successive generations. But there's no generations in the Universe. The concept of evolution is used as smooth talk to mean 'change for the better.' Mutation Breeding actually has proved that form of evolution to be 'change for the worse' in fruit fly and plant breeding over 50 years of research experiments. I can enlighten any discussion of points 1 & 2 and argue against point 3 with This Quote. If anybody is listening, God said the Universe was no accident.

Firstly, not only does no serious biologist refer to Evolution as "smooth talk to mean change for the better", they insteasd point out that Evolution is no Goal Oriented. It is random... not random meaning always with no influences or no value but sometimes the results don't work out well. It's like trying many adaptations where some fail and some turn out to be "fittest". An example of this is the adaptation that created Neanderthals worked well for a time, being small, dense and muscular worked well during the Ice Age but Power isn't free (requires fuel) and the diet requirements to sustain that muscular build became too high a price (along with a few other factors) and they became essentially extinct.

So lots of small mutations collectively have better chances of working out but that also means that most will fail, thus the extinction of 99% of all lifeforms that ever inhabited Planet Earth. Humans have yet to match the Dinosaurs for longevity of a species (also horseshoe crabs, crocodiles, and cockroaches) so the jury isn't in yet to claim the prize for "Big Brains".

As for replication and "generations" we can clearly see that early stars and galaxies were different, often VERY different, from what we see now. Our Sun,for example, is at least 3rd Generation, meaning 2 previous stars successively went supernova to provide the material that makes up our Sun. The famous Hubble photo of "the Pillars of Creation" show new stars forming from gas clouds of previous stars that exploded. We also have photos of polar jets of energy and matter being blasted out from Black Holes at near relativistic speeds, "seeding" a vast area of space around them. It is a form of Evolution by my definition of the term. If you'd like to employ some other term, that's perfectly OK but that term must recognize the similarity or that term will fail. Everything in the Universe, probably even the Universe as a whole, has a "lifespan".

ping sundialsvcs - I wonder how you explain, for one example, the 36 species of Canines (Canids) that presently exist, knowing they all share a single common ancestor, simply by "after it's own kind". Personally I consider ALL terrestrial life in a general way, to be "of it's own kind". Yes, some speciation is effectively a "dead end" but obviously not all.

ping hazel - Here's a definition for you that relates organic, inorganic, and what humans consider living and non living.

Originally Posted by dictionaries speciation Definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. noun - The formation of new biological species through the process of evolution. from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. noun - biology - The process by which new distinct species evolve. noun - chemistry - The formation of different (inorganic) species, for example in a gas.

Not exactly far-fetched, eh?

Originally Posted by business_kid I hadn't heard the concept of God being self-causing, some theologian fresh back from his metaphysics course, perhaps.

Oh, my mistake, I seem to have misremembered the First Cause concept as "self-causing". At any rate, both seem to require a get-out-of-causation-free card, which I find not very satisfying.

But I would at least try for an answer rather than giving up.

To me, "God" is a non-answer, so using it is the same as giving up.

But it explains the alternative realities, cruelty, confusion, abuse & suffering we see and much more.

Wait, wait, wait. The "alternative realities" that "we see"???

Originally Posted by enorbet As for replication and "generations" we can clearly see that early stars and galaxies were different, often VERY different, from what we see now. Our Sun,for example, is at least 3rd Generation, meaning 2 previous stars successively went supernova to provide the material that makes up our Sun. The famous Hubble photo of "the Pillars of Creation" show new stars forming from gas clouds of previous stars that exploded. We also have photos of polar jets of energy and matter being blasted out from Black Holes at near relativistic speeds, "seeding" a vast area of space around them. It is a form of Evolution by my definition of the term. If you'd like to employ some other term, that's perfectly OK but that term must recognize the similarity or that term will fail. Everything in the Universe, probably even the Universe as a whole, has a "lifespan".

I think your insistence on conflating the biological theory of evolution with other uses of the term "Evolution" is needlessly confusing. I had initially thought you just meant it in sense #2:

2. (intransitive) To change; transform. What began as a few lines of code has now evolved into a million-line behemoth.

I mean, I don't think anyone seriously proposes that there is any kind of natural selection acting on stars?

Well ntubski, my thoughts didn't arrive in a vacuum (other than the one that caused me to suck in every Science book I could get my hands on). Of those, I've read 4 of Lee Smolin's books and understood maybe half if I'm generous to myself, but I make excuses for the disparity since he got his PhD in theoretical Physics from Harvard and is highly respected in the field the world over. I'm afraid GWU is known for Lawyers not Scientists, but I couldn't afford RPI and public school wasn't advanced enough for a full boat scholarship there. As a friend of mine once quipped "Even on Mt. Olympus there are levels".

In any case check this out https://www.edge.org/conversation/le...ical-evolution

an excerpt

Originally Posted by Cosmological Evolution by Lee Smolin COSMOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Lee Smolin [5.30.06] ...there is a deep relation between Einstein's notion that everything is just a network of relations and Darwin's notion because what is an ecological community but a network of individuals and species in relationship which evolve? There's no need in the modern way of talking about biology for any absolute concepts for any things that were always true and will always be true.

enorbet, you're flooding us with a guided tour of the universe, which is ok. But this is a Faith & Religion thread, and we were discussing the beginning. Are you hoping to distract us from that?
I found your explanation of the beginning very weak. You can't start the Universe with dense hot energy. Where did the energy come from? That's the middle. What came first? Start in first gear, don't dodge the subject, and start at the beginning. You seem anxious to avoid it. What came first? It's a cop-out to pull in various forces just lying about like you were in an 'orchestra pit' with physical forces! Those physical forces require explanation - where did they come from?

Originally Posted by ntubski To me, "God" is a non-answer, so using it is the same as giving up. Quote: But it explains the alternative realities, cruelty, confusion, abuse & suffering we see and much more. Wait, wait, wait. The "alternative realities" that "we see"???

God is not a non-answer, except for a confirmed atheist. Many things follow from acknowledging God's existence. A spiritual person will want to find out more; others might just shrug their shoulders. There is much more to find out.

As for 'alternative realities' I knew what I was talking about but gave a dreadful explanation. Excuse me.

With just God in the picture, there would be a single religion, and a single reality. You would learn this growing up with other things, like why rain falls or why there are seasons. But because of the rebellion, for a limited time there are two competing sets of spirit forces influencing people, each with their own agenda, and limits. There's too much Industrial noise here to explain stuff, but I'll send a PM.

Originally Posted by enorbet In any case check this out https://www.edge.org/conversation/le...ical-evolution

Hmm, looks like nonsense to me, but maybe something interesting will come out of it.

Originally Posted by business_kid God is not a non-answer, except for a confirmed atheist.

Well, I do consider myself to be an atheist, mostly. (A while back in this thread, someone brought up the idea of ignosticism, which makes a lot of sense to me)

The Elephant in the Room, business_kid, is that nobody knows what came first. Nobody. However Science knows back to before the first second had passed. That we know because we have objective repeatable evidence including a photo. Nobody is convinced "the Universe came from nothing" mainly because we don't really have a working definition of "nothing". That's quite the singularity in itself.

However since we also think from evidence that Inflation took place, a sudden faster than light expansion for a time, making the so-called Big Bang quite a bit more complex than he Lemaitres thought. We have evidence of Inflation but we know very little about it partly because inflation destroyed any information of how it happened ie: what came before, at least at our present state of technology.

I can't describe The Beginning and neither can anyone else, BUT I can describe the progression back to an extremely short time after The Beginning, much like the progression I displayed from 10 - 2. I just can't swear it's "1" beyond a shadow of a doubt and in no way does that negate the value of 10 through 2. Nothing reliable can do better, simple fact.

@enorbet: Agreed that nobody can prove Q.E.D. what came first, although many folks are pretty sure they know. I wouldn't call it the elephant in the room, though. It's only by confronting such difficult questions that you can develop and mature in your thought process, and rid yourself of perhaps much loved, but wrong positions.

And I concur with what sundialsvcs pointed out to you

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Post #10500 And when presented with statements such as: "All we do know, and we have photographs and accounts from over 13,000,000,000 years ago..." I very politely state that I personally do not agree with your conclusions. In fact, to be utterly frank, I find perhaps more "faith(!)" in your assertions than I find in @business_kid's.

So what makes your explanation of the CMB more valid than mine if you can't prove it?

@sundialsvcs: I'm still asserting stuff, am I? I'll have to fix that. I tried to tell enorbet that he faith, but would you listen? I think faith isn't a nice word in Scientific "Newspeak"

@ntubski: Personally, I would consider Ignosticism 'illogical' (to quote Mr. Spock). It has the value of an overruled objection in court. Do you acknowledge a Higher Power as a First Cause? If so, do you desire a relationship with Him? I very much imagine not, from what you say. To complain about the lack of a definition in that case impresses nobody, particularly the Higher Power.

Originally Posted by business_kid @enorbet: Agreed that nobody can prove Q.E.D. what came first, although many folks are pretty sure they know. I wouldn't call it the elephant in the room, though. It's only by confronting such difficult questions that you can develop and mature in your thought process, and rid yourself of perhaps much loved, but wrong positions. And I concur with what sundialsvcs pointed out to you So what makes your explanation of the CMB more valid than mine if you can't prove it? @sundialsvcs: I'm still asserting stuff, am I? I'll have to fix that. I tried to tell enorbet that he faith, but would you listen? I think faith isn't a nice word in Scientific "Newspeak" @ntubski: Personally, I would consider Ignosticism 'illogical' (to quote Mr. Spock). It has the value of an overruled objection in court. Do you acknowledge a Higher Power as a First Cause? If so, do you desire a relationship with Him? I very much imagine not, from what you say. To complain about the lack of a definition in that case impresses nobody, particularly the Higher Power.

Firstly, thank you, business_kid, for pointing that out. I'd missed that part from sundialsvcs so hopefully I can answer both of you here. You each certainly have the right to disagree but the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was found by accident, not by seeking it, not by any agenda or preconceived notion. The first photo iirc was WMAP, followed by a second one from a more powerful telescope (in microwave wavelenghths) and then a 3rd by a telescope specifically designed to get a higher resolution photo. That will hopefully take a massive quantum leap with James Webb Space Telescope.

The photos exist and they are verified "6 ways from Sunday" to be exactly what and when I've mentioned here, and anyone can see them. We know this because of the finite speed of light which means the further in distance we look into Space, the further back in Time we are also looking. For example, we see our Sun as it was roughly 8.3 minutes ago. This is why, if you followed at all, communication with Mars devices has a delay of 20 to 45 minutes depending on orbital position. Bottom Line: there is a clearly defined path back to less than a second after "Big Bang". Back from there is pure speculation with just a few hints, but after that is solidly backed and clear. Different data from different sources are all consistent. It's not fantasy, or guesswork. It's as real and reliable as "What goes up must come down" and with similar slight, qualifying limitations.

Again you can disagree but disagree in the face of objective, repeatable and progressively advancing evidence not to mention the most expert minds in these fields, both supporting and attacking,a on the planet using the best tools our technology has to offer, to the tune of millions upon millions of man/hours and many billions of dollars.