Evolution or Creationism?

[charon]

I've never trolled in my life, Lomax, on this or any other forum. I've only talked seriously and honestly right from the very first post and I think that's entirely evidential in my posts. I also think it's quite extraordinary such a criticism should come from a moderator who presumably reads and examines these posts.

I'm also at a complete loss as to why you think my answer wasn't serious. He asked why, if God is supposed to be uncaused, why the universe shouldn't also be. I'm suggesting, in turn, that that's precisely what it is.

If you check back on any other post of mine on that issue you'll find I've always said the same thing - and debated and backed it up logically at all times.

http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=17127&start=30

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi folks (again).

Well, I've been following this thread and it is still spinning in circles. I offered a solution on page "2" but feel that perhaps my communication skills are severely lacking. So.. if you don't mind.. I'll take one more whack at this:

Axioms:
A. There is no natural limit to the complexity of all mathematical questions.
B. There is no natural limit to the complexity of all mathematical answers.
C. For any mathematical question, that produces a deterministic answer, then that answer must exist.

Example:
Given the question of what is (10 divided by 3) in decimal notation..
The answer is (3.333333333..) etc. in decimal notation.

This is a simple mathematical question that produces a simple (infinite) mathematical answer.

Pretend for a moment that this answer (3.3333...) represents our Universe:

A1: The answer contains a "First Cause" being the initial mathematical question.
A2: The answer contains sequence, starting with the value 3.
A3: The answer is infinite in one direction.
A4: The answer exists by any definition, or test, of true existence.

So, why do I compare this simple example to our Universe?

In A1, we see the "Cause" represented by the question that produced the "Effect" represented by the answer.
In A2, we see the Beginning, or equivalent of the "Big Bang".
In A2, we see Sequence which is equivalent to the progression of Time.
In A3, we see no definitive end to the Sequence.
In A4, we see a Result that almost anyone can find, verifiable and independently, of other observers.

So, I am specifically saying that the only difference between the "Answer" above (3.3333..) and our Universe is just a matter of complexity. When I hear the question of "What came before the Big Bang" then I find that this question is like asking what came before the first "3" in the solution of what is 10 divided by 3. Nothing came before it. That question itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of the "True Nature" of time.

Now.. this answer (3.3333...) contains no interactive components. It is merely a recursive progression. I am inclined here to post an image of the classic Mandelbrot Fractal but instead, here is just a link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

I'm sure many of you would have instantly recognized it anyway. That should be sufficient proof it also "Exists".

But it is lacking in "Dynamic Feedback" within the solution of the Fractal Equation. This is not true of John Conway's "Life". It has dynamic feedback which allows massive levels of complexity and interactive progressive geometries to be witnessed. It ("Life") is also based on some very simple rules. I have found through experimentation that raising the number of dimensions to at least 4, and with the right rules, one gains Symmetry Persistence. This is critical because Conway's simple version doesn't manifest this aspect and it's symmetries are very fragile.

Now, one might ask how Conway's "Life" compares to our Universe. Like the question: "Where is this Grid?". Look up Aether or Space-Time. The Aether has a colorful history. But even Einstein's "Relativity" came full circle and ended up reinforcing the concept that an empty vacuum has structure and is the primary reason light has a speed limit. We even know approximately how large the elements of this Grid are. They have been labeled "Planck Length" and "Planck Interval" for the 4Th dimension of the Geometry of Space-Time. If not now, then in the near future, all Physicists will accept that there is absolutely "Nothing" tangible at the Quantum Scale. There only exists mathematical interactive symmetries in the grid that we currently call Particles and are driven by Energy which is in fact.. just the rules of the Grid.

In my personal exploration of "Cellular Automata" (Conway's Life) using complex rules and 3 (or more) dimensions, I came to realize something. The patterns were fully complex enough to behave as Particles and Waves. And more to the point: The Computer was merely a tool that allowed me to observe these patterns. That these patterns would "Exist" in the solution.. whether I got to see them or not!!!! And if those patterns became complex enough, that all the characteristics of this Universe might be manifested. That intelligent life could Evolve inside the solution. That this intelligent life (existing solely within the solution) would believe it's existence is somehow more "REAL" than to just exist as the solution to a mathematical question.

I tried to explain this to a friend of mine. His response was "Ok.. so who asked the Question?" That's the beauty of it.. no one is needed to ask the Question for the Solution to Exist. Now I am at a loss of how I can explain this any clearer, that mathematical solutions can be complex enough to support intelligent life and that these life forms could see their Universe with the same eyes as You are currently using!

My search has taken me years to find an answer to how we can "Exist". The key to this is that I had to find an answer that doesn't produce Paradoxes. Theology and even some of current Science is loaded with paradoxes and no Real Universe can exist and still contain such. Most of this debate, so far, is mostly loaded with indirect, or even direct, observation of these paradoxes and is thus forever irresolvable.

This is not a matter of Faith on my part. It is a totally obvious solution, at least to me. I just wish I could communicate my insights in a manner more digestible to those who might listen to me. Please feel free to challenge me on any part of what I have stated above. I am always happy to add clarifications. So, for now, I will take the stance that the Universe can exist without a Creator and thusly.. Evolution must be viable.

Best wishes..
Dave :^)

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

It is a totally obvious solution, at least to me.

What is?

[Positor]

Axioms:
A. There is no natural limit to the complexity of all mathematical questions.
B. There is no natural limit to the complexity of all mathematical answers.
C. For any mathematical question, that produces a deterministic answer, then that answer must exist.

Example:
Given the question of what is (10 divided by 3) in decimal notation..
The answer is (3.333333333..) etc. in decimal notation.

This is a simple mathematical question that produces a simple (infinite) mathematical answer.

Pretend for a moment that this answer (3.3333...) represents our Universe:

A1: The answer contains a "First Cause" being the initial mathematical question.
A2: The answer contains sequence, starting with the value 3.
A3: The answer is infinite in one direction.
A4: The answer exists by any definition, or test, of true existence.

So, why do I compare this simple example to our Universe?

In A1, we see the "Cause" represented by the question that produced the "Effect" represented by the answer.
In A2, we see the Beginning, or equivalent of the "Big Bang".
In A2, we see Sequence which is equivalent to the progression of Time.
In A3, we see no definitive end to the Sequence.
In A4, we see a Result that almost anyone can find, verifiable and independently, of other observers.

I have a few comments/questions:

1. If a sequence of digits exists "all at once", how does Time arise? And how does there come to be an "arrow" of time?

2. If the "answer" 3.3333... represents our universe, what object is represented by the "question"? ("First Cause" merely denotes a property of that object; it does not explain what the object is physically. Or if the "question" does not represent anything physical, how can something non-physical give rise to something physical?) And what question is it? Is it "10 divided by 3", or is it "20 divided by 6" or "2.3333... + 1"? The same answer can correspond to many different questions. Do separate universes exist for every identical answer to different questions?

3. Does a non-recurring decimal represent a universe with an end, or one without an end? For example, 3.28 could represent a universe that ends with the 8, or one that continues indefinitely as 3.280000...

4. How do we come to be "inside" a universe? And why this particular one?

5. You are regarding the Big Bang as the "beginning". Strictly, however, the "Big Bang" refers to the early expansionary phase of the universe, not the very beginning (if there was one). The following is from the "Big Bang/Steady State expansion?" thread in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum:

One must be careful. The "Big Bang" is just a statement that the universe was once smaller and hotter and is now expanding. (Or it could be contracting if the "Big Crunch" idea was right and we had waited long enough.).....There are many ideas as to how the early universe was created and began expansion. Strictly speaking, these aren't really part of the "Big Bang".

Whether the universe had a beginning at all is, I think, still an open question as far as science is concerned.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Guys.. Thanks for your comments.

To Charon,

That our Universe is nothing more than the mathematical solution to a specific mathematical question. This avoids all the paradoxes inherent in resolving issues regarding Time and questions like: "Where did -X- come from?". The Universe is only internally interactive with itself on a somewhat Boolean Logic level. That's as close to being Tangible as you're ever going to find. So once again.. There is no natural limit on the complexity of a mathematically defined Universe. Our Universe has a finite level of complexity (in the rules that define it's specific internal Quantum interactions) and is therefore a subset of my previous statement. Does that help?

Hi Positor, thanks.. here are my responses to your comments/questions:

1. If a sequence of digits exists "all at once", how does Time arise? And how does there come to be an "arrow" of time?

My position is that "Time" is nothing more than the sequences of Cause and Effect. To be a bit more bold, I'll hold to the idea that "Time" itself doesn't exist. Example: Hold a book in your hand. It contains a sequential story about a person, perhaps from Birth to Death. This persons whole sequential lifetime exists in your hand in a single instant. (Now, unfortunately the word "Instant" has temporal connotations, but I can't think of a word in our language that better expresses a complete departure from the concept of "Time".) Anyway.. how does your perception of time and the time denoted within the book compare against each other?

The entire answer for 10/3 exists simultaneously with the value of PI, so which existed first? It's my position that our entire Universe exists in the same manner. The whole Universe, from beginning to middle to possibly the end, all exists simultaneously, in regards to "Time". All possible Universes exist Simultaneously with no Temporal distinction. It's only from within the solution can one sense a before and after in the sequence of events and label this perception as "Time".

2. If the "answer" 3.3333... represents our universe, what object is represented by the "question"? ("First Cause" merely denotes a property of that object; it does not explain what the object is physically. Or if the "question" does not represent anything physical, how can something non-physical give rise to something physical?) And what question is it? Is it "10 divided by 3", or is it "20 divided by 6" or "2.3333... + 1"? The same answer can correspond to many different questions. Do separate universes exist for every identical answer to different questions?

Your question presumes a definition for the word "Physical". By the common definition of "Physical" then my position is that nothing "Physical" truly exists. Again.. being "Physical" would produce a Paradox in defining the origin of something denoted as truly "Physical". Does PI or 10/3 have any "Physical" quality? No they don't. They occupy no Spatial or Temporal locations. They don't crowd each other in any sense. An infinite number of Logic-Universes exist, none of which occupy any Temporal or Physical space... because there is no such thing as Temporal or Physical Space. It is only within the solution of a Logic-Universe does the interactive logic provide spatial relativity and sequential cause-effects. These manifestations become observable by the inhabitants (if any) and thusly get labeled with Temporal and Physical qualities.

Let's try another approach.. if you play a 3D video game of say.. "Doom", do you actually believe that the door you might face is real? That this "Door" has any form of physical existence. You can see it and butt against it, but does it exist? Yes it does! Mainly because other players can find the same door and describe it's physical appearance and location. But is it a physical door or merely a construction of non-tangible Boolean logic?

3. Does a non-recurring decimal represent a universe with an end, or one without an end? For example, 3.28 could represent a universe that ends with the 8, or one that continues indefinitely as 3.280000...

Good point! I hope we exist inside a solution that has no end. Otherwise, the solution could complete and thus the Universe would complete and End.. (perhaps long before a "Big Crunch" or frigid exhaustion of energy) and maybe even tomorrow..lol. Let's hope not. Our internal perception of "Time" shouldn't extend before or after the Universe begins and ends. I wrote a short story about this called "The Forth Corner of the Universe". You can find it with Google.

4. How do we come to be "inside" a universe? And why this particular one?

By "inside" a Universe, I mean contained within it's solution. There are an infinite number of "Garbage" Universes that cannot reach the stability or complexity required for life to exist. They will be barren of observers. You exist inside this Universe because it produced you. It's not like you had any choice which Universe to exist inside of, or for that matter, who your parents even are.

5. You are regarding the Big Bang as the "beginning". Strictly, however, the "Big Bang" refers to the early expansionary phase of the universe, not the very beginning (if there was one).

There is no evidence that our Universe was ever smaller (read my Blog here on SCF). Hotter?.. Yes! My position is that the Universe began fully sized and initialized with Quantum Pseudo-Random Static. The phase of settling down from chaos to stability, is what I would call the "Big Bang". I disagree that the Universe started as a "Singularity", as this would require a suspension of the current laws of Physics, regarding Time, Gravity and several others. I believe the laws of physics has never changed from "Then to Now", in the temporal sense from within this Universe's construct.

Hope this helps..
Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[Dave_Oblad]

By the way, before I get accused of dragging this thread off topic, I must point out that many comments above presume that Science can't answer the question of "How did this Universe Originate?" and that Theology must therefore step in where Science stumbles. It's my point that Science CAN answer those questions, as I hope my contribution to this thread indicates.

If this Universe can exist without a God, then the simplest solution is probably the correct one. And if this Universe does exist without a Creator, then Evolution must be the only recourse to explaining the progression of simple organisms to complex organisms over the last billion years. Unless one wants to introduce periodic Extraterrestrial intervention. But that concept merely diverts this discussion and still doesn't get to the root of matters.

Best wishes..
Dave :^)

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

> That our Universe is nothing more than the mathematical solution to a specific mathematical question

That implies the question is being asked from outside, or beyond, the universe. Or are you being metaphorical when you use the word question?

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Charon,
I said above:

I tried to explain this to a friend of mine. His response was "Ok.. so who asked the Question?" That's the beauty of it.. no one is needed to ask the Question for the Solution to Exist.

How long ago did someone ask the question: "What is 10/3?". Cavemen or Cavewomen didn't know math, so the question was asked much later than the beginning of humankind. When it was finally asked and when we understood long division.. we discovered the answer. So if (10/3) is the question.. and the answer is (3.33333...), then how long ago did that specific answer become true for that specific question? When we discovered it or since the beginning of time?

Yes, I'm being somewhat metaphorical in the use of the word "Question", but I tend to try to use words that mean the same thing to the largest audience. If you have a better word, please tell me.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[songwriter]

Evolution.

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

I said above:

I tried to explain this to a friend of mine. His response was "Ok.. so who asked the Question?"

I know, but I didn't ask that. That's the obvious reply.

My point is that if you're going to posit an answer to a question about the universe that question must be coming from outside it.

Say your car breaks down. You start asking questions like what's wrong with it? You open the bonnet and start probing about. You can do all that because your car is something objective to you, the prober.

Can we do that with the universe?

[Eighty]

Eighty, the question was not so trivial, if you read it right..

The universe did not need to be created, God did not need to create anything. He created the universe out of His own desire.

The point is not whether God needed to create the universe or not.

The simple question is: if, in order to accept the existence of God, you do not need to assume that something created it, because God by definition does not "need to be created",
then why in order to exist the universe must have been created?

If God needn't be created, why the universe needs to?

I honestly saw no answer - and cannot think of an answer - to this.

This is why I agree with Forrest: no use to complain for not being as rich as Bill Gates, no need to be concerned with a question which cannot be answered and to dedicate time and energy to try to answer it if you honestly feel it impossible.

The old stoic rule: care, be concerned and affectively invest only on what is in your power (which does not imply cynism, and does not mean avoid loving because the other person is not in your power; it just means care and commit yourself about learning and being ethically satisfied with yourself - which is in your power - and, as concerns other people, care about how you behave with them, how you do love them, not how much they love you)

I'm glad someone has brought this up.

This again, takes us to the separation of the internal vs external reality. Just as Kant believed in the limited power of the human mind, so do I.

Before I begin, you pointed out a very relevant point: 'If God needn't be created, why the universe needs to?'
-This is almost a terrifying question! However, it is not an impossible question to answer.

God is beyond our capability to understand. As I have pointed out in numerous posts and replies, God lies in a reality that is outside of our natural, imperfect ability to calculate and subsequently solve. His equation is greater than anything we can possibly know. Almost sounds absurd, right? That's why there is Kant's 'Enlightenment Fallacy'. We cannot understand what we cannot comprehend.

Why does God exist? Where did He come from?
-Empirically, we do not know. There is no scientific way for us to answer either question; science solves the material, not the super-natural.

In attempting to answer why He created the universe: He did so out of His own good pleasure. No where in the Bible (I'm a Christian so I will focus on my holy text), does it say He needed to create the universe. He could have created anything, and any form of life, but it so happens that He created us, and we are His products.
A person can leave it to chance, but the odds are so ridiculously unfathomable that it takes at least as much faith to believe in such a thing, as it does to believe in God (in reality, it takes more). I usually revert to the Anthropic Principle for such things.

What you're are alluding to is apatheism; the pretense that something doesn't matter when it is quite literally a matter of life and death. I use the word alluding here because usually the inverse of asking such questions leads to dismissive questions relating to the existence of God.

[Fuqin]

God lies in a reality that is outside of our natural

How do you know that, where in the bible does it say that, and what happened to omnipresence

A person can leave it to chance, but the odds are so ridiculously unfathomable that it takes at least as much faith to believe in such a thing, as it does to believe in God

Well we know that chance however philosophically debatable is an apparent phenomenon, God on the other hand leaves no trace of activity except that for which is proselytized by those who claim faith as an equally convincing platform to evidence, NUH!
No one puts faith in chance with the exception of gamblers and followers of the Iching and even there you get some winners, however if I multiply infant time by infinite space chance has a very real way of beating the odds .

I usually revert to the Anthropic Principle for such things.

Whether you revert to the anthropic principle or the strong anthropic principle this is still just philosophy, and doesn’t really support your argument
The notion that the conditions or state of the universe is compatible with those who observe it is well Duh! Otherwise there would be no one to observe it, a point to make here is that if the universe is currently in a narrow phase of life supporting activity or even if life itself is much more robust (strong anthropic principle) then life should be quit unremarkable anytime it is observed . so I don’t see how this help the notion that a great intellect created the universe , if anything one would have to ask why such an entity would make the universe in such a way as to place life in such a fragile fish bowl.

[Eighty]

God lies in a reality that is outside of our natural

How do you know that, where in the bible does it say that, and what happened to omnipresence
[quote]

Anyone who has read the Bible has probably come to the same conclusion. If God and all the heavens existed in the same reality as us, we would likely see Him, and all the heavens in all it's glory everyday. We are part of a materialistic reality that is separate from the spiritual reality in almost all contexts. The Holy Spirit and grace of God allows us to communicate and interact with God to a certain degree, but do we see Him? No. Do we see the angels? No. If we did, faith would be useless, there would be no faith, and no point to life itself, this is also how He is omnipotent. He is everywhere, but our contact is with Him (which is the extent of our interaction with the external reality), is restricted.

[quote="Fuqin"]Well we know that chance however philosophically debatable is an apparent phenomenon, God on the other hand leaves no trace of activity except that for which is proselytized by those who claim faith as an equally convincing platform to evidence, NUH!
No one puts faith in chance with the exception of gamblers and followers of the Iching and even there you get some winners, however if I multiply infant time by infinite space chance has a very real way of beating the odds .[quote]

Not quite correct Fuqin,

God leaves physical traces of Himself everywhere, it's just a matter of who's looking. You see apes, and you see a relative. I see an animal that is entirely different than us, no matter our DNA similarities. We have a conscious, they don't. I see our place in the universe (Anthropic principle), and notice how small the band of life really is and how precious we are (Oprah emotion *engage*), others see that as pure coincidence (chance).
I see us as the only species having a conscious and the ability to manipulate the matter around us in such a way that no other species is comparable. I am amazed by the colony building abilities of ants, and the mating practices of some bird species, and the learning capabilities of elephants, but fail to see similarities between us and them in the world of molecular phylogeny.

So one cannot say that the agnostic, or atheist, does not rely and believe (have faith in) chance. That's not an accurate statement. I am attending a discussion tomorrow evening at a local university to discuss topics related to this one, and based on previous experience, few, if any, argue this.

I am not saying atheist and agnostics do not see life as special, there are some out there that do, but the majority who would view life as special are most likely to be theists. This is my personal thought.

I will reiterate what I have already said: if one believes we are the product of chance, one is putting faith in that chance. Does that make that person a gambler? I would argue that it does based upon Pascals Wager.

Pascal summarized: if we have faith in God and it turns out that God does not exist, we face a downside risk: metaphysical error. But if we reject God during our lives, and it turns out God does exist, there is much more serious risk: eternal separation from God. Based upon these two possible outcomes, Pascal declares that it is much less risky to have faith in God.

I don't rely upon his version of the reasonableness of faith, but I do like it for its expressiveness in this situation.

[Eighty]

Whether you revert to the anthropic principle or the strong anthropic principle this is still just philosophy, and doesn’t really support your argument
The notion that the conditions or state of the universe is compatible with those who observe it is well Duh! Otherwise there would be no one to observe it, a point to make here is that if the universe is currently in a narrow phase of life supporting activity or even if life itself is much more robust (strong anthropic principle) then life should be quit unremarkable anytime it is observed . so I don’t see how this help the notion that a great intellect created the universe , if anything one would have to ask why such an entity would make the universe in such a way as to place life in such a fragile fish bowl.

How do you figure the Anthropic principle fails to support my argument?

Your later paragraph perfectly summarizes the attitude and personality of the general populace of atheists and agnostics. "... life shout be quit[e] unremarkable anytime it is observed." This statement, and that statement alone has more power in it than most people are aware of until they are in an auditorium, lights on, hundreds of eyes gazing, and self-styled "brights" surrounding them.
That expression of "life is unremarkable" acts as a tombstone.

Being a Christian, I view life as a gift, a blessing, even a miracle, not just today, or once a week... but everyday. That fuels my drive (and many of my theist friends in related sciences fields) to learn more, work harder, and achieve my goals. As opposed to the atheist, or agnostic, my life is special. My life is meaningful and has purpose. I want to discover that purpose, I want to know the meaning of all things, not just the meaning of my life. It might be argued that the theist has a greater drive to be open, honest, sincere, and to discover, than his atheist peers.

How many other life forms have we discovered outside our solar-system? None.
-Yes we have discovered many "Earth-like planets", but have we found life? No. There are hundreds of excuses: "we don't have sophisticated telescopes or equipment that can allow us to ascertain what, if any life, may exist." etc etc. Personally, I think it would be fantastic if there was life outside of our own, and there very well could be, but there isn't.

Physicists such as Hawking, and Kaku believe that life is out there outside of our own, and that we may discover it within the next fifty years! Again, that would be fantastic! However, they are using the same principle Pascal proposed. There is a fifty-fifty chance that exists. It either does, or it doesn't. We have billions of galaxies yet to explore, but the question is still the same. If one believes aliens exist, one is inferring faith.

As a noted in previous replies: where did our universe come from? Where did all the ingredients for life, the universe, and everything come from?... 42? ;)

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Charon,

I agree that my use of the word "Question" leaves a lot to be desired, but I can't think of a better word. Can an answer exist before the question is asked or is ever asked? I should think so. But I would prefer not to get caught up in the semantics. I suppose that's why the Physics folks prefer to express themselves with Math rather than Language.

Can you think of any reason why an Equation can't express a Universe? And if a specific Equation does express a Universe with enough complexity that two intelligent life forms (in the solution) can debate the Existence of God, then one must accept their Reality has as much merit as ours. The only counter argument would require someone to prove that no Equation (no matter how complex) can provide a sufficiently complex enough solution to define a workable Universe. That task is, by it's very nature, impossible. So self aware intelligences, living out their lives, while simply existing deep inside the solution of some equation, doesn't really require much imagination. It's a much harder concept to grasp that they would still exist whether that equation is ever discovered or not.

Oh.. a bit of "God" fun for everyone's enjoyment:
http://xkcd.com/505/

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[Fuqin]

Pascal summarized: if we have faith in God and it turns out that God does not exist, we face a downside risk: metaphysical error. But if we reject God during our lives, and it turns out God does exist, there is much more serious risk:

Yes I know that one, sorry I was a Christian for 10 waist full years, I don’t reject God, there is no God to reject, I reject religion, that is people saying or writing on behalf of said God, and if there is an intelligent but illusive God behind everything I’m willing to bet it too would reject religion particularly the “because God said so” order , it’s just not an argument , the only aspect of a god I have ever seen is the collective ego of any given culture, that at times stews over into a fever of sycophantic desperation coupled with a conviction of ignorant wishing a veritable psychosis of self-enforced distraction from reality. Oh just for the record just because I personally reject religion is no reason for anyone on this forum to be offended I do submit that there is a real place in the world for such ideas, however I don’t subscribe to them , may the force be with you.

[charon]

Dave_Obad

Can you think of any reason why an Equation can't express a Universe?

Yes, if by the universe one means everything that is. An equation equates two things but there aren't two everythings. Nor does equating two things equal everything. I don't think everything can be simulated by an equation.

[Eighty]

Pascal summarized: if we have faith in God and it turns out that God does not exist, we face a downside risk: metaphysical error. But if we reject God during our lives, and it turns out God does exist, there is much more serious risk:

Yes I know that one, sorry I was a Christian for 10 waist full years, I don’t reject God, there is no God to reject, I reject religion, that is people saying or writing on behalf of said God, and if there is an intelligent but illusive God behind everything I’m willing to bet it too would reject religion particularly the “because God said so” order , it’s just not an argument , the only aspect of a god I have ever seen is the collective ego of any given culture, that at times stews over into a fever of sycophantic desperation coupled with a conviction of ignorant wishing a veritable psychosis of self-enforced distraction from reality. Oh just for the record just because I personally reject religion is no reason for anyone on this forum to be offended I do submit that there is a real place in the world for such ideas, however I don’t subscribe to them , may the force be with you.

Can you back this up by providing significant evidence?-->:"...the only aspect of a god I have ever seen is the collective ego of any given culture, that at times stews over into a fever of sycophantic desperation coupled with a conviction of ignorant wishing a veritable psychosis of self-enforced distraction from reality."

I have seen that in a large degree during my travels in SE Asia, and to a smaller (much smaller) degree in the Western hemisphere (specifically America).

Even in a wager, you would knowingly set yourself up for a loss. That's the statement you have made. Forgive me if I don't see the evolutionary benefit (subsequent fodder for some) to that.
- I am not trying to convert you. I could care less what religion a person subscribes to (my hyper-Calvinsim self). I am reinforcing my own belief and sharing with others, and through such principles as those forwarded from Kant and Pascal, among the many, I am working to clarify any misconceptions about my faith, not any faith in general, but only to my specific faith (on matters at a personal level).

Where has everything come from? Are we alone? Questions like these can be answered by science for the material properties whilst definitive answers may come from more philosophical endeavors.

[Lomax]

Hello Eighty,

I appreciate that you have the uphill struggle of having to debate against half a dozen people at a time, and kudos for that. However, with this in mind, you have not answered my questions, which I consider to be vital to the creationism debate: how do you know the universe had a beginning, and how do you know this beginning was not uncaused?

Lomax

[Forest_Dump]

There is one other minor point that should be noted. Questions about the origins of the universe or even how life on earth got started have precisely nothing to do with evolution and the evolution vs. creation "debate". Even if you could somehow prove (or disprove) the existence of God or a god, etc., there is nothing accomplished that would shed light on whether evolution happened or the scientific theories used to explain how and why evolution happened.

[Fuqin]

80-Can you back this up by providing significant evidence?

You’re asking me for significant evidence?
That’s a bit like the pot calling the kettle black isn’t it
Well of course I can’t, it’s an observation.

Fu-[“the only aspect of a god I have ever seen”]

My original quip was you’re putting chance and God in the same box; in fact you gave God a bit more room to move than chance

80-that it takes at least as much faith to believe in such a thing, as it does to believe in God (in reality, it takes more)

However as I stated chance is observable God is not, I need no faith to believe that chance may be an active agent in a life producing universe even our consciousness may be just a chance happening of evolution and not an inevitability, I also have no problem in conceiving that we may be the only life in the universe and very, very special for that reason, but whether life is abundant or rare, special or ordinary is of no mind to me both are at present not known , I personally don’t subscribe to ET for the same reason I don’t subscribe to a God , religion of course dose exist , and I’m not inclined to disagree with you that faith may have some evolutionary benefit , but then the ability to be sceptical or doubt has no less benefit IMHO caution usually trumps trust.
Now it may be that your god likes to play dice and all I can see is the dice, beyond that is faith, however this kind of faith comes to me via humanity, religious books, and religious people, so when I break this down I’m not really having faith in a god I’m having faith in a religion a wholly human institution and one I do not trust for answers to the big questions, but hay that’s me , Im well aware also that you were not trying to convert me that’s fine, in short all I had to say was chance does not require faith, if it does in your opinion then I would put it to you to provide significant evidence. ;) wink

[Eighty]

Hello Eighty,

I appreciate that you have the uphill struggle of having to debate against half a dozen people at a time, and kudos for that. However, with this in mind, you have not answered my questions, which I consider to be vital to the creationism debate: how do you know the universe had a beginning, and how do you know this beginning was not uncaused?

Lomax

Hey Lomax,

I apologize for not getting back to you, I didn't notice your reply until I saw this message and looked back.

I know the beginning didn't have a beginning (loosely worded here), and I know it was uncaused (by any physical means)

I believe God created the universe (that is my definition of a 'beginning'), because God is not a physical being like us, it cannot be considered 'caused' by material means.

A simple thought experiment one can do to see my point is the same one I have been stating: trace the creation of the universe back to the Big Bang; ask where did the Big Bang come from? If your answer is 'I don't know', I would then argue ignorance. If your answer is 'from another universe' or any response relative to that subject matter, than I would ask 'where did that other universe come from?' If your answer is 'from another universe', I argue circular reasoning (or logic). -- in my field I am trained to account for circular reasoning and to eliminate it as a variable, factor, or coefficient.

No matter our technology, this question will never be solved by science. If it can be, then I would humbly ask 'how?' Certainly if one is to oppose this view one would have to have a logic or science to base it on, if they subscribe to scientific logic to verify their reasoning.

Everything does not come from nothing. No matter what level of physics one includes in discourse.
-Attempt imagining nothing. It is harder than it seems! I instantly think of space, just total blackness, but I am likely incorrect in my imagining of nothingness. How do I know what nothing looks like? I have never seen it so I cannot possibly imagine it. Space is composed of mostly dark matter, so by peering into the heavens I cannot make the claim 'I have seen the heavens, and it is mostly nothing', because dark matter is something (unless we ascribe it to nothingness).

If our universe is entirely filled with matter, and life and everything we know can be confirmed to exist of matter, we can deduce that anything that is matter has come from matter but eventually we fall into the tail-end of a philosophical black hole. Where did this matter come from? Answer is: it was created! There is a reason this is not discussed very much (at least from my experience within academia).
-Because of fear. Fear of what it leads to, which is inevitably a Creator.

[Lomax]

Hello Eighty,

A simple thought experiment one can do to see my point is the same one I have been stating: trace the creation of the universe back to the Big Bang; ask where did the Big Bang come from? If your answer is 'I don't know', I would then argue ignorance.

Certainly. So my concern is: if we have no forthcoming evidence to settle a question, is it better to confess ignorance, or to pretend to have the answer?

If your answer is 'from another universe' or any response relative to that subject matter, than I would ask 'where did that other universe come from?' If your answer is 'from another universe', I argue circular reasoning (or logic). -- in my field I am trained to account for circular reasoning and to eliminate it as a variable, factor, or coefficient.

I must protest that this is not circular reasoning; that is, the conclusion is not assumed in the premises. Possibly you are after "infinite regression"; in which case, I wonder: how do we know that there isn't an infinite regression in universes?

If I may quote a more eloquent mind:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

If our universe is entirely filled with matter, and life and everything we know can be confirmed to exist of matter, we can deduce that anything that is matter has come from matter

Well, I insist that you have not deduced it. Since you claim that your verification comes from logic then: would you be able to write your deduction down, perhaps in the form of a polysyllogism? I think that would make it easier for me to understand what your argument is, actually. Because I think you are mostly just reasserting your conclusions, rather than supporting them.

Lomax

[Eighty]

Certainly. So my concern is: if we have no forthcoming evidence to settle a question, is it better to confess ignorance, or to pretend to have the answer?

Who is pretending to have an answer? And what answer are 'they' pretending to have? Clarification is greatly needed here.

I must protest that this is not circular reasoning; that is, the conclusion is not assumed in the premises. Possibly you are after "infinite regression"; in which case, I wonder: how do we know that there isn't an infinite regression in universes?

That would imply that universes lacked any formal 'beginning'. An infinite regression in universes would require that the universes always were infinite because there would be no causal effect.

If I may quote a more eloquent mind:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

Russell is mistaken.

He is assuming that we can measure something that is not measurable. He is attempting to attribute to God, a state of human understanding a.k.a he is assuming there is no difference between unmeasurable reality (external reality) and material, measurable reality (internal reality).

Assuming we exist in another dimension, how might I know where my other self is? Is there any way of discovering where I am in another dimension (or universe)? Supposing that my location and action in one reality is based upon my action/reaction in another, I still cannot formally locate myself because I have no way of measuring myself's location in that dimension from my current dimension.
-It's the same principle.

Well, I insist that you have not deduced it. Since you claim that your verification comes from logic then: would you be able to write your deduction down, perhaps in the form of a polysyllogism? I think that would make it easier for me to understand what your argument is, actually. Because I think you are mostly just reasserting your conclusions, rather than supporting them.

I am not claiming to have deduced it, otherwise I might oblige.
-Note:

If our universe is entirely filled with matter, and life and everything we know can be confirmed to exist of matter, we can deduce that anything that is matter has come from matter

Also, I believe most of our questions relating to life on this planet and matter has been answered (in the form of evolution [primordial soup]).

You can look up any information pertaining to the origins of matter using a Google search. I am too lazy to go through the process myself! (oops, I have class in 23 minutes. Another form of my laziness).

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Charon,

Charon Wrote:
Yes, if by the universe one means everything that is. An equation equates two things but there aren't two everythings. Nor does equating two things equal everything. I don't think everything can be simulated by an equation.

That's not true, every 3D video game can be converted to a Boolen Logic Expression. It's quite a chore, but it most definitely can be done. And as I already said, there is no natural limit on complexity. But honestly, an Equation like the one below is a much simpler approach.. but you get what you get and most of which will be garbage.. but some will be fully functional Universes like this one we live in.

Ok, here is your equation:

Turing Equation

Of course you will have to replace the variables above with specifics to create.. say.. Conway's "Life" algorithm and that will still have to be modified to more dimensions and rules for the sake of persistance.. but here you go.. Enjoy!

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

Ok, but you haven't really explained why everything (in the sense all that is) can be reduced to a mathematical equation.

For one thing, do we actually know all that is?

[Lomax]

Hello Eighty,

Who is pretending to have an answer? And what answer are 'they' pretending to have? Clarification is greatly needed here.

Well...you are pretending to have the God answer, no?

That would imply that universes lacked any formal 'beginning'. An infinite regression in universes would require that the universes always were infinite because there would be no causal effect.

Certainly, no beginning. Sounds reasonable to me. Can you disprove it?

Russell is mistaken.

He is assuming that we can measure something that is not measurable. He is attempting to attribute to God, a state of human understanding a.k.a he is assuming there is no difference between unmeasurable reality (external reality) and material, measurable reality (internal reality).

Assuming we exist in another dimension, how might I know where my other self is? Is there any way of discovering where I am in another dimension (or universe)? Supposing that my location and action in one reality is based upon my action/reaction in another, I still cannot formally locate myself because I have no way of measuring myself's location in that dimension from my current dimension.
-It's the same principle.

Certainly. So, suppose we have at leat two options:

1. Our universe was borne out of another (immeasurable one)
2. Our universe was borne out of an (immeasurable) god

Is (2) more likely than (1) to you? And if so why?

Moreover: can we measure what happened in our universe, if anything, before the big bang?

I am not claiming to have deduced it

That's all I needed to get out of you, I suppose.

Lomax

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Charon,

Charon Wrote:
Ok, but you haven't really explained why everything (in the sense all that is) can be reduced to a mathematical equation.
For one thing, do we actually know all that is?

I never said "Everything" can be reduced to a mathematical equation. Love, Anger, Envy, Women.. are just a few things that are impossible to express mathematically. Ok, maybe "Women" doesn't belong on that list, because a woman is expressed via DNA and that can be expressed mathematially. But that still doesn't help me to understand them.

I just said a Universe can be expressed through an equation on the level of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics expresses Matter > expresses Chemistry > expresses Life.

As far as whether we know all that is.. Are you kidding?

Knowledge is about information and information is infinite in Quantity. Which, by the way, is a good argument against an "All Knowing God". That "God" would have to be greater than Infinity, which is a Paradoxical statement and thus can't be true.

Best to ya,
Dave :^)

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

I never said "Everything" can be reduced to a mathematical equation

I know, but that's what the universe is - at least by most standard definitions.

As far as whether we know all that is.. Are you kidding?

Not at all. We certainly don't know all that is, nor will we ever. No knowledge is absolute.

[Eighty]

Well...you are pretending to have the God answer, no?

How am I pretending? How are you going to verify that claim? What is your definition of 'pretending'? What is your definition of God? What am I pretending? Why would I pretend?
-Answer those questions and I will get back to you ( I don't respect disrespectful questions).

Certainly, no beginning. Sounds reasonable to me. Can you disprove it?

Can you prove it? In order to falsify something it must first have some sort of empirical evidence (by our current standard relative to our topic). If you cannot prove it, what is there for me to disprove?

There is a huge difference between something that 'sounds reasonable' (Kant claims we are 'imperfect' so we cannot think perfectly 'reasonable') and something that cannot be explained by any other normal means (Created Universe).
I can say that due to the lack of empirical evidence and lack of 'reasonable' theories in regards to the origin of the universe presented by atheists and agnostics, that is evidence of my theory for a God created universe. Again, no one has yet to solidify any argument of the contrary. Remember our thought experiment?

Certainly. So, suppose we have at leat two options:

1. Our universe was borne out of another (immeasurable one)
2. Our universe was borne out of an (immeasurable) god

Is (2) more likely than (1) to you? And if so why?

Moreover: can we measure what happened in our universe, if anything, before the big bang?

You're missing a third option: 3. Our universe was 'borne' out of a (measurable) universe. My beliefs are entirely that of a God created universe. What evidence is there to the contrary of that theory?

Whatever happened before the Big Bang to cause it to happen is very debatable, there is currently no sound theory of previous states, or actions, or even if it was really a Big Bang that happened. The science is too primitive to make a definitive selection of what happened/didn't happen. Empirically, no one knows for sure.
Based upon that science, one is left with the following:
a) the Big Bang occurred in non-occupied space.
b) the Big Bang occurred in occupied space.

Then what was it?