Earth and life, is it predetermined or accidentally developed?

[Unveiled Artist]

Accidents that lead to nothing or damage, I won't have a fried chicken by accident.

Yes. But think of it this way.

An artist and poet may plan to paint or write a beautiful masterpeice. Yet, as they are loosing themselves in their work, they made an accident. The Work they created ended up something totally different.

Their accident became a peace of art that even their planned drawing had less value at that last moment than the one made by their spirit of creativity.

Accidents are good if you view them as such.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Please explain why you think earth and life was predetermined
and if not then explain why you think it wasn't predetermined.

I believe that everything in nature has consequences. Earth and life are "predetermined" because the result was due to natural processes. A boulder rolling down a hill crashes into a lake, changing the chemical environment, causing change, causing more change, etc. Life resulting from natural processes isn't an "accident", but the logical conclusion of the various interactions. Sure, we don't know all the interactions, but clearly they were there and we can hopefully reverse engineer the reaction one day.

Life asked death: Why do people like me and hate you?

Death replied: Because you are a beautiful lie and I am a painful truth.

Amen. The clock is ticking the second it turns on.

Before evolution earth should be existed, do you think it was ready for the
born of life and the evolution of life as a result of accidental events or
predetermined to be as we see it today.

Why is a natural occurrence an "accident"? It is a fact a round boulder will roll. A square one will not (easily, anyway). The result is predetermined thanks to the boulder's characteristics.

Even though we didn't exist before being born but we came to life by process,
we didn't came by accidental events but predetermined ones.

And that predetermining came from genes.

Death by itself is more to a plan than a result accidental events, what do you think?

It's not really a plan. Even "immortal" creatures like some jellyfish or whatever still have to eat. If they were all immortal, they'd all wipe out their resources, and they'd STILL die. I posit you can never prove immortality, only the lack of it. Just because no one has figured out how to kill something yet doesn't mean it CAN'T die.

Let's say I'm a super awesome Force user attacking Darth Vader. Sure, he's had training to survive his life support systems being damaged, which would've been my first thought. However, if I use the Force to shove him out into the vacuum of space or otherwise get rid of ALL the oxygen in a room, he won't last. I could also use the Force to crush his brain. Let's see him get out of that.

By accidents do you mean randomness? I see randomness as unpredictable events.

But is it random only because we don't know all the factors? One would think if we knew all the factors, we would see the inevitability of it.

Accidents can destroy, for example a disastrous asteroid may collide with earth,

Even that's not an accident, as something knocked it into that course in the first place, itself a result of some other thing, the result of some other thing ....

You believe that environmental conditions which is all about chances

But really, though, we only call things "chance" because we don't understand all the factors in play.

What does God have to do with predetermination? After all, He just decided one moment to create, right? That doesn't sound like a lot of long-term thinking went into it. He is constantly portrayed as Someone who is shocked or disappointed in how things work out. That is not Someone who is in control.

Throwing the dice isn't selection, you have to see the whole picture but you're only focusing
on selection and nothing else

I don't see any real biblical evidence other than unsupported claims to make people feel better that the God portrayed is really a "big picture" kind of Guy.

This is a great comfort to genuine believers in Christ

And this quote would prove my point that this is about getting an emotional perk, not about reality.

How randomness is a part of the laws, please clarify your point?

Adaptability promotes the continuation of life. Randomness will ensure some adaptability. Note how, when the environment changes, the specialized life forms will die out much more quickly than the ones who will eat whatever they can get. This is why conformity is so dangerous, even ideological unity. Diversity ensures someone somewhere will survive if others don't.

Who will throw the dice?, that's how I think.

They will get knocked out of their position by an earthquake.

Predetermined by Abrahamic God. He created Adam (from mud?), and to accompany him, Eve from his ribs. Bible says, and Bible is the Word of God.

LOL. It was so predetermined that after making males and females of every other species, ignoring asexual ones because the authors didn't know that was a thing, God is like "Oh, wow, I guess my male human needs a female human to procreate. My bad."

Many rely on the notion that the law of nature govern everything, I repeat my question which
I asked before, which existed first, the matter or the laws that governs everything ?

Both. A round thing rolls. The law was there as soon as the round thing was there.

It isn't attraction only, if it's only attraction then all planets will collide and hit each other.

They don't all have the same gravitational strength. That's why when I step on the scales, I'd rather be on the moon.

 

[sayak83]

Which was first, the matter or the laws of nature that govern matters including the gravitational forces?

Both are coexistent. The laws are interactive properties between entities and hence co-exist with the entities.

 

[sayak83]

Fundamental in which way, in your own words?

Its fundamental to each and every interaction between entities in the universe.

 

[FearGod]

Both are coexistent. The laws are interactive properties between entities and hence co-exist with the entities.

Are the laws govern everything in this universe are the same laws at the initial singularity?

 

[Etritonakin]

Please explain why you think earth and life was predetermined
and if not then explain why you think it wasn't predetermined.

I believe the earth and life (actually, the entire universe) was predetermined due to their extremely specific and ordered, complex and (especially) purposeful nature.
Life forms may be different in response to their environment, but the elements are essentially of a nature to self-assemble into physical life under the right conditions.
Then there is the fact that all which preceded man can be (through no self-design) considered by man, understood, manipulated, increasingly mastered, etc.
We struggle to reverse-engineer or recreate even ourselves. Are we really to believe ourselves then required less than ourselves? (I would agree that this was true if we -as individuals -strived for all that we are every step of the way as increasingly able -as I believe an original self-aware, creative intelligence, etc., would have -but we are essentially mass-produced and become aware within an already-extremely complex, capable and purposeful body/mind).
It may seem so due to the automated nature of the universe, but is an extremely specific, complex, ordered, purposeful and automated system really indicative of an accident?
Must not everything be preceded by that which both generally allows for it and then specifically allows for it?

Ironically, I presently believe that it is more likely that pure evolution -in its broadest sense (naturally occurring in the absence of a self-aware creative intelligence) is an explanation for God's existence -and that an original self-awareness, intelligence and creativity necessarily developed, increasingly self-developed/self-determined itself and its environment (essentially being both/the sum of all) before our current environment was possible.
We -as such a God would have -required less than ourselves in terms of complexity and arrangement, but such a God would have begun as the most simple thing possible -increasingly responsible -whereas we -as our selves -begin ready-made and not at all responsible for ourselves.
In other words, we required creativity -but God did not -except as he became creative and more able to make more of himself.

We tend to think of God as some man in the sky who has always been exactly as he is, but even quotes attributed to God in the bible suggest otherwise (the beginning and end, that which was, is and will be, I AM THAT AM, etc.). It would also be impossible for an eternal God to be responsible for creating that which allowed for his own existence -but not impossible to "be" all that existed and developed.

As something cannot come from absolute nothing, that which is now has "always" been (is eternal) -whether considering God or simply matter or its previous form. At some point, something just was -and was also dynamic.

 

[Nakosis]

But is it random only because we don't know all the factors? One would think if we knew all the factors, we would see the inevitability of it.

I would agree but there is claimed true randomness or uncertainty on the quantum level. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to really understand the difference. Only that true randomness has negligible effect at the macroscopic level.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I would agree but there is claimed true randomness or uncertainty on the quantum level. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to really understand the difference. Only that true randomness has negligible effect at the macroscopic level.

My goal before I die is to evolve enough to maximize everything a human can understand. I'll need a couple of centuries to pull that off, I think.

 

[FearGod]

Its fundamental to each and every interaction between entities in the universe.

How electrons and how it behaves is fundamental in the laws of nature?, please clarify your point.

 

[sayak83]

How electrons and how it behaves is fundamental in the laws of nature?, please clarify your point.

Quantum mechanics describes the mechanics of each and every fundamental particles and fields of nature, not just electrons.

 

[sayak83]

Are the laws govern everything in this universe are the same laws at the initial singularity?

Yes. Laws do not change.

 

[FearGod]

Quantum mechanics describes the mechanics of each and every fundamental particles and fields of nature, not just electrons.

Regardless, how the quantum model for atom is fundamental in the laws of nature?, please clarify your point.

 

[FearGod]

Yes. Laws do not change.

How is that? actually our laws of nature break down at the initial singularity where a huge
mass in an infinite space while density and gravity become infinite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that? actually our laws of nature break down at the initial singularity where a huge
mass in an infinite space while density and gravity become infinite.

The laws that "break down" do so only because our versions of the laws are incorrect, not because the laws are changing. For example Newton's Law of Gravitation is "wrong". It is slightly inaccurate. We do not notice these inaccuracies until we get to some rather extreme situations. Newton's Law was corrected by Einstein with his General Relativity. It is much more accurate. But guess what? It too is inaccurate under even more extreme situations. It is said to break down at those points.

 

[FearGod]

The laws that "break down" do so only because our versions of the laws are incorrect, not because the laws are changing. For example Newton's Law of Gravitation is "wrong". It is slightly inaccurate. We do not notice these inaccuracies until we get to some rather extreme situations. Newton's Law was corrected by Einstein with his General Relativity. It is much more accurate. But guess what? It too is inaccurate under even more extreme situations. It is said to break down at those points.

Slightly incorrect, nothing is perfect, but at the initial singularity our laws are completely useless otherwise
you have to prove that the laws are the same, you were guessing here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Slightly incorrect, nothing is perfect, but at the initial singularity our laws are completely useless otherwise
you have to prove that the laws are the same, you were guessing here.

Try again in English. There was nothing incorrect in my post, at least not that you could find. The point was that the Laws of Physics breaking down simply means that our incomplete laws do not perfectly describe nature. The various laws of science that you know are human constructs. They tend to fail under specific conditions.

 

[FearGod]

Try again in English. There was nothing incorrect in my post, at least not that you could find. The point was that the Laws of Physics breaking down simply means that our incomplete laws do not perfectly describe nature. The various laws of science that you know are human constructs. They tend to fail under specific conditions.

What are these specific conditions? what conditions that may change the laws which
are well applied in our solar system, why the laws that are workable in our universe
isn't workable in the initial singularity, you insist that our laws are incorrect, you
have to prove it.

 

[sayak83]

How is that? actually our laws of nature break down at the initial singularity where a huge
mass in an infinite space while density and gravity become infinite.

There was no such singularity. Its fake science.
Secondly, our laws are simplified approximations of the real laws by which entities in nature actually interact. We know this already since the approximations are explicitly acknowledged in the derivation of these laws. These approximate versions break down under certain complex conditions, but the real laws of nature are always valid.

 

[Shad]

Are the laws govern everything in this universe are the same laws at the initial singularity?

No. Many of those laws breakdown before the "singularity".

 

[FearGod]

There was no such singularity. Its fake science.
Secondly, our laws are simplified approximations of the real laws by which entities in nature actually interact. We know this already since the approximations are explicitly acknowledged in the derivation of these laws. These approximate versions break down under certain complex conditions, but the real laws of nature are always valid.

If you don't agree with the initial singularity and the big bang in which you think of them as fake science,
then how this universe started?