Life From Dirt?

[ratiocinator]

You're only looking at part of the problem. The alternative is equally counterintuitive - that time and existence had a beginning. As I see it, whatever the original substance of reality was, it either never began to exist or came into being uncaused from nothing. Unless you can think of another possibility...

Just to add here, general relativity itself provides a third answer, namely that the four-dimensional space-time manifold 'just is'. The manifold cannot itself be subject to time because time is a direction through it and not even one, unique direction either, all time-like directions will be seen as time from some frame of reference. It cannot, if this is the correct view, have 'come into being', there is no version of time, no time dimension along which this could have happened.

This sort of graphic appears in many articles about the BB:

This is a picture of a three directional object. There are, necessarily, a lot of simplifications that have gone into turning the mathematical model of four-dimensional space-time (which is non-Euclidean) into a three-dimensional object in Euclidean space, so there is much about it that shouldn't be taken seriously, but often is. However, there is one thing about it that very often isn't taken seriously but really should be. That is that it is an object. You can imagine being handed the three dimensional model and holding it in your hands. Now if you were to wonder how the model was made, would you be concentrating in the bit labelled 'Big Bang' at one end?

I would suggest, that you obviously wouldn't be. And that's what people should take seriously.

If general relativity is broadly right (and we can't be sure until we have unified it with quantum field theory), then, any talk of it "coming into existence" at the BB is nonsensical. If there is a reason for its existence at all, then you'd be looking at the problem in entirely the wrong way.

This is actually the case regardless of whether the BB means that the universe is finite in the past directions through it or not. Also worth noting that some hypotheses suggest that we can extent time 'back' through the BB but that it reverses its direction. Both directions away from the BB would be pointing in future directions.

Even if all this is wrong, it is logically self-consistent, and so cannot be dismissed as a possibility.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I have evidence for the undetectable but no evidence for the non existent. The evidence is not verifiable in any scientific way but is there nonetheless.

What sort of evidence do you have, may I ask? Would you mind posting the links to your evidence if you've posted any or all of it in this or other threads? I'd appreciate it because I know it wouldn't help me to have to sift through all of your posts to discover the relevant ones. I've posted what I believe to be evidence for my spiritual beliefs and why I'm an agnostic who believes in the potential of gods existing, but I'm not convinced. I'm not an atheist, though.

And, because I asked you to offer links to your posts, specifying what evidence you have, I'd like to reciprocate by providing links to my posts.

I explained why I'm an agnostic in this post: Can we change our mind about what we believe?

I explained why I'm a spiritualist and why I believe that the supernatural phenomenon I've experienced since I was six years old is real in these posts:

(1) Post #61: Where are the Dead?

(2) Post #2,691: Life From Dirt?

(3) Post #2,623: Life From Dirt?

 

[Heyo]

Reason, logic, maths are common for all people but reason and logic end up in different places for different people.

Reason, logic and maths are objective and unambiguous. If they end up in different places for different people, some people are making errors in their reasoning, logic or maths.
(And most people are notoriously bad at reason, logic and maths.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all you have in support of your understanding is the response of creationists, it seems you don't have much. But by all means take it as a sign - in the same way perhaps, that a comet was seen as a sign in the ancient world.

The Big Bang, incidentally, was recently endorsed by the Vatican. Not sure how the Pope agreeing with you might affect your understanding, if at all.

Creationists have an amazing track record of being wrong. If you could base Vegas bets on their claims you could become a millionaire. And yes, the Vatican supports the Big Bang? So what? They are not creationists. At least not by the original definition of the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes religion is faith based and with subjective verifiability. (we test it ourselves)

I sincerely doubt that. How would you properly test its tenets?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have evidence for the undetectable but no evidence for the non existent. The evidence is not verifiable in any scientific way but is there nonetheless.

You may be conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What God has said that He has done remains intact. People have claimed the hand of God for things where the mechanism was not know, and they had no right to do that. Then the mechanism is discovered and skeptics claim that God is being shown to be untrue,,,,,,,,,,, but really it is just the false claims about what God has done which have been shown to be untrue.



An endless regression is impossible imo since an infinite time into the past means we cannot be here yet.
The universe had a beginning but I think science postulates that the stuff of the universe has always existed in some form.
Actually it is hard to pin down what "science" as a being, believes about this, there seem to be various beliefs depending on why you listen to. It is all speculation.



Magic is just a way of saying we don't know the mechanism. Magic is just something skeptics like to say about God.
"Who" is arguably a more important question than "why" as it gives purpose for us and everything.
"Who" is not even a scientific question. If all you can see is science, chemistry, physics etc then that is all you will ever see.



Empiricism gets you nowhere in relation to God unless you think God is a part of the universe and can be tested.
Empiricism as a way to find God or if God exists requires faith.



No doubt that is true, but that does not mean that the Bible has been falsified,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is taking it too far and requires faith.



Why do you think that I don't think objective evidence is true. I do think it is true. I just go beyond the tool of science and what it can test, and believe other evidence also. It is a journey and so most peoples' personal evidence is not completely true even if it is part of the way there.



I can give reasonable evidence that everyone can see but that does not mean that people will agree or will want to agree.

Reason, logic, maths are common for all people but reason and logic end up in different places for different people.
What are errors in my belief that you can point to and that show your lack of belief is a better option?

No, they do not. They should all end up in the same place, or someone is making an error somewhere.

 

[Valjean]

If science comes up with naturalistic answers for the origins of life and the universe how would it be anything other than speculation of what happened.
The answers should be "If a creator/ God did not do it, then we think it might have happened this way".

A chemical origin involves known and observable mechanisms, and extensive empirical evidence. Goddidit! is an unevidenced claim of magic.

 

[Valjean]

What you probably mean is that your interpretation of what the Bible means has been debunked. But that is OK. Your interpretation is wrong.

No. There are clear factual and historical claims made by the Bible that are demonstrably wrong. No interpretation needed.
There are also clear contradictions. There are also additions, deletions and edits, and most of the miracle claims would be laughed out of any court in the land.

 

[Valjean]

Science is a tool we use to discover how and cannot find things that are not part of the universe. It does not show that God is non existent.

True -- nor does it need to. Non-existence is presumed, pending evidence. Non-existence is the epistemic default. We start with a blank slate, and add only what has evidence of existence.
Science does not show the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, either.

Brahma is the Hindu God and elves are part of the creation if they exist, not the creator. The creator is not part of or governed by the creation.

So God doesn't exist, or do you have some novel conception of "part of the creation?"

Agency is the only thing that gives a reason for why we are here and why anything is here. Arguably that is a more important answer than how things work.

Huh? Explain, SVP.

All I want is evidence for God, and it does not matter if it is objective or not. I have that evidence in nature and in God's revelation to us.

OK, so what is this "evidence in nature," that the experts on nature haven't noticed?

Evidence in God's revelation? The Vedas? The Quran? The Guru Granth Sahib? Before such a claim can be considered, you'll first have to establish that God exists, what His revelation is, and why it's valid.

You're basing your whole belief system on completely unsupported premises.

 

[Valjean]

Yes religion is faith based and with subjective verifiability. (we test it ourselves)

It's entirely subjective and without rational or empirical support? So why should anyone believe it? Its support and truth-value are precisely equal to the delusory claims of psychotics in mental hospitals. How is subjective belief distinguishable from delusion?

 

[Valjean]

There are many things we can study which want to tell us the Bible is untrue. It certainly takes faith to believe and keep believing.

Agreed -- "faith" being invalid belief; belief without evidence.
How is your faith in Christianity any different from the Dalai Lama's faith in Tibetan Buddhism?

 

[Brian2]

1954? This is oldy moldy high school stuff and nothing to do with abiogenesis or the origins of early life.

Observing radioactivity in a cloud chamber is simply observing radioactivity i a cloud chamber,

No evidence of Intelligent Design

Why are you saying that to me? I was just replying to that radioactivity video.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reason, logic and maths are objective and unambiguous. If they end up in different places for different people, some people are making errors in their reasoning, logic or maths.
(And most people are notoriously bad at reason, logic and maths.)

I'm quiet but on second thought I won't comment because things come out of the woodwork if you know what I mean.

 

[Brian2]

Mt ebel?

Mt Ebal

the language did not exist before 1000bc

So do you think they grunted at each other until 1000 BC?
Written Hebrew seems to have been close to written Phoenician language. But of course it was not until the monarchy, starting about 1000 BC that writing would have been used widely by the Hebrews.

The only archaeology of an exodus is the schism of ahkentan from thebes

There is a lot more than that, if that can even be seen as archaeology of an exodus.

 

[Valjean]

I am talking about people who claim that unverifiable evidence is not evidence.
These people want verifiable evidence all the time to assess reality and test it, so reality for them is usually limited to this universe,

How are you defining 'evidence', then, and 'reality'?
I thought 'real' meant really real; objectively, ontologically real.

...but they also speculate about other possibilities but ignore the evidence for a designer and God who has revealed Himself to us

But you just said the evidence was subjective, that is, all in your head.

Again, you're presuming God and a valid revelation. Don't other religions with different beliefs start from the same premises? How are your beliefs more valid than theirs?

... because they don't like the idea of faith even if that faith is not blind faith.

Some people don't like faith because it's, by definition, unevidenced, thus epistemically useless. The fact that different persons' faiths contradict each other doesn't lend it much credence, either.
Q: What's the difference between faith and blind faith?

 

[shunyadragon]

Mt Ebal

So do you think they grunted at each other until 1000 BC?
Written Hebrew seems to have been close to written Phoenician language. But of course it was not until the monarchy, starting about 1000 BC that writing would have been used widely by the Hebrews.

No grunting. They were dominantly a pastoral tribe in the Hills of Judah until about 1000 BCE that did little trading. Evidence indicates when they communicated in writing it was Proto-Canaanite or Phoenician. There are a number of Proto-Canaanite variations in the Levant that were used in sort of a universal written language.

There is a lot more than that, if that can even be seen as archaeology of an exodus.

The archaeology of Exodus is limited as to the Exodus described in the Bible, Many issues and contradictions in the known history, archaeology and Egyptian records,

 

[shunyadragon]

Why are you saying that to me? I was just replying to that radioactivity video.

I was replying to your post, Just a side comment on the video.

 

[YoursTrue]

A chemical origin involves known and observable mechanisms, and extensive empirical evidence. Goddidit! is an unevidenced claim of magic.

So is abiogenesis. Unobserved and anything alluding to the possibility of it is pure speculation ( meaning it happened by magic). Supposed magic anyway.

 

[Bthoth]

Mt Ebal

Is relevant to what?

What was written on the stones on Mount Ebal?


Inscribed in proto-alphabetic writing also known as Sinaitic script or proto-Canaanite script, which dates to the Late Bronze Age, the hex text is early Israelite, the team claims. “Cursed, cursed, cursed - cursed by the God YHW. You will die cursed. Cursed you will surely die.

So do you think they grunted at each other until 1000 BC?

Perhaps egyptian, since both moses and the people of exodus were said to come from egypt. Hebrew did not exist during the period of moses lifetime. The akkadian language was used in the New kingdom (levant) as evidenced on the amarna tablets.

Written Hebrew seems to have been close to written Phoenician language. But of course it was not until the monarchy, starting about 1000 BC that writing would have been used widely by the Hebrews.

Note the conflict of your comment. 'Hebrews' yet the language did not exists at the time period.
Now do you see the problem with using bible as historical record.

Then mt sinai, is egypt now and was then. which is where the commandments are claimed to come from. Archaeologically, the commandments existed in egypt for over 2000 yrs prior in the book of ma'at. Same with circumcision, kosher eating and then the 'chosen ones' of god (house of pharaoh).

There is a lot more than that, if that can even be seen as archaeology of an exodus.

The schism from thebes to amarna and to monotheism is in archaeology. Ahkanatan and Nefertiti.... and then that schism (exodus) was during the very time period that Moses was said to live..........and the levant was the New Kingdom (promised land) of egypt.

The over lap of cultures and the event (exodus) is cute especially when the hatred for egypt is so constant in biblical accounts.

Read the commandments of ma'at and look up circumcision in egypt and when it started. Then go back to the story of moses in the basket found by the daughter of pharaoh. Read it, how did she know upon just opening the basket that the boy was not egyptian? He wasn't circumcised.

Then if that child lived in the house of pharaoh since a child, guess which language and library HE would have learned from.

Be fair.... It bridges a huge amount of material to be honest and just observe the stories with grounded information.