Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

We don't need to presume that. It's what the evidence suggests.

Presumptions is what we need to consider ideas that aren't suggested by the evidence.
Like magical supernatural creation events.

Of course we follow the evidence and science follows naturalistic evidence, but at this stage we do not know what the basis of life is.

No, there is no such evidence.
People believing it, is not evidence of it being true.

It is not proof of it being true, but it is evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Why does the universe?

The expansion of the universe suggests a beginning of it.
If you want to call whatever there was at the beginning, the universe then the universe existed before the BB, but that is speculation.
IMO time could not have gone to infinity into the past or we would not be here yet, so time began and so the universe began.

 

[Brian2]

It doesn't.
But many claim that everything must have a
beginning that's not spontaneous...but not their God.
It seems a double standard.

There is always going to be a double standard for the first cause and the things that have been caused. They are just different in nature.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, i know 2 accepted hypothesis describing how a universe can come from nothing. But why do religionists push universe from nothing, i know of 30 accepted hypothesis describing how a universe can come from something. None pf these are ever mentioned by religionists.

"Accepted" hypotheses? Accepted as hypotheses I presume. But is "nothing" actually nothing in these hypotheses?
I for one see the idea of time having come from an infinite past as impossible. If a material something exists than time exists, so something from nothing sounds like the reasonable option.

What order? Trace movements of the suns, planets, moons and asteroids over thousands or millions of years. Take a look at the quantum field with particles appearing and disappearing at random. Take a look at an atom and observe the electron motion.

So are you saying there is no order?

Is it magical that god dun it? It certainly isn't magical for life to emerge from the basic chemicals that were abundant.

We don't know where life came from.

Has time been infinite into the past? Some hypothesis suggest the universe cteated time. Although even at infinite into the past time must have infinite points along the way

No magic needed

We cannot be here yet if there was infinite time in the past.

 

[Heyo]

But does not deal with the absolute first cause.

And doesn't need to. The argument goes that our universe had a beginning (and we have evidence that it might), so, a hypothesis has to explain that fact and that fact alone. For all we (don't) know, the universe of the programmers could be a steady state universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whether the start of life and the universe require magic is not known.

Might as well say "whether or not gravity requires undetectable graviton pixies is not known"
It's an utterly meaningless and useless statement.

Magic is impossible by definition.
When people say "x is impossible", what they mean is that X would require the violation / suspension of natural law.
Magic requires the violation / suspension of natural law.
Hence, magic is impossible.

The suspension or violation of natural laws, or changing the natural laws sounds like it could be quite natural if we knew how to do it.

That makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course we follow the evidence and science follows naturalistic evidence

Because there is no other evidence.

, but at this stage we do not know what the basis of life is.

We do. Chemistry.

It is not proof of it being true, but it is evidence.

No. People believing X is only evidence of people believing X. It by no means is evidence that X is accurate in any way, shape or form.
To say otherwise is just a species of ad populum fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The expansion of the universe suggests a beginning of it.

That suggest a beginning of the expansion
Not of the universe itself.

If you want to call whatever there was at the beginning, the universe then the universe existed before the BB, but that is speculation.

"at" the big bang. Not "before". There is no "before" as the start of expansion also marks the start of time itself.
And it's a reasonable assumption, consider the universe demonstrably exist.
It certainly is far more reasonable then to speculate about entities that have exactly zero evidence and / or explanatory power whatsoever.

IMO time could not have gone to infinity into the past

It didn't. Time began at the start of expansion.

or we would not be here yet, so time began and so the universe began.

No. The expansion began. We don't know (yet?) if the expansion also marked the beginning of the universe itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is always going to be a double standard for the first cause and the things that have been caused. They are just different in nature.

We've been over this time and again.
Causality is a phenomenon off physics as it applies IN the universe.

You can't apply phenomenon of the physics of the space-time continuum in a context where said space-time continuum didn't exist yet.

 

[ChristineM]

Accepted" hypotheses? Accepted as hypotheses I presume. But is "nothing" actually nothing in these hypotheses?

Accepted by the scientific community ws feasible based on mathematics or observed phenomena

A vacuum bubble is something, within the vacuum bubble is nothing.

So are you saying there is no order?

.i sure you read my post. What i am saying is that on the long term chaos reigns.

We don't know where life came from.

But hwve a good idea.

We cannot be here yet if there was infinite time in the past.

I'm not sure you understand infinity. Lets try it this way. Take a number and divide it in half. Then divide the result in half etc, etc, an infinite number of times. Each division is a finite position.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is always going to be a double standard for the first cause and the things that have been caused. They are just different in nature.

They are just claimed to be different in nature.

 

[Brian2]

And doesn't need to. The argument goes that our universe had a beginning (and we have evidence that it might), so, a hypothesis has to explain that fact and that fact alone. For all we (don't) know, the universe of the programmers could be a steady state universe.

No the hypothesis has to be about the first cause, we aren't just talking about the beginning of this universe.
And of course you could keep going outside the programmers of this universe and say that they too are virtual and someone programmed them and etc ad infinitum but none of that brings us to a first cause.

 

[Brian2]

Might as well say "whether or not gravity requires undetectable graviton pixies is not known"
It's an utterly meaningless and useless statement.

And is not known.

Magic is impossible by definition.
When people say "x is impossible", what they mean is that X would require the violation / suspension of natural law.
Magic requires the violation / suspension of natural law.
Hence, magic is impossible.

When it comes to the beginning of the universe, the first cause of all things, we are willing to say anything to come up with an explanation, even that everything could come from nothing (if the maths can be tweaked enough to cope with it), but we are not willing to say that a God started it. Everything from nothing is fine as long as a God did not do it.

That makes no sense.

It makes sense to say that what you call magic is just stuff that we don't know how it works.

 

[Brian2]

Because there is no other evidence.

Not for science.

We do. Chemistry.

For a naturalist yes, but that is a belief. For science, us scientists don't know what the basis of life is but we work with a naturalistic methodology and look at the natural things that we can look at, like chemistry, and so life appears to us scientists to be based in chemistry. Some people who do not use science but believe stuff through faith, eg materialists, insist that chemistry is the basis of life but they do not speak for science, but speak for their own beliefs.

No. People believing X is only evidence of people believing X. It by no means is evidence that X is accurate in any way, shape or form.
To say otherwise is just a species of ad populum fallacies.

No, people claiming to have witnessed things and prophecies that seem to have come true is evidence but is not enough evidence for some and so they want more evidence before believing, or so they say.

 

[Brian2]

That suggest a beginning of the expansion
Not of the universe itself.



"at" the big bang. Not "before". There is no "before" as the start of expansion also marks the start of time itself.
And it's a reasonable assumption, consider the universe demonstrably exist.
It certainly is far more reasonable then to speculate about entities that have exactly zero evidence and / or explanatory power whatsoever.


It didn't. Time began at the start of expansion.


No. The expansion began. We don't know (yet?) if the expansion also marked the beginning of the universe itself.

If the universe existed in timelessness then we would be looking for a first cause in timelessness to start the BB.

 

[We Never Know]

If the universe existed in timelessness then we would be looking for a first cause in timelessness to start the BB.

If time didn't exist, neither would a cause.

 

[Brian2]

We've been over this time and again.
Causality is a phenomenon off physics as it applies IN the universe.

You can't apply phenomenon of the physics of the space-time continuum in a context where said space-time continuum didn't exist yet.

That is what you do when you say that time (and presumably the space-time continuum) began with the BB, unless you say that the BB had no cause.
But of course you don't know that causality is a phenomenon of physics as it applies IN the universe.
That sounds like a speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe life sprang from dirt 3.5 billion years ago though abiogenesis but I’m beginning to seriously doubt it. The God theory is sounding more and more plausible.

There is no God theory. And you could probably prove that yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

There is no God theory. And you could probably prove that yourself.

There is no abiogenisis theory either but some make that mistake too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no abiogenisis theory either but some make that mistake too.

Yup. But they are more apt to be creationists than those that accept science.