Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

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

30 or so possible ways to get something from nothing. Interesting.

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

So what you are proposing is more than nothing it seems.

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

The state of least entropy would be at the singularity I hear.
Did the universe reach that state from a state of more entropy?

But hwve a good idea.

Just as I said, we don't know, we just think we are heading in the right direction.

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.

So what don't I understand?

 

[Brian2]

They are just claimed to be different in nature.

If they aren't then they will have needed a cause.

 

[Viker]

We come up from the mud.

Or maybe from muddy waters.

 

[We Never Know]

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

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



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



But hwve a good idea.



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.

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

Wrong! A vacuum is never completely empty. It has particles in it

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And is not known.

Every unfalsifiable statement is "unknown" and can't be known by definition.
Such statements are infinite in number and therefor useless.

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

Who's "we"? Certainly not me. Certainly not scientists.
I am willing to accept or be open to "anything", but only those things that are properly motivated.

, 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.

No. Any explanation is fine as long as it is properly motivated.

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

If you don't know how something works, then you should say you don't know. Not that undetectable pink graviton fairies dun it or other unfalsifiable claims that are neither here nor there and which aren't properly motivated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not for science.

And the origins of life is a scientific question.

For a naturalist yes, but that is a belief.

No, it's not. It has nothing to do with naturalism either.
It's just what the facts are. Biology is complex carbon based chemistry.

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.

But we are talking about scientific topics. There's no facts to suggest there is anything more to life then mere complex chemistry.

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.

Pot8to, potato.
Beliefs and claims are basically the same thing.
When you make claim X, you are just expressing belief in X.
When you express belief in X, you are implying to claim X.

Can't say one without the other.

So yes, exactly like I said: people believing X, is not evidence of X being accurate. It's instead just evidence that there are people that believe X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Causality is a temporal phenomenon. "atemporal" (=timeless) causality is like a married bachelor.
Time needs to flow for causality to manifest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
There is no "before" time.
Just like there is no "north of north".

There is no temporal context there for causes to happen in.

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.

False.
Causality is necessarily temporal.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
Effects happen AFTER causes.

If you claim that the space-time continuum itself is an effect, then you are saying that something happened BEFORE time itself existed.
That makes no sense.

And as a theist, you already acknowledged that you have no issue with causeless things, because you believe your god is causeless also.
But like most of the "first cause" argument believers, I'm guessing you have no problem engaging in special pleading to make your god exempt from the very rules you think everything else is subject to and upon which your entire "first cause" argument hinges.

 

[PureX]

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.

Keep in mind that these are not mutually exclusive ideas. However life began, it could still be by God's intent and design.

 

[ChristineM]

30 or so possible ways to get something from nothing. Interesting.

Again i am sure you read my post so playing ignorance of what i wrote simply shows your insecurity

So what you are proposing is more than nothing it seems.

Again, this is getting tedious.

The state of least entropy would be at the singularity I hear.
Did the universe reach that state from a state of more entropy?

I hear the same. Entropy is increasing and will continue to increase until there is no free thermal energy left in the universe

Who knows? one thing is sure, not one of the accepted hypothesis of how the universe began includes "god did it"

Just as I said, we don't know, we just think we are heading in the right direction.

What is known goes goes hack to 10e-43 of a second after the big bang. Prior to that is unknown. You can guess god did it or you dan guess one of the many hypothesis of how the universe started did it. Whatever it all a guess but some guesses have currently evidence to extrapolate from

So what don't I understand?

Apparently the concept of infinity

 

[Brian2]

Every unfalsifiable statement is "unknown" and can't be known by definition.
Such statements are infinite in number and therefor useless.

When it comes to us not knowing how life began, what does your post mean?

Who's "we"? Certainly not me. Certainly not scientists.
I am willing to accept or be open to "anything", but only those things that are properly motivated.

What does "properly motivated" means ?

No. Any explanation is fine as long as it is properly motivated.

What does "properly motivated" means ?

If you don't know how something works, then you should say you don't know. Not that undetectable pink graviton fairies dun it or other unfalsifiable claims that are neither here nor there and which aren't properly motivated.

I don't know how the universe came to be. I believe it was created by God but not because of anything that humans have discovered about it.
What makes faith in God something that is not properly motivated?
It is not a scientific answer and not naturalistic answer but are they the only things that can be properly motivated?

 

[ChristineM]

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

Wrong! A vacuum is never completely empty. It has particles in it

Wrong, learn about vacuum bubbles before putting foot in mouth

A vacuum bubble is a completely empty volume in the quantum field.

 

[Brian2]

And the origins of life is a scientific question.

It's a question that science is looking into but with eyes that can only see evidence for how bodies might have evolved from atoms.

No, it's not. It has nothing to do with naturalism either.
It's just what the facts are. Biology is complex carbon based chemistry.

Biology is complex carbon based chemistry, organic chemistry, and as I said, that is all about life that science can see and study,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how bodies might have evolved from atoms.

But we are talking about scientific topics. There's no facts to suggest there is anything more to life then mere complex chemistry.

To step from chemistry into the origins of life and whether life is chemical based is to step into theology. As I said, all science can say is how bodies might have evolved from atoms, not what life is.

Pot8to, potato.
Beliefs and claims are basically the same thing.
When you make claim X, you are just expressing belief in X.
When you express belief in X, you are implying to claim X.

Can't say one without the other.

So yes, exactly like I said: people believing X, is not evidence of X being accurate. It's instead just evidence that there are people that believe X.

What I said is ""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.

It is evidence that real people in real history actually witnessed things. They not only believed those things, they saw them.
This is evidence for the supernatural, for God and for Jesus.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When it comes to us not knowing how life began, what does your post mean?

Abiogenesis hypothesis aren't unfalsifiable, so it doesn't apply to that.
The quote you are responding to addresses unfalsifiable statements.

What does "properly motivated" means ?

What does "properly motivated" means ?

Rational justification. Reasons underpinning the propositions based on evidence.
Take the multi-verse for example. This idea doesn't come from having too much coffee late at night.
The multi-verse is the result of mathematical models underpinning actual scientific theories like quantum mechanics and inflation theory.
These theories make predictions. The multi-verse is such a prediction.

So a properly motivated statement is a statement that has at least some objective evidence underpinning it, either directly or indirectly.

I don't know how the universe came to be.

Then that is where the conversation should end.

I believe it was created by God

But you just said that you don't know...

but not because of anything that humans have discovered about it.

I know. This is exactly the problem with it.

What makes faith in God something that is not properly motivated?

You just said it: you don't know and there are no discoveries that underpin this belief. So why hold it?

It is not a scientific answer and not naturalistic answer but are they the only things that can be properly motivated?

I don't dwell on "naturalism". You just demonstrated that the belief you hold has no proper motivation.
You believe it yet acknowledge it is unknown and there are no discoveries to suggest it. Yet you still believe it.

Your motivation is "faith". And I ask you: is there anything that can't be believed on faith?
I say "no". You can believe literally anything on faith. Including that the universe and all it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created 5 seconds ago.

When the thing that underpins a belief could essentially underpin ANY belief, then it's safe to say that that thing is not properly motivated.

How do you distinguish true things from false things on "faith"? You can't.
Not even a little bit.

I actually care about being rationally justified in the things I believe. I actually care about holding as much true beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs possible. So I require a proper methodology to distinguish true things from falsehoods.

Clearly, "faith" doesn't fall in that category.

 

[Brian2]

Causality is a temporal phenomenon. "atemporal" (=timeless) causality is like a married bachelor.
Time needs to flow for causality to manifest.

So there was no time until something caused the time space continuum and nothing could cause the time space continuum until the time space continuum was existing.
Makes perfect sense to you I suppose.

 

[Brian2]

That's exactly what I'm saying.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
There is no "before" time.
Just like there is no "north of north".

There is no temporal context there for causes to happen in.

Sounds like a definition without a logical cause.

False.
Causality is necessarily temporal.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
Effects happen AFTER causes.

Why can't the effect and the cause be spontaneous,,,,,,,, coincide with the cause?

If you claim that the space-time continuum itself is an effect, then you are saying that something happened BEFORE time itself existed.
That makes no sense.

And as a theist, you already acknowledged that you have no issue with causeless things, because you believe your god is causeless also.
But like most of the "first cause" argument believers, I'm guessing you have no problem engaging in special pleading to make your god exempt from the very rules you think everything else is subject to and upon which your entire "first cause" argument hinges.

I have no issue with a causeless God who has existed/exists in timelessness and caused time to exist. I have an issue with something that came into existence (the universe) having no cause, or the BB having no cause.
Do you think the BB has no cause or that the only explanation is that the BB had no cause? and if so is it because of your philosophy or is that a scientific answer?

 

[Brian2]

Rational justification. Reasons underpinning the propositions based on evidence.
Take the multi-verse for example. This idea doesn't come from having too much coffee late at night.
The multi-verse is the result of mathematical models underpinning actual scientific theories like quantum mechanics and inflation theory.
These theories make predictions. The multi-verse is such a prediction.

So a properly motivated statement is a statement that has at least some objective evidence underpinning it, either directly or indirectly.

Is mathematical speculation called objective evidence?
And I say mathematical speculation because there are many mathematical models.

It sounds like "properly motivated" means ration justification as long as it does not include any rational beliefs in the supernatural.

You just said it: you don't know and there are no discoveries that underpin this belief. So why hold it?

So only science can lead to belief? We both know that is not true.

I don't dwell on "naturalism". You just demonstrated that the belief you hold has no proper motivation.
You believe it yet acknowledge it is unknown and there are no discoveries to suggest it. Yet you still believe it.

Your motivation is "faith". And I ask you: is there anything that can't be believed on faith?
I say "no". You can believe literally anything on faith. Including that the universe and all it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created 5 seconds ago.

When the thing that underpins a belief could essentially underpin ANY belief, then it's safe to say that that thing is not properly motivated.

How do you distinguish true things from false things on "faith"? You can't.
Not even a little bit.

I actually care about being rationally justified in the things I believe. I actually care about holding as much true beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs possible. So I require a proper methodology to distinguish true things from falsehoods.

Clearly, "faith" doesn't fall in that category.

You can hold rational beliefs on faith.
What we belief on faith can however drive our other beliefs and justifications.
A materialist for example, believes on faith and not because there is no evidence for the supernatural. An empiricist does similar thing and ignores human experience and witness in their beliefs (even if scientific tests are human experience).

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I find it very funny. In Hinduism, God says "Ekoham, bahusyami" (I am alone, I will be many). In Abrahamic religions, God says "I made you from dirt".
Therein lies a lot of difference.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have an issue with something that came into existence (the universe) having no cause, or the BB having no cause.
Do you think the BB has no cause or that the only explanation is that the BB had no cause? and if so is it because of your philosophy or is that a scientific answer?

Who said that? Science has always been clear that its knowledge of the history of universe is since 'inflation', but it does not know what happened before that. It is trying to find that out.
Of course, if there was a Big Bang, that too must have had its reasons. I do not see what the problem is about that.

 

[Brian2]

Who said that? Science has always been clear that its knowledge of the history of universe is since 'inflation', but it does not know what happened before that. It is trying to find that out.
Of course, if there was a Big Bang, that too must have had its reasons. I do not see what the problem is about that.

I also don't see what the problem is with the BB having a cause.
But personally I think science might think it knows what happened since almost the start of inflation, and it might even work well as mathematical speculation, but is not necessarily the truth of the matter.