Life From Dirt?

[URAVIP2ME]

If you look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia , you will find an explanation of how it happened. During the electroweak epoch (between about 10^-32 and 10^-12 seconds after the beginning) the universe consisted of a hot quark-gluon plasma, with interactions between W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. During this time, fermions and electroweak bosons were massless. During the subsequent quark epoch (10^-12 to 10^-5) seconds, fermions acquired mass, but energies were still too high for quarks to bind into hadrons. Production of hadrons (including protons and neutrons) began during the hadron epoch (10^-5 to 1 second).
By about ten seconds after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about a billion Kelvin, protons and neutrons were able to combine into the first atomic nuclei (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7). The universe was still too hot for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms; this had to wait until about 370,000 years after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about 4000 K.
Isn't this a more detailed account of the origin of matter than the statement that 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Doesn't it give a better explanation of the observed abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and of the cosmic microwave background?

Wow! (above) Yes, because of the accuracy of CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) the universe can be dated by known science.
I would like to add a little as to 'How' God created...... at Psalm 104:30 notice God sends forth His spirit to create.
At Isaiah 40:26 God supplied the abundantly needed Power and Strength (His dynamic energy) to create the material realm of existence.

P.S. Genesis is more about getting the existing Earth ready for humankind to inhabit the Earth.

 

[Brian2]

If you look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia , you will find an explanation of how it happened. During the electroweak epoch (between about 10^-32 and 10^-12 seconds after the beginning) the universe consisted of a hot quark-gluon plasma, with interactions between W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. During this time, fermions and electroweak bosons were massless. During the subsequent quark epoch (10^-12 to 10^-5) seconds, fermions acquired mass, but energies were still too high for quarks to bind into hadrons. Production of hadrons (including protons and neutrons) began during the hadron epoch (10^-5 to 1 second).

By about ten seconds after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about a billion Kelvin, protons and neutrons were able to combine into the first atomic nuclei (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7). The universe was still too hot for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms; this had to wait until about 370,000 years after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about 4000 K.

Isn't this a more detailed account of the origin of matter than the statement that 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Doesn't it give a better explanation of the observed abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and of the cosmic microwave background?

And it does not show that God did not do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it does not show that God did not do it.

No one has made that claim. Well, except for some creationists.

 

[HaEmeth]

If you look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia , you will find an explanation of how it happened. During the electroweak epoch (between about 10^-32 and 10^-12 seconds after the beginning) the universe consisted of a hot quark-gluon plasma, with interactions between W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. During this time, fermions and electroweak bosons were massless. During the subsequent quark epoch (10^-12 to 10^-5) seconds, fermions acquired mass, but energies were still too high for quarks to bind into hadrons. Production of hadrons (including protons and neutrons) began during the hadron epoch (10^-5 to 1 second).

By about ten seconds after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about a billion Kelvin, protons and neutrons were able to combine into the first atomic nuclei (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7). The universe was still too hot for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms; this had to wait until about 370,000 years after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about 4000 K.

Isn't this a more detailed account of the origin of matter than the statement that 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Doesn't it give a better explanation of the observed abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and of the cosmic microwave background?

I'm sorry to break it to you but what that Wikipedia article described is the Inflationary Universe Standard Model not the origin of matter nor of space, time and energy and, certainly, not of life itself. The Big Think article The Big Bang Says Nothing About the Creation of the Cosmos of March 9, 2023 clarifies this point:

We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there.​

If the Inflationary model is silent about cosmic origins, then where did it all the matter come from?

Consider this possibility: In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan - famous for declaring that "we are made of star stuff" - says: “At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.” He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc^2. One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. The atomic bomb proved the latter. Thus, astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”⁠ - The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” - reinforcing what the Big Think article contended above. And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”⁠- New Scientist, “Taking the Lid Off Cosmology,” by John Gribbin, August 16, 1979, p. 506.

A much deeper conundrum confronts us once this issue of cosmic origin is resolved, and that is "How did life begin?" We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

Where did that spirit come from? Because life comes from life, we have to contend with the issue of a First Cause and that is where God comes in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry to break it to you but what that Wikipedia article described is the Inflationary Universe Standard Model not the origin of matter nor of space, time and energy and, certainly, not of life itself. The Big Think article The Big Bang Says Nothing About the Creation of the Cosmos of March 9, 2023 clarifies this point:

We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there.​

If the Inflationary model is silent about cosmic origins, then where did it all the matter come from?

Consider this possibility: In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan - famous for declaring that "we are made of star stuff" - says: “At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.” He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc^2. One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. The atomic bomb proved the latter. Thus, astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”⁠ - The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” - reinforcing what the Big Think article contended above. And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”⁠- New Scientist, “Taking the Lid Off Cosmology,” by John Gribbin, August 16, 1979, p. 506.

A much deeper conundrum confronts us once this issue of cosmic origin is resolved, and that is "How did life begin?" We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

Where did that spirit come from? Because life comes from life, we have to contend with the issue of a First Cause and that is where God comes in.

Life appears to be a purely chemical process. No one has even found any "spirt" or evidence for one.

Plus one interesting fact. When physicists measure the total energy of the universe, the includes dark energy, dark matter, and regular matter, to within the best margin of error that they can accomplish it is practically zero. That is because there is both positive and negative energy in the universe and them appear to balance out That means that the universe could have come from "nothing" , at least energy wise. This artilce may help:

Is the Universe a free lunch?

Scientists now have their own version of the creation story. There was no epoch before the big bang; time, space, the Universe and everything came from nothing; We feel cheated when told that the Universe just popped into being, like a rabbit from a cosmic magician's hat

www.independent.co.uk

And the universe may be "eternal" also. That is something that the article may have gotten wrong. That does not mean that it has an infinitely long life in the past. But according to the present model time itself began with the Big Bang. There may not have been a "before the Big Bang". Time is just another dimension of our universe.

 

[exchemist]

I'm sorry to break it to you but what that Wikipedia article described is the Inflationary Universe Standard Model not the origin of matter nor of space, time and energy and, certainly, not of life itself. The Big Think article The Big Bang Says Nothing About the Creation of the Cosmos of March 9, 2023 clarifies this point:

We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there.​

If the Inflationary model is silent about cosmic origins, then where did it all the matter come from?

Consider this possibility: In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan - famous for declaring that "we are made of star stuff" - says: “At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.” He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc^2. One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. The atomic bomb proved the latter. Thus, astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”⁠ - The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” - reinforcing what the Big Think article contended above. And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”⁠- New Scientist, “Taking the Lid Off Cosmology,” by John Gribbin, August 16, 1979, p. 506.

A much deeper conundrum confronts us once this issue of cosmic origin is resolved, and that is "How did life begin?" We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

Where did that spirit come from? Because life comes from life, we have to contend with the issue of a First Cause and that is where God comes in.

You are right that the Big Bang theory accounts for evolution of the cosmos rather than its origin. But Einstein’s formula does not say matter is produced from energy. It says rest mass has energy, which is rather different. Energy is not stuff with an independent existence, it is a property of a system. Matter can be produced from radiation.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sorry to break it to you but what that Wikipedia article described is the Inflationary Universe Standard Model not the origin of matter nor of space, time and energy and, certainly, not of life itself. The Big Think article The Big Bang Says Nothing About the Creation of the Cosmos of March 9, 2023 clarifies this point:

We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there.​

If the Inflationary model is silent about cosmic origins, then where did it all the matter come from?

Consider this possibility: In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan - famous for declaring that "we are made of star stuff" - says: “At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.” He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc^2. One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. The atomic bomb proved the latter. Thus, astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”⁠ - The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” - reinforcing what the Big Think article contended above. And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”⁠- New Scientist, “Taking the Lid Off Cosmology,” by John Gribbin, August 16, 1979, p. 506.

Yep, the Standard Model only describes the cosmos from about 10⁻⁴¹ seconds after the beginning until now. That first 10⁻⁴¹st second is a gap where a creator may fit in. The other 13.8 billion years are science.

 

[Brian2]

Yep, the Standard Model only describes the cosmos from about 10⁻⁴¹ seconds after the beginning until now. That first 10⁻⁴¹st second is a gap where a creator may fit in. The other 13.8 billion years are science.

There is no other 13.8 billion years without the beginning.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sorry to break it to you but what that Wikipedia article described is the Inflationary Universe Standard Model not the origin of matter nor of space, time and energy and, certainly, not of life itself. The Big Think article The Big Bang Says Nothing About the Creation of the Cosmos of March 9, 2023 clarifies this point:

We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there.​

If the Inflationary model is silent about cosmic origins, then where did it all the matter come from?

Consider this possibility: In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan - famous for declaring that "we are made of star stuff" - says: “At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.” He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc^2. One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. The atomic bomb proved the latter. Thus, astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”⁠ - The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” - reinforcing what the Big Think article contended above. And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”⁠- New Scientist, “Taking the Lid Off Cosmology,” by John Gribbin, August 16, 1979, p. 506.

A much deeper conundrum confronts us once this issue of cosmic origin is resolved, and that is "How did life begin?" We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

Where did that spirit come from? Because life comes from life, we have to contend with the issue of a First Cause and that is where God comes in.

Following the BB and certainly from 10e-41 of a second (a undecillion times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer) after the universe was a hot, inflating plasma. Not until 375,000 years after did the first hydrogen atoms form from the cooling plasma.

Calr Sagan said "We are the representatives of the cosmos; we are an example of what hydrogen atoms can do, given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution."

Before that 10e-41 of a second is unknown so some people fill in the blank with god.

 

[blü 2]

That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come about: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter.

We have transformations of energy and matter every time you eg turn a light on or off.

The unanswered question is, where did the universe's mass-energy come from?

I'm inclined to think it must have pre-existed the Big Bang, because as far as I can see, nothing else can make sense.

As for the origin of time, if time is a property of or derived from mass-energy then time exists because mass-energy does, not the other way around (ie not with mass-energy existing inside of time). This speculation allows another one, that therefore the problem of beginnings is solved.

Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe.

I'm not yet ready to subscribe to the notion of mass-energy that's "limitless" ie infinite. Stupendously large, fine, infinite, you'll need to persuade me.

The Bible writer Isaiah noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26)

(I mention that textual examination of the bible points to Isaiah having at least two authors.)

All that Isaiah 40:26 says is, "Lift up your eyes on high and see: / who created these? // He who brings out their host by number, / calling them all by name; // by the greatness of his might, / and because he is strong in power not one is missing."

This is a theological statement, not a scientific one. The cosmology of the bible declares that the earth is flat (in some versions flat like a plate, elsewhere flat like a table) and immovably fixed. The sky is a solid dome on which you can walk, and to which the stars &c are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. There is no concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, a global earth, deep space, the nature of stars &c. You can check some of the texts that spell this out >here<.

A much deeper conundrum confronts us once this issue of cosmic origin is resolved, and that is "How did life begin?" We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

We will have to disagree about that. I see no evidence for that claim anywhere. Biology explains how biological entities multiply themselves, how their bodies grow (when that's the case), how (if they have them) their nerves, organs, blood, hormones, brains, muscles, bones, tendons, are formed, grow, locate, work, recover from injury.

Remarkable, indeed, but nothing so far challenges the idea that life is simply evolution and the biochemistry.

Yes, we don't yet have a description of how the first self-duplicating cell could have formed spontaneously ─ that's a work in progress, but indeed progress is being made. So stay tuned.

 

[Brian2]

Life appears to be a purely chemical process. No one has even found any "spirt" or evidence for one.

Plus one interesting fact. When physicists measure the total energy of the universe, the includes dark energy, dark matter, and regular matter, to within the best margin of error that they can accomplish it is practically zero. That is because there is both positive and negative energy in the universe and them appear to balance out That means that the universe could have come from "nothing" , at least energy wise. This artilce may help:

Is the Universe a free lunch?

Scientists now have their own version of the creation story. There was no epoch before the big bang; time, space, the Universe and everything came from nothing; We feel cheated when told that the Universe just popped into being, like a rabbit from a cosmic magician's hat

www.independent.co.uk

And the universe may be "eternal" also. That is something that the article may have gotten wrong. That does not mean that it has an infinitely long life in the past. But according to the present model time itself began with the Big Bang. There may not have been a "before the Big Bang". Time is just another dimension of our universe.

Interesting article and does not do away with the need for God even if Paul Davies says it has.
I notice the article was written in 1996 and I think that since then it has been discovered that the universe has accelerating expansion and not decelarating. I think this has changed ideas about origins in science.
Something I find hard to understand is how negative and positive energy can cancel each other out. Negative energy just adds to the total amount of energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting article and does not do away with the need for God even if Paul Davies says it has.
I notice the article was written in 1996 and I think that since then it has been discovered that the universe has accelerating expansion and not decelarating. I think this has changed ideas about origins in science.
Something I find hard to understand is how negative and positive energy can cancel each other out. Negative energy just adds to the total amount of energy.

It would only say something about the need of a god if there was evidence for such a need. That does not appear to be the case. And you are not grasping at straws. The increase in acceleration of matter does not seem to point to a god either.

Wat you do not seem to understand is that the burden of proof that there is a god is upon believers. And believers that are also scientists cannot seem to find any evidence that supports their beliefs.

 

[blü 2]

Life appears to be a purely chemical process. No one has even found any "spirt" or evidence for one.

Plus one interesting fact. When physicists measure the total energy of the universe, the includes dark energy, dark matter, and regular matter, to within the best margin of error that they can accomplish it is practically zero. That is because there is both positive and negative energy in the universe and them appear to balance out That means that the universe could have come from "nothing" , at least energy wise. This artilce may help:

Is the Universe a free lunch?

Scientists now have their own version of the creation story. There was no epoch before the big bang; time, space, the Universe and everything came from nothing; We feel cheated when told that the Universe just popped into being, like a rabbit from a cosmic magician's hat

www.independent.co.uk

And the universe may be "eternal" also. That is something that the article may have gotten wrong. That does not mean that it has an infinitely long life in the past. But according to the present model time itself began with the Big Bang. There may not have been a "before the Big Bang". Time is just another dimension of our universe.

Thanks for the Free Lunch article. Most stimulating!

What I don't understand is the nothing in which the universe happened. It would seem to have no place or manner of existing, hence it could not contain mass-energy or any other medium to which any part of quantum physics could be relevant or any kind of quantum phenomena could occur ─ indeed a phenomenon of any kind, a field of any kind, an event of any kind, &c. It seems to imply a hypermedium (of the absolutely-non-existent-not-a-medium we're talking about) where the quantum rules lurk and run about despite being utterly nonexistent as well.

Hmm.

Hmmmmm.

(Scratches head. Pours self a fine rum. Turns on Disney Channel.)

 

[blü 2]

The whole idea that the gospel accounts are written by people who did not know or had not seen Jesus come from the imagination of skeptical historians who ignore the early Church evidence, ignore the internal evidence of the gospels and reject the idea that the supernatural can be real and so have to say that the synoptic gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple, which the synoptics say Jesus prophesied. So the idea is the result of circular reasoning which rejects the real historical evidence.
Relatively minor contradictions in the resurrection accounts of the gospels is something that we should expect if the accounts were from actual witnesses and is not what we would expect from a collaboration or from one account that had been copied by others.

Consider the abysmal standard of the evidence for the resurrection. There is no eyewitness account. There is no contemporary account (indeed the first mention is Paul, a clear 20 years or more after the purported event, and no at-all-elaborated account until Mark, more than 40 years after the purported event). There is no independent account. In the NT there are six specific references to it, four gospels, Paul, Acts 1. Each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways. The only way they can be reconciled is by cherry-picking the bits you like and creating a seventh version which has the same quality of contradicting the other six in major ways. And that's without mentioning the blatantly obvious, that there is not a single example of an authenticated miracle anywhere ─ unless, as I may have remarked before, you think those videos of statues of Ganesha drinking milk are evidence of Ganesha miracles (which, to be clear, I don't).

 

[blü 2]

It is true that on the day that A and E ate the fruit they died spiritually, meaning they lost their fellowship with God, the source of their spiritual life.

The Garden story says nothing of the kind. Nowhere does it say God chucked them out because they ate the fruit. Instead it says very specifically (Genesis 3:22-23) that God chucked them out TO PREVENT THEM FROM EATING THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF LIFE AND LIVING FOREVER THUS BECOMING LIKE HIM.

Don't you read your own book?

It is also true that "day" does not have to mean a literal 24 hour day and so the bodily death could come later, which it did for both A and E.

That is nonsense. Of course it means a literal day. You're perverting the text to suit the version you want, but that version is simply not there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the Free Lunch article. Most stimulating!

What I don't understand is the nothing in which the universe happened. It would seem to have no place or manner of existing, hence it could not contain mass-energy or any other medium to which any part of quantum physics could be relevant or any kind of quantum phenomena could occur ─ indeed a phenomenon of any kind, a field of any kind, an event of any kind, &c. It seems to imply a hypermedium (of the absolutely-non-existent-not-a-medium we're talking about) where the quantum rules lurk and run about despite being utterly nonexistent as well.

Hmm.

Hmmmmm.

(Scratches head. Pours self a fine rum. Turns on Disney Channel.)

The "nothing" in that example is not an absolute nothing. It was just a no energy nothing. Long before this the physicist Feynman stated that "Energy is just bookkeeping". And as long as the balance of energy is "zero" almost anything can come from it. I have to admit that the science is far beyond me, but many seem to think that the universe started as a "quantum fluctuation". At any rate people tend to insert a god when they do not know.

 

[blü 2]

The "nothing" in that example is not an absolute nothing. It was just a no energy nothing. Long before this the physicist Feynman stated that "Energy is just bookkeeping". And as long as the balance of energy is "zero" almost anything can come from it. I have to admit that the science is far beyond me, but many seem to think that the universe started as a "quantum fluctuation". At any rate people tend to insert a god when they do not know.

Indeed, even my version makes more sense that the God one.

Although, now, God as negative energy .... hmm, have to think about that.

 

[Jainarayan]

Energy is not stuff with an independent existence ... Matter can be produced from radiation.

I've always wondered just what is energy? I see the standard responses and descriptions of: potential energy, kinetic energy, "energy does work". But I don't understand what energy is made of. I always understood Fb=mc2 (Fb is E ... just a little musicians' humor ) is a two way street. E.g. the energy from super- and hyper-novae create heavy elements. That is the only place powerful enough to forge those elements. So is energy a thing? It can't be seen, it can measured by the work it does. Physicists say the Big Bang arose from a densely packed point. Packed with what? Energy? Some unknown matter that converted to energy then back into mater via subatomic particles? I concede I'm not the brightest bulb on the marquee so as a former boss used to say "maybe I don't know what questions to ask".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We must realize that life is not just an assemblage of atoms from stardust but also of spirit - the animating principle found in every cell of the body to make a living and breathing individual.

As best we can tell, what you call spirit is an emergent phenomenon of matter, inherent to it, and neither exists prior to nor survives death of the brain. It's a common cognitive bias to imagine disembodied spirits including gods, demons, and angels giving agency to matter. The illusion is simple subtraction - the difference between a living body and a dead one. Something has leaked out. Where did it go? It went where the flame went when the candle burned out - nowhere - because it was never an object, but more properly, evidence of a process involving material objects.

We have no evidence for an elan vital existing outside of matter and animating it alive beyond the existence of life and the mere logical possibility of such a thing existing.

Where did that spirit come from? Because life comes from life, we have to contend with the issue of a First Cause and that is where God comes in.

It appears to have come from same place the flame came from with the burning candle - energy manifesting in matter.

We don't know that we need a first cause, nor that if there was one, it was conscious. It's apparently a very seductive cognitive bias to make all of this unknown a person (monotheists) or persons (polytheists), but once one realizes that such ideas are unsupported and add no explanatory or predictive power, they should be jettisoned according to Occam's principle of parsimony until and unless they are needed again.

Look at the complaint of the creationists, who object to their gods not being included in any scientific theory or law. They want their god to appear in the scientific explanation for the tree of extant and extinct life, for example, and object to its exclusion in terms of hating God and turf protection, but can't give a reason why that should happen or what it would add.

Interesting article and does not do away with the need for God even if Paul Davies says it has.

What need for a god? To do or explain what? What would a god be needed for? What would its job be? The universe appears to have assembled itself without intelligent oversight, and to run itself day-to-day without intelligent oversight. That leaves only the origins problems - for the universe, and for the first life in it, and there is no evidence that an intelligent designer is needed for either of these, nor that one exists.

Something I find hard to understand is how negative and positive energy can cancel each other out.

Yesterday you had nothing, and your net financial worth was zero. Today, you financed the purchase of a house, and suddenly, you have a million-dollar house and a million-dollar mortgage - two somethings from nothing. You still have zero net worth.

 

[exchemist]

I've always wondered just what is energy? I see the standard responses and descriptions of: potential energy, kinetic energy, "energy does work". But I don't understand what energy is made of. I always understood Fb=mc2 (Fb is E ... just a little musicians' humor ) is a two way street. E.g. the energy from super- and hyper-novae create heavy elements. That is the only place powerful enough to forge those elements. So is energy a thing? It can't be seen, it can measured by the work it does. Physicists say the Big Bang arose from a densely packed point. Packed with what? Energy? Some unknown matter that converted to energy then back into mater via subatomic particles? I concede I'm not the brightest bulb on the marquee so as a former boss used to say "maybe I don't know what questions to ask".

Think of it like momentum. Like momentum, it's a calculated quantity we can attach to any physical system, which tells us something about how it may behave. So no, energy is not a thing. Nobody thinks you can have a jug of momentum. Nor can you with energy. It is an attribute of a system rather than a free-standing entity in its own right.

Physicists actually don't know how the universe arose. What we have is the Big Bang model for how it evolved from an early hot and dense state. But that early state is as far as extrapolation from observations (red shift, CMBR) can get us. What happened before that can only be conjecture. (It's a bit like the theory of evolution of life. That can't tell us how life initially arose from inorganic chemistry, which is a separate scientific problem.)

The energy in this early state would have been a property of various fields, radiation and matter.

Energy is a very powerful (no pun intended) concept. Analysing systems by determining their energy and how it changes can solve a lot of problems in science very elegantly. In this case, we seem to have estimated the energy, by extrapolation, but not with any conviction what exactly the energy was a property of!