Mother Nature vs. God?

[lunakilo]

At the point of singularity.... equations fail.

Oh, but was there a singularity?

 

[Thief]

Oh, but was there a singularity?

And the discussion I saw eluded to that possibility as well.

No two scientists seem to agree, any more than the participants here.
The equations they use bottom out, and then they are left with only their best guesses.

And then the participants here take that best guess and display them ...
as fact.

 

[Anonymouse]

Lunakilo-In this case I would agree with you, but in the case I provided I see the effects of wind, warter, gravity and nuclear forces. I see no conscious thoughts involved.

To be honest I wasn’t exactly sure why you revisited the argument with these examples (and why you did not include a picture of leaves changing colors during seasons). They certainly do not disturb or defeat my theories about nature (or nature being a creative force for inspiring art). What you see as formations created with no involved conscious, some people might see as just a bunch of rocks, some might see the finger of God flirting with his creation or angels taking a pottery class. I certainly cannot dispute that the formations you posted were not created by environmental forces (and I will even go as far to admit that they are very aesthetic) but you also cannot claim or prove that these forces were not already (intellegently) programmed (or extended as downloadable content) to my paradigm of nature.

If we were to continue in this vein of honesty, I must admit that my response to your post (of providing paintings and computer generated landscapes) did nothing more for me than to provide evidence that Roger Dean may be more imaginative than the gods.

 

[Anonymouse]

anonymouse-…and why does this rich person have to be a crackpot?....

Because he will get no return on his investment.

I thought Josefly already concluded that science is not a vending machine?

 

[lunakilo]

And the discussion I saw eluded to that possibility as well.

No two scientists seem to agree, any more than the participants here.
The equations they use bottom out, and then they are left with only their best guesses.

And then the participants here take that best guess and display them ...
as fact.

yes, that often happen

When talking about about the creation of the universe people often call on the big bang theory. The problem is that it is not ONE theory.

The simplest thing to do is to say, the universe is expanding so earlier everything was much closer together. If we extrapolate backwards in time then at some point everything was in the same spot, and there is your singularity.

As far as I remember people pretty much agree as far back as the nucleosynthesis, but if you go much further back that you start running into the problem of not understanding the physics in such a dense universe. And noone has a clue what went on.

There is no reason why there should be a singularity.
In fact, nature tends to avoid singularities, so why assume there was one?

 

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse-It seems there is a lot involved to gain credibility just to comply and compete with ignorance.

Josefly- Boy, you just love to throw around insults and accusations against professional scientists, don't you? As I pointed out earlier, that you do this yet totally fail to provide anything at all to back up your barbs, and that you do so on an internet board under the cloak of anonymity tells me you're rather cowardly and insecure.

Once again, I am absolutely confounded about how you read my posts and reach the conclusions that you do. Science does not know how the origin of life started. This would make them ignorant. Even with all of their accumulated intelligence, logic and evidence, scientists are still ignorant about the origins of life. They have theories, but so do I. Calling scientists ignorant because they do not know something is not an insult.

If you need an exact reference in discerning what is an insult….

Josefly-that you do this yet totally fail to provide anything at all to back up your barbs, and that you do so on an internet board under the cloak of anonymity tells me you're rather cowardly and insecure.

That is an insult.

 

[Thief]

yes, that often happen

When talking about about the creation of the universe people often call on the big bang theory. The problem is that it is not ONE theory.

The simplest thing to do is to say, the universe is expanding so earlier everything was much closer together. If we extrapolate backwards in time then at some point everything was in the same spot, and there is your singularity.

As far as I remember people pretty much agree as far back as the nucleosynthesis, but if you go much further back that you start running into the problem of not understanding the physics in such a dense universe. And noone has a clue what went on.

There is no reason why there should be a singularity.
In fact, nature tends to avoid singularities, so why assume there was one?

Not an assumption.
At some 'point'....Genesis.

'Something' had to be First.

 

[Anonymouse]

'Something' had to be First.

Couldn't agree more. But for some reason I can’t escape this prevailing feeling that the staunch supporters of science somehow feel threatened about this.

 

[lunakilo]

To be honest I wasn’t exactly sure why you revisited the argument with these examples (and why you did not include a picture of leaves changing colors during seasons). They certainly do not disturb or defeat my theories about nature (or nature being a creative force for inspiring art). What you see as formations created with no involved conscious, some people might see as just a bunch of rocks, some might see the finger of God flirting with his creation or angels taking a pottery class. I certainly cannot dispute that the formations you posted were not created by environmental forces (and I will even go as far to admit that they are very aesthetic) but you also cannot claim or prove that these forces were not already (intellegently) programmed (or extended as downloadable content) to my paradigm of nature.

The reson for revisiting the argument was that I was reading back through your posts trying to find your reasons for your proposed theory.
As I read it your statement "Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied." was the basis for your assumption.

So I came up with a few examples of things which exist, and wcich I see no reason to think of as having been thought of or designed before they were created.
I chose non-living examples on purpose.
I am trying to challenge your experience which has taught you that nothing is created unless thought is first applied.

When you say that I "cannot claim or prove that these forces were not already (intellegently) programmed (or extended as downloadable content) to my paradigm of nature" you are correct, but you are using cyclic argumentation. You are using your theory to validate your assumptions.

If we were to continue in this vein of honesty, I must admit that my response to your post (of providing paintings and computer generated landscapes) did nothing more for me than to provide evidence that Roger Dean may be more imaginative than the gods.

He seems more like a copycat to me

 

[PolyHedral]

Couldn't agree more. But for some reason I can’t escape this prevailing feeling that the staunch supporters of science somehow feel threatened about this.

Yet nobody's been able to answer "why." Saying there's a first breaks your own logic.

 

[lunakilo]

'Something' had to be First.

Not if time is infinite in both directions.

 

[Anonymouse]

lunakilo-When you say that I "cannot claim or prove that these forces were not already (intellegently) programmed (or extended as downloadable content) to my paradigm of nature" you are correct, but you are using cyclic argumentation. You are using your theory to validate your assumptions.

I apologize, but this is all I can afford.

 

[lunakilo]

I apologize, but this is all I can afford.

To that I can only say ...

 

[Jose Fly]

Once again, I am absolutely confounded about how you read my posts and reach the conclusions that you do. Science does not know how the origin of life started. This would make them ignorant. Even with all of their accumulated intelligence, logic and evidence, scientists are still ignorant about the origins of life. They have theories, but so do I. Calling scientists ignorant because they do not know something is not an insult.

If you need an exact reference in discerning what is an insult….

That is an insult.

So you feel the professionals who've been conducting origins research for the last few decades are just as ignorant in the subject as you? The ideas you've posted on an internet message board are on the same level as their hypotheses?

And you don't understand how a guy who clearly knows next to nothing about the field saying "They're just as ignorant as I am" is insulting to scientists? Really?

 

[camanintx]

Your abusing the laws of time and the laws of the universe. Lets talk of a time BEFORE the beginning of the universe.

If time is simply the measure of change between one moment and the next, then there couldn't be any change (hence no time) before the universe existed, could there?

 

[idav]

In what way is that a sensical proposition?

Just as sensical as saying the universe both has a beginning and always existed. Always existed by who or what standard of time?

 

[idav]

If time is simply the measure of change between one moment and the next, then there couldn't be any change (hence no time) before the universe existed, could there?

If time is merely a measurement within this universe then it is possible to have a measurement of time outside of the universe(if there is such a thing).

 

[tumbleweed41]

If time is merely a measurement within this universe then it is possible to have a measurement of time outside of the universe(if there is such a thing).

How does one follow the other?

Within the Universe are contained all the physical laws that make space, time, matter and energy possible.

"Beyond" our universe, if such a concept can even exist, they more than likely do not.

 

[idav]

How does one follow the other?

Within the Universe are contained all the physical laws that make space, time, matter and energy possible.

"Beyond" our universe, if such a concept can even exist, they more than likely do not.

Talking of a beginning of the universe, we don't really know if it was the beginning of all that exists or the continuation of something much bigger. If the universe always existed then I would say there is no such thing as a beginning which is a response to Polyhedral agreeing "the universe has a beginning and always existed".

 

[Android]

I "believe" the universe may undergo cycles of expansion and contraction.
What we know as the big bang, may just be the start of the most recent expansion.
This could account for the universe always existing AND allow for the beggining of time.

Of course I would have to discover some as yet unkown force to be capable of this. But it seems the most logical hypothesis to me.
If there is a god, the only possible use he has to me, is to contract the universe every few trillion years.