Showing the other is correct.

[psychoslice]

I looking at for instants the scientific "Standard Model", this model are filled with metaphysical ideas and it is just as religious as with the worst of the religious dogmas.

I don't agree.

 

[Native]

I don't agree.

So claiming everything to have been made from nothing in a Big Bang singularity, isn´t metaphysics?
Claiming the spooky "gravity action at distance" without explaining the dynamics, isn´t metaphysics?
Inserting "dark matter" when the Newtonian celestial laws of motion is contradicted, isn´t metaphysics?
Claiming everything in the Universe to be governed by 1/4 part of the fundamental forces, isn´t metaphysics?

 

[psychoslice]

So claiming everything to have been made from nothing in a Big Bang singularity, isn´t metaphysics?
Claiming the spooky "gravity action at distance" without explaining the dynamics, isn´t metaphysics?
Inserting "dark matter" when the Newtonian celestial laws of motion is contradicted, isn´t metaphysics?
Claiming everything in the Universe to be governed by 1/4 part of the fundamental forces, isn´t metaphysics?

No, everything is one doing what it does, metaphysics if it exist is beyond what we could ever know so why even bring it up in the first place.

 

[Native]

No, everything is one doing what it does, metaphysics if it exist is beyond what we could ever know so why even bring it up in the first place.

Exactly! There is for instants NO reasons for bringing up "dark matter" because it doesn´t exist. And there is no reasons for bringing up the idea of Big Bang since the Universe is eternal. And there is no reasons for calculate with "gravity" since everything is governed be electromagnetism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

On the other hand, several cultural Stories of Creation claims that the Universe is eternal and that everything in it undergoes an eternal formation of assembling into forms, dissolving the forms and re-creating forms again and again.

The Big Bang idea is just as religious as the general and dogmatic interpretations of the Creation Myths.

Yes, Stephen Hawking was once a proponent of such a creation story, the 'big crunch' where time would reverse and we'd all crawl back into the womb! But even he gave this up, as far as we can possibly tell, the universe DID have a specific beginning, the literal creation of all time/space matter/energy as we can possibly know it.

Credit to the Bible where it is due, this was once dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' but we even know now, that the universe was entirely light at an early stage, that the Earth was entirely ocean, then one ocean and one land mass, it describes lesser dimensions of space unfolding into greater ones, even correctly compares the number of stars in the heavens to the number of grains of sand on Earth.

lucky guesses? perhaps, perhaps not

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Credit to the Bible where it is due, this was once dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' but we even know now, that the universe was entirely light at an early stage, that the Earth was entirely ocean, then one ocean and one land mass, it describes lesser dimensions of space unfolding into greater ones, even correctly compares the number of stars in the heavens to the number of grains of sand on Earth.

lucky guesses? perhaps, perhaps not

The bible Genesis story is about the creation of this star system from the residual substance an earlier star system that ''died', it is not the universe as a whole, for the universe is infinite and eternal, it had no beginning, God is immanent in, and transcendent to the physical universe as perceived by mortals.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The bible Genesis story is about the creation of this star system from the residual substance an earlier star system that ''died', it is not the universe as a whole, for the universe is infinite and eternal, it had no beginning, God is immanent in, and transcendent to the physical universe as perceived by mortals.

Do you believe in other races/ beneficiaries of creation then? 'ET'? Or for what purpose is the rest of the heavens?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you believe in other races/ beneficiaries of creation then? 'ET'? Or for what purpose is the rest of the heavens?

The universe is the life of God, galaxies, stars, planets, mortals, animal, plants, cells, elements, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc, all live, move and have their being in God. God is one, so any and all distinctions are only relative due to the perspective of the creature that perceives the oneness as an apparent multiplicity, ie. dualistically. Sentient being hosted planets are ubiquitous through infinite space. Purpose of all creation is to reflect the glory of existence itself, God is existence, there is no existence without God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The universe is the life of God, galaxies, stars, planets, mortals, animal, plants, cells, elements, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc, all live, move and have their being in God. God is one, so any and all distinctions are only relative due to the perspective of the creature that perceives the oneness as an apparent multiplicity, ie. dualistically. Sentient being hosted planets are ubiquitous through infinite space. Purpose of all creation is to reflect the glory of existence itself, God is existence, there is no existence without God.

Thanks for the response, I'm not sure if there are other Earths out there, but I think he did a pretty good job right here- and agree, everything around us is a reflection of his will, artistry, love, by a man's work shall ye know him- I forget who said it..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks for the response, I'm not sure if there are other Earths out there, but I think he did a pretty good job right here- and agree, everything around us is a reflection of his will, artistry, love, by a man's work shall ye know him- I forget who said it..

Thank you for your thoughts, yes it is humbling always when one reflects on the awesomeness of Divine existence. Concerning other earth like planets, more and more exoplanets are being discovered as the space age unfolds, this from a couple of years ago... Basic Ingredients for Life Found Around Distant Star

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thank you for your thoughts, yes it is humbling always when one reflects on the awesomeness of Divine existence. Concerning other earth like planets, more and more exoplanets are being discovered as the space age unfolds, this from a couple of years ago... Basic Ingredients for Life Found Around Distant Star

Yes, it's a miracle in itself that we can contemplate it, study and photograph the universe

and life on other planets is one of the most fascinating questions, because either answer, we are alone or not alone, is so profound.


But my money is on us being alone based on the math as far as we can figure, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth probable.

'basic ingredients' are a long way off a habitable planet, even if we grant that it was seeded with life as this one was- and furthermore- sentient life. We are the only species in millions to acquire it here, we could find a million other Earths with nothing more than dinosaurs at best....

Our space age is another factor, we have gone from the 1st powered flight to the outer reaches of the solar system in barely a lifetime. An alien civilization could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over at this rate, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this has apparently never happened, and we pick up no signs of intelligent communication remotely

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, it's a miracle in itself that we can contemplate it, study and photograph the universe

and life on other planets is one of the most fascinating questions, because either answer, we are alone or not alone, is so profound.

But my money is on us being alone based on the math as far as we can figure, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth probable.

'basic ingredients' are a long way off a habitable planet, even if we grant that it was seeded with life as this one was- and furthermore- sentient life. We are the only species in millions to acquire it here, we could find a million other Earths with nothing more than dinosaurs at best....

Our space age is another factor, we have gone from the 1st powered flight to the outer reaches of the solar system in barely a lifetime. An alien civilization could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over at this rate, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this has apparently never happened, and we pick up no signs of intelligent communication remotely

Show me the maths on which you base your opinion that this is the only planet on which human life exists?

If you accept there are Dinosaurs on an exoplanet, then clearly evolution will play out in time one way or another, involving the plant, animal, and finally the human kingdom. Remember that stars and planets are not all at the same stage of evolution, there are old planets and new planets, and all in between. Stars and planets, just like humans, are born, live for a time, then die, and then reincarnate as next generation, and so on, there was never a beginning to this creation, preservation, and destruction cycle, nor shall there ever be an end to it. Only God is beyond time, and thus is the only salvation from suffering the eternal cycles of birth, preservation, death. and reincarnation.

Fwiw, another item on life's building blocks in another star system, this one from yesterday's news... Dwarf star 200 light-years away contains life’s building blocks

 

[Valjean]

Exactly! There is for instants NO reasons for bringing up "dark matter" because it doesn´t exist. And there is no reasons for bringing up the idea of Big Bang since the Universe is eternal. And there is no reasons for calculate with "gravity" since everything is governed be electromagnetism.

But there are compelling reasons physicists believe in dark matter and no longer believe in an eternal, steady-state.
There are more fundamental forces at play than electromagnetism.

 

[psychoslice]

Exactly! There is for instants NO reasons for bringing up "dark matter" because it doesn´t exist. And there is no reasons for bringing up the idea of Big Bang since the Universe is eternal. And there is no reasons for calculate with "gravity" since everything is governed be electromagnetism.

Yes true, but I suppose we need to label everything so as to communicate what is with each other.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Show me the maths on which you base your opinion that this is the only planet on which human life exists?

Well it's sometimes called the Drake equation, it still has a lot of variables so nobody can give accurate figures- but the more variables you consider- the worse it gets for ET I think-

There seems to be a rough consensus on the number of stars in the observable universe.. being somewhere around 10^22 maybe 23, maybe a few more zeros in the observable- to the extent we can even consider that 'extant'

So somewhere in the order of 100s of billions of trillions.

That sounds like quite a lot, but it's only one side of the equation, it means nothing without the number on the other side.
Consider that there are 7 billion people on the planet, but you only need to list a handful of mundane idiosyncrasies to identify yourself as utterly unique in that 7 billion- because each improbability compounds the others

The list of idiosyncrasies that make complex life possible on Earth is neither short nor mundane.

if you give very generous odds of 1 in 10 for a nice stable habitable zone orbit and 1 in 10 for a nice magnetosphere to protect from solar radiation- those odds compound each other into 1 in 100-
there would go 2 of your 22 zeros right off the bat, and you get to nada very easily with pretty conservative odds- those were just two random factors, there are too many to list- but a few others:

stable, single, main sequence stars systems
most stars are multiple systems, chaotic, very large, hot, short lived, or small & cold, the vast majority exist in either galactic hubs or dense clusters, again chaotic and radiation soaked-
Our system resides in a very nice stable suburb of a very nice stable galaxy.

inner rocky planet with a vast stabilizing satellite- is probably one of the greatest hurdles- the earth-moon is practically a duel planet system, without which earth would either tumble - no stable seasons, or get tidally locked- one side freezing cold, the other extremely hot. We don't know exact;y how we acquired that moon, but the other inner rocky planets don;t have any to speak of- it's a freak occurrence at the very least

then you get into the right amounts of water/land atmosphere, asteroids/ asteroid belt - active enough to deliver certain elements without too much bombardment making life impossible etc etc

If you accept there are Dinosaurs on an exoplanet, then clearly evolution will play out in time one way or another, involving the plant, animal, and finally the human kingdom.

;like you say below, we are not at the same stage, Dinosaurs lived for 100s of millions of years, humans for thousands- so even if we found 100's of earths and they were all 'destined' to evolve humanity- it's very unlikely we'd see them right? But the fact that we came to be here, would hardly be inevitable even if accepting evolution- it came about at least by virtue of a perfectly aimed/weighted asteroid clinically removing the physically dominant species that otherwise reigned perpetually- maybe they will again? Having said that I'm not sure if any other planet is likely to be stable enough even for dinosaurs.

Remember that stars and planets are not all at the same stage of evolution, there are old planets and new planets, and all in between. Stars and planets, just like humans, are born, live for a time, then die, and then reincarnate as next generation, and so on, there was never a beginning to this creation, preservation, and destruction cycle, nor shall there ever be an end to it. Only God is beyond time, and thus is the only salvation from suffering the eternal cycles of birth, preservation, death. and reincarnation.

Fwiw, another item on life's building blocks in another star system, this one from yesterday's news... Dwarf star 200 light-years away contains life’s building blocks

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well it's sometimes called the Drake equation, it still has a lot of variables so nobody can give accurate figures- but the more variables you consider- the worse it gets for ET I think-

There seems to be a rough consensus on the number of stars in the observable universe.. being somewhere around 10^22 maybe 23, maybe a few more zeros in the observable- to the extent we can even consider that 'extant'

So somewhere in the order of 100s of billions of trillions.

That sounds like quite a lot, but it's only one side of the equation, it means nothing without the number on the other side.
Consider that there are 7 billion people on the planet, but you only need to list a handful of mundane idiosyncrasies to identify yourself as utterly unique in that 7 billion- because each improbability compounds the others

The list of idiosyncrasies that make complex life possible on Earth is neither short nor mundane.

if you give very generous odds of 1 in 10 for a nice stable habitable zone orbit and 1 in 10 for a nice magnetosphere to protect from solar radiation- those odds compound each other into 1 in 100-
there would go 2 of your 22 zeros right off the bat, and you get to nada very easily with pretty conservative odds- those were just two random factors, there are too many to list- but a few others:

stable, single, main sequence stars systems
most stars are multiple systems, chaotic, very large, hot, short lived, or small & cold, the vast majority exist in either galactic hubs or dense clusters, again chaotic and radiation soaked-
Our system resides in a very nice stable suburb of a very nice stable galaxy.

inner rocky planet with a vast stabilizing satellite- is probably one of the greatest hurdles- the earth-moon is practically a duel planet system, without which earth would either tumble - no stable seasons, or get tidally locked- one side freezing cold, the other extremely hot. We don't know exact;y how we acquired that moon, but the other inner rocky planets don;t have any to speak of- it's a freak occurrence at the very least

then you get into the right amounts of water/land atmosphere, asteroids/ asteroid belt - active enough to deliver certain elements without too much bombardment making life impossible etc etc

;like you say below, we are not at the same stage, Dinosaurs lived for 100s of millions of years, humans for thousands- so even if we found 100's of earths and they were all 'destined' to evolve humanity- it's very unlikely we'd see them right? But the fact that we came to be here, would hardly be inevitable even if accepting evolution- it came about at least by virtue of a perfectly aimed/weighted asteroid clinically removing the physically dominant species that otherwise reigned perpetually- maybe they will again? Having said that I'm not sure if any other planet is likely to be stable enough even for dinosaurs.

You can't be serious, you quote something that totally contradicts your belief, the Drake Equation shows, even just limiting it to a galaxy; "The figure for our galaxy suggests that other civilizations may have occurred or will likely occur in our galaxy." Drake himself calculated that that there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy." Drake equation - Wikipedia
..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can't be serious,

alright John McEnroe!

you quote something that totally contradicts your belief, the Drake Equation shows, even just limiting it to a galaxy; "The figure for our galaxy suggests that other civilizations may have occurred or will likely occur in our galaxy." Drake himself calculated that that there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy." Drake equation - Wikipedia
..

That was what Drake himself got with his own variables... back in 1961.. as I said- nobody has the 'correct' values for all the variables, the equation is a means of looking at the question, but not a definitive answer. But we do see a clear trend here..

Back in the days of Verne and Poe, we wondered what sort of folks lived on the moon, we were so used to people being everywhere on Earth, it was almost taken for granted they were on other planets.

Now we would be amazed with the discovery of a fossilized microbe on Mars. Because the more we learn about the universe and life, the more extraordinary we appreciate Earth is. i.e- while one side of the Drake equation- the number of stars, remains fairly constant, the other side, the hurdles facing complex life, continues to grow exponentially.

I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make ET a probability when you plug in all the hurdles we are aware of today
But as well as the math, is the observation; the 'great silence' of the galaxy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

alright John McEnroe!

That was what Drake himself got with his own variables... back in 1961.. as I said- nobody has the 'correct' values for all the variables, the equation is a means of looking at the question, but not a definitive answer. But we do see a clear trend here..

Back in the days of Verne and Poe, we wondered what sort of folks lived on the moon, we were so used to people being everywhere on Earth, it was almost taken for granted they were on other planets.

Now we would be amazed with the discovery of a fossilized microbe on Mars. Because the more we learn about the universe and life, the more extraordinary we appreciate Earth is. i.e- while one side of the Drake equation- the number of stars, remains fairly constant, the other side, the hurdles facing complex life, continues to grow exponentially.

I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make ET a probability when you plug in all the hurdles we are aware of today
But as well as the math, is the observation; the 'great silence' of the galaxy.

The 'great silence' of the galaxy refers to listening to the EM radiation in the limited part of the spectrum detectable by the present relative primitive human technology, it is an almost infinitesimal small part of the whole EM energy spectrum, it means little. The article on the Drake math probability unambiguously declares that life most probably exists elsewhere, do you deny this?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The 'great silence' of the galaxy refers to listening to the EM radiation in the limited part of the spectrum detectable by the present relative primitive human technology, it is an almost infinitesimal small part of the whole EM energy spectrum, it means little. The article on the Drake math probability unambiguously declares that life most probably exists elsewhere, do you deny this?

It unambiguously acknowledges that the equation is ambiguous, 'The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful'
and that Drake himself presented it as a conversation starter, at a time when we were unaware of many of the hurdles facing life


we have an ear on an entire Galaxy, a very nice large one at that, scanning frequencies that are the most useful for communication, by virtue of properties that are constant in the universe

the total deafening silence here doesn't Bode well for other galaxies. And it's not just the utter lack of radio signals, or light signals, or any other signals, but the lack of aliens themselves.

In less than a lifetime we went from the first powered flight to walking on the moon
A single civilization with tech. not much greater than ours, could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now, while earth stood vacant as an extremely attractive piece of real estate. This task is arguably far lesser than that faced by microbes colonizing Earth, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this apparently never happened.

Why not do you think?

 

[siti]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

When they do, its called 'consilience'. E.O.Wilson wrote a book about this subject (though not about religious and scientific knowledge converging - Wilson doesn't have much time for religion I suppose) but the principles are sound enough. If two different approaches are leading us towards convergent conclusions the conclusion is far more likely to be sound - if there is divergence, then at least one approach is probably wrong. In the case of science and religion, I think the trick will be to find areas of compatibility and work from there. Ultimately, in the quest for knowledge, science will have to fully account for religion and religion will have to fully accommodate scientific knowledge. As far as western philosophy is concerned, that achievement will mark the culmination of the "Enlightenment". I sense we have a way to go yet - but some kind of religious naturalism seems (to me) like a sensible middle ground for the time being.