Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Huh???
Please show evidence of intelligence coming from non-intelligence
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.
- Thread starter Gharib
- Start date
Huh???
Please show evidence of intelligence coming from non-intelligence
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"If there are ONLY two explanations"
There is more then two as has been shown to you.
"you can prove one false beyond a reasonable doubt, then the other explanation is the answer by default."
"So a personal explanation wins by default."
really really really infinity wrong. Might as well just make stuff up.
"Pink unicorns created the universe and they are internal."
Prove the above statement right?
"There is no scientific explanation for the absolute origin of all nature."
Yet, we use to think the milkyway was the entire universe now we know there are hundreds of billions of galaxies.
"How is it possible for intelligence to come from a non-intellectual entity?? This is absurd."
Its been happening on earth for billions of years now. Called evolution.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I have not said anything that disagrees with this. My problem is with you pretending their is a beginning to all matter just cause of the of the proof of expansion. They know it was hot but the singularity was a different state where the laws of physics and time break down. There is no actual beginning except for the big bang being when our clock started.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Call_of_the_Wild
You really get some credit for all you have learned in astronomy and cosmology science.
Which doesn't study god becuase it can't as there is 0 evidence or say the universe came from god or that god is the only explanation.
Your using, we can't explain it and it doesn't make sense to me and I believe "god did it." as some final answer. That of course is not how it works.
Is "god did it" falsifiable?
This reminds me of the ID trial.
"
WITOLD "VIC" WALCZAK: You know, when you loosen the rules around what is science and permit the supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what makes science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed over the last four or five hundred years. You're going back before the scientific revolution. And, you know, that's a pretty scary thing."
" With the scientific revolution, the work of Galileo, Newton and others banished supernatural explanations from science. But some think the supernatural still has its place."
"
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
You really get some credit for all you have learned in astronomy and cosmology science.
Which doesn't study god becuase it can't as there is 0 evidence or say the universe came from god or that god is the only explanation.
Your using, we can't explain it and it doesn't make sense to me and I believe "god did it." as some final answer. That of course is not how it works.
Is "god did it" falsifiable?
This reminds me of the ID trial.
"
WITOLD "VIC" WALCZAK: You know, when you loosen the rules around what is science and permit the supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what makes science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed over the last four or five hundred years. You're going back before the scientific revolution. And, you know, that's a pretty scary thing."
" With the scientific revolution, the work of Galileo, Newton and others banished supernatural explanations from science. But some think the supernatural still has its place."
"
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This is exactly the point. There's no evidence of an IDer or Non-IDer. Additionally we have no evidence that a non-identified "designer" or "designers" were the cause of the expansion of the singularity to what we currently know as (The Universe).
Last edited:
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
Oh, that was the reference. Someone from the Harvard-Smithsonian said so in 1998. It must be true then.
And here I was expecting an article...
gnostic
The Lost One
call of the wild said:
You're doing it again. You're putting ideas and words that I have never written or say. Don't put words in my cyber-mouth!
Do me a favor and stop stating what you think I know or believe, because you don't know me. :slap:
But seriously, the only occasion that I know infinity exist is when they occurred in maths. But no, I don't accept your notion of "infinity regression".
So, let's say that I accept that the expansion occur naturally, without the assistance of some divine being, and that I don't believe in creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), and no infinity regression.
State whatever you want to believe, but don't what you "I believe". :no:
Is there any more craps you want to put on my plate? Because you're a great big pain in my @##.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
By default it does, actually.
terryboy
Member
What is an immaterial spirit then?
How do we know the existence of an immaterial spirit?
Is there anyway we can observe, feel, test, see or imagine an immaterial spirit?
Heaven has at least three different definitions. 1. the skys....2. outer space...3. the dwelling place of the Almighty.[/QUOTE]
So where does God dwell? the skies or outer space?
I imagine that infinite space-time can exist. That the space-time created from the BB occupy part of the space-time of the infinite space-time of something like an ultraverse.
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
At present we can look at all the galaxies as mathematical points moving away from each other. But if you run the equation backwards then at some point the description of galaxies as simple points stop making sense.
There is a lot of stuff in the universe.
When you bring all that stuff very close together how will it behave?
You assume that you can just keep going backwards treating galaxies as points, but those "points" are made up of a lot of stuff so that when they come close together they probably don't behave as points anymore.
And at some point things are so close together that a lot of quantum effects become important.
There is no reason to think it will shrink into an infinitly dense point.
Take your ballon example.
It is true that when you let out the air it shrinks, but it doesn't shrink to a point. it shrinks to a limp peace of plastic.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
I am used to people knowing the argments when arguing from a single position.
You must be religious?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Erm, from your answer it looks like you didn't understand what i said.
If i concede there are only two KINDS of explanations, the scientific and the personal ones ( and the scientific not being possible), i want you to say why within the whole realm of personal explanations available you chose the one you did. In other words, before the moment you let your religious bias into the matter, how did you come to the conclusion a personal deity was involved? What intrigues me the most is that you are so certain of your choice and yet you state that it is all a matter of personal explanation.
I didn't know God was a regular object (
), but nevertheless....Then let me rewrite my question: In your analogy, what represents God and what represents the universe singularity?
Just because you have never seen something happening it doesn't mean it didn't happen. But you do know this much, don't you? We have never seen an impersonal entity creating intelligent beings in the same manner we have also never seen a personal deity creating intelligent beings.
What?
I was considering a ball that was lying in the cushion since the start of time or during the eternity in a timeless state. There was no moment 'before the ball dropped on it'.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Then intelligence does not HAVE to come from intelligence.
You shot your own argument down.
Good Job!
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
And what does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation have to say about density parameter, Ω?
I will say it again. You cannot conclude from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that Ω is larger than or equal to 1.
The only thin you can cloclude is that the universe is expanding and has been doing so for quite a while.
Because it in 1998 seemed that Ω was smaller than 1 doesn't mean it is so.
The latest figure I heard was 1.02 +- 0.02.
But again, new observations constantly change the best guess of that number so...
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
I am puzzled.
Why do you find it more logical to assume that god never began to exist, than that the universe never began to exist?
gnostic
The Lost One
terryboy said:
So where does God dwell? the skies or outer space?[/QUOTE]
I started a topic on creation and the incorporeal spirit about a fortnight ago.
I don't think or see how any being that is incorporeal, couldn't possibly create (corporeal) matters, let alone creating humans, Earth or the universe.
terryboy
Member
If you ask Call, he will say something like because God is 'omnipotent' he can do whatever he wants etc. His answer would be illogical, not falsifiable and the proof would come from the bible. I have given up to try to convince him that God doesn't have to be responsible for creation.
Call never cease to amaze me with his answers, so I want to know what else does he think of God.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I have to say here, we have pictures of the universe before any galaxies existed at all. The galaxies are of course made up of stars and gas and dust.
We know the first starts starting forming around 200 million years after the bang.
"There is no reason to think it will shrink into an infinitly dense point."
actually there is
"When you bring all that stuff very close together how will it behave?"
a singularity, although different then a black hole singularity.
"
Take your ballon example.
It is true that when you let out the air it shrinks, but it doesn't shrink to a point. it shrinks to a limp peace of plastic"
This is not a good analogy.
If you go back as far as you can in planck time, you get all four fundemental forces combined.
"There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.
The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars."
Life in the Universe
lunakilo, are you aware of the Cosmic Background Radation and what it actually is and tells us?
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)