The Law of Cause and Effect.

[shunyadragon]

The question is not when it happened, but HOW it happened. You also have no evidence life happened well after the beginning of matter and energy.

There are two basic possibilities: time is infinite into the past or time is finite into the past. In either case, matter and energy exist whenever time does. And since causality happens within time, none of the three (matter, energy, time) can be caused.

This is not only misleading, but not true how science views energy, matter and time in terms of the nature of our physical existence.

Yes, time, energy and matter are intimately related to the existence of our universe and all possible universes. It has been observed that the Quantum zero point energy world is timeless, and this is likely the world of the origins of what we know as our universe possibly forming from a singularity, and beginning what we know as time. There is agreement among physicists that our universe began from a form of preexisting energy and time,There are of course different theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe and it is an open question as to how it began, if it had a beginning at all. Some theories still on the table propose an eternal cyclic universe.

The only response Theists have is the fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance,' proposing that science does not know or able to 'prove' the origin of our universe and all possible universes, therefore . . .

The reality is science does not 'prove' anything, nor does it try to.

 

[omega2xx]

First, science cannot explain the origin of matter and energy, and is simply descriptive that it exists, properties and behavior. There is no objective verifiable evidence for the cause and origin of energy and matter, It is possible that matter and energy exist eternally without origin nor cause.

That is the first honest answer I have gotten in this discussion. Thank you. When we can't prove what we beleive the next best thing is to use some logic. What is more likely, God is eternal or matter and energy is?

Theists assert that it is the Creation of everything including energy and matter. This offers no explanation.

Our explanation is the first chapter of Genesis.

The above and below argument is simply an argument from ignorance concluding that 'science cannot explain the origin, cause or existence of matter and energy therefore . . .

It is not an argument from ignorance unless you can prove what you believe, and you can't.

Science has reasonable consistent and predictable explanations for the existence of life.

It does not Pasture disproved spontaneous generation and the Miller Urey experiments were a failure.

This is simply simplistic foolishness and does not reflect the various theories and hypothesis concerning the scientific cause and origin of our universe,

What is foolishness and it is not simplistic is accepting as fact that which can't be proved, some of which actually contradicts proved science.

No one can based on the objective verifiable evidence. All Theists can do is assert a Divine origin, and cannot provide an explanation based on the evidence.

You have no evidence for anything you have said. You accept what you believe the exact same way I accept what I believe---BY FAITH ALONE. You even admit that science can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. Why do you accept that life can originate from lifeless elements? Real science suggest no such thing.

 

[Thief]

"The hall of mirrors'' trick does not work for Natural Law either.

so...all motion is linear....
and 'something' is required for the motion to take hold

yeah?

 

[Polymath257]

Start at the beginning. How did matter and energy come into existence?

You have a basic assumption here that is almost certainly false. To say something 'comes into existence' means that there is a time when it doesn't exist and a later time when it does. Agreed?

So, for example, time itself does not 'come into existence'. There is no time when time doesn't exist and a later time when it does.

Now, your assumption is that there was a time when matter and energy did not exist. That is almost certainly wrong. Even those physical theories that have the universe coming out of 'nothing' actually have a 'vacuum' state with energy. That energy is conserved in the development of the universe, but energy existed whenever time did.

And, no, no scientist claims a 'spark' that lasted a nanosecond created the universe. There is commonly a discussion about what the universe was like a nanosecond into the current expansion, but the hot, dense universe at that time was not a 'spark'. It still encompassed all of space, which was expanding.

 

[shunyadragon]

so...all motion is linear....
and 'something' is required for the motion to take hold

yeah?

No

 

[Thief]

No

and how so?

 

[Polymath257]

Our explanation is the first chapter of Genesis.

Which is no explanation at all. It is also contrary to actual observations (no separation of waters into those above and those below).

It does not Pasture disproved spontaneous generation and the Miller Urey experiments were a failure.

Pasteur showed that bacteria don't spontaneously form in the current oxidizing atmosphere in a sterilized broth. That isn't relevant for the question of whether life can arise in hydrothermal vents in a reducing environment.

The Urey-Miller experiment was a success: it showed that the basic components of life can arise spontaneously. Subsequent experiments have shown how ALL the basic components can arise, how they can organize themselves, how cellular structures form. While we have not produced artificial life (depending of your definitions, actually), the process is much farther along than it was in the 1950's.

You have no evidence for anything you have said. You accept what you believe the exact same way I accept what I believe---BY FAITH ALONE. You even admit that science can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. Why do you accept that life can originate from lifeless elements? Real science suggest no such thing.

It seems quite likely that energy and matter have existed whenever time existed. So it may well be that matter, energy, and time are simply uncaused.

As for life, we *know* that living things *today* are made of 'lifeless elements'. NONE of the atoms in your body is alive. For that matter, NONE of the individual molecules in your body is alive. What makes you alive is the collection of all of these molecules and the complex chemical reactions that they undergo. For you and me, most of those reactions are driven by the chemical properties of oxygen, so when you are deprived of oxygen for long enough, we die: those chemical reactions stop working.

 

[omega2xx]

This is not only misleading, but not true how science views energy, matter and time in terms of the nature of our physical existence.

The subject is not about the view of science but the origin of matter, energy and life. No science can offer a scientic explanation for that.

Yes, time, energy and matter are intimately related to the existence of our universe and all possible universes. It has been observed that the Quantum zero point energy world is timeless, and this is likely the world of the origins of what we know as our universe possibly forming from a singularity, and beginning what we know as time. There is agreement among physicists that our universe began from a form of preexisting energy and time,There are of course different theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe and it is an open question as to how it began, if it had a beginning at all. Some theories still on the table propose,[/QUOTE]


That has not been observed, IMO QM qualifies for the poster child of wild speculation.

The only response Theists have is the fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance,' proposing that science does not know or able to 'prove' the origin of our universe and all possible universes, therefore . . .

You have admitted science can't explain those origins. If now you say they can, produce the evidence or go back to your original, and correct statement.

The reality is science does not 'prove' anything, nor does it try to.

I have heard that before and it is one of the most ignorant statement anyone can make about real science. It seems to be made because they know evolution can't be proved.

If you ever need a blood transfusion, tell the to use what is handy, because you can't prove what my blood type is any way.

 

[omega2xx]

You have a basic assumption here that is almost certainly false. To say something 'comes into existence' means that there is a time when it doesn't exist and a later time when it does. Agreed?

"Almost certainly false," is meaningless. and you can't attribute that to an assumption.

So, for example, time itself does not 'come into existence'. There is no time when time doesn't exist and a later time when it does.

That is your assumption and almost certainly false.

Now, your assumption is that there was a time when matter and energy did not exist. That is almost certainly wrong. Even those physical theories that have the universe coming out of 'nothing' actually have a 'vacuum' state with energy. That energy is conserved in the development of the universe, but energy existed whenever time did.

Your assumption are almost certainly wrong. When did time come into existence and please no more wild assumptions.

And, no, no scientist claims a 'spark' that lasted a nanosecond created the universe. There is commonly a discussion about what the universe was like a nanosecond into the current expansion, but the hot, dense universe at that time was not a 'spark'. It still encompassed all of space, which was expanding.

But they do offer it s an explanation as to how something can come from nothing and hint that is how matter came into existence. IOW we don't need a God to explain the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your formatting errors made it difficult to respond

First, science cannot explain the origin of matter and energy, and is simply descriptive that it exists, properties and behavior. There is no objective verifiable evidence for the cause and origin of energy and matter, It is possible that matter and energy exist eternally without origin nor cause.

omega2xx[/URL]]
That is the first honest answer I have gotten in this discussion. Thank you. When we can't prove what we believe the next best thing is to use some logic. What is more likely, God is eternal or matter and energy is?

Careful with logic, because the conclusions are dependent on fallible human presuppositions.

Please drop the insane qualification of 'proof,' because by it;s nature science cannot nor does not even try to prove anything. For that matter Theists cannot 'prove' anything either.

It is possible that either or both may be true. In the Baha'i (my belief) writings our physical existence is eternal with God as reflection of the Creative attributes of God. An analogy is that the shadow exists as long as the object exists.

Theists assert that it is the Creation of everything including energy and matter. This offers no explanation.

omega2xx[/URL]] Our explanation is the first chapter of Genesis.

This is not an explanation. It is an assertion based on the terribly weak presupposition that the first chapter of Genesis is a literal description of origins, There is no objective verifiable evidence that would provide a basis for Genesis being an explanation.

The above and below argument is simply an argument from ignorance concluding that 'science cannot explain the origin, cause or existence of matter and energy therefore . . .
It is not an argument from ignorance unless you can prove what you believe, and you can't.

Science has reasonable consistent and predictable explanations for the existence of life.

It does not Pasture disproved spontaneous generation and the Miller Urey experiments were a failure.

Citing old references is no way to present a coherent argument. Pasture did not prove anything, nor was he able to prove anything. His experiments were simple, and only involved simple conclusions concerning bacteria, modls and fungus. The Miller Urey experiments only demonstrated one small part of the process of abiogenesis, nothing more.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis your neglecting and need to deal with the over fifty years of research on abiogenesis since the Miller Urey research.

This is simply simplistic foolishness and does not reflect the various theories and hypothesis concerning the scientific cause and origin of our universe,

omega2xx[/URL]]
What is foolishness and it is not simplistic is accepting as fact that which can't be proved, some of which actually contradicts proved science.

Not only is this more fallacious 'appeal to ignorance but . . .
Please drop the insane qualification of 'proof,' because by it;s nature science cannot nor does not even try to prove anything. For that matter Theists cannot 'prove' anything either.

No one can based on the objective verifiable evidence. All Theists can do is assert a Divine origin, and cannot provide an explanation based on the evidence.

omega2xx[/URL]]
You have no evidence for anything you have said. You accept what you believe the exact same way I accept what I believe---BY FAITH ALONE. You even admit that science can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. Why do you accept that life can originate from lifeless elements? Real science suggest no such thing.

There is abundance of objective verifiable evidence supporting science, and none supporting the Theist claims.

The unfortunate dung ball trail of the fallacies of 'argument from ignorance' continues unabated.

Why do I believe that life can originate from non-life natural sources? Because that is what the objective verifiable evidence indicates, and I believe this is the natural processes by which God Created. This of course is a belief.

 

[omega2xx]

Which is no explanation at all.

It is better than the one you have.

It is also contrary to actual observations (no separation of waters into those above and those below).

There is a theory that before the flood there was a water canopy in the sky. It kept the UV rays from harming man and that is why they lived so lomg. Right after the flood, the length of life gradually decreased until is was basically what we have today.

Pasteur showed that bacteria don't spontaneously form in the current oxidizing atmosphere in a sterilized broth. That isn't relevant for the question of whether life can arise in hydrothermal vents in a reducing environment.

Not exactly. He proved that life can't come from what is dead.

The Urey-Miller experiment was a success: it showed that the basic components of life can arise spontaneously. Subsequent experiments have shown how ALL the basic components can arise, how they can organize themselves, how cellular structures form. While we have not produced artificial life (depending of your definitions, actually), the process is much farther along than it was in the 1950's

Their expirements were not a success. They did not produce life. Not only that they used some organic element and still couldn't produce life. The process of how life originated has not move one degree since then. Man with all his knowledge and equipment and materials, still can't do it. They can't even come close.



It seems quite likely that energy and matter have existed whenever time existed. So it may well be that matter, energy, and time are simply uncaused.

As for life, we *know* that living things *today* are made of 'lifeless elements'. NONE of the atoms in your body is alive. For that matter, NONE of the individual molecules in your body is alive. What makes you alive is the collection of all of these molecules and the complex chemical reactions that they undergo. For you and me, most of those reactions are driven by the chemical properties of oxygen, so when you are deprived of oxygen for long enough, we die: those chemical reactions stop working.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thief]

so the dead chemistry can beget life?
and life is no more that reaction upon reaction?

 

[Polymath257]

It is better than the one you have.

On the contrary, it is far, far worse than the expanations we have because ours are based on evidence and observation and yours is based on the writings of a bronze-age civilization that knoew very little about the universe.

There is a theory that before the flood there was a water canopy in the sky. It kept the UV rays from harming man and that is why they lived so lomg. Right after the flood, the length of life gradually decreased until is was basically what we have today.

Except that such a water canopy would not be stable and, in addition to blocking out the UV light it would block out *all* the visible light.

Not exactly. He proved that life can't come from what is dead.

No. Once again, at the time of Pasteur, there was the idea that bacteria spontaneously arose from a nutrient broth as a matter of day-to-day events. Pasteur showed that doesn't happen. But, he did his experiments in the oxygen based environment of today's world.

Their expirements were not a success. They did not produce life. Not only that they used some organic element and still couldn't produce life. The process of how life originated has not move one degree since then. Man with all his knowledge and equipment and materials, still can't do it. They can't even come close.

The *goal* was not to produce life in the Urey-Miller experiment. The goal was to see whether the basic building blocks of life would form spontaneously. They do. And, yes, the process *has* moved significantly since then. Look at Fox's proteinoid microspheres. Look at the results of formulating DNA and RNA from basic chemicals. Look at what we have done to find the minimal chemical structures required for life. The distance between life and non-life is decreasing every day.

It seems quite likely that energy and matter have existed whenever time existed. So it may well be that matter, energy, and time are simply uncaused.

As for life, we *know* that living things *today* are made of 'lifeless elements'. NONE of the atoms in your body is alive. For that matter, NONE of the individual molecules in your body is alive. What makes you alive is the collection of all of these molecules and the complex chemical reactions that they undergo. For you and me, most of those reactions are driven by the chemical properties of oxygen, so when you are deprived of oxygen for long enough, we die: those chemical reactions stop working.

YOu made no comment on this. Once again, life *today* is made from non-living chemicals. It is the structures they form and the complexity of their mutual interactions that makes something alive, NOT some 'elan vitale'.

 

[Polymath257]

To say something 'comes into existence' means that there is a time when it doesn't exist and a later time when it does. Agreed?

You did not answer this one. Is this what you mean by 'coming into existence'?

So, for example, time itself does not 'come into existence'. There is no time when time doesn't exist and a later time when it does.

That is your assumption and almost certainly false

So, you think there was a time when there was no time? And a later time when there was time?

Your assumption are almost certainly wrong. When did time come into existence and please no more wild assumptions.

That was NOT a wild assumption. That was a simple deduction from what it means to 'come into existence'.

But they do offer it s an explanation as to how something can come from nothing and hint that is how matter came into existence. IOW we don't need a God to explain the universe.

No, even the explanations where the universe comes from 'nothing', that 'nothing' is a vacuum with energy. But you are right, we don't need a deity to explain the universe.

 

[omega2xx]

Your formatting errors made it difficult to respond

Sorry about that. I am in another forum that has a differ method of showing quotes and sometimes if forget and use their method.

Careful with logic, because the conclusions are dependent on fallible human presuppositions.

True enough but we still can't ignore it.

Please drop the insane qualification of 'proof,'

I will not. Only those who can't prove what they say try to make "proof" a dirty word. If you can't prove it, you can't convince other that what you said is true.

because by it;s nature science cannot nor does not even try to prove anything. For that matter Theists cannot 'prove' anything either.

That is the most ignorant statement that can be made about real science. Evolution use it because the TOE can't be proved and they think it is based on science. How do we know there is more than one blood type? can that be falsified?

It is possible that either or both may be true.

Both can't be true.

In the Baha'i (my belief) writings our physical existence is eternal with God as reflection of the Creative attributes of God. An analogy is that the shadow exists as long as the object exists.

That is partly Biblical. Not all life will end up in heaven. Evidently in Bahai, there is no hell, not punishment for unbelief in God. When you see a shadow, it is necessary to know if the object that cast it is someone with the truth.

This is not an explanation. It is an assertion based on the terribly weak presupposition that the first chapter of Genesis is a literal description of origins, There is no objective verifiable evidence that would provide a basis for Genesis being an explanation.

There is no objective, verifiable evidence it is not true and not literal. Evidently Bahai does not have an omnipotenten God.

Citing old references is no way to present a coherent argument. Pasture did not prove anything, nor was he able to prove anything. His experiments were simple, and only involved simple conclusions concerning bacteria, modls and fungus. The Miller Urey experiments only demonstrated one small part of the process of abiogenesis, nothing more.

Pasture prove is a very simple way that spontaneous generation---life from death is not possible. Miller Urey proed that man can't produce life even using organic material tha had the element so life.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis your neglecting and need to deal with the over fifty years of research on abiogenesis since the Miller Urey research.

The only think such research has proved, if any is still being done is that man can't produce life. They never will. Man can't even find the life in a good seed.

There is abundance of objective verifiable evidence supporting science, and none supporting the Theist claims.

What support science refutes evolution.

The unfortunate dung ball trail of the fallacies of 'argument from ignorance' continues unabated.

You aren't qualified to be the final authority on what is ignorance. A statement like that is self-serving and comes from pride, the sin of sins.

Take God's advice given through Paul---Don't think more highly of yourself than you ought to think.

Why do I believe that life can originate from non-life natural sources? Because that is what the objective verifiable evidence indicates, and I believe this is the natural processes by which God Created. This of course is a belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

and how so?

so...all motion is linear....
and 'something' is required for the motion to take hold

This is an outdated assumption, and not verifiable by objective evidence. The Quantum World is not linear.

There is no objective verifiable evidence that 'anything' is required for motion to take hold, Maybe in the distant past of the Newtonian physics they believed this, but in today's science.

 

[McBell]

"The hall of mirrors'' trick does not work for Natural Law either.

Seems it works just fine if you throw it out the window once it gets you to God.

 

[shunyadragon]

True enough but we still can't ignore it.

It is of limited value and only convincing to those that agree with the fallible human presupposition,

I will not. Only those who can't prove what they say try to make "proof" a dirty word. If you can't prove it, you can't convince other that what you said is true.

That is the most ignorant statement that can be made about real science. Evolution use it because the TOE can't be proved and they think it is based on science.

How do we know there is more than one blood type? can that be falsified?

Yes, falsification of scientific research is the basis of evolution and the determination of blood type, not 'proof' is the basis of science. You need a very basic fundamental knowledge of science and its foundation philosophy, which is lacking here. There remains a fundamental academic difference between the use and meaning of 'proof' in logic and math that is not relevant in the concept of falsification in Methodological Naturalism.

That is partly Biblical. Not all life will end up in heaven. Evidently in Baha'i, there is no hell, not punishment for unbelief in God. When you see a shadow, it is necessary to know if the object that cast it is someone with the truth.

Evidently? Well. ah . . . evidently you also lack a basic knowledge of not only science, but of the Baha'i Faith also.

There is no objective, verifiable evidence it is not true and not literal.

Evidently Baha'i does not have an omnipotent God.

Again . . .

Evidently? Well. ah . . . evidently you also lack a basic knowledge of not only science, but of the Baha'i Faith also.

Pasture prove is a very simple way that spontaneous generation---life from death is not possible. Miller Urey proed that man can't produce life even using organic material that had the element so life.

Neither is true. Please cite actual academic sources that support and describe these assumptions independently of your imagination.

 

[omega2xx]

You did not answer this one. Is this what you mean by 'coming into existence'?



So, you think there was a time when there was no time? And a later time when there was time?


That was NOT a wild assumption. That was a simple deduction from what it means to 'come into existence'.




No, even the explanations where the universe comes from 'nothing', that 'nothing' is a vacuum with energy. But you are right, we don't need a deity to explain the universe.

This discussion has become circular, thus meaningless. I enjoyed it but now it is a waste of time. You have a + day.

 

[shunyadragon]

so the dead chemistry can beget life?
and life is no more that reaction upon reaction?

Too simplistic to reflect anything close to the research, theories and hypothesis of the science of abiogenesis over the past 50+ years.

Simple 'hand waves' do not represent a coherent argument.