Why are there still Monkeys?

[Thief]

None of the above.

1 - There is nothing and no one "managing and controlling the universe".
2 - Things do as they do, not because of mere "luck" or "chance" but because of normal and natural processes with some "luck" (good or bad) mixed in.

When I jump up and come back down, no one says, "Sheesh! You're lucky you didn't end up on the moon!" That's because gravity just does what it does; there is no "chance" or "luck' involved with my body coming back down to earth. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not wrapping it's noodley appendages around my ankles and pulling me back down. How and where Iand after jumping may seem a random process of "luck" but even that is only a matter of physics.

I've seen at least one science documentary wherein the speaker ( a scientist)
insisted the odds are too remote for all of this to take shape as it has.....
without Someone in the background.

 

[idav]

Substance will remain motionless until Something moves it.

Nice opinion but no substance behind it. Nothing we know of subtance matter or energy assumes it was ever static to begin with. Easier to assume dynamic substance than bringing in a magical mover.

 

[FearGod]

None of the above.

1 - There is nothing and no one "managing and controlling the universe".
2 - Things do as they do, not because of mere "luck" or "chance" but because of normal and natural processes with some "luck" (good or bad) mixed in.

When I jump up and come back down, no one says, "Sheesh! You're lucky you didn't end up on the moon!" That's because gravity just does what it does; there is no "chance" or "luck' involved with my body coming back down to earth. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not wrapping it's noodley appendages around my ankles and pulling me back down. How and where Iand after jumping may seem a random process of "luck" but even that is only a matter of physics.

Did the nature make its own laws including the gravitational forces.

How it did it?
Please explain it in scientific manner.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Did the nature make its own laws including the gravitational forces.

Did the nature make its own laws and how it did it?
Please explain it in scientific manner.

No one "made" the laws. They exist simply because they exist.

 

[FearGod]

Nice opinion but no substance behind it. Nothing we know of subtance matter or energy assumes it was ever static to begin with. Easier to assume dynamic substance than bringing in a magical mover.

Assume dynamic substance.

What about the nature law of cause and effect ?

Where did the force come from ?

 

[FearGod]

No one "made" the laws. They exist simply because they exist.

Scientifically explained. :clap

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Assume dynamic substance.

What about the nature law of cause and effect ?

Where did the force come from ?

I don't know.

ps: Dynamic substance makes perfect sense. If everything is comprised of atoms, and atoms are moving, then substance is not static.

 

[Valjean]

I've seen at least one science documentary wherein the speaker ( a scientist)
insisted the odds are too remote for all of this to take shape as it has.....
without Someone in the background.

The improbability argument is ridiculous.
If one model out of a trillion possible models manifests, it's absurd to conclude that that model was consciously chosen, even though the chances were a trillion-to-one. The chances of any of them manifesting were a trillion-to-one.

Perhaps all possibilities manifest, and the few that are capable of sustaining life simply do what their particular physics allows. There's no reason for the beings that chanced to develop in these to consider themselves consciously "chosen."

The probability --chance-- that a particular rock should be lying in a particular position in a particular field at a particular time must be trillions to one, yet, despite the astronomical chances against it, every rock you see is a trillion-to-one "miracle."

 

[idav]

What about the nature law of cause and effect ?

What about it? Its always moving.

Where did the force come from ?

Who knows? As far as we can tell some frequency which is not static, and it isn't nothing either. Why can't God be natural? Why must we invoke magic? God could be the dynamics aspect of reality that just exists, the reason for something rather than nothing, and can be completely natural and explainable. Not that anyone actually knows, to a point theists just speculate like science and multiverses.

 

[Willamena]

Where did the force come from ?

"Force" is atoms in motion (mass times acceleration).

(You're asking the wrong question. You need to ask about what animates mass, because it isn't force. If I understand correctly, it's the presence of other mass.)

 

[idav]

"Force" is atoms in motion (mass times acceleration).

Can we prove the force is innate? It seems to be, these particles just happen to be vibrating at these frequencies, without anything hindering it, so it needs no power source except itself.

 

[viole]

Where did the force come from ?

The force? I assume here you do not mean Stars Wars.

Forces are mediated by particles with integer spin, aka bosons.

So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

I don't know.

ps: Dynamic substance makes perfect sense. If everything is comprised of atoms, and atoms are moving, then substance is not static.

Which law you are talking about ?

since atoms is moving then the substance can move,seems to me a theory of stupidity except if you can explain it otherwise.

Any object will remain motionless except if a force applied to it.

 

[Willamena]

Can we prove the force is innate? It seems to be, these particles just happen to be vibrating at these frequencies, without anything hindering it, so it needs no power source except itself.

It's innate of our observations.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Which law you are talking about ?

since atoms is moving then the substance can move,seems to me a theory of stupidity except if you can explain it otherwise.

Any object will remain motionless except if a force applied to it.

Don't twist my words.

The object itself may be motionless, but the atoms comprising that object are in constant motion; and because those atoms are in constant motion, the object is not static.

 

[viole]

Don't twist my words.

The object itself may be motionless, but the atoms comprising that object are in constant motion; and because those atoms are in constant motion, the object is not static.

Correct.

There is not such a thing as a motionless object.

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Don't twist my words.

The object itself may be motionless, but the atoms comprising that object are in constant motion; and because those atoms are in constant motion, the object is not static.

Whats the relation between atoms constant motion and object motion ?
How is that related ?

 

[idav]

Whats the relation between atoms constant motion and object motion ?
How is that related ?

The quantum interpretations are attempts at explaining what is going on and the relationship the quantum world and Newtonian physics. I don't think anyone really knows how it works we have the qm interpretations which are based on observations and maths. Needless to say the quantum (micro) world is not static as it appears to be in the macro world.

 

[Ouroboros]

Correct.

There is not such a thing as a motionless object.

Ciao

- viole

Agree. I believe existence is motion. Being motionless would mean non-existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agree. I believe existence is motion. Being motionless would mean non-existence.

How "thermodynamic" of you!