Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[popsthebuilder]

How very honest of you.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

With this, you have betrayed that you lack even basic understanding of cosmology and philosophy and are not in a position to tell me what makes sense and what doesn't. Your inability to understand what I have said is not indicative of my ability; what I have said is not actually that hard and has been dumbed down as much as I dare. What I have said is perfectly comprehensible, because I have used the same argument in the past and nobody has called me on it. Everyone else knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Again, strawman. Physical laws only apply to things in the universe, not the universe as an entire object. But speculating about how, or indeed if, the universe as an entire object was created is pure speculation. But we can say that, without a time external to the universe, there can be no creation of the universe. Period. Not even by a God. Not even for a purpose. You must establish the existence of this external time before that possibility becomes live.
Drew, I have made no claim that a timeless beginning is what has happened. I pointed out that you needed some sort of external time to make your notions make sense, yet this is something you have not supported. You. You're the one who needs to support the idea that this external time exists because your notion of Goddidit on the universe as an entire object is critically dependent on it. Yet you have not supported this idea at all. Furthermore, the fact that I have called upon you to support this idea of an external time means that I do not speak as if its non-existence were certain â€" if it were, I would be dismissing its existence outright, instead of calling upon you to demonstrate its existence.

Also, while Discover is a good magazine for popular science, it is hardly a peer review journal. The science of Discover is very much dumbed down. It's written for the masses like you who have no idea the philosophical morass they would wade into. Any time you speak about causation or creation in a context without some sort of time for it to happen in, you're speaking nonsense. Prove your external time and you'll be getting somewhere.
No, dearheart, that is insisting on design. You have not connected the universe's existence to any sort of design. You have not connected the existence of stars, planets, etc. to any sort of design. You have not connected the existence of sentient beings to any sort of design. Furthermore, everything you have spoken of only constitutes 4% of the matter and energy in the universe. Even worse, life forms such a vanishingly small amount of our solar system that it's hard to believe it's not inadvertent. Your opinion is unsupported and hence worthless.
Good try at sarcasm.
Nowhere have I said that abiogenesis is "all wrapped up." It does however sound like scientists have a good handle on what's going on and the the missing pieces are being rapidly filled, just as I said. See, you cannot propose an RNA world or "metabolism-first" approaches without having some idea what the chemistry was like on early Earth, or without some idea how chemistry would operate to create life in those proto-organisms.

Furthermore, the fact that the basic building blocks of life are found in outer-fucking-space indicates that the chemistry for creating life is not that hard and there are many potential spots in the universe that might have a dense enough concentration of those building blocks to create their own life. This is only natural, as it happens that the four most common elements in life also happen to be amongst the five most common elements in the universe â€" in exactly the same order of abundance, no less. If panspermia is true, then life is not rare at all (numerically, not as a fraction of the mass of the universe), and the seeds of life are everywhere, just waiting for the right conditions to flourish.

So, yeah, the scientists have abiogenesis, if not buttoned up, well in hand. Notice further that nowhere among the leading theories is Goddidit. As always, as science gets along in answering these types of questions, it is theories based on natural law that composes the entirety of the leaders, and any appeal to God is left by the wayside. You think Goddidit is still viable only because you think that looking stuff up on the internet is a substitute for a science education. As many of your predecessors have proven, it ain't.
Because he's wrong on that; any argument that takes observing that the universe follows naturalistic laws and concludes that the universe operates by anything other than naturalistic laws is fundamentally mistaken. Period.

I can tell that you did not read and did not understand my discussion immediately following of why all fine tuning arguments are wrong. It's a very basic observation that you don't even need math to see the veracity of, yet you made no comment on that at all. Why is that? Is it that lack of science education showing? I think it is.

I don't mean to pry or be rude, but if space/ time is part of the universe then the creative cause outside of the nonexistent universe would encompass it, and would have been causal to it too; not at all being constrained to any similar form of space/ time which it is wholly separate and outside of, and which too hasn't even been formed in order to constrain anything at that theoretical point.

Does that make sense?

Peace friend

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[fencerider]

yes it is possible, but big problem: the evidence of god is stagnant, while evidence collected by science of other possibilities increases all the time.

[SGOS]

yes it is possible, but big problem: the evidence of god is stagnant, while evidence collected by science of other possibilities increases all the time.

It always strikes me as odd that God's most ardent supporters, don't even collect evidence.  Science has laboratories, and observatories.  It travels afield to do research.  Religions do no research, even the centers for intelligent design, do no field work and have built no mechanisms to make measurements. Theists make proclamations, which they formulate out of religious doctrine passed on from an ancient text which is their state of the art.  Imagine a state of the art built around superstition which is 2000 years old.

The creationist research is the innovative newcomer, but it's methodology is strange.  It pretends to be up to date by reading and misrepresenting any scientific data that its staff can twist through fallacy into arguments for a deity, but they gather no actual data and make no actual observations themselves.  They just sit in their armchairs and redesign old fallacies into fallacies that sound like new ideas, while spending no time on the meticulous work required of investigation.  And then they carry their fallacies to school boards and try to pass it off as science, when in fact, they have not done a shred of actual science.

[SGOS]

Does that make sense?

Yes, no, kinda, maybe, not sure. 

But I gotta tell you, it was not an easy read, and I'm still not sure what you said. I eventually got to a point where I could at least formulate one possible interpretation of what you might have said, but that was after several readings, and that in itself gives me a great sense of accomplishment, even if I got it wrong.  But now my focus centers on why you would say that, and then I feel lost again.

So lets go through it thought by thought. 

I don't mean to pry or be rude,

First, why are you concerned about being rude?  You have a question that probably 95% of the population would ask right off the bat.  Even cosmologists know it's a concept that people can't wrap their head around, and they expect you ask it.

"if space/ time is part of the universe then the creative cause outside of the nonexistent universe would encompass it"

You're missing the concept that there is no "outside" the universe or the singularity.  There's nothing there.  In fact, even the "nothing" isn't there.  There just isn't an outside.  Don't ask me how this can be.  I didn't come up with it, and I can't even imagine it.  When I try to picture some kind of diagram in my head, I always see a point in a field of nothing.  I know this is theoretically wrong, but it's a concept so far out of my field of experience, that I can't see it.  No one has ever seen what's outside the universe, because theoretically, it isn't there.  I'm not going to defend that, because I can't defend what I can't imagine.

"the creative cause outside of the nonexistent universe would encompass it, and would have been causal to it too"

Here you simply cancel out the very concept we are trying to comprehend.  I can understand questioning the concept, but I don't see the value in negating the concept so quickly.  Why bother giving it lip service to begin with, if you're immediate next step is to cancel it?

"not at all being constrained to any similar form of space/ time which it is wholly separate and outside of"

Again, you try to understand the concept by forcing an outside to exist where there is no outside, which is the point of the concept we are trying to grasp.

"In a timeless environment, where their is no time or environment."

There is nothing outside.  No time, no timeless environment, no environment to be timeless.

"and which too hasn't even been formed in order to constrain anything at that theoretical point."

I don't know what you mean here.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I don't mean to pry or be rude, but if space/ time is part of the universe then the creative cause outside of the nonexistent universe would encompass it, and would have been causal to it too; not at all being constrained to any similar form of space/ time which it is wholly separate and outside of, and which too hasn't even been formed in order to constrain anything at that theoretical point.

You're under the mistaken assumption that time is a constraint here. It's not. It's what allows the creative cause in the first place. To cause or create the universe is to effect a change of having no universe before to having a universe after, but that requires there to be a 'before' to be changed into an 'after' â€" hence, time of some sort or another. Without time, there can be no change and therefore no causation and creation.

[popsthebuilder]

You're under the mistaken assumption that time is a constraint here. It's not. It's what allows the creative cause in the first place. To cause or create the universe is to effect a change of having no universe before to having a universe after, but that requires there to be a 'before' to be changed into an 'after' â€" hence, time of some sort or another. Without time, there can be no change and therefore no causation and creation.

Why do you think an infinite thing must be known by our definition of time; a man made thing, in order to be or change or create or cause?

Sorry, short, gotta go for now.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Hakurei Reimu]

Why do you think an infinite Hing must be known by our definition of time; a man made thing, in order to be or change or create or cause?

First off, time is not man-made. Things seemed to happen long before man even existed, let alone came up with any sort of time concept â€" I'm talking about the structure that keeps everything from happening at once, not the concepts we use to comprehend it. Second, you need some kind of way to connect that the condition of (say) not having a universe with the condition of having one. To even talk about change is to talk about some situation that is the same even though it is different. You need some notion of 'before' and 'after' and/or that the universe 'had' a different status than it has 'now.'

I challenge you to use 'change' or 'creation' or 'cause' without implicitly invoking some kind of time. I dare you. I guarantee you that you will commit a stolen concept fallacy every time.

[trdsf]

I've got the book, and have read it, but I'm still not convinced. Is our Creator some scientists from another universe? More likely than some Omni-everything supernatural God thingy.


But still, it's an interesting idea:

That this universe was created by intelligences from another universe, and that ultimately intelligence in this universe may do the same?  Well, it has the advantage of not calling on anything supernatural, but I don't know one might prove it, and it appears as unsatisfying an explanation to the beginning of the universe as panspermia is to abiogenesis and the appearance of life on Earth.  Acosmogenesis (if I may be permitted the neologism) had to happen in some universe, even if ours is a creation of intelligences in another.  Where did their universe come from, and if theirs was created by intelligences in yet another universe, where did that one come from?  Infinite regress is simply not an answer -- it's no different from turtles all the way down.

[Ananta Shesha]

Not to be picky but, and I am most assuredly not as intelligent as you,...but how can something be infinite if it was "conceived". And if it is infinite, are you claiming that god cannot "un-infinite" it? And if god can "un"infinite it....how can it be infinite?

God as absolute substance before the metaverse is infinite in expanse and finite in quantity. It is one. There can be only one. The inverse of this (quantum cavitation) is finite in expanse and infinite in quantity.

The simplest geometric expression of this is an infinite number of equal sized voided spheres as a plain in honeycomb-like arrangement, 6 spheres around a central 7th. There is no other way equal sized spheres arrange. This metaversal plane is infinite along the horizontal, and one universe high vertically, they are all lofted into being as the original infinite God divides into equal halves (no matter where you divide the infinite substance by a plain it will always be in perfect half) if I were to anthropomophize this I'd say creation came out of Gods navel.

The appearance of that plain is T1 for all those universes. The appearance of the next plain is T2 for the first plain and T1 for the new plain....and so on and so on.   

If I were to anthropomorphize the spheres of the metaversal plains, I would describe a polymastic Goddess with many wombs full of life.

[Ananta Shesha]

Another version of a fictional god--more flowery speech maybe, but fictional nonetheless.  And maybe your god said 'Uh oh......' because it created these to go along with the batch of humanity it seems to hate the most--children.

List of childhood diseases and disorders
The term childhood disease refers to disease that is contracted or becomes symptomatic before the age of 18 years old. Many of these diseases can also be contracted by adults.
Some childhood diseases include:
Gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum
Further information: Neonate infection
ï,·Candida albicans infection
ï,·Candida parapsilosis infection
ï,·Cytomegalovirus infection
ï,·diphtheria
ï,·human coronavirus infection
ï,·respiratory distress syndrome
ï,·measles
ï,·meconium aspiration syndrome
ï,·metapneumovirus (hMPV) infection
ï,·Necrotizing enterocolitis
ï,·Gonorrhea infection of the newborn
ï,·parainfluenza (PIV) infection
ï,·pertussis
ï,·poliomyelitis
ï,·prenatal Listeria
ï,·Group B streptoccus infection
ï,·tetanus
ï,·Ureaplasma urealyticum infection
ï,·respiratory Syncytial Virus infection
ï,·rhinovirus; common cold
Diseases of older children[edit]
ï,·Cold
ï,·AIDS
ï,·Anemia
ï,·Asthma
ï,·Bronchiolitis
ï,·Cancer
ï,·Candidiasis ("Thrush")
ï,·Chagas disease
ï,·Chickenpox
ï,·Croup
ï,·Cystic Fibrosis
ï,·Cytomegalovirus (the virus most frequently transmitted before birth)
ï,·dental caries
ï,·Diabetes (Type 1)
ï,·Diphtheria
ï,·Duchenne muscular dystrophy
ï,·Fifth disease
ï,·Congenital Heart Disease
ï,·Infectious mononucleosis
ï,·Influenza
ï,·Intussusception (medical disorder)
ï,·Juvenile idiopathic arthritis
ï,·Leukemia
ï,·Measles
ï,·Meningitis
ï,·Molluscum contagiosum
ï,·Mumps
ï,·Nephrotic syndrome
ï,·Osgood-Schlatter disease
ï,·Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI)
ï,·Pneumonia
ï,·Polio
ï,·Rheumatic fever
ï,·Rickets
ï,·Roseola
ï,·Rubella
ï,·Sever's disease
ï,·Tetanus
ï,·Tuberculosis
ï,·Volvulus
ï,·Whooping cough
ï,·Hepatitis A
ï,·Fever
ï,·Scarlet fever (Scarletina)
ï,·Lyme Disease
ï,·Xerophthalmia
ï,·Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections or PANDAS
ï,·PANS

And that is just a survey and far from complete the entire list of your god spreading his love and grace.

First off, mine was a tongue in cheek response to altm.

Second, the God I believe to exist objectively provides for the opening of universal space, the organization of atoms and the formation of DNA among many other things. All of this by objective geometric vibration and specific interference patterns. None of it was or needs to be "decided upon" or "intelligently designed." What ever can happen, will happen.

You might as well be mad at gravity for people tripping and falling.

[Ananta Shesha]

 Time as I see it, is simply the measure of stuff moving through space ,whether it's the year of earth moving around the sun, or the regular click of an atomic whirl.

Time as most conceptualize it doesn't actually exist. What is happening is that stuff is moving and accumulating through space.  The past is not gone, the stuff changed/moved and that's what we have now. This would be relative time.  A helpful visualization would be a snowball rolling down a hill: The past is towards the center, which holds up the surface of the present and the future is its trajectory through the snowfield.

Nonrelative time or eternal time or simply duration, would be a state of non-change or nonmovement. If there is no space to move through there is no relative time. If there is stuff and space but nothing is moving there's also no relative time.

In the concept of God as infinite absolute substance, there is no empty space for any part of that substance to move through, it is it's own border condition, this would be eternal time.  Relative time starts when a void space (universe) is vibrationally cavitated into being, within the original absolute substance.

[trdsf]

God as absolute substance before the metaverse is infinite in expanse and finite in quantity. It is one. There can be only one. The inverse of this (quantum cavitation) is finite in expanse and infinite in quantity.

Assertion without evidence.

The simplest geometric expression of this is an infinite number of equal sized voided spheres as a plain in honeycomb-like arrangement, 6 spheres around a central 7th. There is no other way equal sized spheres arrange. This metaversal plane is infinite along the horizontal, and one universe high vertically, they are all lofted into being as the original infinite God divides into equal halves (no matter where you divide the infinite substance by a plain it will always be in perfect half) if I were to anthropomophize this I'd say creation came out of Gods navel.

Another assertion without evidence.

Also, it's seven spheres only in the plane, in which we do not live -- Flatland was an allegory, not a history.  In three-dimensional space (or if you prefer, in our locally three-dimensional space moving in four-dimensional spacetime), it's 12 spheres surrounding a central sphere.

[Ananta Shesha]

Assertion without evidence.

Another assertion without evidence.

Also, it's seven spheres only in the plane, in which we do not live -- Flatland was an allegory, not a history.  In three-dimensional space (or if you prefer, in our locally three-dimensional space moving in four-dimensional spacetime), it's 12 spheres surrounding a central sphere.

There will never be evidence of anything beyond our observational bubble. So the most we can do is work with a logical starting point and see if it mathematically unfolds the universe we observe.  Theory, prediction, test and compare with evidence. Rinse and repeat.

Yes, 6 spheres around a central 7 is the unit cell of a single metaversal plain. 12 spheres around a central 13th is the unit cell of the metaversal stack of plains.  I'm currently working with the face center cubic ABC stack. But there are other maximum density sphere packs that predict a 74.05-ish% expensive constant on each sphere. See the Kepler Conjecture.

These spheres are relatively still,( objectively still in relationship to each other) time on this scale is governed by the original material now compressed into frequency band flows around the spheres governed by their contact points.  Like a rock in the middle of a river.

[Ananta Shesha]

 That expansive constant would be what we call dark energy.