Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[DBT]

They have to say something, what else can they do to maintain the illusion?

 

[bilby]

Which telscope would you use to see the centre of even our own solar system, telling you where you were?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_telescopes

The (gravitational) centre of our Solar System is typically inside the Sun. The Sun's not difficult to see; Even with the naked eye, most people can discern it.

Pretty much looks the same all around in each direction, no observable edges to the outer universe at least.

The edge of the universe is defined by the observer. Every observer is at the centre of their universe.

Let us accept the microbes in the universe. No evidence that theres more than the mere microbes existing and having "evolved" as the creatures have on earth.

OK. What's the evidence of microbes in the wider universe, beyond the Earth? What's the reason that you reject "more than mere microbes" beyond the Earth, but not microbes themselves? What's "mere" about microbes? Microbes are alive, and part of an obvious continuum of life.

Perhaps we are alone -we certainly seem to be... as developed life-forms we ARE the centre, in that case... the Adams and Eves - the very first to advance to the current developement, out of the whole microbial universe.

You are at the centre of your universe, and so is everyone else (including, but not limited to, microbes). It doesn't make you (or anyone else) special, important, or even interesting.

 

[Swammerdami]

What's the reason that you reject "more than mere microbes" beyond the Earth, but not microbes themselves? What's "mere" about microbes? Microbes are alive, and part of an obvious continuum of life.

[Nitpick: "continuum"]
According to Nick Lane in his marvelous book The Vital Question, the Eukaryotes are HUGELY different from bacteria and archaea. Essentially all eukaryotes have a large set of advanced features (mitochondria, a complex cell nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, mitosis, meiosis and sex, lysosomes, Golgi, and more) all of which are missing in all prokaryotes. Eukaryotes seem to have developed only once — all eukaryotes are descended from some singularly special symbiosis about 1.7 billion years ago. There are no "missing links" on any continuum between the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. (Amitochondrial eukaryotes are not primitive; they're just branches where the mitochondria became unnecessary.)

 

[Tigers!]

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

But religious beliefs evolve significantly over time. Early Bible believers knew that all creation happened in exactly six days... the Bible days being the same as our days. Today, some Biblical apologists will say "We can't know how long god's day is."

FIFY

PS: What do you mean by God's day?

 

[bilby]

What's the reason that you reject "more than mere microbes" beyond the Earth, but not microbes themselves? What's "mere" about microbes? Microbes are alive, and part of an obvious continuum of life.

[Nitpick: "continuum"]
According to Nick Lane in his marvelous book The Vital Question, the Eukaryotes are HUGELY different from bacteria and archaea. Essentially all eukaryotes have a large set of advanced features (mitochondria, a complex cell nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, mitosis, meiosis and sex, lysosomes, Golgi, and more) all of which are missing in all prokaryotes. Eukaryotes seem to have developed only once — all eukaryotes are descended from some singularly special symbiosis about 1.7 billion years ago. There are no "missing links" on any continuum between the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. (Amitochondrial eukaryotes are not primitive; they're just branches where the mitochondria became unnecessary.)

Meh. Eukaryotes are no more a step change from prokaryotes than homeotherms are from poikilotherms.

Evolution is a continuous process, and presents a continuum. A few people getting excited by the absence of intermediaries in an distant era where change is rapid and remains are rare isn't a big deal.

 

[Swammerdami]

What's the reason that you reject "more than mere microbes" beyond the Earth, but not microbes themselves? What's "mere" about microbes? Microbes are alive, and part of an obvious continuum of life.

[Nitpick: "continuum"]
According to Nick Lane in his marvelous book The Vital Question, the Eukaryotes are HUGELY different from bacteria and archaea. Essentially all eukaryotes have a large set of advanced features (mitochondria, a complex cell nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, mitosis, meiosis and sex, lysosomes, Golgi, and more) all of which are missing in all prokaryotes. Eukaryotes seem to have developed only once — all eukaryotes are descended from some singularly special symbiosis about 1.7 billion years ago. There are no "missing links" on any continuum between the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. (Amitochondrial eukaryotes are not primitive; they're just branches where the mitochondria became unnecessary.)

Meh. Eukaryotes are no more a step change from prokaryotes than homeotherms are from poikilotherms.

Evolution is a continuous process, and presents a continuum. A few people getting excited by the absence of intermediaries in an distant era where change is rapid and remains are rare isn't a big deal.

The difference — whether measured genetically or by cell physiology — between, say, a plant cell and an animal cell (let alone between warm- and cold-blooded animals) is minuscule compared with the variations among prokaryotes. And that variation is HUGELY dwarfed by the gulf between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. That gulf was hardly "evolution along a continuum" — it was a sudden leap induced by a unique one-time symbiosis.

 

[skepticalbip]

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

But religious beliefs evolve significantly over time. Early Bible believers knew that all creation happened in exactly six days... the Bible days being the same as our days. Today, some Biblical apologists will say "We can't know how long god's day is."

FIFY

PS: What do you mean by God's day?

You will have to ask one of the Biblical apologists who use that to resolve their conflicted beliefs. I have heard it from such apologists who understand that current species have evolved from earlier species and also believe in the creation story as told in Genesis.

 

[Tharmas]

FIFY

PS: What do you mean by God's day?

You will have to ask one of the Biblical apologists who use that to resolve their conflicted beliefs. I have heard it from such apologists who understand that current species have evolved from earlier species and also believe in the creation story as told in Genesis.

I think the reference is to the following from 2nd Peter:

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)"

The interpretation is that we can't say how long a "day" is in Genesis.

 

[Learner]

By the way, what if we were to find (with sufficiently big space telescopes, etc.) alien megastructures, or alien signals? Would you consider that that shows that Christianity is false? Or would you think that demons did it rather than aliens? Or some other alternative?

It would contradict the bible and if under those circumstances, in the future, I or other theists being there at that time to verifiably witness (test all things); naturally I may consider Christianity to be false, only... if there was NO actual existence or sign of God and Jesus obviously - who would otherwise be expected (as theists expect) to be 'appearing right on cue', so to speak. Which would be a counter-measure I suppose, to the final deception by the devil - although, many will still be tricked, in some way or other, as written in the texts.

( IF it were the alternative, I'd probably take to Eric Von Danikens idea of the technological advanced gods lol )

 

[excreationist]

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

This comic involves an old earth response to a YEC:
https://www.oldearth.org/tract/tract.htm

 

[fromderinside]

We and they know all this and yet ....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

This comic involves an old earth response to a YEC:
https://www.oldearth.org/tract/tract.htm

That's a great comic, not so funny actually because the diehard woo worshippers never get it.

 

[atrib]

A quick post, But the science studies seem to be suggesting otherwise :

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI[/YOUTUBE]
(sorry to bore some of you with the same vid)

First, when you post a youtube video or link to a lengthy article, please provide a summary of your argument that you believe the reference supports. Because I have no fucking clue as to what your point is.

I watched the video, all 30 mins of it, and I found nothing in it that contradicts my argument that consciousness is always associated with complex material networks. The person presents five evidences against materialism, but really, be brings up five things about human brains that we don't currently understand. None of the "evidences" provide examples, or even assert that consciousness can exist independent of a material foundation. Nobody here has claimed that we understand how the brain works, so you are arguing a strawman here. The person in the video then goes off the deep end, hypothesizing that nature can be best understood by imagining that nature has a purpose. He doesn't actually provide any evidence to support this argument.

So, my point and Bilby's point stands; consciousness in the universe is always tied to the complex interactions of matter/energy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide examples of consciousness existing without the underlying material substrate. And we all know you can't do that.

It's strange but you and bilby seemed have defined immaterial i.e. Gods cosmic properties, and as to why it's an impossibilty outside organic material for any such thing especially God.

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Why should it be impossible for electrical data or infomation not to be held (in natural containment) of electrical or magnetic fields? Like the varying fundamental forces that each have particular unique characteristics affecting the properties of matter, in a predicatable fixed manner, like from memory when observed.
(not the best analogy)

What the fuck does any of this mean? When I use the word material, I am talking about things that are made up of matter/energy, or arise from matter/energy. Electric/magnetic fields would fall under this definition. But again, I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say here, and I am guessing that you don't have a clue either. You are just making up shit and throwing words together without comprehension of what the words mean, by themselves, or as part of the sentences you use them in.

I don't remember this being my premise - saying both existed!!? Certainly not a biblical view, you could have pointed out. I would have thought at least you would have summized from the biblical narrative, and saying the usual rhetoric "Other Christians would disagree with you" when the narrative says: God Himself created the universe.

This is what you said:

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

What did you mean by this?

 

[atrib]

Which telscope would you use to see the centre of even our own solar system, telling you where you were? Pretty much looks the same all around in each direction, no observable edges to the outer universe at least.

Let us accept the microbes in the universe. No evidence that theres more than the mere microbes existing and having "evolved" as the creatures have on earth. Perhaps we are alone -we certainly seem to be... as developed life-forms we ARE the centre, in that case... the Adams and Eves - the very first to advance to the current developement, out of the whole microbial universe.

We are not the only evolved, or "developed" lifeforms on this planet. The virus that causes Covid-19 is just as evolved as we are. Chimpanzees and ostriches and water hyacinth and algae are just as evolved as we are.

Our universe doesn't have a center. In other words, every point in the universe can be considered its center. There is nothing special about the location of Earth.

 

[fromderinside]

Mars?

Shit, the Bible doesn't even mention the Americas, or Australasia.

The existence of marsupials isn't so much as hinted at, despite their being dropped off from Noah's zoo cruise in a wildly different location from all the other animals.

If creationists can tolerate life in Australia, they can surely manage to rationalise life on Mars.

Well there you go bilby. Those who wrote Genesis didn't know about Australia so they they made a human mistake in attributing what Noah took on the ark. As far as I can tell there is no index of all the animals, say of life outside humans, Noah boarded. I'd be interested in how marsupials got to the ark. Ah, marsupials didn't leave a written record of the journey.

So we take that on faith that they did make the journey?

Why not? We're already accepting there is this, deemed so later on, a triumvirate aspect of our maker.

Now we come to the crux of you pillory. Creationists tolerate Australia! What?

Until you can demonstrate that creationists tolerate Australia you cannot use that argument to break down as Churchy the rationale for life on Mars.

We materialists have hope for such as life on mars based on our logical interpretation of our understanding of how life originates. ^³

Of course that presumes our material understanding is adequate to hypothesize such.

Which I don't.

So back to "What's a beginning."

 

[excreationist]

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis "educating" people about marsupials like kangaroos...

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/kangaroos-dinosaurs-and-eden/

I often ask Christian audiences — did Kangaroos once live in the Middle East? Usually I find that very few, if any, put their hands up in agreement.
......
I then ask them to think about where the Ark landed—now who thinks kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? There is much laughter as most hands go up, realizing their original mistake.

Why do most answer incorrectly at first?

 

[DBT]

Funny stuff, no doubt. Pure comedy from AiG.

 

[Elixir]

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis "educating" people about marsupials like kangaroos...

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/kangaroos-dinosaurs-and-eden/

I often ask Christian audiences — did Kangaroos once live in the Middle East? Usually I find that very few, if any, put their hands up in agreement.
......
I then ask them to think about where the Ark landed—now who thinks kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? There is much laughter as most hands go up, realizing their original mistake.

Why do most answer incorrectly at first?

Last I heard about that was that Kangaroos lived briefly in the middle east, until they were blasted to Australia by .. volcanoes.
God, I hate it when that happens!

 

[bilby]

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis "educating" people about marsupials like kangaroos...

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/kangaroos-dinosaurs-and-eden/

I often ask Christian audiences — did Kangaroos once live in the Middle East? Usually I find that very few, if any, put their hands up in agreement.
......
I then ask them to think about where the Ark landed—now who thinks kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? There is much laughter as most hands go up, realizing their original mistake.

Why do most answer incorrectly at first?

Last I heard about that was that Kangaroos lived briefly in the middle east, until they were blasted to Australia by .. volcanoes.
God, I hate it when that happens!

As I said, there's nothing about finding life on Mars that is any more contradictory to YEC beliefs than finding unique forms of life in Australia.

They have a long and ignoble history of declaring things to be completely impossible, and potentially disproving of their belief, right up until the evidence for those things is undeniable, at which point it's obvious that those things are not only compatible with, but actually predicted by, their interpretation of the Bible.

Lots of members of these boards know the Bible very well; Perhaps some of them can suggest verses that (in 20-20 hindsight) will have predicted the existence of extraterrestrial life.

 

[fromderinside]

Enough with this roos jumping to arks stuff.

Why aren't we revising holy books to reflect actual understanding of things? We gave up a bunch of other faiths when the bases for ancient religions became laughable.

This strange fixation that holy words written down millennia ago are somehow sacrosanct is unsupportable. It is even more unreasonable to believe the fixedness of unverifiable texts as it is to believe the fixedness of an unsupportable creation no matter how many begats are asserted.