How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QContinuum said:
Regarding “before” the Big Bang, that is a nonsensical question to me because the Big Bang is where time starts. So asking what happened “before” time is a null question to me.
Click to expand...
Does that mean silence (absence of sound) started at the big bang?

You do not need to be a Physicist to think.
QContinuum said:
If that were true, then science would not have anything to say about the Big Bang, the makeup of the universe and how molecular life is arranged. Clearly that’s not the case. These and more all touch on the “beginning” of the space-time continuum.
Click to expand...
QContinuum said:
We come upon the real source of the issue. You conflate faith with knowledge. Science is the antithesis of a religion because it is not a revelation of truth. Whereas a proclaimed divine source basically downloads privileged knowledge on believers and gives them the answers in a nut shell. All the person has to do is decide whether they accept that story as truth. That’s faith.
Click to expand...
 
Noose001 said:
Does that mean silence (absence of sound) started at the big bang?

You do not need to be a Physicist to think
Click to expand...
ATE has its start at the Big Bang. But I think your last comment was insulting in its implication that I do not think or don’t want to. The more accurate statement is that I am not willing to be baited into playing endless semantic games. My point about scientific method being distinctive from faith has been made.

And I because Iive in an area heavily impacted by protests and violence, I do not have time to go down rabbit holes with you. I am literally posting between supply runs to different community support drives right now.
 
QContinuum said:
ATE has its start at the Big Bang
Click to expand...
I guess this means that silence has a beginning and it started at the big bang. Well, there’s nothing true with this kind of idea, in fact a whole world view crumbles.

Stay safe.
 
QContinuum said:
I am literally posting between supply runs to different community support drives right now.
Click to expand...
We live in scary times, I admire the good work you are doing.

It has been said that when too many people can’t afford a loaf of bread, it takes very little to spark riots and revolution.

Bless you,
Eric
 
arvo said:
all the math can be generated from just some rules of Lambda calculus
Click to expand...
Please show how Galois theory can be generated from the Lambda calculus.
QContinuum said:
drugs and treatments are never 100% effective.
Click to expand...
That is not true in my case. I had an itch on my elbow and I applied some anti-itch cream. It was 100% effective as the itch went and never came back.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Please show how Galois theory can be generated from the Lambda calculus.
Click to expand...
Of course, lambda calculus are just language and the axioms should be state for some theory that is expressed in them, but concepts in those axioms boils down to the basic types of i and o and the basic constructs.

So - here is Galois in Coq:


And Isabelle-HOL archive (expressions in HOL, there are translations among Isabelle HOL and Coq CIC-Lambda)
https://www.isa-afp.org/
contains several formalizations of groups, algerbas, algebraic numbers and so on.

Well - I feel the point… But lets be clear. It is quite hard to discover set of meaningful (generative, with modelling power) axioms and concepts (though there are works in Artificial Intelligence that are doing just that, I will not put further references, because I am very angry at CAF because they flagged and removed my another question about Universal Basic Income because of s.c. advocacy link, but actually I have linked the most prominent institution that supports the UBI and that issue peer-reviewed journal and helds peer-reviewed conferences, so - because of some strange views of CAF I am very, very angry), but it is just that - concepts and axioms that can be expressed in the same basic lambda calculus (Coq CIC or Isabelle HOL), axioms are just constraints (for validity) on the wild sets of expressions that can be generated from such simple language as lambdas.

Worlfram is unaware of lambdas and he in his physics project is rediscvering this emergence from the simple laws, that is why there is no much science in Wolfram Physics, but it is very powerful demonstration for the laymen anyway.
 
Last edited:
Todays weekly Nature number contains interesting article about un-organic (un-biotic) synthesis of the DNA/RNA parts from which the DNA/RNA could emerge further.

Article: Selective prebiotic formation of RNA pyrimidine and DNA purine nucleosides

Abstract as a spoiler:
The nature of the first genetic polymer is the subject of major debate1. Although the ‘RNA world’ theory suggests that RNA was the first replicable information carrier of the prebiotic era—that is, prior to the dawn of life2,3—other evidence implies that life may have started with a heterogeneous nucleic acid genetic system that included both RNA and DNA4. Such a theory streamlines the eventual ‘genetic takeover’ of homogeneous DNA from RNA as the principal information-storage molecule, but requires a selective abiotic synthesis of both RNA and DNA building blocks in the same local primordial geochemical scenario. Here we demonstrate a high-yielding, completely stereo-, regio- and furanosyl-selective prebiotic synthesis of the purine deoxyribonucleosides: deoxyadenosine and deoxyinosine. Our synthesis uses key intermediates in the prebiotic synthesis of the canonical pyrimidine ribonucleosides (cytidine and uridine), and we show that, once generated, the pyrimidines persist throughout the synthesis of the purine deoxyribonucleosides, leading to a mixture of deoxyadenosine, deoxyinosine, cytidine and uridine. These results support the notion that purine deoxyribonucleosides and pyrimidine ribonucleosides may have coexisted before the emergence of life[5]
Click to expand...
 
I have not read the entire stream…so apologies if some of this repeats.

As a philosopher, I think that there are good scientific and philosophical arguments to believe that God exists and is uncreated. Consider, for example, yourself. You could have not existed…therefore, you are a contingent being, along with the universe and everybody in it. Only a necessary being can bring contingent beings into existence. Anything that begins to exist has a cause…but God never began to exist! “In the beginning…” God was. God existed before time, space, and matter were created.

With the modern scientific knowledge we know now, atheists cannot stop at denying that a transcendent, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immaterial personal being exists. They have to demonstrate that it is impossible for such a being to exist. And, that is impossible.
 
MJCarzon said:
I have not read the entire stream…so apologies if some of this repeats.

As a philosopher, I think that there are good scientific and philosophical arguments to believe that God exists and is uncreated. Consider, for example, yourself. You could have not existed…therefore, you are a contingent being, along with the universe and everybody in it. Only a necessary being can bring contingent beings into existence. Anything that begins to exist has a cause…but God never began to exist! “In the beginning…” God was. God existed before time, space, and matter were created.

With the modern scientific knowledge we know now, atheists cannot stop at denying that a transcendent, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immaterial personal being exists. They have to demonstrate that it is impossible for such a being to exist. And, that is impossible.
Click to expand...
Could you change that to: ‘If we assume that everything had a begining and we assume that anything that begins to exist has a cause…’

Many thanks, MJ.
 
Last edited:
We don’t just assume that…we know it, correct?
 
Last edited:
MJCarzon said:
We don’t just assume that…we know it, correct?
Click to expand...
No, that’s incorrect, MJ. For example, there are hypothesis such as a cyclic universe which keeps repeating itself. The end of one is the cause of the next. No begining and no end. And it’s most definitely mathematically valid so we have to include that possibility into any of the options with which we start any argument or we have to specifically exclude it. As in: ‘On the assumption that the universe isn’t cyclic and therefore had a begining, then…’

You can then add your argument onto the end of that.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
For example, there are hypothesis such as a cyclic universe which keeps repeating itself.
Click to expand...
All circles have a beginning. Take a blank piece of paper and it remains blank until you draw the circle. Once the circle is drawn, you can go round and round forever, or until something breaks down.

However, the best answer so far is we don’t know the science.

Faith in God does not demand science to back up our claim. But as said before, the thread asks; how could the universe and life happen without a creator God?
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Freddy:
For example, there are hypothesis such as a cyclic universe which keeps repeating itself.
Click to expand...
All circles have a beginning. Take a blank piece of paper and it remains blank until you draw the circle. Once the circle is drawn, you can go round and round forever, or until something breaks down.

However, the best answer so far is we don’t know the science.

Faith in God does not demand science to back up our claim. But as said before, the thread asks; how could the universe and life happen without a creator God?
Click to expand...
As regards the cyclic universe, then all I can say is that it is a serious proposal and does not require a begining. Making comparisons with a circle on a paper doesn’t work. We immediately think of a finite object that requires a begining and quite frankly, that’s as much as we can do.

We’re not capable of envisaging the concepts. We’re not built for it. We can only do it using mathematical models. And quite honestly, 99.999% of us wouldn’t even understand them. And I find it hugely frustrating that a lot of people base arguments on nothing more than ‘well, it’s obvious, isn’t it?’ (not including you here).

Well, yeah. Lots of things are obvious. Like the sun rolling around the sky to use the simplest of examples. But that’s something we can understand. But multiple dimensions? Deep time? Curved space? Infinite distances? Cyclic universes? We don’t have a hope in hades of understanding them. But people are pretty keen on starting arguments without acknowledging that there are other options.
 
Freddy said:
As regards the cyclic universe, then all I can say is that it is a serious proposal and does not require a begining. Making comparisons with a circle on a paper doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
Just for arguments sake; suppose the cyclical universe was comprised of helium and hydrogen. It would have to mean that either helium and hydrogen had no beginning, or they did not come from anything.

Both these options seem to defy logic and reason, it’s like the magician plucking rabbits out of the hat. It’s like the circle always existed on the paper, there was never a time that circle did not exist.

I think trying to define a cyclical universe, is like trying to dodge the question of “no beginning”.
Freddy said:
And quite honestly, 99.999% of us wouldn’t even understand them.
Click to expand...
That’s me too. I have spent countless sleepless nights trying to understand no beginning.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Just for arguments sake; suppose the cyclical universe was comprised of helium and hydrogen. It would have to mean that either helium and hydrogen had no beginning, or they did not come from anything.

Both these options seem to defy logic and reason, it’s like the magician plucking rabbits out of the hat. It’s like the circle always existed on the paper, there was never a time that circle did not exist.

I think trying to define a cyclical universe, is like trying to dodge the question of “no beginning”.
Click to expand...
It’s like saying the ancient drawing in the cave came from an ancient artist but the cave walls themselves came from a cyclic universe without an artist. Is there a bias in there somewhere for cosmologies that exclude a Creator God?
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Freddy:
As regards the cyclic universe, then all I can say is that it is a serious proposal and does not require a begining. Making comparisons with a circle on a paper doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
Just for arguments sake; suppose the cyclical universe was comprised of helium and hydrogen. It would have to mean that either helium and hydrogen had no beginning, or they did not come from anything.

Both these options seem to defy logic and reason…
Click to expand...
They do, don’t they…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top