M
MJCarzon
Guest
This is the real science, from what I understand.
Last edited:
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
What is “the real science”?
F
Freddy
Guest
These aren’t the musings of some old duffer in the dusty halls of academia. This guy is one of the top mathematical physicists of all time. He’s been co-awarded prizes for physics with Stephen Hawkin.
He has a mathematical model for the cyclic universe which shows that it is definitely possible. I’ve got his book on the subject and the bulk of the book is written for the lay person. But is still extraordinarily difficult to get one’s head around (the appendix contains all the equations but they’d make our head spin).
And he has offered ways in which that it could be proved. He has suggested that if it is true then there will be evidence available which will prove it to be true.
So back to the point I was making. This is not some proposal that some guy on some forum has pulled out of mid air to try to deny God’s existence. This is a serious hypothesis on how this universe came to be. It doesn’t exclude God whatsoever. But it does require you and everyone else to either explicitly, or implicitly, include proposals such as this when begining an argument about the begining of this universe.
Hence: ‘On the assumption that this universe is not part of a cyclic sequence as proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and that this universe is the only one that has ever been and that it started with the big bang then…’
Then you can fill in the ellipses as you’d like and the argument will be available for discussion.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Unless proven impossible, all things imaginable remain possible. Without evidence imaginations remain in the realm of imaginations, not science.
The notion of a cyclic universe does not belong in an argument about the beginning of this universe, the notion begs the very question in denying a beginning. One would think a proponent of such a notion, although lacking any actual evidence, would offer at least evidence in experience of any real physical thing that did not have a beginning.
Last edited:
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Imaginations / fictions / fantasies / speculations / hallucinations / denials…there are many of them. It seems that these are among the many forms of escapism.
Imaginations can be a temporary refuge for those who want to escape the revelations found in the Church and the Bible. Additional revelations may yet happen after death when the body is dead but the soul lives on.
Imaginations can be a temporary refuge for those who want to escape the revelations found in the Church and the Bible. Additional revelations may yet happen after death when the body is dead but the soul lives on.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
Whether or not the universe and life are supernatural miracles, we need something perfectly simple and purely actual to exist. The universe and life are neither of those.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
One revelation was:
A being from beyond planet earth, the angel Gabriel, came to a virgin named Mary and told her that she would conceive a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. The child’s name would be Jesus. (Luke 1:26-38)
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Up until today, the cyclical universe model amounts to no more than an argument, that is open to discussion.
In other words, up until today, there is no evidence to show how the universe came to be. We don’t know is the honest answer.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Eric_Hyom:
R
rossum
Guest
No, it makes it a qualified yes. So far I have seen no evidence of any deity creating amino acids. There is ample evidence of natural processes making amino acids. Hence the evidence is more indicative of a natural origin of material life. Or do you have evidence that Amaterasu created some alanine for example?
Evolution is not creation; it rearranges already existing elements. No creation is required for evolution and hence no creator deity. All that is required for evolution to happen is imperfect heritable reproduction in a situation of resource constraint.
It is easy to set up a genetic algorithm on a computer and no creation is needed. See NASA antenna design for an example.
One step at a time and in parallel. Evolution happens in populations, so the process always runs in parallel over every member of the population.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Nassa’s antenna design may well use evolutionary algorithms; but it could only work with intelligent design.
Clever people need to design and make computers, then programme them to understand evolutionary algorithms. They would have to give the computer specific goals to reach. If the computers have been correctly programmed, they will obviously seek out the best results. But random mutation and natural selection are not goal driven
Whilst you might be excited to see evolution and Nasa mentioned together, they would not work without intelligence.
R
rossum
Guest
Intelligent people wrote the Bible. Does that mean that God is intelligently designed? Do we need a meta-God to design God?
Or are you trying to say that some deity is intelligently designing the mutations in coronavirus? do you have any evidence of such a thing happening. If the deity is using one of the four standard forces in physics to manipulate RNA molecules then there should be evidence of it – science can detect all four forces.
A
arvo
Guest
Goedel machine is the concept of self-developing, self-improving software program. Self-learning and self-rewriting and self-development is the most important themes of the current artificial intelligence research. There is not need for the external intelligence. Intelligence has different degrees (as measured but the Integrated Information Theory, for example, but there are other theories too) and there are mathematical models of consciousness (shortly: goal decision, self-knowledge and focusing on current activities) - so - intelligence can emerge in the complex systems (systems of interacting parts that interacts in non-linear ways). Well - lot of details should be filled in this outlook, but this is not the argument for apologetics.
Well - but there is very practical point of this - we can develop cognitive architecture that develops itself in very useful robots and such robots can do all the bad jobs, and that can end the exploitation of humans and animals and in such way eradicate poverty and create world of superabundance. That is way the robotics and artificial intelligence is the ultimate form of charity and the most direct path the New Jerusalem.
Well - I invite you - lets calm down this discussion about theology and lets take the pratical and charitable part to the world with not poverty anymore! This can be our glass of water and it has amazing meaning!
Well - but there is very practical point of this - we can develop cognitive architecture that develops itself in very useful robots and such robots can do all the bad jobs, and that can end the exploitation of humans and animals and in such way eradicate poverty and create world of superabundance. That is way the robotics and artificial intelligence is the ultimate form of charity and the most direct path the New Jerusalem.
Well - I invite you - lets calm down this discussion about theology and lets take the pratical and charitable part to the world with not poverty anymore! This can be our glass of water and it has amazing meaning!
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
We have faith in God, and faith means we do not have absolute proof.
Would it be easy for monkeys to set up a genetic algorithm on a computer, or would it actually need some intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Goedel machine are inspired by complex mathematical theories. How could this explain how evolution could happen without intelligent help?
These machines would be exploited by rich people to make them richer. The poor and oppressed will pick up the bill as always.
R
rossum
Guest
It takes intelligence to build a bridge, except when a bridge is built naturally:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Intelligence can intelligently copy what happens naturally in nature without intelligence. Genetic algorithms are another example of intelligence copying nature.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Geomorphology, not a natural deliberate bridge.
Given time it will naturally collapse leaving 2 stacks.
Geomorphology.
R
rossum
Guest
Your “delibrate” does not apply to evolution. Thank you for adding to my point.
And human-built bridges collapse in time as well. Entropy affects everything.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Oh please, great strawman! One of the best I have had the pleasure of reading in debates like this.
we are discussing a natural geomorphic structure that is subject to erosion from water and wind.
Your photo or a watermarked one belonging to another btw. ?
If you want to be serious and engage in a serious scientific argument on geomorphic processes try arguing that quartz, shale, feldspar and iron minerals have something to do with evolution in this case.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Scientific arguments are pretty thin on the ground in this part of the forum.
- Status