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

[o_mlly]

You expect evidence from the science side, but you deny the necessity of evidence from your side.

Yes, I do expect evidence and so do you. Remember Rossum’s Rule?

As a scientist, my side is the side of real science. The difference between science and science fiction is, as you put it, an actual observation. So as a scientist, I call the imaginations offered in this thread for the beginnings of the universe and life just what they are – science fiction.

 

[rossum]

Yes, I do expect evidence and so do you. Remember Rossum’s Rule ?

I do remember. Science can show actual purines. Science can show actual pyrimidines. Theology can show neither. Science has the actual evidence. That satisfies Rossum’s rule.

 

[o_mlly]

Hawking’s quantum fluctuation is both the source of, and an inextricable part of, physical reality. And yet it isn’t physical.

If the quantum fluctuation is not physical then is it a spiritual event?

 

[o_mlly]

Science can show actual purines. Science can show actual pyrimidines.

I ask for a potato and you give me dirt and water and say, “There you go”. No, that just won’t do.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s why they are unobservable …

? Science does not ask or answer the “why” question or its negation.

We rely on science for answers to the “what” and “how” questions. The “what” an “how” questions need an actual observation, not an explanation of “why” we have no observations.

 

[stoplooklisten]

F: ‘Do you accept basic scientific principles?’

I accept basic scientific principles I may question some assumptions.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Hawking’s quantum fluctuation is both the source of, and an inextricable part of, physical reality. And yet it isn’t physical.

It is or it isn’t. Quantum particles are physical. How did “quantum static” get there? Where did it come from? Prime matter isn’t physical matter. Prime matter is the potential that’s there because Almighty God is there.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s why they are unobservable …

? Science does not ask or answer the “why” question or its negation.

I shouldn’t need to tell you that one shouldn’t confuse a genuine need to know (why does the apple fall from the tree?) with questions of meaning.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

F: ‘Do you accept basic scientific principles?’

I accept basic scientific principles I may question some assumptions.

On what basis?

 

[o_mlly]

I shouldn’t need to tell you that one shouldn’t confuse a genuine need to know (why does the apple fall from the tree?) with questions of meaning.

I shouldn’t need to tell you that one shouldn’t offer non-observations as science facts. Oh, I see I already have but appears I need to repeat it.

 

[stoplooklisten]

On what basis?

Are you trying to test me with some sort of “litmus test”?

I do believe in the validity of the scientific method that depends upon repeatable observations.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

On what basis?

Are you trying to test me with some sort of “litmus test”?

No. Just trying to decide if further conversation would be productive.

 

[rossum]

I ask for a potato and you give me dirt and water and say, “There you go”. No, that just won’t do.

You have no purines? You have no pyrimidines? Then you do not have life. All material life uses both. Science has both. Theology has neither.

That means theology is losing.

 

[o_mlly]

You have no purines? You have no pyrimidines? Then you do not have life.

You have purines and pyrimidines but you don’t have life.

That means theology is losing.

? It’s not a competition. The sources of science and faith knowledge are different. Why do you keep attempting to hijack this thread into something which it is not?

 

[o_mlly]

The question then becomes, what need is there of God if a mere fluctuation in prime matter is all that’s required to create everything else?

Well, it would be nice if you could explain exactly what a “mere fluctuation in prime matter” is for starters. Hawkings may have been a brilliant physicist but not at all a good philosopher.

 

[Veritas6]

So there must exist something from which physical things come to exist, but which is itself, not physical.

Hawking envisions it as being quantum in nature, but it’s eerily similar to what metaphysicists call, prime matter. What Hawking is arguing, is that reality is caused by a fluctuation in the quantum equivalent of prime matter…pure potency.

Prime matter is lacking in actuality, so it doesn’t actually exist, but there is potential for it to exist.

The same can be said of Hawking’s quantum source…it exists only in combination with physical reality, because the very concept of existing before the existence of physical reality…and its accompanying time…is meaningless. Therefore it can only exist in conjunction with the very things of which it is the source.

Hawking’s quantum fluctuation is both the source of, and an inextricable part of, physical reality. And yet it isn’t physical.

Has this quantum fluctuation been proven to exist? The problem is prime matter still has potency which cannot become actualized by itself; it needs an outer agent to bring it into reality.

If it has been proven, it doesn’t say much about the existence of God. Where does this potency come from and how does it work?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I like to know the level of acceptance of basic scientific principles people have when they discuss anything in this particular thread. It saves me a lot of time downstream.

The science that intrigues me the most, is from abiogenesis to the first eye lens and skeletal system. This would be when evolution faces its greatest challenge.

I doubt there is much real evidence to show how this happened.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I like to know the level of acceptance of basic scientific principles people have when they discuss anything in this particular thread. It saves me a lot of time downstream.

The science that intrigues me the most, is from abiogenesis to the first eye lens and skeletal system. This would be when evolution faces its greatest challenge.

I doubt there is much real evidence to show how this happened.

It’s been explained to you, Eric. We have examples of the simplest light sensing cells to the most complex eyes and all stages in between. Likewise for skeletal systems. It seems perverse to see all these examples and deny that they cannot have evolved.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

We have examples of the simplest light sensing cells to the most complex eyes and all stages in between.

All the nature programmes on tv prove what you say.

But isolate just one species with a complex eye. Starting from abiogenesis; how did it go through a thousand plus incremental steps to get to this eye?

The Nilsson model shows seven specific goals. But we know mutation and natural selection are blind and they have no goals. Is this a true model of how the eye evolved?

 

[AlNg]

Besides the fact that a cyclic universe can be disproven both scientifically and philosophically.

And the two proofs are: ?