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

[rossum]

The reality of eternity is not obvious to those who limit their understanding of reality to only their experience of reality, i.e., sequentially.

And your evidence of a non-sequential reality is?

At one time the sea was parted, as the Bible says. At a different time the sea was not parted, again as the Bible says. According to the Bible, the sea cannot be “eternally” parted. Or are you going to tell us that the Bible is not reliable because it is written in “time-bound” languages?

You need to think through your arguments more carefully here. Are you really prepared to reject scripture as “time-bound”?

 

[o_mlly]

And your evidence of a non-sequential reality is?

God. Time requires a transcendent being, i.e., a being outside time, for its existence.

At one time the sea was parted, as the Bible says. At a different time the sea was not parted, again as the Bible says. According to the Bible, the sea cannot be “eternally” parted. Or are you going to tell us that the Bible is not reliable because it is written in “time-bound” languages?

The Bible does not explain quantum electro-mechanics but that does not make the Bible unreliable.

I get it that you don’t get it. You may have the last word. I’ll defer to the issue in the OP’s thread for further posts.

 

[rossum]

Time requires a transcendent being, i.e., a being outside time, for its existence.

Time requires a cause. That cause may be a transcendent being (God) or it may not be a transcendent being (the Multiverse).

 

[Noose001]

Is ‘time’ time bound?
Not unless you clearly define what time is, you are wasting your time.

Time requires a cause. That cause may be a transcendent being (God) or it may not be a transcendent being (the Multiverse)

Is that being time bound?

 

[stoplooklisten]

Age of the universe - Wikipedia

There is evidence to support a concept like 13.787 billion years ago.

There is no evidence to support a speculative and imaginary concept like 200 billion years ago.

Matter, energy, time are constrained, physical concepts.

Time requires a cause. That cause may be a transcendent being (God) or it may not be a transcendent being (the Multiverse).

No information from a separate universe has made its way into the observable universe where we all live (for now). Multiverse is a speculative, imaginary concept.

 

[rossum]

Is that being time bound?

It might be. See the Gnostic Demiurge or the Jewish Sefirot for possible examples.

 

[Noose001]

It might be. See the Gnostic Demiurge or the Jewish Sefirot for possible examples.

Impossible, but before you even start thinking of a timeless being, you need to first address the issue with ‘time’.
Everything else has a beginning and end because of time, why do think time has a beginning? That means time is time bound.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Time requires a cause. That cause may be a transcendent being (God) or it may not be a transcendent being (the Multiverse).

Nearly 900 posts later and we are still stuck on ‘may be’.

I wonder if we could move onto evolution. How did the skeletal system evolve purely by natural means?

There are many species with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons.

A skeleton is just a load of levers connected together for movement, we can study how the body works. With all our technology today; we should be able to mechanically replicate this same range of movement.

We can create all kinds of mega engineering, send people into space, but we can’t create the range of movement that exists within our bodies. If the best engineers in the world fail, then how can random chance and natural selection do this without guidance.

How does this journey start from abiogenesis?

 

[rossum]

Impossible, but before you even start thinking of a timeless being, you need to first address the issue with ‘time’.
Everything else has a beginning and end because of time, why do think time has a beginning? That means time is time bound.

If there is no time then there is no causation. The cause has to come before the effect. In the absence of time there can be no before; all events are simultaneous. If two events are simultaneous then there can be neither cause nor effect. One did not cause the other and the other did not cause the one.

Naturally, this problem applies to any proposed “cause” of time.

 

[Dan123]

If the best engineers in the world fail, then how can random chance and natural selection do this without guidance.

You realize we move closer to that all the time? And it’s not like there’s some large scale effort to do it. There isn’t a huge amount of commercial value right now to have skeletal style robots because for the purposes we use them for there are much better arrangements. An example might be the types of assembly robots used in factories which are articulated even more so than the human form allowing 360 degree rotation on a single axis. There’s just no ‘killer app’ right now propelling us to replicate a skeletal form so I don’t see how your conclusion follows. Plus you seem to base this on the idea that we’re currently at some kind of peak, that if we can’t do something now it must be impossible and God can be the only explanation. That seems hasty.

 

[rossum]

Nearly 900 posts later and we are still stuck on ‘may be’.

You asked questions where there is a distinct lack of evidence. That does restrict answers to “may be”.

I wonder if we could move onto evolution.

Much better. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution.

How did the skeletal system evolve purely by natural means?

Which skeletal system? Jellyfish do not have one. Earthworms have a hydrostatic skeleton. Arthropods have an exoskeleton. Vertebrates have an endoskeleton.

There are many species with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons.

Muscles came first: jellyfish. After the split between protostomes and deuterostomes, the protostomes tended to go for exoskeletons: crabs, insects, while the deuterostomes tended to go for endoskeletons: sharks and teleosts.

Your “bones” only applies to vertebrate and similar skeletons. Do you include sharks in that, since their bones basically do not have calcium and there are not as many of them. Dogfish are sharks, which is why they do not have as many bones as teleosts.

We can create all kinds of mega engineering, send people into space, but we can’t create the range of movement that exists within our bodies.

Where is your evidence for this claim? We can make hinge joints (elbows, knees). We can make ball and socket joints (hips, shoulders).

How does this journey start from abiogenesis?

Look back through the tree of life. Start with jellyfish and go forward through the bilateria to vertebrates. Different pieces are added over time.

 

[Freddy]

We can create all kinds of mega engineering, send people into space, but we can’t create the range of movement that exists within our bodies. If the best engineers in the world fail, then how can random chance and natural selection do this without guidance?

You have to realise, Eric, that we’re only good enough. Just good enough to survive for this short time we’ve been here (which is about 1% of the time that dinosaurs existed). We can’t run, see, swim, hear, jump etc better than other creatures. We just got lucky and developed an opposable thumb and a larger brain. We can’t live anywhere where it’s too hot or too cold. We have this thin skin of atmosphere in which we can survive and the rest of the universe is about as deadly as you could imagine.

Evolution (or God) has done a pretty average job in designing us. I can give you a revised spec sheet if you like.

 

[Noose001]

If there is no time then there is no causation. The cause has to come before the effect. In the absence of time there can be no before ; all events are simultaneous. If two events are simultaneous then there can be neither cause nor effect. One did not cause the other and the other did not cause the one.

Naturally, this problem applies to any proposed “cause” of time.

So i guess there’s no beginning of time

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

If there is no time then there is no causation. The cause has to come before the effect. In the absence of time there can be no before ; all events are simultaneous. If two events are simultaneous then there can be neither cause nor effect. One did not cause the other and the other did not cause the one.

Naturally, this problem applies to any proposed “cause” of time.

So i guess there’s no beginning of time

Time is just a measure of the rate of change. If nothing changes (or if there is nothing to change) then time doesn’t exist. I’m not sure if it stops and then restarts whether we could call that restart a ‘beginning’…

 

[Noose001]

Time is just a measure of the rate of change. If nothing changes (or if there is nothing to change) then time doesn’t exist. I’m not sure if it stops and then restarts whether we could call that restart a ‘beginning’…

You are just redefining but not solving.

1. Measuring is a construct of the mind
2. You’ve redefined time but my question still stands:
   Q. Does the measure of rate of change (time) have a beginning?

Things only have a beginning and an end because of time (Measure of rate of change), why should measure of rate of change (time) have a beginning?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Time is just a measure of the rate of change. If nothing changes (or if there is nothing to change) then time doesn’t exist. I’m not sure if it stops and then restarts whether we could call that restart a ‘beginning’…

…why should measure of rate of change (time) have a beginning?

If nothing is changing, there is no rate of change so there is no time. If something starts to change then there is a rate of change and therefore there is time.

 

[Noose001]

If nothing is changing, there is no rate of change so there is no time. If something starts to change then there is a rate of change and therefore there is time.

And the problem persists.

‘Start’ is itself a change.

Something can only start if measured by a conscious mind or rather without consciousness, nothing can ever start or even change because a change is only a change when consciousness does comparison to its previous or original state.

Therefore ‘start’ or ‘beginning’ itself, only happens within the confines of time.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If nothing is changing, there is no rate of change so there is no time. If something starts to change then there is a rate of change and therefore there is time.

And the problem persists.

‘Start’ is itself a change.

Something can only start if measured by a conscious mind or rather without consciousness, nothing can ever start or even change because a change is only a change when consciousness does comparison to its previous or original state.

Ah yes. I was forgetting. As far as you are concerned, if a tree falls in the forrest and no-one is around, not only does it make no sound, it actually never fell at all.

 

[Noose001]

Ah yes. I was forgetting. As far as you are concerned, if a tree falls in the forrest and no-one is around, not only does it make no sound, it actually never fell at all.

The tree and the forest are just a perception.

Now seriously, in the beginning of this universe, a singularity rapidly expanded (changed).

How is this possible when a change is an observation?

If there’s no consciousness to determine that there’s an increase in diameter (expansion/change), then nothing changes at all.

 

[Freddy]

So if nobody sees something happening then it doesn’t happen.

Roger that.