Zone1 For Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution, question

[ding]

It is your job if you are the one making the claim. I'm not the one making a claim God does or doesn't exist, you are.

Incorrect. We can know this because I'm not doing it. I'm telling you what I found and believe. I couldn't care less what you do with it. It's not an accident the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, that's the assumption because science tells us the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created from nothing.

Fascinating field. And obviously very much above my pay grade.

For example, I read that there was no time at all before the “big bang” which (supposedly) alone created time and space and matter and energy. And that always leads me back to the (I believe) very obvious question:

“well where did that come from?”

 

[forkup]

Incorrect. We can know this because I'm not doing it. I'm telling you what I found and believe. I couldn't care less what you do with it. It's not an accident the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.

Sorry ding, but we are now going around in circles. I'm not about to give the same counterarguments, to claims you make without evidence.

I hope we can do this again soon. This was at least civil.

 

[ding]

It wasn't magically created out of nothing.

Actually it kind of was but a more accurate way of saying it is that there was no time when there was a created thing that preceded the universe and out of which the universe was made.

 

[ding]

Fascinating field. And obviously very much above my pay grade.

For example, I read that there was no time at all before the “big bang” which (supposedly) alone created time and space and matter and energy. And that always leads me back to the (I believe) very obvious question:

“well where did that come from?”

Here's a quick 3 minute video where - at the end - he explains why the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Flash]

Actually it kind of was

If you want to believe in magic then go ahead Sport. LOL!

 

[ding]

This is philosophical. Something that I don't like. Not just that, I don't believe it. Even if there is no consciousness a physical world can exist. A universe without any conscious life would still exist it simply would not be recognised..

No. Philosophical is prior to the creation of space and time. Philosophical would be God was responsible for willing the laws of nature and our space and time into existence.

What I am sharing is the science of the implausibility of a universe being capable of producing life and intelligence. Change the structure of an atom and you can still create a universe in exactly the same way ours was created but it will be devoid of life. That's based on science.

Like I said before... the universe is only made manifest by mind.

George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

 

[ding]

If you want to believe in magic then go ahead Sport. LOL!

How is this...

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.​

...magic?

 

[ding]

To the degree that we humans are capable of understanding, it all must have been created at the same time.

or

It always existed.

Not sure what you are getting at with it must have all been created at the same time. But you can educate yourself on why light didn't appear until 400,000 years after matter and energy were created from nothing on this site. Which also happens to explain how matter and energy could be produced from nothing.

As for the universe always existing? That's an idiotic thing to believe.

The Early Universe

 

[ding]

That's not settled science that the universe did begin.

Can you quote science on that?
Any are you saying 'life' as we know it?


You're making the assumption that space and time were created when it could be that they always existed.

I don't mean to be contrary but there's no other choice but to not accept your theories as fact. In any case, it seems that you're making assertions for some purpose. So as an example, what is your purpose in saying that the universe did begin, when that suggests that It always was?

Was it you who said you accepted the multiverse theory or was it Meri?

Fwiw, I'll grant you your theory that the universe did begin, with my purpose in mind of seeing what you want to do with it?

The universe beginning drive atheists crazy. As well it should.

 

[Flash]

How is this...

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.​

...magic?

That is bullshit.

There is nothing in credible science that says that you can create a universe out of nothing.

They have created a trace of some sub atomic particles that for a mili second SEEMS to have come out of nothing but it is not conclusive and that is far from an entire universe being created out of nothing.

To believe that the entire universe suddenly sprang into existence out of absolutely nothing is believing in magic and doesn't even pass the snicker test, no less the Laws of Physics.

However, if you want to believe that silly crap then go for it Sport.

 

[ding]

That is bullshit.

There is nothing in credible science that says that you can create a universe out of nothing.

They have created a trace of some sub atomic particles that for a mili second SEEMS to have come out of nothing but it is not conclusive and that is far from an entire universe being created out of nothing.

To believe that the entire universe suddenly sprang into existence out of absolutely nothing is believing in magic and doesn't even pass the snicker test, no less the Laws of Physics.

However, if you want to believe that silly crap then go for it Sport.

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

There's more if you need it.

 

[ding]

That is bullshit.

There is nothing in credible science that says that you can create a universe out of nothing.

They have created a trace of some sub atomic particles that for a mili second SEEMS to have come out of nothing but it is not conclusive and that is far from an entire universe being created out of nothing.

To believe that the entire universe suddenly sprang into existence out of absolutely nothing is believing in magic and doesn't even pass the snicker test, no less the Laws of Physics.

However, if you want to believe that silly crap then go for it Sport.

What do you suppose created the cosmic background radiation?

Because that with red shift and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations is what this is based upon.

What is the cosmic microwave background?

The cosmic microwave background can help scientists piece together the history of the universe.

www.space.com

 

[ding]

Sorry ding, but we are now going around in circles. I'm not about to give the same counterarguments, to claims you make without evidence.

I hope we can do this again soon. This was at least civil.

You haven't really made any counter arguments. You haven't made a counter argument the universe didn't have a beginning or that it was created from pre-existing matter. You haven't made a counter argument that life and intelligence would be possible for other structures of matter. You haven't made a counter argument that the laws of nature didn't exist before space and time. You haven't made a counter argument that the laws of nature didn't predestine life and intelligence.

This is the foundation of my belief and they have not been refuted.

1. The universe began
2. The universe was not created from existing matter
3. If you slightly change the structure of atoms, the universe could have been created in the exact same way but would be devoid of life.
4. The laws of nature existed before space and time itself.
5. The laws of nature predestined life and intelligence would arise.

It was this foundation which led me to believing that it couldn't just be an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It had to be set on that course intentionally.

My foundation is based on science. I evaluated the only thing I could evaluate to answer the question did God create existence... which was what God supposedly created. You haven't done that. You have made no effort to investigate BOTH sides of the issue to arrive at objective truth. I did. I literally argued against myself to reach this conclusion without a preference for an outcome and without bias.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I agree this was a civil conversation. You are welcome back anytime.

 

[Donald H]

Incorrect, but if it makes you happy to believe that, good for you. I couldn't be happier for you.

The story is true and their experiences of storms at sea is definitely what makes them strong and unafraid of high seas.
And as I said, the Christians didn't brave the storm any better than atheists or people who believe in other religions.

I've given you an opportunity to act civil but you choose not to. From now on I'll treat you no better than what you deserve.

For a start, you've only shown that you can't abide others questioning your religious beliefs, because you're still questioning and doubtful yourself. Your rude manners and angry says it all.

 

[ding]

This is worth restating because it is about the topic of evolution and faith.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

 

[ding]

The story is true and their experiences of storms at sea is definitely what makes them strong and unafraid of high seas.
And as I said, the Christians didn't brave the storm any better than atheists or people who believe in other religions.

I've given you an opportunity to act civil but you choose not to. From now on I'll treat you no better than what you deserve.

For a start, you've only shown that you can't abide others questioning your religious beliefs, because you're still questioning and doubtful yourself. Your rude manners and angry says it all.

I wasn't responding to the story. I was responding to your statement that my previous post wasn't a message of peace, that you believe it was a message of frustration and anger. It wasn't. You will have no peace in your life. That's my message. It's a statement of fact. It wasn't about literal storms at sea. It was about the daily storms in your life. The best you can hope for is to suffer without complaint.

I'm at peace with my life. That's why you don't see me attacking other religions. Why would I if I was happy with my own choice, right? I don't need to tear them down to build myself up. I'm secure in my beliefs. You aren't. That why you attack others which is to really say Christians. You don't attack any other faith, right? It's personal for you.

 

[ding]

For a start, you've only shown that you can't abide others questioning your religious beliefs, because you're still questioning and doubtful yourself. Your rude manners and angry says it all.

That is 100% incorrect. I haven't been rude and I am quite happy how this conversation has gone. And what is it that I wrote that would lead you to believe I can't abide with others questioning my religious beliefs?

I'm not the one attacking the religion of others. That's you. You do not seem very secure in your beliefs if you have to try to tear down someone else's beliefs to build up your own. If anything you are behaving like one rival religion attacking another rival religion. Chew on that for awhile. Let it marinate.

 

[ding]

Sure it did. But a byproduct was still made. By accident.

It's not an accident the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

 

[Donald H]

This is worth restating because it is about the topic of evolution and faith.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

Christians too are entitled to attempt presenting their theories on evolution, but they can't be permitted to promote creation and evolution together, when those are two competing and contradictory theories.

Hardly any other Christians are allowing you that liberty, and neither do atheists. Clearly other Christians aren't permitting you to throw out the teaching of the entire bible, based on your defensive posturing of it not being the literal word of your god.

So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

No, consciousness would most likely lead to Darwinian evolution being the next level.

Because!

Even the Catholic church has made that leap to the next level!