if not evolution

[ding]

For instance, what possible reason could nature have for instilling the survival instinct into life.

Why would nature care if life survived?

You presume that it does. First of all to suggest that nature instils the survival instinct implies facts not in evidence. Why is it not more likely that the survival instinct is simply a function of nature, not something created by nature?

The survival instinct is part of the fabric of every living creature. Even bacteria and viruses mutate to survive.

There is no randomness to this. The instinct to survive is a condition or rule of life.

 

[ding]

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -Albert Einstein. “

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

 

[Czernobog]

So, would you agree that nature is the external universe in its entirety?

Can't say. We can only say that the Laws of Nature existed before space and time were created.

What I will say is that the only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Of course you can't say. Because saying that would, by necessity, include space, and time. And that would make your unproven claim that these "laws of nature" existed before time and space difficult. Kind of hard to exist "before time and space - the very qualities of nature - and still be called "Laws of Nature".

Space and time have not existed for ever. Space and time had a beginning. That beginning followed rules just like every other event in our cause and effect universe. Those rules are the same laws of nature which apply today. Specifically the conservation of energy and quantum mechanics. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe the process.

Which means nature has not existed for ever. If nature has not existed for ever to claim that the laws of nature have is both irrational, and illogical.

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

 

[ding]

The very foundation of natural selection is survival and it is hard wired into life.

 

[ding]

Can't say. We can only say that the Laws of Nature existed before space and time were created.

What I will say is that the only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Of course you can't say. Because saying that would, by necessity, include space, and time. And that would make your unproven claim that these "laws of nature" existed before time and space difficult. Kind of hard to exist "before time and space - the very qualities of nature - and still be called "Laws of Nature".

Space and time have not existed for ever. Space and time had a beginning. That beginning followed rules just like every other event in our cause and effect universe. Those rules are the same laws of nature which apply today. Specifically the conservation of energy and quantum mechanics. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe the process.

Which means nature has not existed for ever. If nature has not existed for ever to claim that the laws of nature have is both irrational, and illogical.

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

That would be unreasonable because then you are saying the universe came into existence without following rules. We live in a universe governed by rules.

 

[Czernobog]

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -Albert Einstein. “

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

 

[Czernobog]

The very foundation of natural selection is survival and it is hard wired into life.

So? That does not dictate that it was programmed, and not simply a natural part of the formation of the physical universe.

 

[ding]

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -Albert Einstein. “

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

 

[Czernobog]

Of course you can't say. Because saying that would, by necessity, include space, and time. And that would make your unproven claim that these "laws of nature" existed before time and space difficult. Kind of hard to exist "before time and space - the very qualities of nature - and still be called "Laws of Nature".

Space and time have not existed for ever. Space and time had a beginning. That beginning followed rules just like every other event in our cause and effect universe. Those rules are the same laws of nature which apply today. Specifically the conservation of energy and quantum mechanics. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe the process.

Which means nature has not existed for ever. If nature has not existed for ever to claim that the laws of nature have is both irrational, and illogical.

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

That would be unreasonable because then you are saying the universe came into existence without following rules. We live in a universe governed by rules.

And we don't know what rules, if any, existed prior to the formation of the universe. Yes, the universe is governed by scientific principles - physical laws. However, there is no evidence that those principles did not come into existence with the universe.

 

[ding]

The very foundation of natural selection is survival and it is hard wired into life.

So? That does not dictate that it was programmed, and not simply a natural part of the formation of the physical universe.

Of course it was programmed into the fabric of life. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. It is programmed into the fabric of life.

 

[Czernobog]

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -Albert Einstein. “

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

 

[Czernobog]

The very foundation of natural selection is survival and it is hard wired into life.

So? That does not dictate that it was programmed, and not simply a natural part of the formation of the physical universe.

Of course it was programmed into the fabric of life. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. It is programmed into the fabric of life.

Again, you are making a presumption. It's existence does not dictate purpose; only existence. You presume the existence of the survival instinct is by design. However, there is no actual evidence to support that presumption.

 

[ding]

Space and time have not existed for ever. Space and time had a beginning. That beginning followed rules just like every other event in our cause and effect universe. Those rules are the same laws of nature which apply today. Specifically the conservation of energy and quantum mechanics. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe the process.

Which means nature has not existed for ever. If nature has not existed for ever to claim that the laws of nature have is both irrational, and illogical.

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

That would be unreasonable because then you are saying the universe came into existence without following rules. We live in a universe governed by rules.

And we don't know what rules, if any, existed prior to the formation of the universe. Yes, the universe is governed by scientific principles - physical laws. However, there is no evidence that those principles did not come into existence with the universe.

If they came into existence with the universe what controlled the creation of space and time? God?

My point is pretty simple. We live in a universe which is governed by rules and laws; physical and moral. These laws are built into the fabric of existence. They did not manifest themselves when space and time were created. Space and time were created under them and that is how they are woven into the fabric of existence.

 

[ding]

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -Albert Einstein. “

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

 

[ding]

The very foundation of natural selection is survival and it is hard wired into life.

So? That does not dictate that it was programmed, and not simply a natural part of the formation of the physical universe.

Of course it was programmed into the fabric of life. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. It is programmed into the fabric of life.

Again, you are making a presumption. It's existence does not dictate purpose; only existence. You presume the existence of the survival instinct is by design. However, there is no actual evidence to support that presumption.

You are familiar with the concept of cause and effect, are you not?

What is the effect of survival instinct being hardwired into all life?

 

[Czernobog]

Which means nature has not existed for ever. If nature has not existed for ever to claim that the laws of nature have is both irrational, and illogical.

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

That would be unreasonable because then you are saying the universe came into existence without following rules. We live in a universe governed by rules.

And we don't know what rules, if any, existed prior to the formation of the universe. Yes, the universe is governed by scientific principles - physical laws. However, there is no evidence that those principles did not come into existence with the universe.

If they came into existence with the universe what controlled the creation of space and time? God?

My point is pretty simple. We live in a universe which is governed by rules and laws; physical and moral. These laws are built into the fabric of existence. They did not manifest themselves when space and time were created. Space and time were created under them and that is how they are woven into the fabric of existence.

Why must anything have controlled" it? You're trying your best to set up a creative paradox - an argument that, no matter how it is answered, it leads top the conclusion you want. If natural laws existed before the universe came into existence, controlling how the universe came into existence, then God. If there were no natural laws, then the control had to come from elsewhere, and God.

It;s kinda like the "Can God create a rock he cannot lift" question. No matter how you answer, it, invariably leads to "God cannot be omnipotent. It's adorable, but, ultimately it's sophistry. I try to avoid sophistry, as it serves no purpose.

 

[Czernobog]

I couldn't agree more. However, that does not mean that the laws of nature precede nature itself. That is irrational.

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

 

[ding]

All we can say for certain is there was a cause, the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and the only solution to the first case conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging

We can absolutely not say that for certain. All we can say, for certain, ia that the universe functions according to certain observable principles. It, in fact, seems more reasonable to presume that those principles ("Laws", if you will) came into being, as a part of the universe, itself.

That would be unreasonable because then you are saying the universe came into existence without following rules. We live in a universe governed by rules.

And we don't know what rules, if any, existed prior to the formation of the universe. Yes, the universe is governed by scientific principles - physical laws. However, there is no evidence that those principles did not come into existence with the universe.

If they came into existence with the universe what controlled the creation of space and time? God?

My point is pretty simple. We live in a universe which is governed by rules and laws; physical and moral. These laws are built into the fabric of existence. They did not manifest themselves when space and time were created. Space and time were created under them and that is how they are woven into the fabric of existence.

Why must anything have controlled" it? You're trying your best to set up a creative paradox - an argument that, no matter how it is answered, it leads top the conclusion you want. If natural laws existed before the universe came into existence, controlling how the universe came into existence, then God. If there were no natural laws, then the control had to come from elsewhere, and God.

It;s kinda like the "Can God create a rock he cannot lift" question. No matter how you answer, it, invariably leads to "God cannot be omnipotent. It's adorable, but, ultimately it's sophistry. I try to avoid sophistry, as it serves no purpose.

Why must anything have controlled" it?

Becuase that would be an uncaused event. Do you know anyone who believes in uncaused events?

You're trying your best to set up a creative paradox - an argument that, no matter how it is answered, it leads top the conclusion you want. If natural laws existed before the universe came into existence, controlling how the universe came into existence, then God. If there were no natural laws, then the control had to come from elsewhere, and God.

I haven't gotten within 100 miles of God.

It;s kinda like the "Can God create a rock he cannot lift" question. No matter how you answer, it, invariably leads to "God cannot be omnipotent. It's adorable, but, ultimately it's sophistry. I try to avoid sophistry, as it serves no purpose.

No. This is nothing like that. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. A universe which is governed by rules. The leading cosmological model for how space and time came into existence is inflation theory which states that it is possible for space and time 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.

 

[ding]

I didn't say that it did, but if you study nature you know that space and time did indeed have a beginning and that that beginning was governed by rules.

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it or see anything beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

 

[Czernobog]

We don't kn ow this. We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. What did, and did not exist before that, we cannot say with any certainty. For all we know, time, and space existed before the formation of the universe as we know it.

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?