to the atheists on the board

You're right - well, not about the parallel smelling - that string theory and its applications have not been proven at all. But I'm just pointing out that there are potential explanations out there for seeming paradoxes...

But, again, I am not claiming multidimensionality as proven. But, that said, it is the most popular theory amoung cosmologists as a Theory of Everything, so I think we should all keep an open mind...

 

I wanted to comment more about what you wrote earlier, but you brought up so many important points that I could not possibly get into it while at work - very important to stay employed you know.

A safe way to word this is that there a LOT of mysteries about intracellular and intercellular life. While science has made huge progress, it is strange that so many foundational mysteries remain especially if life is so easily created in a "prebiotic soup". Here's a few that come to mind:

1. The origin of life is a complete mystery to modern science. Modern biology is no closer to understanding it than they were 50 years ago during the Orey and Miller experiments.

2. Morphogenesis, the study of biological forms, is still riddled with mysteries despite decades of study. Consider this:

a) How do some cells know they have to become circulatory cells, bone cells, etc.?
b) And just as difficult, consider the issue of spatial positioning. How does a specialized cell know where it is in relation to other parts of the organ or organism?? As far as I know, science has no explanation for this incredible feat and it teleological almost by definition.
c) All cells contain the same DNA. How can one block of code possess both the same global plan for the organism and the specialized plans for all organs and tissue within that organism? Science has found a set of master genes called the homeobox that tie into cell differentiation, but where is the master plan?

3. There's another significant issue. Even very small non-linear systems are generally chaotic (as in mathematical chaos). And furthermore, cell division is an ideal candidate for a chaotic system because it engages in "bifurcation". How is it that the earth's biological systems have managed to so easily bypass a the mathematical instabilities that "plague" the rest of the universe?

4. Consider that a microscopic, one dimensional strand of DNA controls the entire three dimensional building, spacing and functionality of a highly, highly self-organized collection of billions of cells that is GARGANTUAN compared to itself.

5. This ties in directly with the beginning of your post: some biologists quesiton whether biological systems can ever be subject to traditional reductionist methodologies. Physicists have had great success to date with reductionism: the large structures of our universe break down to molecules which break down to atoms which break down to particles which break down to subatomic particles which break down to forces and maybe strings after that. But biological systems often appear "irreducibly complex". For example, how can you break apart even the simplest cell into viable component parts?

The second part of your post is about evolution, but I've got to do some backtesting!

Anyway, on all of this if you ask the materialists, they will say something like, "Just give us another 50 years and we'll solve all these mysteries." I think that they may make significant progress on #2, but even if they do it will only intensify the mysteries surrounding life. The others it is difficult for me to imagine that they will make much progress...

 

shoeshine,

You are still going around and around in circles trying to use science and logic to show that science and logic is not scientific or logical.

You have yourself locked up in a torrent of creationistic specious information and misrepresentation. After a vast number of posts you are still hurtling from one misinformed conclusion to the next, ignoring reasonable counter explanations, whilst doggedly asseverating what you post must be so.

You want there to be God - so there will be God . That's the only basis of reasoning I can extract from your endless disjointed creationist argument .

And to do that you use science to prove science is not useful. That is a rather useless approach, unless of course all you want to really maintain is an air of confusion.

The creationist could be better employed supporting creationism , rather than trying to debunk science in a pathetic attenpt to say science fails - where it patently does not - and therefore God exists.

Existence requires time and space. Everything that exists of the universe, exists only within time and space. For God to exist then God must exist within time and space.

If God always existed (infinitely) then God always existed within time and space and so did/does the universe. Therefore where the universe always existed, God is unnecessary for the universe to come into existence and is not therefore a first cause.

If nothing existed except God, then God could not have created existence, as the existence was already there if God existed. Moreover, the wherewithal for only God to exist must have been present before God, therefore God is not the creator of existence.

If there were no time and space and the universe did not exist, but God is said to have somehow been present outside of time and space to create the universe, then God did not exist. If nothing existed then nothing existed including God.

If God is said to be able to "exist" outside of time and space in a way which is beyond any human understanding, then that is not existence, as existence is comprehensible within time and space only. Whatever God would be doing outside of time and space it wasn't existing. Therefore God did not, does not exist.

If God came out of nothing and non existence, then nothing and non existence is the necessary first cause in that situation ,not God. Furthermore, nothing and non existence would have "existed" before God, therefore God did not "create" nothing and non existence, and has no power over it.

The ability or the possibility for God to create a universe, or for God to come into existence, or for God to be outside human understanding, or for God to simply decide to exist, must be available and possible to God, so that God may apply that ability/possibility, therefore God is not the creator of the "ability" and is not the first cause.

If God is said to be able create or provide this ability/possibility, then the ability/possibility for God to do that must "exist" or be possible.

God therefore cannot be a first cause.

 

Actually, the majority of my postings lately have come from non-Christian, non-creationist sources.

For example, the posting on the bottom of page 22 about intracellular and intercellular life and the tendency for systems to bifurcate - and please don't do that publicly - is the perfect example of that.

Several of those points came from a VERY non-Christian, non-creationist source.

Important point: some materialists are willing to be honest and admit and discuss problems/enigmas. Pretending they're not there won't make them go away.

Facing the issues will either lead to their resolution or their destruction. But, either way, isn't the truth better in the end?

 

What you just wrote above makes perfect sense in a Newtonian world. But in the strange world of relativity, there are many things that are counterintuitive.

Again, if we assume relativity is true and solve Einstein's equations at t=0, you find that both time and space were created. This is exactly what Hawking went around saying for several years in the early 80's.

Counterintutive? Yes.

Note: I recognize that we cannot necessarily project relativity into the submicroscopic world at t<10^-43 seconds when the universe was minutely small.

But the point is this: the universe is counterintuitive. One thing I can almost guarantee you is that if you use Newtonian thinking, you will come to the wrong conclusions.

If string theory, relativity, etc. apply to t=0, we're all in for a wild ride!

We're all behind the Looking Glass. In the case of cosmology, the truth is always stranger than fiction...

 

That’s what existence is. If it is not in space and time, it is not in existence, it is in something else, which is not existence.

The nature of the universe is that things can only exist in space and in time.

The ‘states’ of infinity and omnipresence must be present - and available - and possible - to God, so that God may apply them. If God created these ‘states’ then the ability itself for God to do that must have been present. There must have been an availability already there. God could not have created it. If though he could conceptually create the ability for infinity and omnipresence, or anything else, the ability for God to do that must have been available first, and therefore God did not create it. God therefore does not control the “ability”. God is not a first cause

Then you have missed where I said this……”If nothing existed except God, then God could not have created existence, as the existence was already there.”

In other words, God did not create existence - as it was already there - because God existed.

Btw there could not be a time when there was no time

I know it is but it makes no sense as God cannot be the first cause, as it always requires that the possibility for God to do something is “present” before God can do it. Then God is not first cause. If God is eternal then there is no reason why the universe is not eternal. If the universe were eternal then it requires no God to create it.

Only if God “existed” outside of time and space. If that were the case God did not exist, God was doing something else than existing.

I need to know does the artist exist, not the painting. If the artist does not exist then the artist will have to make the painting exist although the artist doesn’t exist.
But it gets worse than that ….please read on……

It won’t be if the artist doesn’t exist !

Bloody difficult if God didn’t exist! Apparently you missed it where I said this… ”If God is said to be able to "exist" outside of time and space in a way which is beyond any human understanding, then that is not existence, as existence is comprehensible within time and space only. Whatever God would be doing outside of time and space it wasn't existing. Therefore God did not, does not exist.”

No! Please read more carefully and in context. I said “Therefore where the universe always existed, God is unnecessary for the universe to come into existence and is not therefore a first cause.” This is not difficult, if the universe was always there, then no God as first cause . On what basis do you arrive at a conclusion that God created something that always existed anyway.

There is evidence that a physical universe exists. There is no evidence to support that God exists or ever existed. “We” cannot imagine a time when the universe “existed unmanifested” . That is simply nonsense. You create God in your imagination and then you give it the ability to “imagine” a universe and then you say “We” can imagine that. Unfortunately for your argument it has no credibility outside of a fantastic act of imagination, which had to be created within the existence of a universe which can only exist within space and time!.

Badly mismatched analogy. but ahh… the Artist exists…and so does the stuff used to make the painting.

God ,you say, created the universe out of stuff that did not exist until God made it exist. Then there was no similar potential for the universe as there was for the painting. The artist expresses this potential for the picture through paints which exist. There is no painting where the paints do not first exist, and they must exist within a universe which only exists itself, like everything else of it and within it, by space and time , not through nothing.

Then the universe is eternal by definition and concept also and therefore God did not create it. If the Universe was always there and God was always there, God did not create the universe.

By whose definition? An apologist christian’s definition ? But that definition of God is certainly not a definition which is useful or realistic a definition, as is the universe when it is defined by space and time as existing.

That may be the meaning of my definition only when obscured by the apologist-creationist viewpoint. The universe and everything in it and of it is definable as existing because of time and space. If God were outside that, then he doesn’t exist other than within your mind, which is and has to be within time and space for you to even realise it.

If God was and is always there, then the same goes for the universe. If then by this, the universe was always there, then it was not created. Furthermore, you have no way of showing whether God ever existed ( however, the universe does) or if God could or could not come out of nothing.

You are obliged to ,and can only produce, your concept of “God does not come or go” by using the words within a universe which exists within space and time. There is no reason to assume therefore that God does not come and go, or indeed that God ever existed, when everything in existence is within space and time. Even your concepts. and your thoughts exist only in space and time.

If God is outside space and time, then whatever it is that God is doing, God is not existing. Before time - (there is no “time before time”) – and before space, is not a concept ofexistence. All you are doing is pointlessly applying the somewhat relativistic concept of time to a meaningless concept of before time.

The Artist analogy fails dismally, as described above

 

EARLIER when Shoe was debating AGAINST the probability of
life spawning in the universe he said it was counterintuitive in a NEGATIVE sense:

"I'm just saying imo life anywhere in the universe is counterintuitive."


NOW as he attempts to defend the absurdity of god
he says its counterintuitive in a POSITIVE sense:

"But the point is this: the universe is counterintuitive. "



peace

axeman

 

That’s what existence is. If it is not in space and time, it is not in existence, it is in something else, which is not existence.The nature of the universe is that things can only exist in space and in time.

I agree that what is bound by time and space is the material universe. However, God by definition is not bound by time and space.


The ‘states’ of infinity and omnipresence must be present - and available - and possible - to God, so that God may apply them. If God created these ‘states’ then the ability itself for God to do that must have been present.

By definition, these states are the nature of God. In the same way water is wet, God is infinite, eternal, omnipresent.

God did not create these states any more than a rose creates perfume. The perfume is a quality of a rose.

God by nature is not material, not bound by time and space, etc.

There must have been an availability already there. God could not have created it. If though he could conceptually create the ability for infinity and omnipresence, or anything else, the ability for God to do that must have been available first, and therefore God did not create it. God therefore does not control the “ability”. God is not a first cause.

God is not the first cause of Himself. Something that always exists, will always exist, cannot not exist doesn't require a cause. God is causeless.

However, God can create and destroy material existence, as He is beyond that existence. God is the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of His creation.

Actually, it by our understand that we use the term create, as if to indicate a time that existed before the creation. From the perspective of God, there is no creation, just waves of His Divine personality. No beginning, no end.

In the same way we experience being awake, enjoying the world around us, we then experience a period known as sleep where the world of perceptions and thought no longer exists for us. This repetitive cycle goes on during life, and during the times of sleep, even though perceptions cease to exist for us during sleep, we maintain continuity upon waking up.

This is a wave nature or cycle of human beings, rest, activity, etc.

In the same way, God "plays" within his eternal infinite nature via the creation of the universe, maintenance of the universe, destruction of the universe, and period of sleep before the eternal cycle continues.

Then you have missed where I said this……”If nothing existed except God, then God could not have created existence, as the existence was already there.”

In other words, God did not create existence - as it was already there - because God existed.

If there were an eternal cycle of creation of the universe, maintenance of the universe, destruction of the universe, and a period of rest before the cycle began again, would the universe eternally exist?

Potentially, yes. In a manifest sense, no, as during the period of dissolution, the material universe would be asleep within God.

Btw there could not be a time when there was no time

Technically true, as during the period of no time, there would be no way to measure the duration of that period. It could last millions of years, or 5 seconds, but the net effect would be the same for us.

If you went to sleep for a minute, or 20 years, the inner experience of no thought would be exactly the same. Only when waking and comparing the changes around you would the time seem to be long or short.

I know it is but it makes no sense as God cannot be the first cause, as it always requires that the possibility for God to do something is “present” before God can do it. Then God is not first cause. If God is eternal then there is no reason why the universe is not eternal. If the universe were eternal then it requires no God to create it.

As mentioned before, the universe is an eternal cycle within God's nature. Creation, maintenance, dissolution....an eternal cycle, but from the perspective of time, it is created and destroyed.


Only if God “existed” outside of time and space. If that were the case God did not exist, God was doing something else than existing.

God doing something else but existing? Like what? Non-existing?


I need to know does the artist exist, not the painting.

That is your need.

Art appreciation does not require knowing the existence of the artist.

If the artist does not exist then the artist will have to make the painting exist although the artist doesn’t exist.

Complete non sequitur. What are you trying to say.

But it gets worse than that ….please read on……
It won’t be if the artist doesn’t exist !Bloody difficult if God didn’t exist! Apparently you missed it where I said this… ”If God is said to be able to "exist" outside of time and space in a way which is beyond any human understanding, then that is not existence, as existence is comprehensible within time and space only.

You are defining existence. I agree with your definition of material existence, I don't limit the term existence to material existence alone.

If you could mentally conceive of a being that was infinite and eternal, that being would exist, but not in a material sense.

You are talking only of material existence, I am talking of both material and Divine existence. God exists in a Divine dimension, a dimension that in eternal, infinite, and omnipresent. A dimension that has no opposite value.

Whatever God would be doing outside of time and space it wasn't existing.

You are bound by the concept of time and space here.

Think of our perceptual reality. For us, anything that exists must necessarily exist at a particular time and a particular space.

Think of the exact opposite of that. Some that exists at ever particular space at no particular time. Something like is God's existence.

Therefore God did not, does not exist.”No! Please read more carefully and in context. I said “Therefore where the universe always existed, God is unnecessary for the universe to come into existence and is not therefore a first cause.” This is not difficult, if the universe was always there, then no God as first cause.

God is necessary for the universe to come into a manifested state. The universe may exist in an unmanifest state of pure potentiality, but it is God who decides when to begin the process of manifesting the universe from pure potential (creation).

On what basis do you arrive at a conclusion that God created something that always existed anyway.There is evidence that a physical universe exists. There is no evidence to support that God exists or ever existed.

There is no material evidence of God's Divine existence, I agree with you.

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

Hey, I was wondering if that was going to come back to bite me...