Donate SIGN UP

Creation / Evolution.

Avatar Image
Theland | 15:14 Fri 31st Jan 2020 | Religion & Spirituality
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Gravatar

Answers

341 to 360 of 400rss feed

First Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Last

Avatar Image
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
14:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
I suppose you could claim that time runs in a loop so future events cause past events and the universe starts up by pulling on it's own bootlaces.

There is some evidence that present decisions appear to affect past events. But that might be because everything is connected somehow, everything being entangled with everything else. We are one !
'it had to start somewhere'

There wasn't anywhere before it started, according to some popular theories. I know it's a hard concept to grasp.
Question Author
OG - I agree a universe having a beginning and from nothing.
But nothing causes nothing.
A first cause is needed.
And that somewhere is the nowhere of which we speak. The maths will exist even in nowhere, so the quantum fluctuations do to.

You need to envisage both tea and no-tea at the same time.
Earl Grey or Breakfast?
Yorkshire, apparently.
Ah well, Yorkshire is the best place in the Universe.
And the best way to get there;
Theland //But nothing causes nothing.
A first cause is needed.//

You are obviously not listening.

Meanwhile you are perfectly happy with the idea that your god has no cause. Your entire argument is based on God special privilege of having always existed despite being the most complex thing that can ever exist and having nowhere to exist.
Question Author
I am !istening.
The cause cannot be from within what is caused.
That does not make sense.
The cause has to be immaterial, outside of space and time, and has within itself its essential reason to exist, eternal.

Theland, you shoot yourself in the foot every time. You claim cause and effect but have no rational explanation for the existence of God. Saying ‘God just is’ utterly devalues your claim.
Indeed. If the time flow flux exceeds the known peramebowl, then,WHOOSH, all the atomic and spatial meandering is lost. Dangerously the tick tock should tread! For ever is the causal effect dilutemold ten times past the perihelion of control .

And there we have it ladles and jellymououlds. Perfect explanatiblend of idelogistics
Question Author
Naomi - Typical.
Criticise without ever presenting your own theories.
I don't think Science can ever truly answer the question "what caused the Universe?", so in that sense I can kind of see the point. I also get why it is difficult to accept an answer along the lines of what beso and I have been saying, which in essence amounts to "the question makes no sense because the Universe itself defines its own beginning", or some such.

But part of the reason they are unsatisfying, I think, is that trying to express in language concepts that defy any logic is always going to be tricky. Try and picture nothing, as in a literal absence of anything. You've failed. In order to see "nothing" you need "somewhere" to stand, and by definition there wasn't even a place in order to observe the total and complete absence of anything until our Universe came along -- at least, that is, if you reject the existence of a "Multiverse".

One resolution to this is to try and take the question away from language and towards Mathematics. The maths for describing the Universe as it exists, especially in the context of General Relativity -- which is what's relevant here -- is Differential Geometry. This helps to remove the imprecision. Space and time can be described in terms of some complicated four-dimensional shape, a "manifold", which exists in and of itself, defines its own limits, and needs nothing else in order to justify its own existence.

Of course, this may not be the final resolution of the problem either -- but it is at least likely to be a better way of trying to formulate the question than anything else attempted so far in this thread.
The;and, I don't have any theories. I'm not so arrogant as to claim I know. I don't. But here's a thought. You have no idea of the nature or substance of 'God' ... so ... if he/it can create himself/itself, why can't the universe? Maybe that's magic too.
Question Author
Naomi - Daft.

Jim - Krause considers nothing as unstable, but that would involve physical laws to create instability.
Why daft? You have no idea what God is.
Physical laws don't need to be written on a piece of paper, so I can't say I see the issue. Although maybe it's a difference in philosophy.
Still, what I'm saying is that the philosophy can at least be easier to express if you have the right tools to express it, and mathematics is one of those tools.

Question Author
Throwing darts is not clever.
Theland, read the bible, the answers are all there.

341 to 360 of 400rss feed

First Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Creation / Evolution.

Answer Question >>