Where did life begin? (Merged)

[PKT_VOL]

Basic stuff from abiogenesis to ancient aliens.

Biological laws which we don't understand which would eliminate the seeming randomness of life processes. Heard that one?

Are we limiting this to just life theories or cosmological theories as well?

 

[Obsessed]

What was "there" before the universe was created? Also, why did it create itself?

 

[Orangeslice13]

In my limited mind there has to be a light switch moment. Where something happened like a lightning strike hitting the right combination of ooze. It should be verifiable and repeatable. We know it happened at least once. I know you don't like the " I see it therefor it is " approach but I think it works well in this case

 

[Orangeslice13]

Biological laws which we don't understand which would eliminate the seeming randomness of life processes. Heard that one?

Are we limiting this to just life theories or cosmological theories as well?

Not before now, but I'm about to wear google out.
We can take this discussion where ever you want.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What was "there" before the universe was created? Also, why did it create itself?

Depends. The theories that make the most sense to me are the D-brane collision or blackholes. So for D-brane collision theory, there would have been D-branes which existed before (caused) the Big Bang. With blackholes, we (the Big Bang) basically are on the other side of a blackhole.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not before now, but I'm about to wear google out.
We can take this discussion where ever you want.

Wherever you want to go. Plenty of rabbit holes to go down.

 

[JoeKyleVol]

I guess I'll wade into these murky waters and put my Philosophy degree to good use, lol.

Whether one believes in a Creator or not, there is a belief about the existence of some absolute of reality.

The Absolute for the theist will be God, obviously. The Absolute for the atheist will be the natural universe, subsisting by itself. The Absolute is the first, primordial, unchanging "thing" from which all things find the source of their being and in which all changeable things exist.

Now, the question is whether the Absolute is a conscious, personal Being (aka "God" or something like It) or is an impersonal "force" of self-subsisting nature.

The "Big Bang" occurred, starting the existence of space-time as we know it. Now, it does not matter whether there was natural existence prior to the BB, as there would have to be an original, absolute starting point for all subsequent causes sometime in the distant past. There cannot logically be a set of infinite antecedent causes, or "turtles all the way down."

The atheist postulates that impersonal nature exists as its own cause (self-caused existence), and that no conscious, personal "choice" of any entity was necessary for the BB and the existence of the Universe. The theist postulates that the universe exists as the work of an active Creator.

This is why I find the argument of the theist stronger: Both the theist and atheist must rely on the existence of some Absolute to explain reality, but the Absolute of the atheist is incapable of self-movement, and thus incapable of causing anything to occur. The Absolute of the theist IS able to cause the universe to come into existence, even if that is all It has ever done (Deism).

The argument of the atheist against this point is usually that causality doesn't matter and that our universe may not be bound by logic (at least, that is the response I have most often received). I find this response both alaraming and unscientific; in fact, it renders science useless if the universe is not logically consistent. The scientific method and the presuppositions we use to do science are invalid if logic is only a mere human construct.

Some atheists, in their desire to use science to destroy the idea of a God, wind up destroying the basis for science, too.

On the problem of "what created the Creator?" Again, this presupposes some prior existing Creative force before the Absolute. But, as the Absolute is THE Absolute, it exists because it must exist, it is uncaused, and not caused by anything. This also applies for the atheistic idea of eternally self-subsisting Nature.

Now, the atheist could argue back that Nature, itself, is this Absolute, but something within it spontaneously occured to start the universe (the funky stuff that quantum mechanics does). Again, however, there would have had to have been some prior-existing reality which would have allowed that quantum funkiness to even occur.

I don't believe the issue is whether or not some "God" created the universe, but rather if that God interacts with human life. The practical life of an atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, etc. are minimally different because they all believe in the lack of a personal God that has dealings with people. The lives of theists are (supposed to be) practically different because they believe in personal deities. I find the belief in a personal, benevolent Deity to be a difficult one to hold, given the rampant pain and suffering in the world.

In summary, I think that logic shows that a "God" (or, better called, an Absolute) exists, but that doesn't mean it is the personal and loving God of revealed religions.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Actually I've set the question of God aside for this conversation. I'm saying that life was created with in the laws or constants of nature. weather by God using these laws or just because things work that way life came from non life. How'd that happen.

 

[IndianaVolunteer]

.

 

[JoeKyleVol]

Actually I've set the question of God aside for this conversation. I'm saying that life was created with in the laws or constants of nature. weather by God using these laws or just because things work that way life came from non life. How'd that happen.

Life is fundamentally different from non-life. But, what is the difference? Life is self-replicating and actively moves to further its existence.

What is the difference between a dead man and a living one? They are the same in material composition, but "something" is gone which caused/allowed the organic materials of the man to continue to persist.

If we are talking about a purely "natural" beginning to life in the sense that natural means "arising from within the basic constructs of the universe" and not "poof"--God did it, then I offer this theory:

Think of the universe like a telos-driven system with a set of algorithms. Each correct answer to this algorithm produces a desired output. The laws of nature are the base structures to our reality. I lean towards a non-reductive physicalism, which means I believe there is a fundamental conscious or mental aspect to material reality.

This algorithmic understanding explains why things like the natural formation of organic material can occur in a mechanistic (not magical) fashion, and how seemingly random genetic mutations + natural selection can actually produce Darwinian evolution on a macro level. It is a telic system. That doesn't mean that humans or any particular animal were the final intention of this system, but that they were one of the possible solution sets to this evolutionary algorithm.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess I'll wade into these murky waters and put my Philosophy degree to good use, lol.

Whether one believes in a Creator or not, there is a belief about the existence of some absolute of reality.

The Absolute for the theist will be God, obviously. The Absolute for the atheist will be the natural universe, subsisting by itself. The Absolute is the first, primordial, unchanging "thing" from which all things find the source of their being and in which all changeable things exist.

Now, the question is whether the Absolute is a conscious, personal Being (aka "God" or something like It) or is an impersonal "force" of self-subsisting nature.

The "Big Bang" occurred, starting the existence of space-time as we know it. Now, it does not matter whether there was natural existence prior to the BB, as there would have to be an original, absolute starting point for all subsequent causes sometime in the distant past. There cannot logically be a set of infinite antecedent causes, or "turtles all the way down."

The atheist postulates that impersonal nature exists as its own cause (self-caused existence), and that no conscious, personal "choice" of any entity was necessary for the BB and the existence of the Universe. The theist postulates that the universe exists as the work of an active Creator.

This is why I find the argument of the theist stronger: Both the theist and atheist must rely on the existence of some Absolute to explain reality, but the Absolute of the atheist is incapable of self-movement, and thus incapable of causing anything to occur. The Absolute of the theist IS able to cause the universe to come into existence, even if that is all It has ever done (Deism).

The argument of the atheist against this point is usually that causality doesn't matter and that our universe may not be bound by logic (at least, that is the response I have most often received). I find this response both alaraming and unscientific; in fact, it renders science useless if the universe is not logically consistent. The scientific method and the presuppositions we use to do science are invalid if logic is only a mere human construct.

Some atheists, in their desire to use science to destroy the idea of a God, wind up destroying the basis for science, too.

On the problem of "what created the Creator?" Again, this presupposes some prior existing Creative force before the Absolute. But, as the Absolute is THE Absolute, it exists because it must exist, it is uncaused, and not caused by anything. This also applies for the atheistic idea of eternally self-subsisting Nature.

Now, the atheist could argue back that Nature, itself, is this Absolute, but something within it spontaneously occured to start the universe (the funky stuff that quantum mechanics does). Again, however, there would have had to have been some prior-existing reality which would have allowed that quantum funkiness to even occur.

I don't believe the issue is whether or not some "God" created the universe, but rather if that God interacts with human life. The practical life of an atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, etc. are minimally different because they all believe in the lack of a personal God that has dealings with people. The lives of theists are (supposed to be) practically different because they believe in personal deities. I find the belief in a personal, benevolent Deity to be a difficult one to hold, given the rampant pain and suffering in the world.

In summary, I think that logic shows that a "God" (or, better called, an Absolute) exists, but that doesn't mean it is the personal and loving God of revealed religions.

You act as if there are two options. I don't see where either option is necessitated.

 

[JoeKyleVol]

You act as if there are two options. I don't see where either option is necessitated.

What is another option?

 

[PKT_VOL]

What is another option?

I refer to it as the veil of ignorance. Logic and natural laws are not guaranteed past the Big Bang.

 

[JoeKyleVol]

I refer to it as the veil of ignorance. Logic and natural laws are not guaranteed past the Big Bang.

As such, logic and natural laws would not be absolute, as they would be changeable. If they are capable of changing at one time arbitrarily, they are capable of changing any time arbitrarily.

This would also presuppose that logic and natural laws somehow created themselves at the Big Bang.

I believe Logic is part of the Absolute, and is linked with Being. To exist is to be bound by logic. Something either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, then it is bound by the fact that it exists, which produces a truth-value to the statement of its existence. If the pre-BB world existed, it gave a truth-value to the proposition "There exists a world prior to the Big Bang," which means it was a logical world. Thus, Logic exists absolutely in Being.

On the topic of an alogical existence---what does that even look like? How would other logics even function? They only seem to exist in the imagination and not in any formulated concept.

To me, the notion of alogical worlds and multiverses are far more illogical than the belief in an Absolute Creative Being of some sort.

 

[PKT_VOL]

As such, logic and natural laws would not be absolute, as they would be changeable. If they are capable of changing at one time arbitrarily, they are capable of changing any time arbitrarily.

This would also presuppose that logic and natural laws somehow created themselves at the Big Bang.

I believe Logic is part of the Absolute, and is linked with Being. To exist is to be bound by logic. Something either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, then it is bound by the fact that it exists, which produces a truth-value to the statement of its existence. If the pre-BB world existed, it gave a truth-value to the proposition "There exists a world prior to the Big Bang," which means it was a logical world. Thus, Logic exists absolutely in Being.

On the topic of an alogical existence---what does that even look like? How would other logics even function? They only seem to exist in the imagination and not in any formulated concept.

To me, the notion of alogical worlds and multiverses are far more illogical than the belief in an Absolute Creative Being of some sort.

I'm not presupposing. I'm saying we developed/discovered logic/natural laws within this universe. There is no guarantee that they exist or in the same way as we know them outside of our universe.

You are presupposing they exist as we know them past the Big Bang. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

 

[govols/cc]

I refer to it as the veil of ignorance. Logic and natural laws are not guaranteed past the Big Bang.

So the big bang is guaranteed to have occurred?

 

[JoeKyleVol]

I'm not presupposing. I'm saying we developed/discovered logic/natural laws within this universe. There is no guarantee that they exist or in the same way as we know them outside of our universe.

You are presupposing they exist as we know them past the Big Bang. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

We have no knowledge of anything outside our universe, so making any assumptions or beliefs on unknowns from outside is hardly the best course of action.

But, let's use the "possible worlds" scenario. Let's say there exists a possible world where no logic at all exists. But, wait! Can such a possible world exist? No, it cannot. Why? Because there exist other worlds where Logic does exist. As Logic exists in one world, it must exist in all possible worlds. It is a "maximally great" aspect of Being.

Also, since Logic as we define it is bound by the Logic of our world, it follows that other "logics" would simply be illogical, and not Logic. Again, it is not possible for Logic to not exist (or for other logics to exist) in other worlds since it exists in ours.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So the big bang is guaranteed to have occurred?

No, but it's by far the best cosmological theory we have for the nature and beginning of the universe. We are working off such a premise (at least I thought we were).

 

[PKT_VOL]

We have no knowledge of anything outside our universe, so making any assumptions or beliefs on unknowns from outside is hardly the best course of action.

But, let's use the "possible worlds" scenario. Let's say there exists a possible world where no logic at all exists. But, wait! Can such a possible world exist? No, it cannot. Why? Because there exist other worlds where Logic does exist. As Logic exists in one world, it must exist in all possible worlds. It is a "maximally great" aspect of Being.

Also, since Logic as we define it is bound by the Logic of our world, it follows that other "logics" would simply be illogical, and not Logic. Again, it is not possible for Logic to not exist (or for other logics to exist) in other worlds since it exists in ours.

You are going to have to explain this one. This makes no sense.

 

[JoeKyleVol]

No, but it's by far the best cosmological theory we have for the nature and beginning of the universe. We are working off such a premise (at least I thought we were).

But what guaranteed it would exist? Surely not arbitrary alogical laws of logic and nature, right? Laws of logic and nature don't cause anything. Something that can act from its own volition is the only thing which can move as the First Cause of the universe.

 

[PKT_VOL]

But what guaranteed it would exist? Surely not arbitrary alogical laws of logic and nature, right? Laws of logic and nature don't cause anything. Something that can act from its own volition is the only thing which can move as the First Cause of the universe.

Who guaranteed it would exist?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm not presupposing. I'm saying we developed/discovered logic/natural laws within this universe. There is no guarantee that they exist or in the same way as we know them outside of our universe.

You are presupposing they exist as we know them past the Big Bang. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So constants are only constant within this universe and post BB?

 

[PKT_VOL]

So constants are only constant within this universe and post BB?

Correct. It could be in other universes within a possible mutiverse, but there is no guarantee (nothing necessitates it).

 

[Orangeslice13]

By the way P, I'm going to be "chewing" on the theory you mentioned for a while. Good stuff.

 

[Vol8188]

Correct. It could be in other universes within a possible mutiverse, but there is no guarantee (nothing necessitates it).

And we don't know that life began on our planet or even in our universe.