Where did life begin? (Merged)

[NEO]

It's not about being coy, it's about exposing you as not understanding or correctly applying the terms in which you so readily throw around.

But since you've decided on the definition of "progressive ideals", would you mind sharing with me what your version means? Is it anything that you deem not conservative enough or otherwise meet with your political approval?

"He's supports fiscal responsibility, lower corporate tax rates and is anti union but he's pro-choice, supports same sex marriage and believes that every American should have affordable healthcare (also he is an atheist) - therefore he's clearly against us and must be labeled a socialist progressive."

Clearly, this is how your peanut operates to arrive at conclusions. You stated that it's all or none in this very thread, like most folks afflicted with political myopia - you clearly are adverse to the realization that most people aren't only red or blue.

You estimate that 95% of my posts defend Obama but fail to note that this political forum is overwhelmingly populated by conservatives. It's easy & convenient fodder, holmes.

If you don't like me "defending" Obama, stop whining and pinning the worlds woes on his shoulders alone.

He supports fiscal responsibility?

LMFAO!

 

[FLVOL69]

He supports fiscal responsibility?

LMFAO!

The rest of that paragraph is an abject failure as well...smfh

 

[MercyPercy]

Regarding the actual title of this thread, the answer simply is that we aren't really sure yet. Science has yet to prove how life on earth first came to be, and while we have pretty decent ideas, nothing is of course proven.

That being said, we don't have to invent ways to explain it(ex. god). That's how uneducated, superstitious early humans tried to rationalize things they couldn't understand. That's why they sacrificed people for the harvest season, prayed for the sun to come up in the morning, and so on.

And of course not long after the advent and spread of religion, came organized religion, which turned out to be a terrific way to control people throughout history and to this very day.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Regarding the actual title of this thread, the answer simply is that we aren't really sure yet. Science has yet to prove how life on earth first came to be, and while we have pretty decent ideas, nothing is of course proven.

That being said, we don't have to invent ways to explain it(ex. god). That's how uneducated, superstitious early humans tried to rationalize things they couldn't understand. That's why they sacrificed people for the harvest season, prayed for the sun to come up in the morning, and so on.

And of course not long after the advent and spread of religion, came organized religion, which turned out to be a terrific way to control people throughout history and to this very day.

eh, whatever you think makes you happy. But there's other posters in this thread that think a lot different than what you just put down in words of your own theory of what took place.

 

[Septic]

He supports fiscal responsibility?

LMFAO!

Yes, I do.

I'm not sure why you'd LYFAO at that, whatever blows your skirt up though.

 

[FLVOL69]

Yes, I do.

I'm not sure why you'd LYFAO at that, whatever blows your skirt up though.

Could have something to do with the 7 trillion in BS spending in 5 years... Just a guess though.

 

[Septic]

Could have something to do with the 7 trillion in BS spending in 5 years... Just a guess though.

The "He" in my post was referring to me. I thought it was pretty clear, especially when I paired it with all of my left leaning values.

You and Neocon need to catch up.

I'm beginning to think I expect too much.

 

[FLVOL69]

The "He" in my post was referring to me. I thought it was pretty clear, especially when I paired it with all of my left leaning values.

You and Neocon need to catch up.

I'm beginning to think I expect to much.

Yeah ....sure you did

 

[Septic]

Yeah ....sure you did

*Sigh*

We were talking about how he arrived at the conclusion I was a "socialist progressive" and his inability to comprehend anything other than a "us" vs "them" mentality.

I now realize that my speaking in a third person resulted in synapse overload for you, for that - He's sorry.

On the other hand, I now know why you limit your posts to 'one liners' and 'zings'. It's a good policy for you, stay with that.

 

[FLVOL69]

*Sigh*

We were talking about how he arrived at the conclusion I was a "socialist progressive" and his inability to comprehend anything other than a "us" vs "them" mentality.

I now realize that my speaking in a third person resulted in synapse overload for you, for that - He's sorry.

On the other hand, I now know why you limit your posts to 'one liners' and 'zings'. It's a good policy for you, stay with that.

Your probably right ....simple things for simple minds, how's that chief? Lol

 

[NEO]

Yes, I do.

I'm not sure why you'd LYFAO at that, whatever blows your skirt up though.

Sorry. I didn't realize this was WWE and you were speaking about yourself in third person.

Should we expect a Stone cold stunner now?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Because you can't explain that either? We have tree magical sky beings, but somehow theyre all the same.

The trinity... Just in a theoretical sense, if a divine being created the universe as we know it, and its four dimensions, would you expect them to be four dimensional? What I mean is, if that divine person created our plane of existence, would you expect them to be bound by that plane of existence?

That's as good a place to begin discussing the trinity as any, I guess.

 

[Orange_Crush]

There are scientific theory's of course. But lets examine your question logically, if life cannot spontaneously start from living matter - where did your god come from? Answers like 'mysterious ways' and 'it's too much for the human mind to comprehend' are cop outs. If you don't know, then say so - but that'd mean you couldn't reasonably deny the primordial soup theory of life.

I could help with that.

The laws of cause and effect state that every cause needs a sufficient effect. So, beginning of life would need a sufficient cause (probably more sufficient than, "by accident of course".) Those laws of causation began with the introduction of time itself, because without time, there are no causes and there are no effects. There is just "the infinite". So, whatever created the universe created time. If it created time, it is not a part of time. If it is not a part of time, it is uncaused.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Please elaborate on How the Bible could be improve with specific examples ....

As to the "Plot" ... the Bible is written as one book but 66, and the main character was not Killed off in the first book...unless you are counting able as a main character???

Personally, I thought his post was hilarious. That's just me though.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

Regarding the actual title of this thread, the answer simply is that we aren't really sure yet. Science has yet to prove how life on earth first came to be, and while we have pretty decent ideas, nothing is of course proven.

That being said, we don't have to invent ways to explain it(ex. god). That's how uneducated, superstitious early humans tried to rationalize things they couldn't understand. That's why they sacrificed people for the harvest season, prayed for the sun to come up in the morning, and so on.

And of course not long after the advent and spread of religion, came organized religion, which turned out to be a terrific way to control people throughout history and to this very day.

"That's how uneducated, superstitious early humans tried rationalize things they couldn't understand."

My, my, that's quite the assumption. It does seem odd that you left people like Ben Carson and Albert Einstein off of that list, though.

 

[MercyPercy]

"That's how uneducated, superstitious early humans tried rationalize things they couldn't understand."

My, my, that's quite the assumption. It does seem odd that you left people like Ben Carson and Albert Einstein off of that list, though.

That specific part you quoted was in relation to the genesis of religion in the earliest years of humanity. You're referring to indoctrination, which I referenced in the last part of my post.

 

[Coastypop]

Not god.

And where is you evidence of this?

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is without a doubt life, possibly abundant, throughout the universe. The math allows it. Whether its primitive life like microbes or bacteria or if its intelligent, it doesnt matter. It would be the single greatest discovery of mankind if we found it, and something tells me we will find in our own cosmic neighborhood, say Mars or Europa.

Am I the only one that doesn't get the connection between an allowance and a guarantee?

 

[Orange_Crush]

There's another concept I struggle with. What is "nothing"? Even empty space is something.
I should start a list. Things OS13 can not wrap his mind around.

As I understand quantum physics, the statement made that "something" really can come from "nothing" was a misstatement. I'll quote from The Edges of Science: Crossing the Boundary from Physics to Metaphysics, by Richard Morris

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again.

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects that they create are quite real.

In theoretical physics, nothing can create something. But there is no such thing as nothing. Yet, this nothing can borrow energy and repay energy. So, this "nothing" that could supposedly bypass the laws of causation and create everything from nothing, had to borrow energy (something) to start the whole thing off in the first place.

Even in quantum physics, there was always the need for "something" to exist before anything could be created, borrowed, or repaid.

Even from a theoretical physics perspective, I would stop trying to imagine "nothing", because it never existed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

None of that invalidates or answers the question, "Where did God come from?"

Without time, the very concept of "from" is invalid.

 

[Orange_Crush]

To ask that question, one must know that God exists. To which there is no empirical evidence for.

One does not need to know that God exists to ask that question. One just needs to see the laws of causation to logically formulate the question. An infinite series of causes is a logical impossibility, thus there must have been a first cause. That first cause would have been, by definition, uncaused. Thus, we formulate the question.

 

[Orange_Crush]

True, VOLatile. But I was responding to RespectTradition's assertion that God apparently not only exists, but created the universe.

So, under that assumption, where did God come from?

If the answer is that God has always existed, then that answer is no better/different to me than stating that the "original" matter/energy that composed the ultradense mass/singularity that exploded in The Big Bang "always existed". Except you don't "need" a deity for the latter.

Except that matter/energy are constrained by natural laws, thus are not a sufficient cause. Except that Einstein showed that time and matter are completely connected, thus matter/energy can not be timeless, thus making them an effect. The laws of causation state that an effect can't cause itself, thus they can't explain their own existence. So, you must go further back to find the uncaused cause.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't understand your response. I am talking about epistemology and the unanswerable questions. I love talking about ideas like the beginning of our universe. However, any questions about things that predate our universe are unanswerable.

Many times, we will use ideas of causality to show the logical necessity for an outside force, let's call it God for short, to have created the universe and set it in motion. This is valid reasoning since nothing that exists or happens in our universe can exist or happen without a cause. The problem comes when someone, who usually wants to poke holes in this idea, wants to then say 'where did God come from' or 'who created God' and smugly think they have proven something. They haven't. The laws of causality that form basis of the arguments for the existence of God cannot be used outside/prior to our universe. This is not a valid question. No matter if you support the idea of God or not, the question is unanswerable and no amount of logic can ever give a semblance of an answer. It is not evil or sinister to ask the question. It is pointless.

If a person wants to use logic based on the laws of this universe to prove that God doesn't exist, then I welcome hearing this idea. I love new ideas, even if I don't always agree with them. If someone can demonstrate to me that their ideas are better than mine, then I will switch my ideas. However, if one insists on using the laws of this universe as if they somehow hold true outside of this universe and then base an argument on that, then I will reject it as the baseless, unfalsifiable argument that it is.

Such an awesome post...

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

I see. I've been here before.

If one assumes the existence of God, then one can't ask the question of where God came from. Done is done and all is right in God's world. That will keep many warm at night and that's fine. However, its not that interesting to me.

If one doesn't assume the existence of God, but instead seeks a non-supernatural explanation of what occurred during and before the Big Bang, then one can ask such questions. If you believe I'm on a fool's errand, that's fine. I think it is much more interesting to contemplate.

If the laws of nature were created at the Big Bang then by definition, whatever existed before the Big Bang was supernatural. All indications are that the laws of nature were created at the Big Bang. Mathematically they break down into a singualrity at that point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)

He could move on men to write down predictions. Then He could fulfill those predictions. Then He could show up and perform miracles. Then He could predict that He would be killed, but that He would raise from the dead three days later. Then He could raise from the dead three days later. Then He could predict He'd come back, visible to all the world, like the sounding of a trumpet and that everyone would get on their knees and profess Him as God.