Questions for Atheists (Refresher Thread)

[James R]

Mike,

In repsonse to your earlier comments:

<i>Now I'm guessing the "thing" (ooze, I've heard it called) must have gone ashore then went back into the water when it got too dry, then gone ashore, etc. back and forth until it preferred dry land.</i>

An alternative is that it sat still in a tidal zone and the tide went in and out over it. It's a bit of a simpler explanation, isn't it?

<i>But there is something called "entropy". (I'm sure you know what that is). What it basically says is that something like this "spoodge" that came out of the water would tend to "break down" when exposed to an environment it wasn't used to.</i>

No, that's not right. I suggest you read up on entropy.

<i>Then there's the whole question of how the heck scientists know any of this happened to begin with. Maybe in addition to time, the evolutionist needs a heaping helping of faith too.</i>

There's this thing called the scientific method, Mike. You might want to research that too.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ekimklaw: The trick question in this is that you invite a scientific discussion asking people to prove things some of which cannot be proved, after which, even if you refrain from commenting, you expect some to think: "Well those atheists sure dont know what they are talking about"

Allow me to point out two things:

1) The term atheist is insulting to a great part of your audience; what you are talking about is Creationism, but there are millions of God-fearing christians who accept both Big Bang and evolution. After all, God does not become smaller by our realizing that He created a whole universe.

2) It is not possible to discuss religion scientifically. Science is about observations and conclusions. Science has come up with some very good answers to all your questions, but of course few average persons will be able to come up with short explanations.

Religion, on the other hand, is about what you believe. It is entirely thinkable for an almighty god to create the universe in six days with all the species, fossils, stratified rocks, isotopes at various levels of decay, etc. etc. Actually, He could have created it yesterday, if He would, thats what omnipotence is about. If you chose to believe, thats it.

We can, however, discuss religion ethically: If God created the world in six days 6000 years ago, he sure built in a lot of red herrings for the scientits to pursue. Why would he do that? To test our faith??

Why has God given us the ability to observe and learn if we are not supposed to do it? -- Please explain empirically.

Hans

 

[overdoze]

Ekim,

I won't repeat what's already been posted many times over in this thread, so I'll just refer, where applicable, to other people's posts who most closely express my opinion on the points. However, a couple of specific issues I can give some extra plausible speculation on (note: it's merely my own thoughts in addition that what is known, where applicable; I am not a specialist and I don't have much data to back them up.)

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

See Cris' and Raithere's posts.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

Xev and Raithere.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

Xev, James R

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

Xev, et al.

Though I must mention that not all organs appeared for the first time, at the same time. For example, sweat glands evolved long after most of the other things (they're unique to humans.) But once "sprouted" into existence, organs do continue to evolve together.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

Xev, Cris, Raithere, James R.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

James R.

Plus, it goes way beyond cells needing an aqueous environment. Fluids like endoplasm and blood have a chemistry almost identical to that of seawater.

Also, what Xev said.

Algae and lichens were the first to colonize land. Then came something like liverworts (based on known fossils and genetic geneology of plants.) The first animals on land were probably mollusks (worms) feeding on the first land-borne plantlife. Eventually, descendents of crill turned into crabs which begat spiders. A similar origin is postulated for insects (i.e. krill-like ancestors beginning to make excursions onto land, reducing the number of legs to 6, etc.) First chordates on land must have been fish. Even today we have many species of fish capable of surviving and locomoting on land in dry air for days at a stretch. Some of these eventually transform fins into appendages, gills into lungs and give rise to reptilians. Probably feed mostly on those land-based worms as well as insects (well... and on each other, potentially.)

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

Yes. See above.

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

People posted a lot of links with a lot of good info. However, most of those links examine the impacts and patterns of sexual reproduction. I believe you want to know how it emerged for the very first time.

Here I have a plausible theory. But first some background. Sexual reproduction doesn't occur in any single-celled organisms known today so it stands to reason that it evolved in multi-celled organisms. Simple asexual multi-celled organisms typically reproduce by budding, which makes sense as it is the simplest method imaginable. My hypothesis goes like this:

On one particular occasion the "bud" gets a peculiar mutation in it. It develops into a healthy organism but when its turn comes to reproduce, its own "bud" misfires. The chemical changes leading up to budding cause the bud cell's membrane to combine with that of a neighboring cell within that same organism. This new chimer with double the genetic material of its parent is still viable, but gene regulatory mechanisms suppress most of its duplicated genome when it comes time for it to divide and grow into a mature adult. The new adult gives rise to its own children with double its genome, perhaps not all of them viable, and this trend continued for some time. Eventually through selection the process becomes more and more effective, enabling almost all such offspring to survive. The recombination of the parent's genome from two cells into one during reproduction gives this line of organisms slight advantages in terms of greater variability and faster adaptation, as well as facilitating elimination of harmful mutations.

Now, another mutation occurs that causes some of the budding cells to sometimes detach from the parent before recombining with a neighboring cell. This disadvantages the mutant, but perhaps even non-recombined offspring is still capable of giving rise to an adult organism. Regardless, it enables these new offspring to be carried by currents like pollen on wind and sometimes to meet up with other adults. Still retaining their budding-related chemical properties at that early stage, these zygotes combine with a cell of the other adult, sort of parasitically feeding off of it. This results in a sporadic (and for the 'traveling' offspring, parasitic and thus beneficial) recombination of genetic material between adults.

This strengthens the advantages of recombination, allowing this new strain to flourish and multiply, and to evolve much faster. Eventually, as the organisms become more behaviorally complex, they develop more efficient ways of mating that guarantee a greater chance of recombination. The mating becomes so efficient that through another mutation the capacity of non-recombined offspring to mature is eliminated. Now the organisms have to mate in order to reproduce, and you've got what is in essense sexual reproduction.

Further evolution leads to additional efficiencies, specializing the reproductive cells into male and female. But the organisms themselves are still hermaphrodites. Then further evolution gives rise to specialized male/female sexes.

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

See Raithere's link.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

I would design some real laws. In the sense that they would be absolutely imperative and impossible to breach. With my design, the society will be like an ant colony. There would be a biochemical switch that turns off aggression while switching on empathy and altruism at sight/smell/sound/touch of your own species. The effect would be persistent, escalating and eventually overpowering, similar to the way we can't resist sleep for very long. Compliance with it would also be rewarding (stimulating pleasure centers), hence doubly discouraging any resolve to fight it.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Theistic point

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Here are some probing questions. By the way, I am not pretending to post these as the final blow to atheism. I am not posting "trick questions". I am simply interested in your "take" (opinion) on these diverse subject matter.

I am taking you seriously, unlike others

My answers will be a different perspective.

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Currently, no one can know anything about the origins of the universe, and my theory is that humans will never reach such knowledge.

If the atheists here are scientific, most would be like James R and embrace the Big Bang Theory, since it does have the most supporting evidence from astronomical observations and the purely deductive reasoning/thought approach.

Cris, your hypothesis that you embraced has a extremely miniscule amount of evidence to support that. So why do you choose it? Just because it can conveniently and unhesitatingly eliminate any sure need for a God?

Increan, he asked the question, all you need to do is answer.

My take: Atheists have no absolute conclusions for the true origins, so they have a lack of an absolute conclusion.

Theists have a conclusion, but the validity and logic of it is in deep questioning, but the point is, they have a conclusion.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

We will never know, only hypothesize and believe.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

I think, Ekimklaw, that you are trying to divulge that people put a double/triple/quadruple standard on Jesus' existence. And yes, they do, negativity.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Well, I've always heard that in the beginning there was a pool of some stuff called "primordial soup" or something. Anyway, at some point (since we are land dwellers) "it" went ashore. In other words "it" exited the water.

It follows that this was one of the "great leaps" of evolution we hear so much about. Now I'm guessing the "thing" (ooze, I've heard it called) must have gone ashore then went back into the water when it got too dry, then gone ashore, etc. back and forth until it preferred dry land. No word yet if it had eyeballs, or lips, or a sense of humor.

The life forms that went ashore were rather well developed already. First plant life began the journey. Long after plant life was well established on land animal forms began the process. For examples of plants that are semi-adapted to life on land just visit any beach, you'll notice reeds and various other plants that are able to continue living when the tide leaves them stranded for periods out of water. For animal forms I suggest you look at amphibians and such creatures as the lungfish that fit your scenario.

Is it really such a stretch for you to imagine how these forms, which are only partially adapted to life out of water might gradually develop characteristics that would allow them to exist out of water for longer and longer periods of time? A species of amphibian, for example, that through the generations develops skin that looses moisture less quickly thus allowing it to forage a little further onto land in search of food for which there is no competition.

But there is something called "entropy". (I'm sure you know what that is). What it basically says is that something like this "spoodge" that came out of the water would tend to "break down" when exposed to an environment it wasn't used to.

No. The second law of thermodynamics states nothing of the kind. I suggest you check the site I provided earlier.

This theory is usually glossed over with a lot of fluff about time, and mutations.

Hardly. The only glossing over that is occurring here is in regards to your education.

[iBut I always wondered about entropy as it relates to this helpless little lifeform who started his evolutionary journey turning from a prehistoric wad of sludge into a creature able to write the works of Shakespeare, or orbit the moon.[/I]

Stop wondering. Entropy does not apply to this situation.

Then there's the whole question of how the heck scientists know any of this happened to begin with. Maybe in addition to time, the evolutionist needs a heaping helping of faith too.

An idea is hypothesized. The idea is then measured against empirical evidence and experimentation. In particular, the predictive accuracy of an idea is important. At any time any single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory negates the validity of that theory. It must then either be eliminated or modified (yes, theories evolve too). No scientific theory is ever beyond refutation, however, the refutation must be valid. In the case of evolution there is a plethora of empirical evidence and it has also had tremendous predictive accuracy.

In contrast the Creation hypothesis has no empirical support and no predictive value. There is no evidence whatsoever of creatures being created all at once.

~Raithere

 

[fadingCaptain]

Sorry if I repeat, I do not have time right now to read through all the replies...

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Of course, none of us can KNOW but we can believe. I believe that the universe has always existed. To believe otherwise is to believe that
a) something other than the universe exists which caused its existance or
b) the universe spontaneously came into existance withot reason.
I apply Occam's razor and believe it has always existed. Note that I still do believe in big bang theory...the state of the universe before the big bang is still a mystery...

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

Matter came from the big bang. Note that I do not believe that matter = universe.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

I could cite many independent literatures that reference Spcrates existance. If this does not meet your criteria for 'proof'...then I cannot not prove it to you.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

They did not evolve sequencially. Organs that performed many functions evolved into multiple specialized organs.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

First, it did not exit the water! I think you are skipping a couple billion ears. Second, the 2nd law of themodynamics only applies to closed systems (the universe). The earth is an open system and the energy provided by the sun can reverse entropy.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

Flowers bloom.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

Yes they did. How should I explain?

8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

I am stumped by this one. Must have something to do with DNA and X-Y chromosomes. It probably can be answered at talkorigins.com. I will research....

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

It did not evolve sequencially. It evolved by gaining in complexity.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

Moral laws must be agreed upon by those who are to abide by them. Forcing moral laws on a society would not work. Therefore, I would let them decide their own moral code.

 

[Cris]

Important Issues Concerning “Big Bangs”.

A Big Bang DOES NOT offer an explanation for the origin of the universe. The current big bang theory describes an event or more precisely a process. As such this event or process is part of the universe since it is a ‘thing’.

To define an origin of the universe one must first at least explain the cause of the big bang. And no one can do that yet.

Cris

 

[fadingCaptain]

. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

Not the best of answers but here is a bit of an explanation I grabbed from talkorigins.com:

"Sexual reproduction could have evolved in a number of ways, but it probably evolved from selection for the ability to exchange genetic material, for sexually reproducing species seem to resist extinction longer than asexual species. John Maynard Smith wrote a book called (I think) The Evolution of Sex. For what it's worth, I think that sexual reproduction evolved initially as an accident due to the diploid nature of the DNA material, and was conserved in later lineages, but I'm no expert. I recall that it is thought to have evolved several times."

A Big Bang DOES NOT offer an explanation for the origin of the universe. The current big bang theory describes an event or more precisely a process. As such this event or process is part of the universe since it is a ‘thing’.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Increan]

Re: Theistic point

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~


I am taking you seriously, unlike others

My answers will be a different perspective.[/B]

If I'm not mistaken he was asking athiests and you are not an athiest. We were taking him seriously since most of the questions were trick questions and/or just completely irrelevent.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Cris, your hypothesis that you embraced has an extremely miniscule amount of evidence to support that. So why do you choose it? Just because it can conveniently and unhesitatingly eliminate any sure need for a God?

It isn’t a hypothesis it is a proof.

The evidence is overwhelming and unmistakable – the universe exists.

I made no mention of anything called god, neither did I exclude any such potential.

As I said earlier, the term universe was not defined. My qualification is that I have taken “universe” to essentially mean everything. If such ‘things’ as god(s) exist then they are clearly ‘things’ and as such would come under the umbrella of the term “universe”.

You appear to be using a different definition. In which case define what you mean by ‘universe’. Also what do you mean by ‘god’? This term is also undefined in this thread. The question made no reference to such a concept.

The proof is very simple – for any event there must be a cause, or it must have been derived from an infinite source. There cannot be a first cause since that must also be explained. If you want to argue for a creator of everything else then you must explain the cause of the creator, and then the cause of the creator of the creator etc., i.e. an infinite series. If such a thing was not caused then that thing has the property of infinity. If there is no creator then everything that exists must have always existed in some form or another, i.e. must be infinite.

Any way you argue for a cause you are forced to provide an explanation. The result is always an infinite series. This does not say that god(s) do not exist only that they are not needed as part of any explanation of cause.

As I said in my post – something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. I thought this was clear and does not eliminate gods, conveniently or otherwise, and whatever they might be.

Cris

 

[(Q)]

Questions for Ekimklaw;

Our observations indicate the galaxies are all moving away from each other. What reason would God have to do such a thing ? Why put everything in motion ? Why not just create the universe and leave it as is ?

Why would God bother introducing entropy into the universe ? What purpose would it serve to move towards a state of disorder ? Wouldn't God have wanted it the other way round ?

 

[Increan]

Here's a question,

When is Ekimklaw going to respond to his thread?

 

[Cris]

Increan,

When is Ekimklaw going to respond to his thread?

Here I will defend Ekim. Give him time. The nice thing about message boards is that we can take time to prepare and research well considered posts.

I'd much prefer to see a detailed and well framed post rather than rapid and erroneous chat-room style nonsense.

Cris

 

[Increan]

Cris,

You spelled my name wrong again.

 

[Cris]

Increan,

Sorry. The update for that subroutine clearly didn't take very well.

I guess it is a bit like many people here putting an H in my name. It's a subconscious action.

'Crean' for example has no meaning to my brain so I guess it does its best to interpret and uses what it does know.

Cris

 

[Ekimklaw]

Hey Xev,

Your post was thoughtful, measured and coherant. And you made some strong points. Thanks! BTW I am in the process of examining those links on reproduction...

Later...

-Mike

 

[Ekimklaw]

==============================================
Cris wrote:
But Ekim these are all trick questions and I am sure you know that, despite your assertions to the contrary. I think you just like watching people jump through hoops.
==============================================


Gee Cris, does that mean you don't trust me anymore?


==============================================
#1. Your question is very vague. Define universe?
==============================================


Go outside tonight (providing that it is a clear night) and look up. That is what I mean by "universe".



==============================================
Cris wrote:
...the universe must have always existed. Something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. This must be true since if there was a point when nothing existed then the universe could not have begun.
==============================================



I agree.




==============================================

#2. Why assume [matter] did not exist at some point in time? There is no evidence to support that assumption.
==============================================


Fair enough.



==============================================

#3. Why [prove Socrates exists]?
==============================================



Oh, just to see if it's easy or not.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#4. The question is a non sequitur for the stated condition. Why assume that organs evolved in a sequence rather than at the same time?
==============================================


If they "evolved" at the same time, isn't that "spontaneous generation"? Maybe this was the "Little Bang". In other words "Bang" there're fully functional lungs, heart and brain. Do you understand my problem with this? My whole point is that they could not have evolved any other way than all at once. So we agree.



==============================================
#5. Again the question is a non sequitur for the condition. The question seems to be ignorant of some basic science principles. This link should help explain why the question makes no sense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
==============================================



Hey, I didn't make it up. I heard it from Mr. Purcell in Biology 101 at San Antonio College. He said (I'm paraphrasing) "Long ago when primordial ooze first came ashore it had all the elements necessary to life. Then it began to evolve." So I start thinking about factors such as sunlight, heat, radiation, UV rays, cold, wind, etc. and wonder how anything that "came ashore" could survive outside of it's natural habitat long enough to evolve up. Given entropy, it would tend to "degrade". Look at a jelly fish for instance. If this thing washes ashore, does it start evolving up, or decaying? My question was giving you an opportunity to agree or disagree with said hypothosis.

If you do not agree with this scenario, enlighten everyone with an alternative theory about how life FIRST came into being. I'm talking the very start.

And Cris, please worry less about "trick questions" and more about answering the questions. Remember your job is to convince the unconvinced. Not vice versa.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#7. Why ask [if insects evolved]? Why wouldn’t they?
==============================================



I've NEVER heard anything about insect evolution. If you don't know, just say "I don't know." You don't have to get all snippy.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#8. [Evolution of sexual reproduction] is currently being researched.
==============================================



It couldn't have evolved. Admit it. Or simply say "I don't know."




==============================================
Cris wrote:
#10. Define what you mean by “God”. The question makes no sense otherwise.
==============================================


Nice dodge. Okay Cris, let me try again. This time I'll put it in terms you would be more comfortable with.

Pretend you are supreme dictator of the world. The Earth is your footstool. Now YOU must make the rules that govern society. What would YOU require as King of the World in terms of basic civil law?

I want to get a feel for what you would require of a civilized orderly society.

I expected more substance out of you Cris.

-Mike

 

[Ekimklaw]

Hello all,

As your resident Christian arrow-catcher, I must say that this has been a very enjoyable thread to read. Many of you defended your views with honor and dignity (Raithere, XEV, James R, Overdoze, The Chosen, Fading Captain, Thor and Tyler) while others of you blew a golden opportunity (Cris, Increan).

Obviously I have not finished looking at all your links. I am convinced by now my stance on "entropy" was very flawed. I will attempt to research this concept better. Thanks all of you who pointed that out. I think I was laboring under a misunderstanding there.

For the record, I will go ahead and answer the questions I posed for you to answer. This way you will know my thoughts on the subject (Yes Cris, I actually used reason). So, here goes:

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

answer: I believe the universe had a beginning and that it was created by God for his purpose sometime in the distant past. I am NOT opposed to the "Big Bang Theory". Cuz God caused the "Bang".

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

answer: I believe matter was created by God. Since a void cannot independently cause something to exist, I believe God created matter. To my mind it is the best hypothosis.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence. We can use this realization to understand that much MORE evidence exists that Jesus lived. But many claim he is fictional. The point here? Not everything we know is true can be backed up with empirical evidence.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

answer: None. They all came into being simultaneously. There is no way that any part could exist without the other. Claims that they all grew more and more complex over time also is not sufficient. At some point in the evolutionary process if we go backwards in time, we come to a place where life did not exist. Moving forward in time we are told it "evolved". Specifically how? What did this early form of life use to breath? To digest food? To think? To See? My belief is that is emerged onto the stage of time fully functioning, or "ready made". I believe it was an act of devine creation.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

answer: Forget entropy. Things degrade. I will look into this more.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

answer: skipped

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

answer: I agree micro-evolution exists. We always worry about the origins of man, I was just curious about Insect evolution. Thanks for the links.

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

answer: It could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme. If the mutations necessary for procreation were evolving, how did the organism procreate? If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that. Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

answer: See answer to #8.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

answer: Treat other people the way you would want to be treated.

Thanks everyone.

-Mike

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw

One little teentsy tiny request? Please thoughtfully reply to each one (even if you've done it before elsewhere. Hey! today is a new day!). Some of them require *deep thought* (You know you love it) so please watch the knee-jerk answers.

Careful. Some "knee-jerk" answers actually have a deeper implied meaning.


#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.


Yes and no. Physics suggests that the universe began with a BANG some 15 billion years ago. However, to my knowledge, science has not yet determined where the "singularity" that went BANG came from.


#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).


I believe there are physics models on how stars can create matter through fusion, but it's above my head.


#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.


Yahoo has many references to the work he did.


#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?


Most likely, one (or more) of the simplist ones. Evolution need not be linear.


#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?


By virtue of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.


#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.


We're still here, aren't we?


#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...


Yes. They continue evolve today.


#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?


Reproduction was necessary with the first cell or there would've been nothing to talk about. Variations on the methods of reproduction allowed for more flexibility to fit the environment.


#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?


Photosensitive capabilities are even in plant cells, so it seems to be a fundamental part of evolving from the energy of the Sun. Evolutionary refinement would then come into play to find better ways to make use of this capability.


#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.


That would depend upon my goals for the society. I might suggest the harsh "eye for an eye" type of laws to show there are consequences for transgressions. Or I might suggest the "turn the other cheek" approach to bring about more peaceful coexistence. Or I might not suggest any laws and allow them to find there own way under "free will".

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Cris, I know

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

It isn’t a hypothesis it is a proof.

That the universe is infinite? Go tell that to the scientists for such a "great proof."

The evidence is overwhelming and unmistakable – the universe exists.

Of course! Agreed

I made no mention of anything called god, neither did I exclude any such potential.

Good, I *just* asked a question on your stance to WHY you picked that alternative over the finite Big Bang.

As I said earlier, the term universe was not defined. My qualification is that I have taken “universe” to essentially mean everything. If such ‘things’ as god(s) exist then they are clearly ‘things’ and as such would come under the umbrella of the term “universe”.

Ah I see, yes, the universe is "everything" - that is, in the natural realm. Supernatural things are not part of *our* universe but another universe. Clear enough?

You appear to be using a different definition. In which case define what you mean by ‘universe’. Also what do you mean by ‘god’? This term is also undefined in this thread. The question made no reference to such a concept.

Yes, I see what you mean.

The proof is very simple – for any event there must be a cause, or it must have been derived from an infinite source. There cannot be a first cause since that must also be explained.

Proof is *that* simple? I don't think so Cris, instantons explain creation (not infinite) from ex nihilo.

You proof makes great sense, but it is only a deductive pure thought approach, it is conceptual and does not rely on any math - therefore it is not a *strong* enough proof to ultimately support your hypothesis.

Then the question you must answer is this, how do you know that it must be derived from an infinite source? How much do we humans understand origins? What do you believe?

If you do answer, then you will step into the realm of faith.

If you want to argue for a creator of everything else then you must explain the cause of the creator, and then the cause of the creator of the creator etc., i.e. an infinite series. If such a thing was not caused then that thing has the property of infinity. If there is no creator then everything that exists must have always existed in some form or another, i.e. must be infinite.

Like I stated, I believe in a creator, that everything came into existence one way or another.

Any way you argue for a cause you are forced to provide an explanation. The result is always an infinite series. This does not say that god(s) do not exist only that they are not needed as part of any explanation of cause.

Your answer is an infinite universe.

My answer is an eternal God.

As I said in my post – something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. I thought this was clear and does not eliminate gods, conveniently or otherwise, and whatever they might be.

You can *only* conceptualize here. You are assuming, from your knowledge, that something *must* be infinite to exist otherwise nothing could have begun.

How do you exactly *know* this? Instantons?

You do know, it conviently leaves a blank conclusion to absolutely *HOW* things came to be. All of the universe's lower systems have cycles, so how do we know if the universe itself is *not* a cycle?

So if it *is* a cycle, what part of the cycle did it start? A cycle clearly implies a beginning - or else we have the chicken and egg scenario.

Cris, that was a very intelligent hypothesis, but it lacks any solid, more palpable proof.

If you just rest it on your purely thought deductive approach, it becomes a "weak" proof.