The Center Stage

[GoldShadow]

Alot of that didn't really relate to what I was asking.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it has all the answers to all your questions (assuming you were referring to me).

 

[GoldShadow]

Mathematical equations don't equate to reality.

False. How do you think modern physics or chemistry works? Did you even read Alt's posts?

The majority of those posts seem to be 'well bb is true, therefore this must be too, we just don't know how it works'. I don't see why the possibility that bb is false is never considered.

Because there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen.

Also, I believe there is a difference between generating abiogenesis in an experiment, and it contributing to macroevolution. If abiogenesis was so abundant and was apart of the natural process of contributing to macroevolution, it would still be abundant in nature today, but it's clearly not.

It was never "abundant". What gave you that idea? It was a rare occurrence that must have happened several times under the conditions of the early earth. The earth now is very different from what it was like then; those conditions are no longer possible. Lots of water, extremely high temperatures and pressure, little to no atmospheric oxygen, etc.

 

[Aesir]

next page, again Dre where did Dawkins say that?

 

[Sieguest]

next page, again Dre where did Dawkins say that?

In Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, chapter four, Dawkins claims that something complex must have a creator more complex than the created, the thesis for the "Ultimate 747". He springboards from this to develop infinite regress. With this he mathematically attempts to explain that time is infinite and the improbability of a finite beginning more simple than the creation (albeit inadvertently).

Of course, I don't agree with him at all, but only posting this as an explanation.

 

[Dre89]

False. How do you think modern physics or chemistry works? Did you even read Alt's posts?

I'm not saying all mathematics is rubbish, but as we see with Dawkins, not all mathematical equations equate to reality. Mathematical consistency doesn't automatically equate to reality.

[Because there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen.

But from what I understand, they haven't been able to show that matter could expand without the aid of an external source.

In fact, if I understand correctly, no matter has ever been observed to be able to do so.

Is this correct?

[It was never "abundant". What gave you that idea? It was a rare occurrence that must have happened several times under the conditions of the early earth. The earth now is very different from what it was like then; those conditions are no longer possible. Lots of water, extremely high temperatures and pressure, little to no atmospheric oxygen, etc.

I never said it was adundant, I'm saying if it exists (without human experimentation generating it), it would be abundant.

Does what you're saying mean that non-living matter can no longer evolve at all? Or no longer evolve into living-matter only?

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not saying all mathematics is rubbish, but as we see with Dawkins, not all mathematical equations equate to reality. Mathematical consistency doesn't automatically equate to reality.

Actually, it seems that more people disputed with Dawkins on the relative idea of something of complexity has to be created by something of greater complexity than they did the mathematics that spring-boarded from it.

I never said it was adundant, I'm saying if it exists (without human experimentation generating it), it would be abundant.

This seems contradictory of itself.

The facet of abiogenesis could only be used to explain early growth of the Earth (from a non-creationist view point at least) where conditions may have provided this as a necessity of survival until not needed as of present day. The facet of abiogenesis could be paralleled to the functions of the Appendix in the human body over time.

 

[Dre89]

But if matter could originally expand and exist independent of other entities, survival woudn't have been an issue at all.

So if abiogenesis did occur, I don't see why it would be out of necessity for survival.

Also, the matter which abiogenesis would have occured from (non-living matter) still functions perfectly today, and seems to be in no need to adapt to it's environemnt at all.

There doesn't appear to be a necessity for abiogenesis at all, nor does there appear to be a necessity for the evolution of sexual reproduction from asexual entities, considering that asexual entities still exist without any severe complication.

I don't understand how it is logical to assume that the initial matter could exist independant of other entities, yet matter that was created later couldn't/can't.

I also don't understand how existence could materialise out of pure nothingness, I really need this stuff explained to me.

 

[Sieguest]

I don't understand how it is logical to assume that the initial matter could exist independant of other entities, yet matter that was created later couldn't/can't.

Because, there has to be an initial cause somewhere, like I said, without an initial cause somewhere, nothing can come to come to exist. It's the only exemption to causality, which is why the initial matter would exist independently. And other forms of matter are subject to causality and other factors of survival, which is why they cannot exist independently of each other.

I don't understand how existence could materialise out of pure nothingness I really need this stuff explained to me.

It can't, that breaks the Law of Conservation of Matter.
If this is in terms of abiogenesis
something did not come from nothing. Something came from something else, it's just that an abiotic factor, produced a biotic factor. A semi-plausible explanation would be that the initial matter is an "occurrence."This occurrence would preexisting due to being outside of time. This occurrence then sets into action the other values and theories/happenings previously stated. These things comprise the early development of the Earth. As time progresses and more biotic factors are issued into existence, then the need for abiogenesis dwindles and biotic factors begin to adapt to developing environments and reproduce and so forth. Then present day material comes in.

 

[Mewter]

The idea of the post-big bang scenario is that space itself expands, not the matter inside of it (if that's what you meant, Dre.). * Right now, space is predicted to probably expand indefinitely at faster and faster rates, leading to a freeze death of the universe.

Because, there has to be an initial cause somewhere, like I said, without an initial cause somewhere, nothing can come to come to exist. It's the only exemption to causality, which is why the initial matter would exist independently. And other forms of matter are subject to causality and other factors of survival, which is why they cannot exist independently of each other.

To clarify on this, all matter that came from the big bang would be what you call "other forms of matter". It's all the same matter, really.

It can't, that breaks the Law of Conservation of Matter.
If this is in terms of abiogenesis
something did not come from nothing. Something came from something else, it's just that an abiotic factor, produced a biotic factor. A semi-plausible explanation would be that the initial matter is an "occurrence."This occurrence would preexisting due to being outside of time. This occurrence then sets into action the other values and theories/happenings previously stated. These things comprise the early development of the Earth. As time progresses and more biotic factors are issued into existence, then the need for abiogenesis dwindles and biotic factors begin to adapt to developing environments and reproduce and so forth. Then present day material comes in.

There's three scenarios for a naturalistic big bang "causation":

1) The Big Bounce idea where there is an infinite amount of regressing Big Bangs and Big Crunches.
2) The popular idea where Space-Time independently exists in and of itself and it's impossible to reach a point where it doesn't exist (asymptotic graph).
3) A void is meaningless, since no time has passed at all, and nothing exists, but this could lead into #2; it's not necessary, but it's possible.

Originally posted by Dre.
I don't understand how it is logical to assume that the initial matter could exist independant of other entities, yet matter that was created later couldn't/can't.

Sorry, come again?

Sources:
* http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69509

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm confused now, because Aesir said BB was sceintific fact, meaning that it was impossible to refute. Yet it appears to me that you actually don't have scientific evidence that that matter could drastically expand outward from a single point without the aid of any external source at all.

Uh... Background radiation, the expanding universe, the homogeneousness of the universe. These facts are in accordance with the Big Bang theory.

Isn't it a sort of scientific law that matter cannot grow/evolve/develop merely from internal information, but requires external sources? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, no. We've seen this sort of thing happen without any external source for the information. As I said earlier, we've seen bacteria "discover" how to digest citrate.

I thought the whole point of BB was to put those conditions in place, not require prior conditions. Doesn't that defeat the whole concept of BB?

Also, 'right conditions' means external sources, I thought the whole idea was that matter could expand without the aid of any external sources at all.

Well the prior conditions are a void. The singularity has to exist in a void. At least that's what I think of the matter.

The only reason why lions don't have a 100% success rate is because of the 'evolutions' of their prey. Supposing that lions currently have a 50% success rate, it is the rate which keeps the ecosystem in harmony. If lions were to elevate to 100%, this would disrupt the ecosystem, which would make no evlutionary sense.

Actually for Lions to attempt to develop a success rate of 100% would make perfect evolutionary sense. Natural selection favours organisms that harbour traits that are advantageous to the organisms that carry them. This would then mean that these organisms would be more successful. Thus they would have more children then their competitors. After that, the more successful organisms would start to become common place and replace the less successful ones. Which would do better in the wild, organisms with a success rate of 100% or organisms with a 50% success rate?

That's not the environment evolving itself, that's something happening to it and forcing to adapt. Having a garden of flowers evolve into different flowers on its own is different to me throwing oil all over them and forcing them to adapt.

The flowers would evolve to suit their environment better, and if evolving into a different sort of flower would allow them to suit their environment better, then yes a new flower would evolve. You see, if organisms are well adapted to their surroundings they wont evolve very much. What is required for drastic amounts of evolution is an environment that the organisms are unadapted to.

The latter scenario is how microevolution allegedly occurs. Macroevolution was supposedly occuring before any of these 'interferences' could occur, therefore it seems to me that for evolution theory to be consistent, environments would have to always be gradually evolving (as in the objects such as trees, metals, rocks etc. evolving) for no apparent reason at all.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same, they just act upon different scales. Macroevolution is Microevolution that accumulates over time.

Furthermore, I get the general feeling that you're entirely wrong on this point. Environments change as do organisms, evolution adjusts the organisms to suit the new environments or to make the organisms better suited to their own environments. The environment doesn't evolve, for no reason at all, it changes due to complex processes.

From what you've said that doesn't seem to be happening though.

Well, if you look at the fossil record, and I have briefly, Macroevolution has occurred and is occurring.

But if evolution is random and not governed by an intellect, it seems far too coincidental that animals would evolve at the exact same rate as to cancel each other's evolutions out, and happen to evolve the exact traits which they need to predate or avoid rpedation. It just doesn't seem random to me at all.

Evolution is not random. It is governed by natural selection.

That was a silly kind of question for me to ask, considering I don't really have a problem with microevolution. But microevolution was all those examples really showed.

Well, have a good look at fossils and DNA evidence of common decent. This is rather good evidence for evolution

But if abiogenesis were true you wouldn't have to, considering that it should be occuring everywhere in nature. But from what I'm gathering from you it seems to me it isn't.

What? I said that? Oh well...

Abiogenesis is an explanation for the origin of life. It could only have occurred under some very special conditions. These conditions are gone now. The atmosphere was different then, there were no plants or animals, there was abundant organic matter just lying around. Everything was different.

But didn't they develop to the way they are now?

Yeah, but that is not evolution in the biological sense. In order for evolution to occur, reproduction with variation and death must be present. Rocks and metals lack these two factors.

They change, but it isn't explained by evolution, it's explained by other branches of science.

 

[GoldShadow]

Dre, I think that you don't understand the fundamental ideas behind evolution. I suggest you go back and read some posts that have been made before, read up on it online and on Wikipedia, etc.

 

[Aesir]

Or take a science class.

In Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, chapter four, Dawkins claims that something complex must have a creator more complex than the created, the thesis for the "Ultimate 747". He springboards from this to develop infinite regress. With this he mathematically attempts to explain that time is infinite and the improbability of a finite beginning more simple than the creation (albeit inadvertently).

Of course, I don't agree with him at all, but only posting this as an explanation.

Meh never read that book anyway.

 

[Dre89]

I made it pretty clear I was just asking questions to learn, rather than posing arguments.

Uh... Background radiation, the expanding universe, the homogeneousness of the universe. These facts are in accordance with the Big Bang theory.

Ok but which one shows that space/matter could have expanded without an external aid? It'd be great if you post a link to the experiment which replicated this.

Actually, no. We've seen this sort of thing happen without any external source for the information. As I said earlier, we've seen bacteria "discover" how to digest citrate.

Isn't that just a microevolution of adaption, and wouldn't that have required citrate (external aid) to catalyse that adaption? Were the only factors present space and time? (Therefore essentially almost a black void, but obviously with space and time). I was more referring to matter increasing in size or complexity with no external aid, so essentially only time and space are present.

Well the prior conditions are a void. The singularity has to exist in a void. At least that's what I think of the matter.

But where is the source of the potentiality for all this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that all this existence comes from nothingness.

Actually for Lions to attempt to develop a success rate of 100% would make perfect evolutionary sense. Natural selection favours organisms that harbour traits that are advantageous to the organisms that carry them. This would then mean that these organisms would be more successful. Thus they would have more children then their competitors. After that, the more successful organisms would start to become common place and replace the less successful ones. Which would do better in the wild, organisms with a success rate of 100% or organisms with a 50% success rate?

But there seems to be a harmony in all ecosytems that aren't affected by humans. It seems that in the ecosystems all animals appear relatively equal in the continuation of their species. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't we be witnessing sever disharmonies in nearly every single ecosystem?

The flowers would evolve to suit their environment better, and if evolving into a different sort of flower would allow them to suit their environment better, then yes a new flower would evolve. You see, if organisms are well adapted to their surroundings they wont evolve very much. What is required for drastic amounts of evolution is an environment that the organisms are unadapted to.

Well if all evolutions are result of adapting to changes in the environment, what causes the environments themselves to change? Surely they must have had no need, because there wouldn't have been any 'changes in their environment' first. What I'm saying is that there must have been some form of unecessary evolution, ie. where there was no need to adapt to anything new at all.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same, they just act upon different scales. Macroevolution is Microevolution that accumulates over time.

Furthermore, I get the general feeling that you're entirely wrong on this point. Environments change as do organisms, evolution adjusts the organisms to suit the new environments or to make the organisms better suited to their own environments. The environment doesn't evolve, for no reason at all, it changes due to complex processes.

But from the early stages of the earth surely it must have 'evolved' rather than just change. The objects, and the systems would have to evolve to the complexity they are today, before they start experiencing these 'changes due to complex processes'.

Well, if you look at the fossil record, and I have briefly, Macroevolution has occurred and is occurring.

The fossil record issue is heavily debated actually but I prefer to stay out of it.

Evolution is not random. It is governed by natural selection.

My ultimate point here is that the the chain of events resulting from the singularity has retained an alarming rate of consistency considering it all originated from an entity with supposedly no intellect.

A few scientists have made statements like evolution being as probable as a dictionary being formed out of an explosion at a printing press.

Well, have a good look at fossils and DNA evidence of common decent. This is rather good evidence for evolution

I've actually heard that the human race has been traced back to two people, but I'm indifferent on the issue.

What? I said that? Oh well...

Abiogenesis is an explanation for the origin of life. It could only have occurred under some very special conditions. These conditions are gone now. The atmosphere was different then, there were no plants or animals, there was abundant organic matter just lying around. Everything was different.

But there was no need for this development at all though. This intellect-less chain of events seemed pretty determined to develop living creatures.

Yeah, but that is not evolution in the biological sense. In order for evolution to occur, reproduction with variation and death must be present. Rocks and metals lack these two factors.

Also Mewter, I don't understand how space could expand, considering that would suggest space would already exist for it to expand into. Could you please explain how this possible?

The difficulty for me is that the material word is defined by space and time. If you're arguing Godless bb, then you're suggesting that the material world is the only mode of existence. But to conceive of a point (I won't call it a time) where there is no time and space is actually immaterial.

To 'create' time and space, then have it expand, the original cause must be immaterial to be able to exist independent of those laws of nature. The other problem is I don't understand where the potentiality for all this to occur comes from, considering that randomness is not a potentiality.

 

[GoldShadow]

I made it pretty clear I was just asking questions to learn, rather than posing arguments.

I understand that, but you keep asking the same questions and some of your questions are too broad. I don't have time to write on such a wide scope, especially because I've already written about it in the past (see the links I posted).

Are you sure you read the links I posted? The first post that I linked to explains a little about abiogenesis, and provides further reading on the Miller-Urey experiments:

This is kind of like the big bang theory. Although we've never seen or been able to recreate the big bang, physicists have concluded that it happened (based on stellar motion, background radiation, and other evidence). Biologists have concluded the same about abiogenesis. Like physicists, the exact mechanism is not known. Like physicists (who are using the LHC to try and recreate a mini-big bang), biologists are also trying to figure out how it happened.

And they are making progress. Numerous experiments have confirmed that organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acids, and phospholipids) do form spontaneously in water under the conditions of the early earth. Modern day scientists have done this. There are also asteroids that contain amino acids, many of which hit the early earth.

I think a lot of people also think it's "impossible" just because it's "unlikely", when this is definitely not true. Abiogenesis was unlikely, without a doubt. But given enough time, even something with a low probability becomes almost certain to happen. Getting a living cell out of inorganic matter at any one second is not likely. But if you give it the right conditions and a few billion years, then it becomes very likely to happen. This was exactly the case with our young earth. Remember, it didn't happen suddenly; it probably wasn't a movie Frankenstein moment where there was a bolt of lightning and suddenly life had formed. No, it was a gradual process that took a little luck and a couple billion years.

Read about the famed Miller-Urey experiment and numerous subsequent experiments that confirmed the formation of organic molecules from water and inorganic matter (Wiki's actually pretty good on this one):

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

(http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6024694&postcount=94)

 

[Mewter]

Also Mewter, I don't understand how space could expand, considering that would suggest space would already exist for it to expand into. Could you please explain how this possible?

The difficulty for me is that the material word is defined by space and time. If you're arguing Godless bb, then you're suggesting that the material world is the only mode of existence. But to conceive of a point (I won't call it a time) where there is no time and space is actually immaterial.

To 'create' time and space, then have it expand, the original cause must be immaterial to be able to exist independent of those laws of nature. The other problem is I don't understand where the potentiality for all this to occur comes from, considering that randomness is not a potentiality.

First Paragraph:
That's the question. What is it expanding into? First, let's establish that the space between observable galaxies is in fact expanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00812.htm
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/hubble.html
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html

We've measured the red shift of galaxies away from our own (using instruments like the Hubble and the Doppler Effect), and the ones further away are moving away faster than the ones that are closer yet still receding. What does this mean? Coupled with Einstein's relativity, you can conclude that you can stand anywhere in the universe and everything can still be moving away from you. This is just from what we have observed.*

Now, to get to your question after all this beating around the bush. What is space expanding into? I don't know. Answering this question also depends on how you define space. Is space just the measurement between objects, or is it the entire scene in which objects interact? When people say the universe is expanding, they simply mean the objects that comprise it are moving apart, which means the first type of space is expanding, but the second kind is as well. If you take space to be the second definition (all of the universe's physical scene), though, then you would have to say that three dimensional space may be expanding into a higher dimensional plane that isn't directly observable to us.

Higher dimensions are also implied by the mathematical equations used in electromagnetism and gravity. Michio Kaku, a fairly renowned theoretical physicist, has actually written several books on this. You should read Hyperspace, Einstein's Cosmos, Parallel Worlds, etc. Of course, this is all metaphysics and almost pure conceptual stuff, but it's worth reading anyways. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and The Ultimate Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy is also worth reading to get a better understanding of the scientific ideas (not conclusions by any means) of this at the moment.

*This is one of the things that evidences the Big Bang happened since, if you turn back the clock far enough, maybe everything was closer together at one point.

Second Paragraph:
Yeah, I just don't see a space-less, timeless (literally without time) void happening either. In my opinion, too many problems seem to pop up with that.

Third Paragraph:
Agreed on the first sentence. For the second sentence though, could you reiterate on "randomness is not a potentiality"?

Thanks.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok but which one shows that space/matter could have expanded without an external aid? It'd be great if you post a link to the experiment which replicated this.

Well, there doesn't really seem to be any sort of evidence for "external aid", and as far as science goes, the expansion of space just happens. It's got something to do with the cosmological constant and dark energy, as well as left over energy from the Big Bang. If I'm right. I'm not sure on the details, that's what physicists are for lol.

Isn't that just a microevolution of adaption, and wouldn't that have required citrate (external aid) to catalyse that adaption? Were the only factors present space and time? (Therefore essentially almost a black void, but obviously with space and time). I was more referring to matter increasing in size or complexity with no external aid, so essentially only time and space are present.

Yeah, but the bacteria discovered without the help of an intelligent being or so it seemed. After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have made it look that way. Matter increasing in size or complexity where only space and time are present, I wouldn't really know... And would you define "external aid"? Because the idea is a little hard to pin down. Like, gravity would that be external aid? or Electromagnetism?

But where is the source of the potentiality for all this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that all this existence comes from nothingness.

Well, I'm arguing that all of existence in this universe appears to come from a singularity, which contained the laws of physics, matter, time, space etc. So, the singularity was much more than nothing, it was more like everything, just squeezed into an infinitely small point.

But there seems to be a harmony in all ecosytems that aren't affected by humans. It seems that in the ecosystems all animals appear relatively equal in the continuation of their species. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't we be witnessing sever disharmonies in nearly every single ecosystem?

Well, not always, species are often driven extinct, and outcompeted. This harmony exists in currently stable ecosystems, and ultimately nothing is stable. Most of the ecosystems that you see are stable.

Well if all evolutions are result of adapting to changes in the environment, what causes the environments themselves to change?

Lots of very complex things that are very hard to explain. Sorry, this isn't really related to biology, so it'd be off topic at the moment, and I wouldn't really be too sure.

Surely they must have had no need, because there wouldn't have been any 'changes in their environment' first. What I'm saying is that there must have been some form of unecessary evolution, ie. where there was no need to adapt to anything new at all.

Well, there is, genetic drift. Genes giving no advantage to their hosts, doing better than their competitors by luck. It has been observed. Furthermore, competition influences evolution, it should be self-explanatory. If trees are in a forest, and can only soak up sunlight that hits a certain area, then the trees are going to evolve to become bigger to absorb more light than their competitors. At the end of the day, the amount of light that is absorbed is the same, and the whole exercise seems pointless, if you look at it on a macroscopic scale.

But from the early stages of the earth surely it must have 'evolved' rather than just change. The objects, and the systems would have to evolve to the complexity they are today, before they start experiencing these 'changes due to complex processes'.

Ah, but change can result in increasing complexity, crystals can form when a solution dries out, increasing complexity. This is an example of complexity arising, without evolution. Gravity collapsing nebulae into stars could be considered another. The complex processes are complex, because they are affected by many thousands of variables and pretty much always were. The system that is affected by them doesn't actually have to be complex though. If you understand what I mean.

The fossil record issue is heavily debated actually but I prefer to stay out of it.

Not really, but anyway....

My ultimate point here is that the the chain of events resulting from the singularity has retained an alarming rate of consistency considering it all originated from an entity with supposedly no intellect.

Ah, yeah, but that's when you look at it's only success. Look at all the failures around us, as far as we know, we are the only life in the universe. There are countless barren worlds all devoid of life, while there's only one that seems to harbour life, and it's not really doing a good job of it. Look at the inside of the Earth, the mantle and core, that's devoid of life. Life only makes up a small portion of Earth, even smaller of the solar system, smaller still of the universe.

As far as we know, we're it, we're the only intelligent life in the universe, we're unique, and that's why preserving humanity is on high on my priority list.

All I'm trying to say here is the success rate is absolutely horrible. Your better off buying lottery tickets, than picking a planet at random and hope that life develops on it.

A few scientists have made statements like evolution being as probable as a dictionary being formed out of an explosion at a printing press.

Yeah, but they're full of rubbish. Evolution is occurring, there's no doubt about it. Sure, the end result may look improbable, but it wasn't just pulled out of the hat at random. It was selected for by natural selection.

But there was no need for this development at all though. This intellect-less chain of events seemed pretty determined to develop living creatures.

Well, we're a luxury, we're not needed, we weren't going to happen! That's what makes humanity such a gentle flower, we barely got here the first time, and we won't be here again.

Anyway, just read the bit I mentioned earlier. If you don't buy my uplifting remarks, you don't have to, it's just some of my personal philosophy spilling out into this debate.

 

[Dre89]

Mewter, with regards to 'randomness is not a potentiality' what I mean is that when I ask where the potentiality for something to generate out of nothing comes from, people say 'randomness'. I'm not sure if that's your answer too, but the problem with answer is that randomness is not a potentiality, just the method in which the potentiality may act.

Well, there doesn't really seem to be any sort of evidence for "external aid", and as far as science goes, the expansion of space just happens. It's got something to do with the cosmological constant and dark energy, as well as left over energy from the Big Bang. If I'm right. I'm not sure on the details, that's what physicists are for lol.


Yeah, but the bacteria discovered without the help of an intelligent being or so it seemed. After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have made it look that way. Matter increasing in size or complexity where only space and time are present, I wouldn't really know... And would you define "external aid"? Because the idea is a little hard to pin down. Like, gravity would that be external aid? or Electromagnetism?

Firstly, the Spaghetti Monter argument is garbage. The SM is inconsistent with theistic philosophy of God. As I've said countless times, God would be self-necessary and eternal. The SM is a physical creature, meaning it must exist in space and time, meaning it is not self-necessary and not eternal. The SM argument is rubbish because there is a clear distinction between it and God.

Anyway, from what I understood, BB agues that the initial space/matter expanded without external aid. My problem with this is that I thought it contradicted scientific law and observation to suggest that matter could develop on its own without external aid. When I say external aid, I mean things such as oxygen, water, other matter etc. things which could provoke a microevolution.

Well, I'm arguing that all of existence in this universe appears to come from a singularity, which contained the laws of physics, matter, time, space etc. So, the singularity was much more than nothing, it was more like everything, just squeezed into an infinitely small point.

This is what I'm interested in. You say that the laws of the universe are contained within the singularity. The problem for me is is that if you look at the laws-
Space
Time
Gravity
Natural Selection
Etc.

You see that they don't appear to be random, instead, they appear to be a coherent system, all complimenting each other. This system is irreducibly complex itself, for to remove one law would not only ruin the world and make life impossible, it would make continuation impossible in general.

Seeing that the singularity is supposedly void of intellect, the laws appear too coherent and coincidental to be random.

Now, if you claim that the singularity itself is simply the collection of these laws, which then expanded, you have the self-necessity problem. Logic suggests that the original entity must be singular, not plural, for then you have multiple supposedly self-necessary entities, which in truth are dependant on each other, making it contradictory.

However, I'm sure you guys hear this argument alot and have dealt with it before, so I'm curious to hear your response.


I also find it interesting that Mewter, who I assume is a respected member of the DH, puts metaphysical works in front of me, as have other DH members, yet when I ever argue from metaphysics, I get criticised.

I can understand people disagreeing with me, but it's not as if what I say is absolute garbage. Alot of what I say has been referenced from some of the most influential thinkers in western philosophy.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Firstly, the Spaghetti Monter argument is garbage. The SM is inconsistent with theistic philosophy of God. As I've said countless times, God would be self-necessary and eternal. The SM is a physical creature, meaning it must exist in space and time, meaning it is not self-necessary and not eternal. The SM argument is rubbish because there is a clear distinction between it and God.

It was a joke. What about the invisible, immaterial, supernatural, undetectable, intangible pink unicorn? He could have done it!

Anyway, from what I understood, BB agues that the initial space/matter expanded without external aid. My problem with this is that I thought it contradicted scientific law and observation to suggest that matter could develop on its own without external aid. When I say external aid, I mean things such as oxygen, water, other matter etc. things which could provoke a microevolution.

Oh right, that's what you mean. The problem is, that you seem to be wrong. Matter "develops" (I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.) according to forces exerted by other matter, itself, the universe, etc. There is no real scientific law that says matter can't develop on it's own without external aid. The only law that even vaguely resembles that is, Newton's First Law of Motion, and it has barely anything to do with this.

This is what I'm interested in. You say that the laws of the universe are contained within the singularity. The problem for me is is that if you look at the laws-
Space
Time
Gravity
Natural Selection
Etc.

You see that they don't appear to be random, instead, they appear to be a coherent system, all complimenting each other. This system is irreducibly complex itself, for to remove one law would not only ruin the world and make life impossible, it would make continuation impossible in general.

Seeing that the singularity is supposedly void of intellect, the laws appear too coherent and coincidental to be random.

Oh really? The removal of the weak nuclear force from our universe would do almost nothing, if it was not there in the first place, the universe may be pretty much the same (we can't really know for sure, but it has been theorised by physicists, who seem to know what they're doing). I suppose the system is not irreducibly complex then.

And how do you know that it appears to be a coherent system? It doesn't to me. The laws of physics seem arbitrary and rather odd. I mean a universal speed limit for causality that is regularly broken by the entanglement of sub-atomic particles. That seems incoherent to me! Or what about natural selection producing useless appendixes for humans? That's pretty incoherent.

Furthermore, the coherency of the universe is put in doubt, if it's supposed purpose was to harbour life. Look at around you, at the night sky, see all that empty space, that the universe mainly consists of. That's all lifeless. The countless stars that you can see, they're lifeless as well. Those planets around other stars, they're lifeless as well. The universe is by enlarge, lifeless. That's not very good designing. It looks as if the laws of physics weren't designed.

Now, if you claim that the singularity itself is simply the collection of these laws, which then expanded, you have the self-necessity problem. Logic suggests that the original entity must be singular, not plural, for then you have multiple supposedly self-necessary entities, which in truth are dependant on each other, making it contradictory.

Yeah, the singularity was everything compressed into a single entity. During the Big Bang, the laws of physics arose as did matter, time, space etc. I'll say it again; singularity = 1 entity!

I can understand people disagreeing with me, but it's not as if what I say is absolute garbage. Alot of what I say has been referenced from some of the most influential thinkers in western philosophy.

Philosophers =/= Scientists sorry. On matters of science, scientists are usually the ones to consult. On matters of how to live a meaningful and moral life, philosophers are usually the ones to consult. There is a profound difference.

 

[Dre89]

Philosophers don't really try to challenge scientific evidence though. Philosophers challenge evolution and BB on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.

Sometimes scientists step over the line though. using mathematicals to advocate the infinite regress of time crosses over into philosophical logic.

But it's not really as if mroe creationists need to pick up science anyway as there are plenty of creationist scientists who have scientific grounds for their belief anyway. I read recently that many physicists and astrobiologogists (might have been astrophysicists, can't remeber) also claim that the body of natural laws is irreducibly complex and seems deliberately designed to cater life.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Philosophers don't really try to challenge scientific evidence though. Philosophers challenge evolution and BB on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.

However, that does not overturn the large bodies of evidence that are widely accepted by the scientific community. So, if you have a philosophical problem with a scientific theory, which is well supported by evidence, then you need to swallow the truth. If it is known that something has occurred, no amount of philosophising can change that. This is the case with evolution.

Sometimes scientists step over the line though. using mathematicals to advocate the infinite regress of time crosses over into philosophical logic.

Yeah, I know, it sometimes ends up pretty icky like that.

But it's not really as if mroe creationists need to pick up science anyway as there are plenty of creationist scientists who have scientific grounds for their belief anyway. I read recently that many physicists and astrobiologogists (might have been astrophysicists, can't remeber) also claim that the body of natural laws is irreducibly complex and seems deliberately designed to cater life.

Well, creationism has little scientific evidence at best. It seems that the best that creationism can do is, God of the Gaps, or the fine-tuned universe argument. The fine-tuned universe argument is poor for a number of reasons. The natural laws aren't irreducibly complex and don't appear to have any overall design, if you actually analyse them. Additionally, the anthropic principle seems to solve the problem of a fine-tuned universe. After that, the fine-tuned universe argument is an argument by lack of imagination. Basically, what's to stop life arising differently under different circumstances. Furthermore, aren't we adapted to the universe, rather than the universe adapted to us?

Fun fact: As a percentage of the whole there are more holocaust denier historians than biologists that don't accept evolution.

 

[GoldShadow]

Sometimes scientists step over the line though. using mathematicals to advocate the infinite regress of time crosses over into philosophical logic.

The math works out. It's not a problem with the math or science if there is an infinite or asymptotic curve. The issue is that it's hard, as humans, to comprehend such a thing. It's only natural. I'm not entirely sure how it would work, but that by no means suggests that the physics and math are wrong. That makes me a non-physicist, that's all. You have to get over that fact; just because you don't get it, doesn't make it incorrect. The laws of the universe don't change just because some layperson doesn't believe the math makes sense. The presence of infinite curvature in the math and physics doesn't somehow turn it into a philosophical issue.

Fun fact: As a percentage of the whole there are more holocaust denier historians than biologists that don't accept evolution.

Not disagreeing with anything, just want to add that a biologist who doesn't accept evolution isn't really a biologist at all! I know they're out there, but it's akin to a doctor who doesn't believe in bacteria. Would such a person technically 'be' a doctor? I suppose, but he or she wouldn't exactly be credible or trusted.

 

[Aesir]

Or an economist who doesn't accept free trade.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Not disagreeing with anything, just want to add that a biologist who doesn't accept evolution isn't really a biologist at all! I know they're out there, but it's akin to a doctor who doesn't believe in bacteria. Would such a person technically 'be' a doctor? I suppose, but he or she wouldn't exactly be credible or trusted.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. They're quite definitely in a minority, and publish no papers in peer-reviewed scientific literature. They don't really contribute to science in any meaningful way, those biblical literalists.

In response to Aesir, I get the feeling that there are a number of economists that are against free-trade, and that they're arguments actually have evidence in favour of them. It's not really on the same level. The level I think we're talking about here is, something along the lines of a physicist that doesn't accept gravity or a chemist that doesn't subscribe to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, that's kind of my point. They're quite definitely in a minority, and publish no papers in peer-reviewed scientific literature. They don't really contribute to science in any meaningful way, those biblical literalists.

In response to Aesir, I get the feeling that there are a number of economists that are against free-trade, and that they're arguments actually have evidence in favour of them. It's not really on the same level. The level I think we're talking about here is, something along the lines of a physicist that doesn't accept gravity or a chemist that doesn't subscribe to the laws of thermodynamics.

Free trade is one of the few things Economists agree on. Unless you're talking about the rather small minority of Economists who argue against it. Which is really no different then the small minority of biologists who argue against evolution.

There's math and formulas that show free trade works, it's when you get countries like China that end up killing the system. At the end of the day though, free trade is the best thing we have.

 

[Dre89]

However, that does not overturn the large bodies of evidence that are widely accepted by the scientific community. So, if you have a philosophical problem with a scientific theory, which is well supported by evidence, then you need to swallow the truth. If it is known that something has occurred, no amount of philosophising can change that. This is the case with evolution.

But some scientists themselves disagree with the conclusions you guys make. You try to give off the impression that the scientific community is unified on its stance but I know of plenty of scientists who disagree with you based on scientific grounds.

Well, creationism has little scientific evidence at best. It seems that the best that creationism can do is, God of the Gaps, or the fine-tuned universe argument. The fine-tuned universe argument is poor for a number of reasons. The natural laws aren't irreducibly complex and don't appear to have any overall design, if you actually analyse them. Additionally, the anthropic principle seems to solve the problem of a fine-tuned universe. After that, the fine-tuned universe argument is an argument by lack of imagination. Basically, what's to stop life arising differently under different circumstances. Furthermore, aren't we adapted to the universe, rather than the universe adapted to us?

I'm not too convinced about this. If you removed either time or space, all other laws would be pointless and couldn't function.

You said that creatures evolve biologically through natural selection, yet non-living objects such as rocks change as a result of 'complex processes'. If you removed natural selection, then the enivronments would still change but living matter wouldn't be able to adapt and would have died out by now.

If you removed these 'complex processes' which alter non-living matter, than natural selection would have been pointless and never have developed because living matter wouldn't even have existed because non-living matter wouldn't have developed to the point where abiogenesis occured.

Abiogenesis was never a necessity. Non-living matter can survive just fine without having to evolve into living matter. So apart from the fact that abiogenesis was never a necessity, it would have only have made sense for the law to exist if the previous two laws already existed.

And of course without gravity, everything would just be crazy.

Of course there's probably more, but I can't think of them now. I just don't understand how you can say that all those laws were random. So many laws are dependant on the existence of others that it seems impossible to me to be random.

But I'm assuming you guys hear this all the time so what's the explanation for this?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm not too convinced about this. If you removed either time or space, all other laws would be pointless and couldn't function.

Ah, the good old anthropic principle; the reason all the laws appear to be so fine-tuned to our existence is, because without them being so, we wouldn't be here talking about them! Basically, we only see the "successes" and can't see the failures.

You said that creatures evolve biologically through natural selection, yet non-living objects such as rocks change as a result of 'complex processes'. If you removed natural selection, then the enivronments would still change but living matter wouldn't be able to adapt and would have died out by now.

Natural selection isn't really a law of the universe, it's more like the product of a system.

If you removed these 'complex processes' which alter non-living matter, than natural selection would have been pointless and never have developed because living matter wouldn't even have existed because non-living matter wouldn't have developed to the point where abiogenesis occured.

Okay, these complex processes have to exist, because we wouldn't be here without them. Basically, we can only exist in a universe that is "fine-tuned" for life, because otherwise we wouldn't exist.

Abiogenesis was never a necessity. Non-living matter can survive just fine without having to evolve into living matter. So apart from the fact that abiogenesis was never a necessity, it would have only have made sense for the law to exist if the previous two laws already existed.

Uh... No. Abiogenesis, isn't a law of the universe, it's more like the end product of some really complex and rare chemistry.

And of course without gravity, everything would just be crazy.

Of course there's probably more, but I can't think of them now. I just don't understand how you can say that all those laws were random. So many laws are dependant on the existence of others that it seems impossible to me to be random.

But I'm assuming you guys hear this all the time so what's the explanation for this?

Well, basically, we don't know how life could arise under different conditions, so it could arise in a universe with completely different laws of physics than ours. Maybe it'd be so strange, we couldn't imagine it, like 10 Dimensions of space. Additionally, the anthropic principle; basically, we have to be in a universe that is suitable for our life, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Mewter]

I also find it interesting that Mewter, who I assume is a respected member of the DH, puts metaphysical works in front of me, as have other DH members, yet when I ever argue from metaphysics, I get criticised.

I can understand people disagreeing with me, but it's not as if what I say is absolute garbage. Alot of what I say has been referenced from some of the most influential thinkers in western philosophy.

I put forward Steven Hawking's and Michio Kaku's books, which are heavily mathematics based (they're both physicists!)
And before you say anything about mathematics' part in reality, let me say this: quantum mechanics. Even your computer, which you're viewing this message with, depends on those mathematics.

And yeah, Anthropic Principle.

 

[GoldShadow]

Dre, I don't understand why you keep referencing 'non-living matter' when the discussion is about evolution. Also,

But some scientists themselves disagree with the conclusions you guys make. You try to give off the impression that the scientific community is unified on its stance but I know of plenty of scientists who disagree with you based on scientific grounds.

Care to name these "plenty of scientists"?

To be honest, your entire post reveals more about you than any conclusions we are drawing or demonstrating. I take it you've never had an introductory biology or physics class?

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Ugh. I hate it when religious people try to debate with non-religious people, especially when they aren't scientifically literate.

Honestly now Dre., you're making all of the religious community look bad.
I know a lot of you are probably going to start with "Oh, you don't need Dre. for that, silly faery-tale believer,", but whatever. I've heard that enough. Which is why I read and study so ****ing much. To set myself apart from the stereotype of Christians: Over-zealous and scientifically-ignorant and bone-headed and non-believer hating.

Please Dre., for the sake of the image of those few that worship and study like me, stop now, or else go read up on your facts.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not religious. But you'd probably be surprised at how much I know about Catholic philosophy and theology. Not many undergrad students would know alot more about Christianity than I do, they may know more, but it's not as if I'm one of those idiots of the street who thinks that going to a Catholic school means that they know about religion. They're the ones who do damage to your religion, not me. Besides, everyone here knows I'm a deist or agnostic theist anyway, and that I don't believe the world has only existed for 6000 years bla bla bla..

Even if I was religious, many of my ideas correlate to those of Aquinas or Augustine anyway, so it's not as if I'd be drastically misrepresenting Catholic schools of thought.

I also made it pretty clear I was asking questions, not arguing against evolution, I never even said I disagree with evolution or big bang, I just want to learn about them.

And if you think all my arguments are just blindy religious-based, I'm guessing you haven't read my stuff in other threads, because most of the philosophers I reference aren't religious.

By the way, I'm sort of confused as to how physicalists epistemologically justify that beings appear to be designed to be perceived, when in physicalism perception was just a random occurence which developed billions of years after the Earth did. Here's what I don't understand-

In physicalism, their is no deception in perception, because there is no author (no God, basically) to deceive us. Therefore, we know our perception correlates to external realities, in other words, what we perceive is not just an illusion in our minds.

The problem for me is that if perception was a late and random development, why are all beings designed to be perceived?

All entities give off particular colours, shapes, touch sensations, smells, sounds etc. that distinguish them from each other, this is essentially the basis of what a being with an intellect is- it can perceive.

To me it seemed the universe is designed to be perceived. The principles of vision, colouration, smell, touch etc. only exist so that those that can perceive can perceive, they serve no other purpose outside of that. A world without perception would have no colouration, no smells, no touch sensations etc., so why would have those principles existed in entities before the first beings that could perceive existed?

I guess that's where some philosophers get the idea that 'being is to be perceived'.

Again, I'm just asking questions, not trying to refute anything.

By the way Mewter, I'm not saying mathematics is useless in deducing realities of the world, it obviously contributes alot, I'm just saying that not all mathematical equations equate to reality. You also have to remember that several mathematicians/logicians/phsycians work on the pretenses that formulas formulated by previous academics actually work, without testing them themselves, which is understandable because it would take too long. But again I'm not trying to discredit mathematics.

You guys seem to think I'm trying to discredit science in general, which is not the case. In fact, most scientific observation actually aids most of my ideas, and I'd actually argue that physicalism contradicts scientific observation more than deism. What I question doesn't challenge science at all, just the conclusions scientists make off them. For example, if you say that scientists have discovered that animals have the capacity to exhibit complex emotions, I don't challenge that at all. What I challenge is the conclusion that it is somehow evidence for evolution or a reduction of humanism (although I always knew animals had emotions).

Even in this thread, I'm merely asking questions, because I concede I don't have scientific knowledge, that doesn't mean anything I say is moot.

I get annoyed when people say my arguments are moot because they're philosophical, becuase they're mostly referenced from some of the greatest philosophers of western civ. So to say my arguments are moot is to say that they're incompetent debaters.

 

[Dre89]

Ah, the good old anthropic principle; the reason all the laws appear to be so fine-tuned to our existence is, because without them being so, we wouldn't be here talking about them! Basically, we only see the "successes" and can't see the failures.

But every universe would require space and time, for if the universe didn't have them, they'd be self-necessary but of course multiple entities can't be self-necessary. So again, we witness a degree of structured consistency.

Natural selection isn't really a law of the universe, it's more like the product of a system.

Okay, these complex processes have to exist, because we wouldn't be here without them. Basically, we can only exist in a universe that is "fine-tuned" for life, because otherwise we wouldn't exist.


Well, basically, we don't know how life could arise under different conditions, so it could arise in a universe with completely different laws of physics than ours. Maybe it'd be so strange, we couldn't imagine it, like 10 Dimensions of space. Additionally, the anthropic principle; basically, we have to be in a universe that is suitable for our life, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

But you've essentially completely disallowed the possibility of intellgent design or structured creation, because no matter how coherent the system is, you'll just apply your unfalsifiable multi-verse argument.

And the probability of all these happening in one system randomly is like a billion to one. So for this to happen, there must have been an infinite set of universes, where one finally allowed for the development of life under enormous coincidences. The problem is, you can't really have infinity in physicalism though.

Even then, you've essentially conceded that atheism has to suppose unfalsifiable multiluniversialism to be logical, which I doubt all athiests would agree with.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

By the way, I'm sort of confused as to how physicalists epistemologically justify that beings appear to be designed to be perceived, when in physicalism perception was just a random occurence which developed billions of years after the Earth did. Here's what I don't understand-

In physicalism, their is no deception in perception, because there is no author (no God, basically) to deceive us. Therefore, we know our perception correlates to external realities, in other words, what we perceive is not just an illusion in our minds.

The problem for me is that if perception was a late and random development, why are all beings designed to be perceived?

All entities give off particular colours, shapes, touch sensations, smells, sounds etc. that distinguish them from each other, this is essentially the basis of what a being with an intellect is- it can perceive.

To me it seemed the universe is designed to be perceived. The principles of vision, colouration, smell, touch etc. only exist so that those that can perceive can perceive, they serve no other purpose outside of that. A world without perception would have no colouration, no smells, no touch sensations etc., so why would have those principles existed in entities before the first beings that could perceive existed?

I guess that's where some philosophers get the idea that 'being is to be perceived'.

Or maybe, you could look at it the other way and say that we evolved the ability to perceive differences present in nature. To say that the only reason light exists is so we can perceive is rather strange, because light is just another form of energy. To say that chemicals exist just so that we can taste or smell, is just odd. The way I see it, these things were there in the first place, and we just evolved to perceive them, because it would be advantageous to do so.

You guys seem to think I'm trying to discredit science in general, which is not the case. In fact, most scientific observation actually aids most of my ideas, and I'd actually argue that physicalism contradicts scientific observation more than deism. What I question doesn't challenge science at all, just the conclusions scientists make off them. For example, if you say that scientists have discovered that animals have the capacity to exhibit complex emotions, I don't challenge that at all. What I challenge is the conclusion that it is somehow evidence for evolution or a reduction of humanism (although I always knew animals had emotions).

Well, even without animals exhibiting emotions, there is ample evidence for evolution. But anyway, yeah.

Even in this thread, I'm merely asking questions, because I concede I don't have scientific knowledge, that doesn't mean anything I say is moot.

That would be ad homenim wouldn't it?

I get annoyed when people say my arguments are moot because they're philosophical, becuase they're mostly referenced from some of the greatest philosophers of western civ. So to say my arguments are moot is to say that they're incompetent debaters.

Philosophical arguments are all well and good, but when concerning matters of science, they don't hold quite as much weight as scientific evidence.

But every universe would require space and time, for if the universe didn't have them, they'd be self-necessary but of course multiple entities can't be self-necessary. So again, we witness a degree of structured consistency.

Oh really? Can't they just exist outside time or space in a way that maybe us humans can't imagine?

But you've essentially completely disallowed the possibility of intellgent design or structured creation, because no matter how coherent the system is, you'll just apply your unfalsifiable multi-verse argument.

Well, I think Occam's Razor would prefer the multiverse to the existence of omnipotent being. Also, just because something appears coherent, doesn't mean it really was designed. What about the orbits of the planets? They appear coherent, but they were not designed.

And the probability of all these happening in one system randomly is like a billion to one. So for this to happen, there must have been an infinite set of universes, where one finally allowed for the development of life under enormous coincidences. The problem is, you can't really have infinity in physicalism though.

How do you know the probability of the laws of physics panning out the way the are now given a second chance? We don't, they could be set in stone, we could be stuck in a time-loop, with everything happening in exactly the same way as the previous universe, there are hundreds of possibilities.

Even then, you've essentially conceded that atheism has to suppose unfalsifiable multiluniversialism to be logical, which I doubt all athiests would agree with.

The multiverse may be unfalsifiable, but it does explain a number of problems. Furthermore, it is just a hypothesis, if that. Also, we don't have to support the idea of the multiverse, we can just say that we don't know, which under does not provide any evidence for any creation story.

 

[Mewter]

By the way Mewter, I'm not saying mathematics is useless in deducing realities of the world, it obviously contributes alot, I'm just saying that not all mathematical equations equate to reality. You also have to remember that several mathematicians/logicians/phsycians work on the pretenses that formulas formulated by previous academics actually work, without testing them themselves, which is understandable because it would take too long. But again I'm not trying to discredit mathematics.

Okay.

And Bob Jane T-Mart hit the rest of the points dead-on.

What I have a real problem with is this:

In physicalism, their is no deception in perception, because there is no author (no God, basically) to deceive us. Therefore, we know our perception correlates to external realities, in other words, what we perceive is not just an illusion in our minds.

What we perceive can be an illusion to our minds sometimes (hallucinations).
Someone doesn't have to be trying to play tricks on you in order for you to make a mistake.

To me it seemed the universe is designed to be perceived. The principles of vision, colouration, smell, touch etc. only exist so that those that can perceive can perceive, they serve no other purpose outside of that. A world without perception would have no colouration, no smells, no touch sensations etc., so why would have those principles existed in entities before the first beings that could perceive existed?

Because the universe doesn't care if we can detect things, and we became capable of seeing them later on. The premise here is that "the universe is designed to be perceived", and your entire argument here relies on that premise.

We're the ones who adapted to our environment, not the other way around. It makes sense, too! If we adapt to our environment, then we can use those adaptations in conjunction with our experiences and other objects in that environment. Our body picks things up (heat, chemicals) and then sends translated electrical signals to the brain.

If the universe were built just for us to perceive, then it wouldn't make sense to have such things as dark matter, gravity, radio waves, neutrinos, black holes, snipes, etc. Plus, we can only detect small amounts of things (just look at the electromagnetic spectrum and see how tiny a fraction of it is actually visible, see-able, light.) The universe doesn't care whether or not we are aware of things or not, but being able to directly sense the things that affect us in everyday life has been beneficial to us, which is why we have those senses.

 

[Dre89]

Or maybe, you could look at it the other way and say that we evolved the ability to perceive differences present in nature. To say that the only reason light exists is so we can perceive is rather strange, because light is just another form of energy. To say that chemicals exist just so that we can taste or smell, is just odd. The way I see it, these things were there in the first place, and we just evolved to perceive them, because it would be advantageous to do so.

I had a feeling you'd come up with this. I'm not saying energies and various processes couldn't have happened, but clearly objects have various properties which were for the purpose of allowing to differentiate between them.

If humans developed perception in a world not designed to be perceived, everything would be colourless, we would have no touch sensation, no smell, hear no sounds etc.

Or, everything would give off the same experience. Everything would look the same (which would be impossible but whatever), they would all have no colour, or the same colour, all the smell, and make all the same sounds.

The thing is, objects give off different experiences so that we can differentiate between them.

For example, suppose in two million years we develop the ability to view the 'auras' of objects (let's say they are purely natural, and have scientific explanations), which reflect their state of being. For us to perceive them, they must have already existed in the first place.

Also, it's not a necessity that being= perceivable by sense perception. God and/or the singularity and not perceived by sense perception, because they are self-necessary, they do not exist to be perceived. If things were designed not to be perceived by the senses, or without perception in mind, they'd all be invisible, silent, touchless and odourless, but clearly they're not.

To sum it up, the fact that beings can exist outside of sense perception means the ones that don't clearly were designed to be that way.

Considering that it was perfectly possible to have physical beings that are invisible, soundless, smellless etc. Why isn't the world like that if it wasn't originally meant to be perceived?

Well, even without animals exhibiting emotions, there is ample evidence for evolution. But anyway, yeah.

Yeah I know but my point is I don't refute scientific evidence, just the conclusions scientists make off it.

That would be ad homenim wouldn't it?

Don't know what that means. My arguments would be moot if i tried to refute ideas on scientific grounds. I never even tried to refute evolution or big ban. Things like infinite regress however, are not purely scientifc, and I am within my right to challenge those notions.

Philosophical arguments are all well and good, but when concerning matters of science, they don't hold quite as much weight as scientific evidence.

But the only time I've ever used a philosophical argument to challenge a scientific one was when I used my intelligent design of humanity, where I borrowed from Aristotle, to challenge evolution.

The thing is, every single premise I had was falsifiable, and was actually founded on scientific observation. So it wasn't just some metaphysical garbage which is coherent but has no authority over another coherent metaphysical argument, my argument had actually had falsifiable reasons to show why opposing arguments were wrong.

Oh really? Can't they just exist outside time or space in a way that maybe us humans can't imagine?

To exist outside of time would make it eternal, which would make it self-necessary, and you can't have more than one eternal being because you need a self-necessary being. All universes would have to be caused, like all other finitie beings.

Well, I think Occam's Razor would prefer the multiverse to the existence of omnipotent being. Also, just because something appears coherent, doesn't mean it really was designed. What about the orbits of the planets? They appear coherent, but they were not designed.

They would have been designed by God too, so I don't really see what the point of mentioning that is.

How do you know the probability of the laws of physics panning out the way the are now given a second chance? We don't, they could be set in stone, we could be stuck in a time-loop, with everything happening in exactly the same way as the previous universe, there are hundreds of possibilities.

It's highly improbable that this universe could be replicated without an intellect, because there's a chance and incompatible law will be developed and destroy the entire universe. Because there's no intellect, there'd be no concept of knowing what is compatible and what is not, so destructive laws wouldn't be prevented.

Actually, is it still possible that that could happen? If these laws are random, how do we know a new law won't destroy us.

If things such as natural selection were developed after the universe had already existed for billions of years, the laws must be able to develop post-big bang. If you're going to say they don't, then that confuses me because would mean it is structured not random (even though natural selection didn't exist at the start of the universe).

Also with regards to your second sentence, that would mean then it is not random, but if the singularity has no intellect, it can have no structure or conssitency.

The multiverse may be unfalsifiable, but it does explain a number of problems. Furthermore, it is just a hypothesis, if that. Also, we don't have to support the idea of the multiverse, we can just say that we don't know, which under does not provide any evidence for any creation story.

Again, multiversialism only explains problems that atheist big bang theory creates. The problem is, you don't have enough evidence of athiest big bang to start asserting that multiversialism, which is completely unfalsifiable is more logical than deism or theism.

 

[Dre89]

Okay.

And Bob Jane T-Mart hit the rest of the points dead-on.

What I have a real problem with is this:
What we perceive can be an illusion to our minds sometimes (hallucinations).
Someone doesn't have to be trying to play tricks on you in order for you to make a mistake.

True, perception can be faulty, but my point is what we perceive does correlate to the external world. There's no posibiltiy of Descarte scenario where an evil God has us completely deceived.

Because the universe doesn't care if we can detect things, and we became capable of seeing them later on. The premise here is that "the universe is designed to be perceived", and your entire argument here relies on that premise.

We're the ones who adapted to our environment, not the other way around. It makes sense, too! If we adapt to our environment, then we can use those adaptations in conjunction with our experiences and other objects in that environment. Our body picks things up (heat, chemicals) and then sends translated electrical signals to the brain.

So what you're saying is that is the world doesn't really have colour, smell, sound etc., there just sensations in our minds which were developed to differentiate between objects.

The problem with that is that for us to develop the ability to make these distinctions, we would have actually needed to be able to perceive them in the first place, which is of course impossible by your argument.

If the universe were built just for us to perceive, then it wouldn't make sense to have such things as dark matter, gravity, radio waves, neutrinos, black holes, snipes, etc. Plus, we can only detect small amounts of things (just look at the electromagnetic spectrum and see how tiny a fraction of it is actually visible, see-able, light.) The universe doesn't care whether or not we are aware of things or not, but being able to directly sense the things that affect us in everyday life has been beneficial to us, which is why we have those senses.

Actually, all that shows is that certain things were designed to be perceived, and others were not. If the universe wasn't designed to be perceived, and we just adapted to it with mental experiences of sensations, we would be able to perceive everything you just mentioned. There would be no reason why we could perceive some things and not others. To me, that just shows that certain things were designed to be perceived.

 

[Mewter]

You're misunderstanding what my point is.

Life would have developed the ability to perceive* multiple things due to evolution, and those who could take advantage of the ability to process information regarding their surroundings could more effectively act upon it.

The information (matter, energy) was there before life developed, it's only when life adapted to interact with it and take in the information (sight, smell, touch, etc.) and process it that it could really be called perception. Let's define "perceive":

*

Dictionary.com
to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.

Dre.
If the universe wasn't designed to be perceived, and we just adapted to it with mental experiences of sensations, we would be able to perceive everything you just mentioned. There would be no reason why we could perceive some things and not others.

There are good reasons why life would not be able to perceive everything, and none of it clashes with my previous logic.

1) Life only evolves to suit its environment and everyday life. You don't see fully grown humans with gills for breathing underwater or third eyes that let them process radio waves (such genes would not be prevalent in the population even if they did show up since they don't make a difference in lifestyle.) They would be absolutely useless.
2) The other reason that we can't perceive everything is just because of the sheer difficulty in detecting most of it. Radio waves are too weak and go through stuff anyways, making them pretty useless for life to use. Neutrinos have barely any mass at all compared to an electron (which has barely any mass compared to a neutron, which you can imagine isn't very massive.) Stuff like that has no place in adaptations. Thus, you "could perceive some things and not others."

tl,dr: The reason we don't perceive some things if they weren't meant to be perceived is because they are beyond our capacity to detect or the means of detection are simply unnecessary.

In reality, there's no reason that we should be able to perceive such things.

And now "perceive" and "detect" are on my same list of redundant words as "self-necessary" is.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I had a feeling you'd come up with this. I'm not saying energies and various processes couldn't have happened, but clearly objects have various properties which were for the purpose of allowing to differentiate between them.

Are you sure of that? Because it appears to me, that we've just picked up on differences there in the first place, that formed for completely different reasons.

If humans developed perception in a world not designed to be perceived, everything would be colourless, we would have no touch sensation, no smell, hear no sounds etc.

Or, everything would give off the same experience. Everything would look the same (which would be impossible but whatever), they would all have no colour, or the same colour, all the smell, and make all the same sounds.

But wait a moment, if that were the case, there would be no reason to evolve perception, so we probably wouldn't have it.

The thing is, objects give off different experiences so that we can differentiate between them.

Well, that's because we evolved to differentiate between them.

For example, suppose in two million years we develop the ability to view the 'auras' of objects (let's say they are purely natural, and have scientific explanations), which reflect their state of being. For us to perceive them, they must have already existed in the first place.

Okay, fair enough, I'll grant you that, at least for the most part. We are ruling out hallucinations, schizophrenia etc. of course.

Also, it's not a necessity that being= perceivable by sense perception. God and/or the singularity and not perceived by sense perception, because they are self-necessary, they do not exist to be perceived. If things were designed not to be perceived by the senses, or without perception in mind, they'd all be invisible, silent, touchless and odourless, but clearly they're not.

No, it's more like, we don't have the sensory organs to perceive such things.

To sum it up, the fact that beings can exist outside of sense perception means the ones that don't clearly were designed to be that way.

Considering that it was perfectly possible to have physical beings that are invisible, soundless, smellless etc. Why isn't the world like that if it wasn't originally meant to be perceived?.

Because our universe has objects that differ in size, shape, reflectiveness, chemical composition etc. This is due to the nature of our universe, it isn't all exactly the same. We have evolved to pick up on such differences, to give us an advantage over other creatures.

Don't know what that means. My arguments would be moot if i tried to refute ideas on scientific grounds. I never even tried to refute evolution or big ban. Things like infinite regress however, are not purely scientifc, and I am within my right to challenge those notions.

Ad homenim is a logical fallacy, where someone attacks the arguer instead of the argument. Basically, I'm saying that the situation described earlier, would be such a case. However, as of yet, I don't recall this sort of thing occurring.

But the only time I've ever used a philosophical argument to challenge a scientific one was when I used my intelligent design of humanity, where I borrowed from Aristotle, to challenge evolution.

The thing is, every single premise I had was falsifiable, and was actually founded on scientific observation. So it wasn't just some metaphysical garbage which is coherent but has no authority over another coherent metaphysical argument, my argument had actually had falsifiable reasons to show why opposing arguments were wrong.

Or so you argue, but we'll leave it at that, I really don't want to have to talk about 10 topics at once.

To exist outside of time would make it eternal, which would make it self-necessary, and you can't have more than one eternal being because you need a self-necessary being. All universes would have to be caused, like all other finitie beings.

HUH? I don't quite understand that.

It's highly improbable that this universe could be replicated without an intellect, because there's a chance and incompatible law will be developed and destroy the entire universe. Because there's no intellect, there'd be no concept of knowing what is compatible and what is not, so destructive laws wouldn't be prevented.

And you know because?

Actually, is it still possible that that could happen? If these laws are random, how do we know a new law won't destroy us.

We haven't seen this sort of thing occur, and it seems like it won't happen. The conditions that gave rise to the laws of physics were gone along time ago.

If things such as natural selection were developed after the universe had already existed for billions of years, the laws must be able to develop post-big bang. If you're going to say they don't, then that confuses me because would mean it is structured not random (even though natural selection didn't exist at the start of the universe).

Okay, I don't understand your logic. Natural selection is kinda different from the laws of physics, it's a force (not in the physical sense) acting on a complex system, that arose after the big bang. The laws of physics as far as we know, were pretty much set in stone since the big bang.

Also with regards to your second sentence, that would mean then it is not random, but if the singularity has no intellect, it can have no structure or conssitency.

Why? Planets lack intellect, yet they have structure and consistency. What if the laws of physics couldn't change for some reason, such as an unknown force that stems from the nature of the singularity? Or what if were all stuck in a time loop, doomed to repeat ourselves forever?

Again, multiversialism only explains problems that atheist big bang theory creates. The problem is, you don't have enough evidence of athiest big bang to start asserting that multiversialism, which is completely unfalsifiable is more logical than deism or theism.

Wait, but there's plenty of evidence for the big-bang, and occam's razor demands that the simplest explanation is often the best. Therefore, as a multiverse is less complex than an omnipotent god (oh come on, he's very complex, he created the universe after all! in your eyes), it would be more logical to propose the existence of the multiverse than an omnipotent god. I admit, it's very hard-impossible to disprove the existence of the multiverse, but for that reason alone, it seems like a better explanation than god.

 

[Mewter]

If humans developed perception in a world not designed to be perceived, everything would be colourless, we would have no touch sensation, no smell, hear no sounds etc.

Or, everything would give off the same experience. Everything would look the same (which would be impossible but whatever), they would all have no colour, or the same colour, all the smell, and make all the same sounds.

But wait a moment, if that were the case, there would be no reason to evolve perception, so we probably wouldn't have it.

Bob Jane T-Mart, this argument right here contradicts the rest of your argument.
For example what you said here:

To sum it up, the fact that beings can exist outside of sense perception means the ones that don't clearly were designed to be that way.

Considering that it was perfectly possible to have physical beings that are invisible, soundless, smellless etc. Why isn't the world like that if it wasn't originally meant to be perceived?.

Because our universe has objects that differ in size, shape, reflectiveness, chemical composition etc. This is due to the nature of our universe, it isn't all exactly the same. We have evolved to pick up on such differences, to give us an advantage over other creatures.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob Jane T-Mart, this argument right here contradicts the rest of your argument.

What I basically meant was that in a universe where everything is exactly the same, which is what Dre is invoking (I think), there would be no reason to develop perception. In our universe however, there are differences between each object, and that's what we pick up on. Of course when I analyse his argument again, I would have to say, "hang-on can't these difference that we rely on to perceive, arise in some other way?".


Yeah, sorry, I was in kind of a rush to post, so that must have slipped through the net.

 

[Dre89]

Are you sure of that? Because it appears to me, that we've just picked up on differences there in the first place, that formed for completely different reasons.

The problem is, to develop perception, and the differences between objects, we actually needed to be able to perceive them beforehand.

But wait a moment, if that were the case, there would be no reason to evolve perception, so we probably wouldn't have it.

What I'm saying is that there are things such as God and the singularity which cannot be perceived because they're not meant to be perceived. The fact that we can perceive certain objects means they must be designed for it, otherwise everything would be invisible, soundless etc.

Well, that's because we evolved to differentiate between them.

But we would have needed to perceive them first before we could develop the ability to differentiate.

Okay, fair enough, I'll grant you that, at least for the most part. We are ruling out hallucinations, schizophrenia etc. of course.



No, it's more like, we don't have the sensory organs to perceive such things.

But what I'm saying is that there are still things which can't be perceived, because they're not supposed to be. I'm suggesting that perception was a random evolutionary experience we would be able to perceive everything, because perception would have then stemmed beyond sense perception to perceive that which we can't now.

Because our universe has objects that differ in size, shape, reflectiveness, chemical composition etc. This is due to the nature of our universe, it isn't all exactly the same. We have evolved to pick up on such differences, to give us an advantage over other creatures.

Again, I'm saying the fact that we can do so suggests there must be something about those objects which allows us to perceive those, because there are other beings which don't.

Ad homenim is a logical fallacy, where someone attacks the arguer instead of the argument. Basically, I'm saying that the situation described earlier, would be such a case. However, as of yet, I don't recall this sort of thing occurring.




Or so you argue, but we'll leave it at that, I really don't want to have to talk about 10 topics at once.



HUH? I don't quite understand that.

I'm saying that you can't have universes that exist outside of time or space, because doing so would make it eternal. You cannot have eternity in a created being ebcause it would make it self-necessary, when the singularity would the be the only self-necessary being.

And you know because?

Because it follows the logic of how a random, intellect-less potential would act.

We haven't seen this sort of thing occur, and it seems like it won't happen. The conditions that gave rise to the laws of physics were gone along time ago.

But if the singularity is random how can you rule anything out? To assume it retains a degree of consistency and structure is to attribute it characteristics of an intellect.

Okay, I don't understand your logic. Natural selection is kinda different from the laws of physics, it's a force (not in the physical sense) acting on a complex system, that arose after the big bang. The laws of physics as far as we know, were pretty much set in stone since the big bang.

I'm saying because there is no intellect, given the circumstances that natural selection rose, it didn't have to. I'm tryign to indicate that there appears to be far too much consistency and harmony for it to stem from randomness.

Why? Planets lack intellect, yet they have structure and consistency. What if the laws of physics couldn't change for some reason, such as an unknown force that stems from the nature of the singularity? Or what if were all stuck in a time loop, doomed to repeat ourselves forever?

Firstly, time loop is rubbish, I've debated that countless times. Secondly, the planets are moved by laws of physics etc., they retain structure and consistency because they are not their own mover, unlike the singularity, which is the original mover.

Wait, but there's plenty of evidence for the big-bang, and occam's razor demands that the simplest explanation is often the best. Therefore, as a multiverse is less complex than an omnipotent god (oh come on, he's very complex, he created the universe after all! in your eyes), it would be more logical to propose the existence of the multiverse than an omnipotent god. I admit, it's very hard-impossible to disprove the existence of the multiverse, but for that reason alone, it seems like a better explanation than god.

It's also theoretically impossible to disprove God, unless you argue that the original being can't have an intellect (which I have done before). Secondly, God is not complex in the way we think of it, most theists will atcually tell you God is simple.

Thirdly, physicalism is far from self- evident. That's like saying that if you find a robot, with no trace of its creator, it's more self-evident to assume that the robot doesn't have a designer, which is of course illogical. It's the very nature of the world and its finite beings that suggests the self-evidence of a metaphysical creator.

According to what I've gathered from you guys, the singularity just appears to be God without intellect. It doesn't exist in space and time, meaning it exists in immateriality (which sort of contradicts true physicalism), and is possibly responsible for an infinite set of universes, meaning it must have access to infinite potentiality, like God.

The only difference appears to be the intellect. That leaves us with the two propositions of whether 'thinking is being', and 'being is to be perceived', to determine whether the intellect is probable or not. That's probably for another debate though.