Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9050
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:04 am

trulyenlightened wrote:I will also do a topic on consciousness and the evolution of consciousness soon. Suffice to say, that we DO know where the centers of consciousness and intelligence are(medulla, cerebellum, cerebrum and the thalamus) in the brain.

Suffice nothing. ;) Please cite studies.

trulyenlightened wrote:We DO know how and why it evolved. The reasons why people are spiritual, is the inherited genes they received from their ancestors, social conformity, and that all spiritual answers satisfy this level of consciousness.

Evolution has no reasons for "why" something evolves. As to "how", that requires first knowing the mechanics behind such, for which I again say cite some studies. Unless of course you wish to tell a "once upon a time, a long, long time ago, before modern man..." story. :P

trulyenlightened wrote:Conscious awareness and the internal dialog, can only occur when the brain is idle. Spiritual expression has also evolved from the most simplest of beliefs to the more complex of beliefs. Based on the archaeological digs and artefacts, these expressions seem almost certainly culture-specific. I'm afraid that nothing in science can stand up to the scrutiny and accuracy of the PSR, so I won't even try.

It seems here you're just spurting sentences without support. Until you give something more, then each claim is nothing.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:05 am

Kurieuo wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:I will also do a topic on consciousness and the evolution of consciousness soon. Suffice to say, that we DO know where the centers of consciousness and intelligence are(medulla, cerebellum, cerebrum and the thalamus) in the brain.

Suffice nothing. ;) Please cite studies.

trulyenlightened wrote:We DO know how and why it evolved. The reasons why people are spiritual, is the inherited genes they received from their ancestors, social conformity, and that all spiritual answers satisfy this level of consciousness.

Evolution has no reasons for "why" something evolves. As to "how", that requires first knowing the mechanics behind such, for which I again say cite some studies. Unless of course you wish to tell a "once upon a time, a long, long time ago, before modern man..." story. :P

trulyenlightened wrote:Conscious awareness and the internal dialog, can only occur when the brain is idle. Spiritual expression has also evolved from the most simplest of beliefs to the more complex of beliefs. Based on the archaeological digs and artefacts, these expressions seem almost certainly culture-specific. I'm afraid that nothing in science can stand up to the scrutiny and accuracy of the PSR, so I won't even try.

It seems here you're just spurting sentences without support. Until you give something more, then each claim is nothing.


Firstly, you stated, " I'm afriad science has debunked that the size of brain has a direct correlation to intelligence", and then began to base your argument on this straw man. I stated that intelligence seems to be related to the number of gyri or convolutions in the brain. You then claim there is no correlation between the physical brain and consciousness. That is an absurd assertion. We can easily correlate the levels of consciousness, to the levels of damage(disease, drugs, accidents, genetics, etc.) to parts of the physical brain. This can be easily be measured with a brain scan. If your occipital lobe is damaged, do you think it won't affect your consciousness, or any portion of your reality? Why can't you understand that the conscious mind is nothing more than the multisensory representation of your objective reality. Nothing more, and nothing less. Do you have conscious awareness when you are sound asleep? NO! But your physical brain is still active, isn't it? YES! What does this tell you? That the physical brain does not depend on consciousness, but consciousness depends entirely on a working active physical brain. Is this not another correlation? YES!

Does evolution explain WHY the red blood cells in many Black Africans develop into the shape of a sickle? YES! Does evolution explain WHY different gene evolved to battle against different pathogens, and others didn't? YES! Does evolution explain WHY an organism develops defenses against diseases? Yes! Does Evolution explain WHY bugs develop resistance to toxins? YES! The simple answer to the "WHY" is so that the other less than 0.1% of species can survive. So we are all the progenies of ancestors that were survivors. We are certainly better off than the other 99.9% of species that didn't survive. Finally, genetic mutation is one of the mechanisms in which the body uses to adapt to changes in the environment. What powers evolution, CHANGE! This is also another topic that I will discuss.

I have already stated that this will be a topic that I will be discussing. I will discuss these topics in full details. Remember, your request is a double edge sword. You are certainly free to provide any evidence to disproves anything I present as well. It is a common tactic among creationist to just keep asking for evidence, until only a God could continue answering. So either present your own evidence to refute anything that I say, or comment only on the topic(s) that I present. And if you can provide evidence that I might be wrong, then we both will have learned something new. A win-win. Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8073
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:12 am

Before we go down the road of science having proved / being able to prove the why's of spirituality and free will and consciousness and all that, let's remember one things that the likes of Harris and Dennet seem to keep forgetting:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:52 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Before we go down the road of science having proved / being able to prove the why's of spirituality and free will and consciousness and all that, let's remember one things that the likes of Harris and Dennet seem to keep forgetting:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable


For the nth time, Science does not, and cannot, absolutely and positively prove anything, It can only provide the best possible explanation of NATURAL phenomenon. Science also cannot explain UNNATURAL phenomenon, because it lacks UNNATURAL tools and the UNNATURAL evidence to work with. Even if it did, it would only mean that the UNNATURAL phenomenon would now become a NATURAL phenomenon. So please no more appeals to authority, or citing the the non-applicable principles of the true scientific method. You might also add inductive reasoning(the most foundational principle in the scientific method of inquiry), deductive reasoning, and predictability to your list. These principles are usually left out on purpose. But kudos to you for adding falsifiability and repeatability. Normally all I hear is if it can't be observed directly. it can't be proven positively and absolutely. In other words, another closed mind.

I'm sure Sam and Daniel have more than just a working knowledge of the principles of the scientific method of inquiry.
Therefore, I don't see the relevance of the illusion of free-will and spirituality, and the scientific method of inquiry. Both are totally subjective and vacuous. Finally, all the data in the world is useless, if it is not intuitively connected with our senses. That is why I always start with presenting an intuitive understanding first, with examples and analogies, and then progress to a more scientific understanding if necessary. Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:40 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
Trulyenlightened wrote:
Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here.

Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?


The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Philip » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:12 am

TrulyE: The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow!


First place, you don't have an unlimited amount of time (from the beginning of the universe) AND you're speaking of physical things that, pre-Big Bang, did not previously exist. So, you first must explain how just the necessary things, immediately showing awesome design and massive complexity - things requiring great intelligence (things today or best minds scarcely can understand) INSTANTLY came into existence. Such astonishing things did not create themselves. So, again, I refer you to what formed in the first three minutes of the Big Bang's beginning - things which a moment before did not exist: (on this page: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42156). Where is your "infinite" amount of time there??? And those first three minutes INSTANTLY show organization, complexity and synchronization of interactivity of unfathomable precision, that their governing laws merely document. Of course, explaining those first things and moments are only your first great hurdle of explaining what exists.

TrulyE: Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events


So, AFTER the Big Bang, because there was a massive amount of time and outcomes, a stupendously, mathematically incalculable number of them have to have gotten exceptionally lucky. But let's not forget that were speaking of blind things that don't recognize any advantages or that even can "see" outcomes. Juxtapositioned against an amazing "coincidence" of some outcome that represents some great possibility - there is no recognition of potential or that any one outcome is any better than another. For blind things, great complexity and organization is no different than massive chaos. What you are describing is the capability of building intelligence you assert to blind, random things, given enough time. But time doesn't make blind things intelligent. And so TIME is your magical, little element - but it's missing the necessary, explanatory ingredient as to how non-intelligent things can act AS IF they are thinking entities that have randomly stumbled upon ever-progressive, collective enormous brilliance. It takes massive faith to believe this. But it's certainly not a rational faith. So, let's start with an explanation of how great intelligence was possible of those first things existing only mere minutes - as from the very beginning, time is hostile to your assertions.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:07 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
Trulyenlightened wrote:
Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here.

Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?


The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Philip » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:00 pm

TrulyE: The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule.


That first sentence (above) just rolls off the tongue, quickly to the subsequent easy-sounding statement, "This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules. But there are immensely complex and immensely improbable things such a sentence requires explanations for. As the problems are, first, the things and conditions necessary for that first molecule to even be possible, extraordinary things must first have pre-existed it, along with the right conditions - like the quarks, anti-quarks, and electrons all forming in mere moments, along with the remaining quarks that would eventually make up all of the matter that exists in the universe. Then, the final two unified forces split from each other, with electromagnetism separating from the weak nuclear force. Then quarks combined to form protons and neutrons - the very building blocks of atomic nuclei of future atoms. Holy crap! Explain THAT all happening within the first three minutes of the Big Bang beginning! No vast billions of years required, no gazillions of events and results - instantly!

So, the above, massively complex things - and just the right ones to build a universe and all matter - form in a mere moments of time. Yet, if that doesn't blow one's mind, lets continue on until the "easy part" - where Truly's easy-sounding statement about the first and subsequent molecules forming: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/10/02/homochirality-a-big-challenge-for-the-naturalistic-origin-of-life

Time is not the naturalist's friend - and the Big Bang massively refutes the assertion that it is!

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:05 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
Trulyenlightened wrote:
Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here.

Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?


The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:58 pm

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?


The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:46 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

Aha,

I think you're starting to win me over to this "skeptic" position you are touting.

You rewrite modern cosmology by claiming time is infinite. Then you make a claim with no science to back it up, that life comes from non life.

You've won me over! I'm officially a skeptic!
:clap:
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:59 am

trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 3: The Truth Surrounding the Big Bang

Prior to the instant of the Big Bang, our tools for understanding this event are scientifically useless. Since all math and physics principles break down at the level of the Planck Unit(Planck energy, Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, and Planck temperature). By analyzing the results on the Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC, we hope to discover new scientific tools to enable us to probe further into the origin of the Universe. The math and physics break down at the Planck Scale because of Quantum Fluctuation and the Uncertainty Principle. This is a phenomenon that appears in the Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model(the equations that are used to predict the behavior of the known elementary particles and their forces). Since gravity on a macro scale is necessary to explain the behavior of macro objects, it is theorized that Quantum Gravity is necessary to explain Quantum Flux, or maybe circumvent the Uncertainty Principle. There are several candidates supporting the consistency of the theory of Quantum Gravity. They are, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Quantum Spacetime, Quantum Vacuum, and others. However, to test these models is extremely difficult, considering the extremely small scales that are involved. But it is not impossible, since science also employs inductive and deductive reasoning. The most promising approach to experimentally probing for the existence of Quantum Gravity, is to look for small imprints left by Planck-scale physics, in the inflationary CMB, and their subsequent structure formation. These imprints have already been predicted and calculated. I won't go into the approach that I favor more(Loop Quantum Gravity), or its advantages over the others. Suffice to say, we ARE on the verge of many new discoveries at this level. Let's move on.

The Earth is over 13.8 Billion light years away from the beginning of the BB(based on the calculations of CMBR). That same spot is now 46 Billion light years away. This means that the diameter of the entire Universe is 92 Billion light years across. Remember, all that has happened, or will happen, exist within the distance of 92 Billion light years. Or do you even understand the significance of why time is only relative? Also remember, that our Universe began from a Quantum vacuum, caused by Quantum fluctuation, at the Planck scale of reality. It is also important to know that everything that we know about our Universe began at T= Zero.

After the moment of T = Zero, space and time were born. This is what we call the BB. It was an unusual and counterintuitive event, that was not really an explosion. It was an accelerated expansion of not only space and time, but also set the stage for all PHYSICAL LAWS. At the initial instance of the BB, light and space did not exist. There was no outside of the BB, there was only the inside. It was just a very tiny and ultra hot fog of energy. This Universe at T= Zero was very tiny and very strange, and all standard concepts of time and space did not really apply. Then the Universe did something strange, IT SUDDENLY EXPANDED. From smaller than an atom, to the size of an orange, in less than a trillionth of a second. In the first Billionth of a second the strong and weak forces became distinct from other elementary particles. Remember if it were not for there being more matter particles than antimatter particles in the Universe, we would not be here today(just 1 out of every Billion survived). In the next one hundred seconds it was as big as our solar system, and trillions of miles across. To cut to the chase. It took over 300,000 years before hydrogen and helium atoms could capture an electron, to form a stable atom. It was after a 100 million years of Dark Age, before the first star could shine, and herald in the Stellar Age. 600 Millions years later, the first Galaxy was formed. New galaxies formed over billions of years later. Around 4 Billion years later the first population of stars formed. Around 4 Billion years later Earth and our sun were forming. Over 4 Billion years later life began here on Earth. 1 Billion years from now our Sun will be 10% larger, and will raise the temperature of the surface of the Earth. This will evaporate our oceans and extinguish most if not all life on the planet. No one will be around in the next 4-5 Billion years to witness the collision of our Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy, racing towards each other at 250,000 mph. So, whether you believe in the big Rip(Dark Energy) or the big Freeze(infinite expansion) in the next 10's of Trillions of years, NO LIFE WILL EVER EXIST AGAIN IN THIS UNIVERSE. This Heat-Death of the Universe is because energy will be spread out so thin throughout the Universe, that there won't be enough of it to perform any work at all.

This truth surrounding the BB is only from a scientific perspective. My personal opinion is, that life is incredibly precious and special. It would be such a terrible and tragic waste of life, not to experience every precious moments we do have. But I could be wrong, and science could also be wrong. I truly want to be wrong! Don

What does this post have to do with the PSR?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:26 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

Aha,

I think you're starting to win me over to this "skeptic" position you are touting.

You rewrite modern cosmology by claiming time is infinite. Then you make a claim with no science to back it up, that life comes from non life.

You've won me over! I'm officially a skeptic!
:clap:


Good, it is certainly far better to be skeptical than gullible any day of the week. Although I don't remember claiming that time is infinite, maybe you can explain how this rewrites modern cosmology? In our Universe, I do believe that time IS infinite. But I don't see its relevance here, other than being necessary for change to occur. My claim is the logical claim that the FIRST life came as a result of the chance set of circumstances involving just the right combination of luck, time, and the right non-living chemicals and minerals. The logic is, WE ARE HERE AND ALIVE, and there was NO LIFE on the primitive early Earth. So unless aliens came to early Earth and bumped ugly with rocks and volcanoes, I can't see any other rational explanation. Of course there is no evidence that that happened. I also can't see humans, plants, viruses, and other organisms just spontaneously appearing, and 99.9% of them going extinct later. I can't see the first life appearing from a life that could not exist(where did it come from, and so on). This logic does not require proof, it is self evident. Unless you wish to prove that the Earth had life before life. Or why life is composed only of the non-living chemicals, and inert minerals?

What evidence were you expecting? Did you want to see the nonliving thing that was the precursor to all living thing, billions of years ago? I suppose the geological evidence of no fossils being found in strata before a certain period won't do? I suppose evidence based on our own chemical composition won't do? Did you want video evidence capturing the act of the creation of the first living organism? I suppose that the significance of the first self-replicating molecule won't do either? Do you think that we are something more than the composition of our parts?

Anyway, what evidence do you require? Maybe you can present your OWN evidence that suggest that life was NOT created from nonliving materials(non-life)? That is, without committing a fallacy of composition. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:32 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 3: The Truth Surrounding the Big Bang

Prior to the instant of the Big Bang, our tools for understanding this event are scientifically useless. Since all math and physics principles break down at the level of the Planck Unit(Planck energy, Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, and Planck temperature). By analyzing the results on the Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC, we hope to discover new scientific tools to enable us to probe further into the origin of the Universe. The math and physics break down at the Planck Scale because of Quantum Fluctuation and the Uncertainty Principle. This is a phenomenon that appears in the Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model(the equations that are used to predict the behavior of the known elementary particles and their forces). Since gravity on a macro scale is necessary to explain the behavior of macro objects, it is theorized that Quantum Gravity is necessary to explain Quantum Flux, or maybe circumvent the Uncertainty Principle. There are several candidates supporting the consistency of the theory of Quantum Gravity. They are, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Quantum Spacetime, Quantum Vacuum, and others. However, to test these models is extremely difficult, considering the extremely small scales that are involved. But it is not impossible, since science also employs inductive and deductive reasoning. The most promising approach to experimentally probing for the existence of Quantum Gravity, is to look for small imprints left by Planck-scale physics, in the inflationary CMB, and their subsequent structure formation. These imprints have already been predicted and calculated. I won't go into the approach that I favor more(Loop Quantum Gravity), or its advantages over the others. Suffice to say, we ARE on the verge of many new discoveries at this level. Let's move on.

The Earth is over 13.8 Billion light years away from the beginning of the BB(based on the calculations of CMBR). That same spot is now 46 Billion light years away. This means that the diameter of the entire Universe is 92 Billion light years across. Remember, all that has happened, or will happen, exist within the distance of 92 Billion light years. Or do you even understand the significance of why time is only relative? Also remember, that our Universe began from a Quantum vacuum, caused by Quantum fluctuation, at the Planck scale of reality. It is also important to know that everything that we know about our Universe began at T= Zero.

After the moment of T = Zero, space and time were born. This is what we call the BB. It was an unusual and counterintuitive event, that was not really an explosion. It was an accelerated expansion of not only space and time, but also set the stage for all PHYSICAL LAWS. At the initial instance of the BB, light and space did not exist. There was no outside of the BB, there was only the inside. It was just a very tiny and ultra hot fog of energy. This Universe at T= Zero was very tiny and very strange, and all standard concepts of time and space did not really apply. Then the Universe did something strange, IT SUDDENLY EXPANDED. From smaller than an atom, to the size of an orange, in less than a trillionth of a second. In the first Billionth of a second the strong and weak forces became distinct from other elementary particles. Remember if it were not for there being more matter particles than antimatter particles in the Universe, we would not be here today(just 1 out of every Billion survived). In the next one hundred seconds it was as big as our solar system, and trillions of miles across. To cut to the chase. It took over 300,000 years before hydrogen and helium atoms could capture an electron, to form a stable atom. It was after a 100 million years of Dark Age, before the first star could shine, and herald in the Stellar Age. 600 Millions years later, the first Galaxy was formed. New galaxies formed over billions of years later. Around 4 Billion years later the first population of stars formed. Around 4 Billion years later Earth and our sun were forming. Over 4 Billion years later life began here on Earth. 1 Billion years from now our Sun will be 10% larger, and will raise the temperature of the surface of the Earth. This will evaporate our oceans and extinguish most if not all life on the planet. No one will be around in the next 4-5 Billion years to witness the collision of our Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy, racing towards each other at 250,000 mph. So, whether you believe in the big Rip(Dark Energy) or the big Freeze(infinite expansion) in the next 10's of Trillions of years, NO LIFE WILL EVER EXIST AGAIN IN THIS UNIVERSE. This Heat-Death of the Universe is because energy will be spread out so thin throughout the Universe, that there won't be enough of it to perform any work at all.

This truth surrounding the BB is only from a scientific perspective. My personal opinion is, that life is incredibly precious and special. It would be such a terrible and tragic waste of life, not to experience every precious moments we do have. But I could be wrong, and science could also be wrong. I truly want to be wrong! Don

What does this post have to do with the PSR?


It's a different topic Rick, we have moved on. There are a few topics that I really want to get to. Did you have a specific question about PSR, or just fishing? I think I have already addressed it, but let's hear your specific question. Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:35 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 3: The Truth Surrounding the Big Bang

Prior to the instant of the Big Bang, our tools for understanding this event are scientifically useless. Since all math and physics principles break down at the level of the Planck Unit(Planck energy, Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, and Planck temperature). By analyzing the results on the Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC, we hope to discover new scientific tools to enable us to probe further into the origin of the Universe. The math and physics break down at the Planck Scale because of Quantum Fluctuation and the Uncertainty Principle. This is a phenomenon that appears in the Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model(the equations that are used to predict the behavior of the known elementary particles and their forces). Since gravity on a macro scale is necessary to explain the behavior of macro objects, it is theorized that Quantum Gravity is necessary to explain Quantum Flux, or maybe circumvent the Uncertainty Principle. There are several candidates supporting the consistency of the theory of Quantum Gravity. They are, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Quantum Spacetime, Quantum Vacuum, and others. However, to test these models is extremely difficult, considering the extremely small scales that are involved. But it is not impossible, since science also employs inductive and deductive reasoning. The most promising approach to experimentally probing for the existence of Quantum Gravity, is to look for small imprints left by Planck-scale physics, in the inflationary CMB, and their subsequent structure formation. These imprints have already been predicted and calculated. I won't go into the approach that I favor more(Loop Quantum Gravity), or its advantages over the others. Suffice to say, we ARE on the verge of many new discoveries at this level. Let's move on.

The Earth is over 13.8 Billion light years away from the beginning of the BB(based on the calculations of CMBR). That same spot is now 46 Billion light years away. This means that the diameter of the entire Universe is 92 Billion light years across. Remember, all that has happened, or will happen, exist within the distance of 92 Billion light years. Or do you even understand the significance of why time is only relative? Also remember, that our Universe began from a Quantum vacuum, caused by Quantum fluctuation, at the Planck scale of reality. It is also important to know that everything that we know about our Universe began at T= Zero.

After the moment of T = Zero, space and time were born. This is what we call the BB. It was an unusual and counterintuitive event, that was not really an explosion. It was an accelerated expansion of not only space and time, but also set the stage for all PHYSICAL LAWS. At the initial instance of the BB, light and space did not exist. There was no outside of the BB, there was only the inside. It was just a very tiny and ultra hot fog of energy. This Universe at T= Zero was very tiny and very strange, and all standard concepts of time and space did not really apply. Then the Universe did something strange, IT SUDDENLY EXPANDED. From smaller than an atom, to the size of an orange, in less than a trillionth of a second. In the first Billionth of a second the strong and weak forces became distinct from other elementary particles. Remember if it were not for there being more matter particles than antimatter particles in the Universe, we would not be here today(just 1 out of every Billion survived). In the next one hundred seconds it was as big as our solar system, and trillions of miles across. To cut to the chase. It took over 300,000 years before hydrogen and helium atoms could capture an electron, to form a stable atom. It was after a 100 million years of Dark Age, before the first star could shine, and herald in the Stellar Age. 600 Millions years later, the first Galaxy was formed. New galaxies formed over billions of years later. Around 4 Billion years later the first population of stars formed. Around 4 Billion years later Earth and our sun were forming. Over 4 Billion years later life began here on Earth. 1 Billion years from now our Sun will be 10% larger, and will raise the temperature of the surface of the Earth. This will evaporate our oceans and extinguish most if not all life on the planet. No one will be around in the next 4-5 Billion years to witness the collision of our Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy, racing towards each other at 250,000 mph. So, whether you believe in the big Rip(Dark Energy) or the big Freeze(infinite expansion) in the next 10's of Trillions of years, NO LIFE WILL EVER EXIST AGAIN IN THIS UNIVERSE. This Heat-Death of the Universe is because energy will be spread out so thin throughout the Universe, that there won't be enough of it to perform any work at all.

This truth surrounding the BB is only from a scientific perspective. My personal opinion is, that life is incredibly precious and special. It would be such a terrible and tragic waste of life, not to experience every precious moments we do have. But I could be wrong, and science could also be wrong. I truly want to be wrong! Don

What does this post have to do with the PSR?


It's a different topic Rick, we have moved on. There are a few topics that I really want to get to. Did you have a specific question about PSR, or just fishing? I think I have already addressed it, but let's hear your specific question. Don

Just looking at the post as a moderator. Since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it deserves its own thread. I'll open up a new thread for you.

Topic was split. Anyone wishing to discuss The Truth Surrounding the Big Bang, please discuss here
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests