A thought about origins. [Archive]

Andrew56

July 27th, 2008, 09:54 PM

MoveAlong

July 27th, 2008, 10:20 PM

I'm not here to convert, or teach. I'm here to try and grasp what other people believe. I'm not here to start an argument or anything like that at all, I'm curious about your beliefs! Please, REMAIN CALM!!!

Thanks for aiming to keep this civil :)

If you believe things always existed, you have to believe in the ridiculously small odds of evolution and whatnot.

That's not necessarily true - evolution could have defiantly happened. After everything has been created, or if everything has always existed, evolution could take place anytime alone that tangent.

I don't believe in any god or any creator. In fact, I don't even want to think about it at all.
I believe that nebulas created stars, that planets were created from rocks, certain particles formed atmospheres, a combonation of many phenomenon on a planet created single-celled life, and everything branched off from that.

But I don't know how nebulas were created, or how everything started. I just don't want to think back that far because I could never know the answer. And I don't want to put my beliefs into what I think of as a cartoonish character - I'd rather keep these as mysteries and progress forward.

July 27th, 2008, 10:40 PM

Why even bring up evolution? Evolution and the origins of the universe and life are not related in any way, shape or form.

I don't really care how everything started. It would be foolish and arrogant for anyone to claim to know. It really means nothing in everyday life and has no practical application, unless you consider pointless debate about the unknowable practical.

serial-thrilla

July 27th, 2008, 10:41 PM

Andrew56

July 28th, 2008, 08:34 AM

That's not necessarily true - evolution could have defiantly happened. After everything has been created, or if everything has always existed, evolution could take place anytime alone that tangent.

I believe it could have happened. I just said it had ridiculously small odds.

But thank you, I enjoyed your response. Just choosing not to think back that far must be peaceful. lol I've had lots of times I'm sitting around trying to understand infinity of the past.

Why even bring up evolution? Evolution and the origins of the universe and life are not related in any way, shape or form.

I don't really care how everything started. It would be foolish and arrogant for anyone to claim to know. It really means nothing in everyday life and has no practical application, unless you consider pointless debate about the unknowable practical.

I don't want a debate. You yourself said you like learning about other peoples beliefs and cultures. Same here, and that's all I'm trying to do. I'm not going to attempt to refute anything anyone says. If anything, I'll prod them for more on what they believe.

Zan0ra

July 28th, 2008, 08:52 AM

I have known this for a long time. Christianity..Buddhism..All those others. Are all lies. Taken form the religion that makes the most sense in this world. Egyptionism. The egyptians new there religion. They didn't copy another and pull it off to keep us all sane like Christianity did.

People wake up. Religion is a lie. I cant change your minds but I can tell you whats really happening.

Dolphus Raymond

July 28th, 2008, 11:05 AM

I know non-believers can come up with plenty of reasons they don't believe in God, but I'm tackling one right now.

Where did God come from?

Well for starters, what if I began to answer you?

A came from B.

Where did B come from?

Uh, well . . . C.

Would it ever end? No, it would go into a infinite series of nonsense.

So we can all agree something has simply always existed, correct?

"Everything has an origin" and "something always existed" are mutually exclusive concepts. If you have one exception, you theoretically open yourself up for infinite exceptions. God, my shoes, whatever.

Whether you think it's God, or space. Something has always been there.

Not necessarily. How is existence being spontaneous any less logical than something having already existed?

Right? So what makes it easier to believe that things have simply always existed, rather then a Creator? Even if you think it's a different creator.

It just seems to me, believing in a Creator always existing takes less faith then something else.

You've just taken a big jump from something always existing (which I've just established isn't really logically evident), to that thing being a sentient Creator.

If you believe a Creator always existed, the mysteries and wonders of life can be answered by Him.

That's another (smaller?) jump, from a Creator to an omniscient, compassionate Creator.

If you believe things always existed, you have to believe in the ridiculously small odds of evolution and whatnot.

And now you've totally lost me. The only way this makes sense is it you assume the Judeo-Christian creation story as true, which I don't think has been established by anything here. Evolution and creation, in themselves, are not mutually exclusive.

Oblivion

July 28th, 2008, 11:22 AM

ThatCanadianGuy

July 28th, 2008, 12:09 PM

I agree also.
Although many people can guess how the earth was created, it's impossible to know exactly.

Well... I'd say it's pretty easy to tell, especially since we can still observe the formation of planets today! It's like watching star nebulas; we see all the stars being formed from the remnants of dead supergiants, and we come to the conclusion: the sun HAD to form the same way, since we haven't seen a star form in ANY other way. The same goes for planets. It's more recent of course than our understanding of the formation of stars, but we can still detect solar systems as of now, which have at least one very large planet (it has to be big, or else the instruments we use now couldn't find it; usually gas giants) orbiting a yellow dwarf star like our own, and since they're so far away we can "look back" at how they formed. The systems can (and do) have dust rings stretching out from them, and along specific "tracks" this dust is being distrupted, that is, a planet is orbiting the star and "carving out" a blank space in the disc of material, which slowly but surely dissapates into: 8 planets (sorry Pluto) and an asteroid belt!

Geology isn't particularly my field, yet this is one of the best fields to understand the incredible AGE of the Earth, and how it formed. The rocks brought back from the moon are of course extremely rare, and on Earth we can find VERY FEW of the same kinds of rock; however when we date these rocks, we find that they had a common age around 4 billion years (and no rocks have looked like it since). The makeup of the rock is much simpler than anything we have today, lacking a majority of the elements that formed much later in the Earth's history. However, looking at these rocks it goes to show that at one point in the past the Earth and the Moon were made of the SAME rocks. This is just one of the many things that DESTROYS any theory spouted by fundamentalist Christians that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 days and an omnipotent god had to take a BREAK on the seventh day. Give ME a break! :cool:

serial-thrilla

July 28th, 2008, 01:26 PM

Andrew56

July 28th, 2008, 02:58 PM

However, looking at these rocks it goes to show that at one point in the past the Earth and the Moon were made of the SAME rocks. This is just one of the many things that DESTROYS any theory spouted by fundamentalist Christians that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 days and an omnipotent god had to take a BREAK on the seventh day. Give ME a break! :cool:

Ok, ok. No, stop and read my main post.

I'm just curious where you think those rocks came from. I'm not trying to prove a point or anything.

Like Dolphus suggested, do you simply believe in spontaneous existence?

raiders rule

July 28th, 2008, 03:33 PM

Ok, people, lets relax before any arguments start, like in my thread:rolleyes:

Zan0ra

July 28th, 2008, 03:39 PM

What do you know about Buddhism? It actually makes a great deal of sence compared to most other religions.

Not much actually. But almost if not all religions come from egyptians.
You could say Jesus the son or sun. of "god"

Jesus facts.

-born from a virgin birth
-often referred to as the king of kings
-died
-3 days later he was resurrected

Horus *sun god* facts:

-born virgin birth
-again referred to as the king of kings or alpha omega
-died
-3 days later resurrected

Different story line yet identical facts!

Everything comes from space.

-12 disciples - 12 continents
-the cross - a sun movement chart
-the end of the world - translates into the end of the age said as he leaves into the age of aquarius.
-follow the man carrying the jug of water - the same picture for aquarius.

Everything links! Jesus exits as the Romans marked him as a living person and even his bones along with his father and 3 brothers where found in his family's temple.

And it isn't just christianity.

Dolphus Raymond

July 28th, 2008, 05:59 PM

Like Dolphus suggested, do you simply believe in spontaneous existence?

That doesn't necessarily have to be true, either. If God didn't have to be created, and always was, anything else could be the same way, including the universe.

Spontaneous existence v. God is a false dilemma.

Andrew56

July 28th, 2008, 07:07 PM

"Everything has an origin" and "something always existed" are mutually exclusive concepts.

They are, and I don't believe everything has an origin.

That doesn't necessarily have to be true, either. If God didn't have to be created, and always was, anything else could be the same way, including the universe.

Spontaneous existence v. God is a false dilemma.

I never thought of that. That's pretty blatantly obvious and brilliant.

So if a thing can have existed just as easily as an omnipotent being, the only thing I can't grasp is aging. If an all-powerful, eternal being existed for infinity into the past, it is simple to understand the He is still around.

But matter? If it truly has been around from infinitely far back, then it would have all degraded to dust and vapor and whatnot. So would you say that that's the answer? In other words, would you agree with the logical validity of these statements?;

1) The simple eternal nature of God and/or matter are equally possible
2) If matter has existed for an infinitely long time, it would definitely have degraded to basic elements after a certain period
3) Matter can never be destroyed
4) Since matter can never be destroyed, even if all matter had degraded as low as possible over eternity, then there you would have the building blocks for the current theory of evolution.

And I hate that this has turned into a debate. I just wanted to know what people believed. But what ev. :cool:

Dolphus Raymond

July 28th, 2008, 08:25 PM

So if a thing can have existed just as easily as an omnipotent being, the only thing I can't grasp is aging. If an all-powerful, eternal being existed for infinity into the past, it is simple to understand the He is still around.

Are you saying that a being that existed infinitely toward one direction is unlikely to have stopped existing in the other direction? I guess so. But that's not really based on any logic to me. It's based on sort of natural assumption and probability. By the time we're getting into something like an infinite being, I'm not sure I'm comfortable applying that kind of circumstantial logic.

But matter? If it truly has been around from infinitely far back, then it would have all degraded to dust and vapor and whatnot.

Back up there a bit. I don't know much about physics, but as far as I know, matter degradation is mostly a matter of elemental exposure, especially to oxygen. That obviously wouldn't apply outside of our atmosphere. Does matter necessarily degrade, by definition? (Not rhetorical)

If it does, I guess I agree with what you're saying, although the universe existing infinitely doesn't necessitate the same matter doing so.

So would you say that that's the answer? In other words, would you agree with the logical validity of these statements?;

1) The simple eternal nature of God and/or matter are equally possible

I'm not sure I have place in saying that. I don't have evidence that one is more possible than the other, no. However, I also don't have any especially compelling logical evidence that God isn't a crabcake. Again, I'm kind of uncomfortable with applying human logical understandings (even, logical inclinations) to things beyond that scope.

2) If matter has existed for an infinitely long time, it would definitely have degraded to basic elements after a certain period

I noted a (potential, uneducated) disagreement above.

3) Matter can never be destroyed

From my understanding: Matter can be destroyed, but mass (which also accounts for energy) cannot. Essentially, yeah.

4) Since matter can never be destroyed, even if all matter had degraded as low as possible over eternity, then there you would have the building blocks for the current theory of evolution.

Totally lost you.

And I hate that this has turned into a debate. I just wanted to know what people believed. But what ev. :cool:

Oop, sorry, didn't mean for that. I still think this is just a healthy discussion, though! Debates are all contentious and I-have-to-convince-people-y. Besides, opinion polls are boring. Ideas are so much more fun than opinions for me (at least unless my idea is unpopular)

serial-thrilla

July 28th, 2008, 08:27 PM

Not much actually. But almost if not all religions come from egyptians.
You could say Jesus the son or sun. of "god"

Jesus facts.

-born from a virgin birth
-often referred to as the king of kings
-died
-3 days later he was resurrected

Horus *sun god* facts:

-born virgin birth
-again referred to as the king of kings or alpha omega
-died
-3 days later resurrected

Different story line yet identical facts!

Everything comes from space.

-12 disciples - 12 continents
-the cross - a sun movement chart
-the end of the world - translates into the end of the age said as he leaves into the age of aquarius.
-follow the man carrying the jug of water - the same picture for aquarius.

Everything links! Jesus exits as the Romans marked him as a living person and even his bones along with his father and 3 brothers where found in his family's temple.

And it isn't just christianity. well i wasent talking about jesus or christianity. Do some research on Buddhism and you may find the teachings make a great deal of sence. The fairy tales about Saddartha probably arent true though.

Andrew56

July 28th, 2008, 08:45 PM

Are you saying that a being that existed infinitely toward one direction is unlikely to have stopped existing in the other direction? I guess so. But that's not really based on any logic to me. It's based on sort of natural assumption and probability. By the time we're getting into something like an infinite being, I'm not sure I'm comfortable applying that kind of circumstantial logic.

So would you say there is an infinite regress of beings creating one another then? Under the presumption that a being is involved.

Back up there a bit. I don't know much about physics, but as far as I know, matter degradation is mostly a matter of elemental exposure, especially to oxygen. That obviously wouldn't apply outside of our atmosphere. Does matter necessarily degrade, by definition? (Not rhetorical)

If it does, I guess I agree with what you're saying, although the universe existing infinitely doesn't necessitate the same matter doing so.

I was assuming because, over infinity, it makes sense that everything would eventually degrade. And who's to say worlds have not risen up and degraded to nothing countless times. That's what I was getting at, and in that case the matter would have been exposed to elements.

I'm not sure I have place in saying that. I don't have evidence that one is more possible than the other, no. However, I also don't have any especially compelling logical evidence that God isn't a crabcake. Again, I'm kind of uncomfortable with applying human logical understandings (even, logical inclinations) to things beyond that scope.

I agree very much. How can our stupid little minds grasp something like that? But it seems you agree on a basic level.

Totally lost you.

I meant that people who cannot account for where the building blocks of our world came from, could say that, since a being could be infinitely old, then matter could be as well, and that's it.

Oop, sorry, didn't mean for that. I still think this is just a healthy discussion, though! Debates are all contentious and I-have-to-convince-people-y. Besides, opinion polls are boring. Ideas are so much more fun than opinions for me (at least unless my idea is unpopular)

It is more fun, but it just frustrates me a little that people CANNOT state what they believe without someone else pointing out where they are "wrong" and/or defending what they believe.

I'm a hypocrite.

Dolphus Raymond

July 28th, 2008, 10:22 PM

So would you say there is an infinite regress of beings creating one another then? Under the presumption that a being is involved.

No. I was saying that I also am inclined to think a God who exists infinitely backwards also does forwards. Like, harkening back to algebra:

<------------------------------------------->

Above is the God I think is likely, because something that is infinite in one way seems logical to be infinite in the other. Versus:

<-------------------------------------------o

Which is the God that ends somewhere, for some reason. That was a horrible analogy and I think I know why I tanked my midterm in that class.

Anyway -- I can't prove that the former is more likely, because what basis would I have to believe that? I can only analogize it to something I already know, and what I already know really has very little to do with something of such depth, so removed from my understanding.

I was assuming because, over infinity, it makes sense that everything would eventually degrade. And who's to say worlds have not risen up and degraded to nothing countless times. That's what I was getting at, and in that case the matter would have been exposed to elements.

I guess. I don't really know much about matter. If all matter slowly degrades, doesn't that mean all existence is degrading? I'm so out of my scientific comfort zone here. I don't mean to mindlessly nitpick your construct, but it seems fundamental that I have some idea of what I'm talking about on this.

I guess I could Google, but it's like 8:30, and...and...

I agree very much. How can our stupid little minds grasp something like that? But it seems you agree on a basic level.

I think so, and basic level is pretty much all we have.

I meant that people who cannot account for where the building blocks of our world came from, could say that, since a being could be infinitely old, then matter could be as well, and that's it.

Ah, right, agreed.

It is more fun, but it just frustrates me a little that people CANNOT state what they believe without someone else pointing out where they are "wrong" and/or defending what they believe.

I'm a hypocrite.

No, that's incredibly frustrating, especially when someone is arguing a skeptical position vs. a purely oppositional one. The burden for your argument is always going to be higher. It's easier to tear an argument down than build the inverse.

I imagine it's even harder when faith is involved. Heck, even when it isn't. The other day I had my friend ask me what I thought the purpose of existence is. I said, "I suppose to lesser suffering and make people happy." He name-dropped Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and I was a little shellshocked. Not an earth-shattering philosophical change or anything, but it did force me to make a few qualifications. That wasn't especially heartening. So, yeah, I know where you're coming from. I think that was my point at the beginning of this paragraph, haha.

Zephyr

July 29th, 2008, 12:37 AM

We got the same speach from a guy who came into CP Bio to talk about intelligent design during our evolution unit.

I don't remember the entire thing word for word since this was a year and a half ago, but from what I can piece together from memory...

The guy told us: You can't get something out of nothing. The earth, the universe even, couldn't have always existed. A higher being had to be there to design everything just right for stable living conditions.

He explained the same thing that you just did, that A would have to have come from B, and B from C in a never-ending chain of creators, and that it just has to be accepted that A, being God, always has been there and created the universe.

I posed the rebuttal: If you can't get something out of nothing, then where did 'God' come from? You're beating around the bush, there is no set answer. Sir, we're never going to know exactly how we came to be, so why should we except the excuse that some fantasy character named God created everything and not wonder where he came from? Religion is an illusion, saying that this magical character named God created everything. Anybody with common sense knows that magic doesn't exist, it's all an illusion, so how can you stand up there saying that this magical being created everything? This easily deems religion as an illusion by applying common sense. All religions are theories, not set facts.

Funny thing... he told me that I was exactly right.

He told me that what it boils down to is whether you have faith or not,
And that what is right and wrong concerning religion is never going to be set in stone.

So in short: I believe that there is no God, and I also believe that we're never going to be able to find out our origin. Trying to study that far back into history is impossible, it's too obscure. The only records that we have that far back are fossils if anything.

Andrew56

July 29th, 2008, 11:33 AM

I guess. I don't really know much about matter. If all matter slowly degrades, doesn't that mean all existence is degrading? I'm so out of my scientific comfort zone here. I don't mean to mindlessly nitpick your construct, but it seems fundamental that I have some idea of what I'm talking about on this.

Yea, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree everything will eventually degrade.

I think . . .

I posed the rebuttal: If you can't get something out of nothing, then where did 'God' come from?

If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? I've never said everything needs a cause. Or if I did, I've acquired new understanding since then. But, everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all things. If God needed a cause, that would start the whole infinite regress thing. God is the first cause. You can't go back any farther than a first.

Dolphus Raymond

July 29th, 2008, 02:34 PM

Zephyr

July 29th, 2008, 03:48 PM

Yea, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree everything will eventually degrade.

I think . . .

If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? I've never said everything needs a cause. Or if I did, I've acquired new understanding since then. But, everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all things. If God needed a cause, that would start the whole infinite regress thing. God is the first cause. You can't go back any farther than a first.

Yes, but I am an Atheist, so this shoots down your answer automatically because I do not see God as finite and necessary and that is why I believe that question will never be answerable, because it was far too long ago, therefore too obscure to study. Nobody is ever going to have all of the answers and God is as much of a theory as Atheism is.

Brazdar

July 29th, 2008, 04:20 PM

Origins... why do we really need to look back? To see what's coming forth? Can't we just wait for that?

I see, in a funny way, the whole God/origins like this : we'll dig in our minds to find the Answer... and then suddently, out of nowhere, we see a window and what do we see through it? A little kid addictively playing The Sims :| and closing the window without saving the progress.

Oky in not that funny way, I think we shouldnt mind the origins, and live the moment... but this moment, present, can't exist, even while i'm writing, this post begins to be an object of the past, i belive there's only past and future, cause and effect, but can these two be at the same "time"?

Andrew56

July 29th, 2008, 10:31 PM

I can ask a physicist I know, if you want. I'm not sure it's really central to anything we're discussing here though. I'm still having a little trouble understanding how it plays into the discussion...

It goes back to when you said matter could just have easily have always existed as God. And my only issue with that was the theory that all matter degrades to basic elements over an infinite amount of time. On top of that, I noted that you might say all that matter then proceeded to form into the universe we know currently.

lawlz

Anyhow, please ask him. I'm curious.

Dolphus Raymond

July 30th, 2008, 12:53 PM

This is the response I got, sans unnecessary knee-jerk religious baiting:

Hmmm...

Current theory says that if you wait a very long time matter will spontaneously decompose into light. This has not been observed, though it has been looked for, which means either it is a very slow process or that current theory is wrong (neither would be surprising).

I don't think this is a fatal flaw, as there are several ways around this. A lot of current theories have new universes continuously being created from old universes - if that is true, then the decay in any one universe doesn't matter. A second possibility is that time does not stretch out infinitely into the past (or perhaps the future), which avoids the problem by making the question not matter ("always existed" makes it sound as if time goes back infinitely into the past, but that might not be true. Asking what happened before the big bang, for example, might be like asking what is north of the north pole).

My own feeling (as a chemistry student, so not an expert) is that people don't know, as these are tough questions to study. But not knowing is not the same as there not being an answer.

My response:

Clarification -- matter degrades spontaneously, or gradually, until it reaches a level when it spontaneously becomes light? Seems that's a critical part of what he's asking.

Dolphus Raymond

August 1st, 2008, 12:22 PM

Response no. 2:

Keep in mind that what I say here is based on a very incomplete understanding of the details...

Physicists believe that particles decay until they reach the smallest particle - at that point decay stops because there isn't anything smaller to decay to. One also has to satisfy conservation laws - for example, you can't have a decay where a neutron decays into just a proton because the beginning and ending charge would be different.

Because of this, there are particles that were believed to not decay - electrons, protons, maybe neutrinos. Bassically because there is nothing smaller they can decay into and still satisfy the conservation laws.

However, some new theories predict that these particles will eventually decay into light. This is fine as far as conservation of mass is concerned, as mass can convert into energy. It would violate some conservation laws, but these newer theories indicate this could happen. If they are true (and they are very speculative) then indeed protons and electrons would disappear after a very long time.

Now, there are a few experiments that have been running that are looking for proton decay (one in japan and one in the us, I think - you could likely google "proton decay" and find out). There is as yet no evidence for such decay, which means either it doesn't happen or it happens more slowly than some of the new theories predict (these theories can, unfortunately, be modified to make the decay slower and so agree with experiment).

My feeling is that the idea that matter eventually decays into energy (light) may be true, but there is as yet no strong evidence either way.