The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If an event violates th[e] [known] laws of science, then it is supernatural something we need to investigate.

Fixt that for you.

Quote:That had to have happened according to the abiogenesis narrative.

You really are dense.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
27-07-2016, 12:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:16 AM)u196533 Wrote:  It is logical to assume that whatever Created the universe and the laws of Physics exists outside of the universe, and is not constrained by the laws of Physics within our universe.

It is completely illogical. That you don’t see that shows great cognitive dissonance or lack of understanding of the very physical laws you seem so enamored with.

As for your creator being outside of physical laws please provide proof of said being other than “feels”.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 01:51 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  How is that anything other than code for "I don't know" then?

IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.
When there is a drive to decompose, I see no explanation for the organization to begin with. Only atoms in living systems exhibit that behavior.

The fact that it only seems to act on living organisms suggests that it is not some other force that has yet to be discovered.

The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

“IMHO” has no place in science. Either you can prove your hypothesis or you can’t.

Argument from Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance does not make for a compelling hypothesis. Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
27-07-2016, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 03:08 PM by Loom.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
So by your own admission, you conclude there MUST be a supernatural cause to the formation of life despite the fact that scientists
have only just started touching on the subject of abiogenisis, and claim that science will never be able to explain something that is currently not entirely understood...

Yeah...and you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously here...

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Loom's post
27-07-2016, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 12:13 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:01 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 08:38 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hello again U196533. Big Grin

I think it has been asked before but can you please point to the differance between an atom within something that is 'Alive' and something that is 'Dead'?

Looking forwards to our exchange. Thumbsup

There is no difference in the atoms. However, when they are assembled into a living organism they seek energy in order to lower entropy in an act of self preservation.

Please explain why and how atoms suddenly "seek" when they are assembled into... Big Grin
Like, when i drink a glass of water, when exactly do they start to behave differently, and why, and how? How do those atoms "sense" they are part of a living organism now? Where is the distinction between life and nolife anyhow? Are you saying that suddenly the thermodynamic laws dont apply to those atoms anymore when they "enter" a life form? Consider
If the atoms behave differently (in animated matter), then this means we havent understood a fundamental part of their behaviour in nature. Have you consulted any particle physicist about this yet? You may have hints/evidence for an additional (or two) fundamental forces of nature. Smartass What properties of atoms (leptons & baryons) have we missed so far according to your hypothesis, so that they behave in an unknown way when being part of an animated object?

What about elements like......Plutonium. Its not only radioactive but one of the most poisonous substances we know.
When i swallow Plutonium, and when it becomes part of me....is it also trying to lower my entropy in order to act in self preservation ....while it is killing me with its poisonous effects on the rest of my body? Consider

What about noble gases? They hardly interact with other elements at all. What if they become being part of living matter. What happens when i inhale Helium because i am a scuba diver? Should Helium then not try to help me lower my entropy? Why doesnt it do so (i guess)? Is there a difference between helium in my lungs and helium in my blood? That should be the difference between being part of my animated body and not being so, doesnt it?

And finally:
For the sake of the argument, lets asusme you are right, and animated matter indeed cannot be explained by thermodynamic laws. Maybe we have to adapt those laws because you, like Einstein has found an additional aspect of Newtons laws of gravity, may have just found an additional aspect to thermodynamics. Why assume the supernatural first and stop there? Physicists didnt assume "supernatural" when they had data inconsitent with Newtons laws. They kept investigating until a better theory was found that fits the data, until today.

Maybe we dont have to assume a god, but you are about to win a nobel prize soon.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
27-07-2016, 12:11 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

Ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:16 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  Don't dodge the question, chump. Since you've concluded that atheism is untenable, presumably you have decided on a deity - which one? Or like every other two bit crank in history, have you invented your very own special one? By the way what makes your deity exempt from thermodynamic laws?

I don't pray to a personal God, but I acknowledge a Creator.
It is logical to assume that whatever Created the universe and the laws of Physics exists outside of the universe, and is not constrained by the laws of Physics within our universe.

It's not logical. At all. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept to speak of or look for a cause of the universe. One can imagine that there is a force or being that exists outside the universe and that is outside the physics within but the imaginary is not real and does not actually exists. The only viable starting point for knowledge is existence since it is conceptually irreducible. Starting with anything other than existence means starting with non-existence. Starting with non-existence and then positing a cause for existence makes use of the concept "cause" while denying a concept it logically depends on, "existence". This is the fallacy of the stolen concept and it is the fallacy that theism starts with. A worldview based on a fallacious starting point can not fail to fail.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
27-07-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.
When there is a drive to decompose, I see no explanation for the organization to begin with. Only atoms in living systems exhibit that behavior.

Atoms don't "decompose". OMG are you stupid, (or uneducated). Atoms in living systems work EXACTLY as they do outside living systems. It's why your body works at all. http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/solut/solut-4.html It's how your blood transports chemicals and energy and sugar.
It's why your heart beats, it's why your kidneys work.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-bo...t-beat.htm
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-informa...atomy.aspx

Can't your god(s) send someone here with a brain, and some basic education ?
Your problem, is you have NO education AT ALL in biological systems.
Chemicals "defy" nothing.
What does "defy", is your brain. Stupidity at your level is incompatible with life. How is it you are alive, and get your socks on in the morning, "u" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-07-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 12:26 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:If you understood the science behind abiogenesis, you would conclude via scientific reasoning that abiogenesis could not have occurred naturally. Faith is not required, but a knowledge of science is.

How can you claim to have come to the conclusion "life is supernatural" by using science, when science is the investigation of natural penomena?

*bump*

You seem to have forgotten to adress my concern.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
I still can't parse "beyond the remit of science"? Science is unable to afford the tithe required? The cost of admission? Bad credit? Behind on monthly payments? What?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: