The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 06:53 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Biological systems DO take on energy in order to reduce entropy. Non-biological systems do not.

Yes they do, and you FAIL to understand the difference and the general context.
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...second-law

Quote:Self preservation cannot be invoked during abiogenesis.

That is a red herring. Organisms LEARN and evolve.
You do not understand Biology, AND you are making a complete fool of yourself.

For the 10th time, I am focusing on abiogenesis. Simple pre-biotic chemicals, not organisms. This is not biology. It is chemistry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:40 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 08:40 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science and atheism are inherently reductionistic. Either you are a materialist that believes everything can be explained via science, or you are not. You can't have it both ways.

Reductionism is one tool used in science. It is not the only one. The fact that you can't seem to get beyond it is your problem, not science's problem.

Atheism is not dependent on any of the things you've been arguing. It is simply the recognition that no good evidence FOR a god has been presented. You continue this with your incredibly stupid argument from personal incredulity.

I have not claimed that everything can be explained by science. I do not know if that is true or not. What I believe is that it is far and away the best tool we have for learning what is actually real. Where science does not yet have an answer I stop at "we don't know" because no other way of determining truth has been proven to be reliable.

(27-07-2016 04:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  So are you acknowledging that there is an unknown force or law of science that only acts on living things?

Absolutely nothing in my response indicates that in any way. I said that if we find something that appears to violate the laws of physics as we understand them then it means we have something new to investigate.

You have not even come close to showing anything that operates only on living things. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand how to apply the laws of thermodynamics and that you do not understand that a purely reductionist approach can't always answer all questions.

The idea that living things "seek energy" can't be explained at the level of individual atoms but that does not mean that those individual atoms behave differently in living vs non-living things. Your on-going category mistake is also your problem and not science's.

(27-07-2016 04:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  People are actually taking panspermia seriously because abiogenssis is dead in the water.

Facepalm
That may be one of the stupidest claims that you have proposed. Free clue: panspermia is not an alternative to the idea of abiogenesis, only the location and timing of it.

(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The obvious flaw in your reasoning is it assumes that our known universe is all that there is in existence. Nobody has any evidence either way.

Which is why it makes no sense to believe there is anything else or to assign properties or actions to it.

Quote:However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

So you're argument is that since energy can't be created it must have a creator.

Not sure whether to Facepalm or Laughat at this point. Maybe both.

The list of stupidity grows long.
Reductionism is not a tool. It is a methodology/philosophy. The scientific method is reductionistic by nature.
I absolutely understand that a purely reductionist approach can't always answer all questions. Science has it's limitations. Then you state science is the only path to knowledge. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

Yes I understand panspermia just kicks the abiogenesis question down the road. (actual to outer space) Do you not understand that just highlights the desperation and hypocrisy? Most have largely come to the conclusion that it could not have happened on earth. But rather than acting like scientists and allowing the data to drive the conclusion, they clinging to an a priori conclusion and start looking in outer space. That enables them to keep the illusion alive knowing that it can't be dis-proven in their lifetimes. (Kinda sad actually)

Since the laws of our universe state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to conclude that something outside our universe created it and put it here.

My argument is not incredulity. I have presented an argument that according to the narrative of abiogenesis, simple pre-biotic chemical systems would have had to exhibit self-preservation. I do not accept that could have happened naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2016 04:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:24 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes they do, and you FAIL to understand the difference and the general context.
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...second-law


That is a red herring. Organisms LEARN and evolve.
You do not understand Biology, AND you are making a complete fool of yourself.

For the 10th time, I am focusing on abiogenesis. Simple pre-biotic chemicals, not organisms. This is not biology. It is chemistry.

You deny "abiogenesis". Therefore you cannot be focusing on that which you claim can't happen. You actually don't know what you are talking about.
Throughout this thread, you claim that atoms act differently in life. They don't. You are totally wrong.
In fact RNA has been shown to be possible to have formed spontaneously. It's been done. You are just so fucking out of touch, you are clueless.




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
28-07-2016, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2016 03:56 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 12:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.
The obvious flaw in your reasoning is it assumes that our known universe is all that there is in existence. Nobody has any evidence either way.
However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

There is no flaw. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists, not as the sum total of what is known, as I stated at the beginning of this thread.If something exists then it is part of the universe. My definition is all inclusive. It is "universal". On my view the concept "universe" and "existence" are denoting the same thing, all that exists. Given a proper definition of universe, not an arbitrary one, asking for what caused the universe commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Try starting with existence or the universe as your starting point and you'll avoid this error of logic. It will make your life so much better and your thinking so much clearer.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

This statement is completely incoherent.

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
28-07-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  ... the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

(my bold)

Methinks that thou shoudst reread and rephrase thine statement.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TechnoMonkey's post
28-07-2016, 04:16 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 03:24 PM)u196533 Wrote:  For the 10th time, I am focusing on abiogenesis. Simple pre-biotic chemicals, not organisms. This is not biology. It is chemistry.

You deny "abiogenesis". Therefore you cannot be focusing on that which you claim can't happen. You actually don't know what you are talking about.
Throughout this thread, you claim that atoms act differently in life. They don't. You are totally wrong.
In fact RNA has been shown to be possible to have formed spontaneously. It's been done. You are just so fucking out of touch, you are clueless.



My argument puts a few more nails in the abiogenesis coffin.

Living things seek energy to lower entropy. Non living things do not do that. That is an undeniable statement of fact.

RNA has never formed spontaneously. The video that YOU posted earlier confirmed that. You are grasping at straws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 04:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:59 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  ... the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

(my bold)

Methinks that thou shoudst reread and rephrase thine statement.

I concur. I was typing fast in an attempt to respond to everyone so you could not claim I was dodging.

Since the laws of our universe state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to conclude that something outside our universe created it and put it here.

I define our universe as the space-time put into motion by the Big Bang.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 04:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:51 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The obvious flaw in your reasoning is it assumes that our known universe is all that there is in existence. Nobody has any evidence either way.
However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

There is no flaw. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists, not as the sum total of what is known, as I stated at the beginning of this thread.If something exists then it is part of the universe. My definition is all inclusive. It is "universal". On my view the concept "universe" and "existence" are denoting the same thing, all that exists. Given a proper definition of universe, not an arbitrary one, asking for what caused the universe commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Try starting with existence or the universe as your starting point and you'll avoid this error of logic. It will make your life so much better and your thinking so much clearer.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

This statement is completely incoherent.

I define our universe as the space-time put into motion by the Big Bang. There could be other universes or planes of existence within the whole of existence.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed within our universe. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something outside our universe created the energy and put it into our universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 04:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 03:51 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is no flaw. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists, not as the sum total of what is known, as I stated at the beginning of this thread.If something exists then it is part of the universe. My definition is all inclusive. It is "universal". On my view the concept "universe" and "existence" are denoting the same thing, all that exists. Given a proper definition of universe, not an arbitrary one, asking for what caused the universe commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Try starting with existence or the universe as your starting point and you'll avoid this error of logic. It will make your life so much better and your thinking so much clearer.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

This statement is completely incoherent.

I define our universe as the space-time put into motion by the Big Bang. There could be other universes or planes of existence within the whole of existence.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed within our universe. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something outside our universe created the energy and put it into our universe.

This is an arbitrary definition. For instance, consciousness, as far as I know is not space or time but it exists. Why do you not include it in the universe? Life exists but it is not space or time? Are you saying that life is not part of the universe. Matter exists but it is neither space nor time. Energy exists but it is not space or time. What is the justification for excluding these things from the universe? What is your concept for the whole of existence and more importantly, how is this concept objectively informed?

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
28-07-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 04:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 03:51 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is no flaw. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists, not as the sum total of what is known, as I stated at the beginning of this thread.If something exists then it is part of the universe. My definition is all inclusive. It is "universal". On my view the concept "universe" and "existence" are denoting the same thing, all that exists. Given a proper definition of universe, not an arbitrary one, asking for what caused the universe commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Try starting with existence or the universe as your starting point and you'll avoid this error of logic. It will make your life so much better and your thinking so much clearer.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

This statement is completely incoherent.

I define our universe as the space-time put into motion by the Big Bang. There could be other universes or planes of existence within the whole of existence.

However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed within our universe. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something outside our universe created the energy and put it into our universe.

Also, reason presupposes the primacy of existence, so if your thing that put the energy in our universe assumes the primacy of consciousness, as the god of the bible does, then it is literally irrational to think that such a thing exists.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: