I believe that the only person that can answer this question is God,

I think we're almost on the same page - the same book anyway. But I do think it's important to say that when you say


that's actually very wrong. The language of science, and especially physics (the relevant branch we're discussing) is mathematics. Using mathematical constructs, scientists can convey concepts and ideas which literally cannot be imagined, let alone accurately described in words. You and I can discuss the broad brush strokes of the findings in words, but the nitty-gritty of it all is purely mathematical, and our brains just aren't designed to process such things. Just as I can't picture a square circle, I equally can't accurately picture concepts like an eleven-dimensional universe, quantum superposition, entanglement, particle/wave duality, etc. etc. To try therefore to convey such concepts in language would be like trying to convey 'blue' to a blind person.

So I do think it's incorrect to say that to investigate things beyond the collapse of human logic and reason is beyond the ability of science. There is no reason in principle that science cannot go 'beyond the big bang' (to use misleading language again), and there are a lot of avenues open in that direction, which may or may not lead somewhere.

Science will continue to investigate these things; perhaps it will continue until a complete and satifactory theory of the origin of the universe is developed; perhaps it will stall and need to infer an intelligence underlying reality in order to progress.


Agreed!

I belive all life below humans was spontaneously generated from the deposits of the germs from distant galaxies. In the billions of years that the growth of a single cell to multiple cells and on up to the economy of the production of the earth, life follows a pattern.

I am beginning to wonder if that which we call the universe is the universe. Maybe it is just a grouping of galaxies. A very large number of galaxies inside of the real universe.

I don't think this is spontaneous. This would be transplanted.

I don't know what is so complicated about what you should do, but what I do is not at all complicated. What gets complicated is when agreements are made between persons or groups of people and in those agreements the give and take to make it suitable for all inevitably leaves off one or the other; that is where the waste comes from. God does not compromise. A cow does not compromise on the amount of grass he eats in order to make the stay for eating the grass shorter so he can run down the road. Other animals do not have the sense of conservation. The supply of green grass is plentiful, no need to conserve there.
But, nature has a way of adapting to the loss of things that benefit the planet by forming similar elements. But, the elements that are formed have no set duration, they are temporary. Like the recent Economic Stimulus Package agreed to by pres. Bush, it is only a temporary boost.
But, nature has no factories that can use the waste to make things that are destroyed. Humans are trying to replace what they have with factories that make what they had. And in that way, nature has become artificial and what you have is what you had. That is not complicated, is it?

Yes, the elements were transplanted, but life was spontaneous. And it is spontaneous when the elements are present.

Isn't this what is generally regarded to be the universe? A very very large group of galaxies and stars and all their subsidiaries within an unfathomably vast area of space.

What about humans themselves?

what I am saying is that there would be many such large groups in the same unviverse separated by vast empty space.

No if you already have a germ that wakes up that isn't spontaneous life. It is just life reawaken.

Do you mean like multiple universes expanding into one another?

By our current thinking yes.


But what I am saying is there is Just one universe. What we call the universe, lets make it simple, think of the milky way has a solar system and the universe(what we call the universe) as a galaxy. That would then mean that there are billions of these super galaxies in the single universe. Even at the speed of light it would be impossible to travel between them.

And on what do you base that off of?

You do hit on an interesting discussion. Notwithstanding the semantics of 'universe' (which should really encapsulate all of existence, if there is more than what we currently see as 'the universe'), there are various 'directions' in which we might find more universes.

As you point out, one possibility is that this universe we're in is much, much bigger than we currently think. So in fact the detectable universe as far as we're concerned would be just a tiny corner of a vast, perhaps infinite, universe. Trouble is with that idea, is that it requires much of conventional scientific theory to be wrong (perhaps not terribly, maybe just a bit, but it does go against current data).

Within the theory of quantum mechanics, the Everett interpretation (also called the 'many worlds' interpretation) of quantum mechanics may imply that there is another universe for every possible state of every sub atomic particle in this universe: it is known that subatomic particles exist in a state of superposition which follows the shape of a probability wave until measured. Conventional theory is that when measured, the particle/wave breaks down and all other 'ghost particles' which made up the wave cease to exist; but the Everett interpretation of the same data postulates that each of the ghost particles becomes a real particle in another universe, which would be identical to our own but for the position of that one particle.

Or it could be that there have been many universes similar to our own before ours, and perhaps after too (though 'before' and 'after' are highly questionable concepts in that context) - one formulation of this is the idea of the 'big bounce', in which the universe begins with a big bang, expands, decelerates and finally collapses in on itself in a 'big crunch', and then bounces back into another big bang, in an infinite cycle.

Another idea is the 'black holes and baby universes' postulation, which would imply that 'inside' every black hole is a godawful mess which has ripped space a new timehole, in which is born a new 'baby universe' from a big bang caused by the stresses of the formation of the singularity.

Yet another is the thought that this universe exists in some sort of 'metaverse', as some effect of the phyics contained in there. An example of this type of thinking is M-theory, which formulates this universe as simply a random and insignificant bubble caused by the collision of two infinite membranes ('branes', to use the jargon) in a vast ocean of similar branes. So there would be as many other universes as there are bubbles, all contained within one main reality.

The trouble is with all of these ideas is that they are completely untestable by today's technology, and so remain speculative (one or two are not testable even in principle). But there are plus-sides to the theories too. For instance, to help explain why we find ourselves in a universe which is capable of sustaining life. Any one of these ideas could imply the existence of an infinite number of other universes, each of which has a different set of laws. The vast majority of other universes would be cold, empty and lifeless, but we would find ourselves, of course, in one of the ones which can sustain life.

Just a random thought. And the fact that our universe is expanding into something.

Well, no it isn't. It's literally expanding within nothing. It is currently thought.

perhaps i shouldnt have said language. our communication system cant include the concept of god. i dont think god is a pattern that can be realised through mathematical interpritation. i know alot of physics doesnt make sense to people unless they can grasp the mathematical concetps used to convey the pattern. but i see god as far beyond our three dimensional way of thinking.

the prior post about the contradiction stating there had to be something that gave rise to god. i see that as our last step in processing god with our rationality. i think god is above space and time or outside the restrictions of space/time. if god was created this means he is inside the parameters of time. him being created means he started to exist at some point, time is needed for something to start. for something to have been created it has to have space to exist in also. for us to imagine a place with no time or space is impossible. can you have place without space? paradoxes show up and logic is lost. this is why i think we are confined by our own capacity. our rationality crumbles.

i see god as infinate, as something far above our comprehension capabilities. which is why none of our communication capabilities can convey Him. its hard for me to explain but i hope i got it across.

maybe physicists will work out a pattern to convey god but i think that pattern will completley blow our minds. maybe we will one day understand god but i think we will have to get our heads around more dimensions first. which at the moment simply doesnt make sense.

So how many scientific papers did you post? None, you posted a dictionary definition that made no reference to abdominal orientation or even wildlife what so ever. So is does it matter that I didn't post a paper which referenced your ignorance as a topic? It specifically mentioned ostrich's as walking upright though and I'm afraid that it is far more relevant (since it acknowledges something specific) than your dictionary definition. If an ostrich was not upright, it'd be lying on the floor.

Theoretically, if there were no God, we should not even exist. Why? Because life has never been observed to simply appear from nothing, nor is there any logical reason or way to explain how that even would be possible. And even if it did happen, it means that something triggered that life-creation, and that there were something before life. And then again, there were something before that to get that created. And so on into infinity, so the most logical reasoning is that life was created, and that the universe is everlasting as it could not come from nothing.

Personally I think even evolution itself proves creationists are on the right track. By that I mean, its clearly an intelligent design, its a brilliant system.

Just think about it - if everything was just a coincidence, created from basically a random error, why would so to speak all living things have the ability to adapt to different types of environments etc? Why would they have the ability to evolve and form into even more brilliant beings?

It would be more logical that the first life would die out as soon as it had come to being and have no way to reproduce and certainly not to adapt and evolve and develop itself in any way. Look at nature and all the creations out there, how they work and interact, animals and plants made for each other, how everything is part of an extremely complex system - and this goes for all of the universe, everything is systematic and logical - and systems and logic doesnt appear by random chance, but only by some intelligence behind it who have arranged it in such a way.

In every way its looked at , it is more probable that there was an intelligent force behind creation, rather than chance and coincidences. For life and material to come from nothing is, extremely improbable at best, but more close to impossible in reality.

Except for the things I allready mentioned that I personally feel prove, or if not prove at least strongly indicates, that there is an intelligent force behind our creation here in this physical universe, there is another thing that strengthen the idea about a creator god even more. And that is the non-physical universe, such as the spiritual realms, all these complex layers of existence that is intertwined and goes on far beyond what we can normally perceive with our physical senses.

Its almost impossible to see how all of this could just suddenly come into being on its own, from a "big bang". And where would this big bang suddenly come from anyway? Its just too much and too complex, too systematic. There is zero chance for life to come from nothing by its own, it just shouldnt happen. But still here we are.

To me it was the personal discovery of how complex it really is that made me understand there just have to be a God behind it all - whatever God is. And those discoveries have led me into some amazing experiences of and insights into life and existence, so I dont really miss my atheist days.

I find it laughable that people are still posting things dealing with nonsense about "if it was all coincidence, then how did so and so happen?"

Chemistry isn't coincidence. End of story. Biochemistry isn't a game of probability.



You are observing the few mutalistic relationships to exist in the world today, but fail to see that 99% of all life that has ever appeared on the face of the Earth has gone extinct. So much for the perfection and intelligence behind life.


People have obviously never heard of Quantum field theory. Something can come from nothing as long as there is no net creation of energy or mass.


And you base this on what?



And all these 'complex layers' no one has evidence for.

If you think what I just said made absolutely no sense, then it seems that you are at odds with every chemist and biologist, those who both believe in God and those who don't. Because both sides of the coin agree on this. Yes it is purpose that carbon is a versatile element, but that doesn't mean it was made by someone. Chemicals have certain affinities to others, which is why metabolism/catabolism/electron transport chain, what ever process you wish to compare here, works.



Which is why life is not perfect and thus reason why there is no creator. A creator would have put outside forces into consideration when making a design. Human engineers that are not 'omnipotent' do this, why couldn't a God?



Electrons and photons, as well as positrons are known to come out of nowhere and annihilate each other.
Also I was referring to Quantum field theory specifically in relation to particle physics, not the broad scope that is Quantum mechanics. And if you have any idea of what quantum mechanics actually explains, if you have any comprehension of the mathematical equations, which I doubt many people outside of the scientific community will, it doesn't explain anything spiritual.


No one is saying life developed from nothing. Where are you getting this information from? There is no coder. DNA is a nucleic acid, made of of nucleotides. Code is a very simplistic and narrow definition that scientists use to describe DNA to those who don't have enough education in the field. Also, I fail to see your rationale as to how life would not be able to support itself. Life in the form of archaeobacteria live in the most harsh conditions known, and yet they are able to survive and reproduce. If they can do it, so could primitive life. The first life weren't dinosaurs or even eukaryotic protists. The key here are ribozymes, which makes it possible to sustain life in an early earth environment.


Not only are these claims unsubstantiated, but your argument that 'millions of people experience spiritual phenomena' yields to the fact that billions of people don't.

Darkbreed, I am also interested in what you are 'picturing' when you say things to the effect of "If a lifeform suddenly appeared from nothing on its own"

This goes to everyone else as well.

The main issue for the development of first life were nucleotides. Things like amino acids were introduced as a result of RNA activity. RNA catalyzed the creation of nucleotides by redox reactions to make phosphodiesters, as well as peptides.

Scientists such as, Albert Eschenmoser, have generated 4-diphosphate (as one example) from a prebiotic reaction. (glycoaldehyde mono-phosphate and formaldehyde) Therefore, synthesis of nucleotides as one possible explanation of the first origins of life is not out of the question.

Also, biological molecules can come from certain prebiotic gas mixtures.

Adenine is a product of a reaction involving hydrogen cyanide and aqeuous ammonia.
Uracil and Cytosine is a product of a reaction involving methane/nitrogen/cyanoacetylene.

These products formed from a reducing atmosphere is very plausible, and those who dispute it are acting prematurely.

These reactions don't occur by chance. If the reactants are available, then the products will occur, given the correct environment. When this environment is simulated in an experimental setting, these products form. That indicates that in the real prebiotic world, the same products will form. There is nothing here to indicate that God placed the elements there or controlled how they bonded. Its nothing more than their natural affinities to each other, that happened billions of years ago, and still goes on today.

***This post, #275, is an error, please disregard***

Just because Quantum Mechanics are mysterious doesn't mean they have any link to spirituality or psychic powers. If you understood physics you'd know that psychic powers are all but impossible.

It's the old story just because we can't explain it ,It must be the man in the sky



fullywired

hahaha says it all to me. If an all powerful God did infact create everything he wouldnt have made us as inefficient and complicated as we are. that is why i do not think one bit God created man and we evolved from the initial lifeforms to what we are today like all other lifeforms on this planet.

haha this made me laugh, i think you misunderstood what i meant by wasteful. a large percentage of our food goes undigested by our bodies and is passed out as faeces. i was not talking about industry haha. My point again was why would a God design our bodies to be generally quite wasteful and over complicated?

haha thats not complicated is it? made that post for me when you yourself were misunderstood

all I will say right now is the computer program. dna

how do you know this?

how do you know the specifics on how something works which you know doesnt exist.

inneficient. this view depends on how you look at the cup, half empty or half full.

complicated..... what? i dont get how us being complicated can mean creation didnt happen.

No, a lot of biochemical processes are inefficient, this is fact, not a question of optimism.
Going on biblical descriptions if god is perfect, why has he created us so imperfect physically. Even to the point that cell growth can be fatal. (Cancer is in fact extremely common).

why did he create us at all? why is he perfect? why does life end? why does life start? why? why? why? i could type all day. but no answer will ever be found especially when the questions based on an assumption.

I meant the systems which we use to function. if someone created us why did a creator use such complicated methods when they theoretically could make us as simple as they wanted? i dont mean the ways they used to make us but how they designed us to be as many people here think we are created. I dont see the benefit in developing humans to use only a small percentage of our food as a large proportion is passed and not used (faeces). Again as i have said why use haemoglobin when it readily combines with carbon monoxide ahead of oxygen when its present? thats not really intelligent design in my eyes.

Thats how us being complicated means for me there wasnt a direct creator of humans or any other animal.

Surely god who can create anything would create us to use simpler methods with more effective results to these methods, such as better respiratory systems and digestive systems

Ive never said my thoughts on this are the 100% truth, they are merely my opinion. When you look at us and think someone created us i actually think we are of poor design really.

Our joints wear away easily leading to arthritis, we produce poisonous compounds under short periods of anaerobic respiration the list is endless really.

surely if we were created we would be made to be better more efficient???

question how can something be a catylist for it's own creation.

unless we weren't supposed last for long.

A positive feedback loop.

doesnt explain why haemoglobin bonds easier to carbon monoxide than oxygen or why we use so little of our food through digestion???

i dont see creation as god deciding on us being the way we are today. the way we are is because of how we have adapted to our environment. i dont think god came down and put a man on earth i think god created the spark of life and gave it the ability to evolve. weather he put that spark on earth or it came in on an asteroid no-one knows. but something as perfect as life and the environment it lives in must be a product of something. if its not then nothingness is very amazing.

well it would seem you entered a seperate conversation within this forum as i was talking to those who believe god created everything, including man. i was pointing out how i see that to be unlikely.

Since blood bonds with both oxygen and carbon I would assume if you put them both together without doubling the oxygen that makes it easier for the carbon monoxide to bond. But I am not an expert in this area.

Then explain why man is on the planet but not really part of it. Where are our predators. If life was just spontaneous then there should be human predators. Not talking about the occasional lion or croc. attacks but genuine hunters.

Life is far from perfect. Theres not a single aspect of humans or any other organism that is perfect.

By spontaneous life we aren't talking fully developed organisms appearing out of nowhere.

that makes no sense and has little relavence? you saying a predator for humans should just appear????

your missing my point, why would a supposed creator create haemoglobin to do this??

no every other animal has preditors. granted some adults don't but the young do

Man formed societies in order to create a defense against predators,since man is weak and easily mauled by many beasts.

If all of your "creature comforts" were taken away and you were no longer a part of a society...you'd find out the answer to your question,depending upon what type of area you're in.There are predators everywhere who would love the taste of delusional human.