31 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut the problem here is always the idea of a beginning, or creation itself.
I cannot see this as possibly happening eventhough the universe were 500 billion years old.
The inflationary theory of Big Bang has traced the origins of the universe down to a microfraction of a second from "time-zero", but it does not know what happened at exactly "time zero", nor does it know what came "before".
Monotheistic religion ascribes the event to a God who was without cause. It does not pretend to know how this "God without cause" could bring about cause and effect but not be subject to cause and effect himself. It simply has faith in the matter.
But a third possibility exists, being that our very idea about linear time -- past, present, future -- it itself the problem.
Infinite time thought of in a linear sense is an absurdity. "Beginning nowhere", "ending nowhere", etc. Ditto with space. (What's "outside" of the universe? and other wonders to break your head over). And if we postulate a God existing within linear time, we are left with the absurdity of what this God was doing prior to the creation of the universe. Was he on a very long coffee break? And why suddenly did his break end and he whimsically decides to "create the universe"?
No, these seem to be nonsensical considerations. It makes much more sense to deeply consider the idea that our very understanding of progressive time is flawed. In other words, to consider that time is simply an illusion -- a conceptual construct only. Ditto for dimensional space.
That doesn't mean that "things aren't out there", and that our bodies don't age, etc. It simply means that we've in all likelihood drawn erroneous conclusions about what time/space are and projected those illusions accordingly onto our idea of the universe.
So it makes more sense to understand the nature of thought itself, and the subject-consciousness and how thought creates our view of the universe (and resultant confusions), rather than assuming that the problem lies in the object our thought is considering.
Simplified -- the problem lies not in the "movie" we are watching on the screen, but in the "movie projecter" itself -- the mind.
31 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerGenisis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I cannot see this as possibly happening eventhough the universe were 500 billion years old.
Your own bible says that man was formed from non-living matter. The only thing in dispute is the mechanism by which it happened.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 May 05
Originally posted by rwingettOK. Let me rephrase: I cannot see life forming from non-life without intelligent intervention.
Genisis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Your own bible says that man was formed from non-living matter. The only thing in dispute is the mechanism by which it happened.
31 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckeri can.
I cannot see this as possibly happening eventhough the universe were 500 billion years old.
if you think of life in terms of humans, and dogs, and whatever else you see around you it may be difficult to imagine. but we are complex because we have evolved.
life in the beginning need not be very complex. depending on how you want to define life, all you need is some quasi-ordered system (at least a system that can resist increasing disorder) that can reproduce. i don't think such a process would even take that many atoms coming together. then just let evolution commence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJellolife in the beginning need not be very complex
i can.
if you think of life in terms of humans, and dogs, and whatever else you see around you it may be difficult to imagine. but we are complex because we have evolved.
life in the beginning need not be very complex. depending on how you want to define life, all you need is some quasi-ordered system (at least a system that can resist increasing ...[text shortened]... ch a process would even take that many atoms coming together. then just let evolution commence.
Uhh, I'm asking how this life in the begining came about from non-life.
31 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerInteresting point.
So basically you believe in something which cannot be proven. Do you agree that this belief is religious in nature?
I wouldn't call it religious, in nature, because it depends on how you as a human react to such a situation.
A religious person would perhaps look towards God for an explanation, whereas an atheist would search elsewhere.
I think this situation is the main reason why humans have invented the concept of God, to explain the unexplainable. God works as a brigde builder between the known and unknown. This gap, however, keeps getting smaller. A couple of hundreds years ago we didn't know how a compas worked, so God did it. Today we know it's because of the magnetic field aroud the world, so God didn't do it anyway. This way God's field of responibility keeps getting smaller.
31 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckeri know. i'm talking about the point at which life begins. it need not be a very complex system that comes together to form life (however mutually defined) for the first time.
[b]life in the beginning need not be very complex
Uhh, I'm asking how this life in the begining came about from non-life.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttSo you don't regard a belief in the unknown as religious in nature?
Interesting point.
I wouldn't call it religious, in nature, because it depends on how you as a human react to such a situation.
A religious person would perhaps look towards God for an explanation, whereas an atheist would search elsewhere.
I think this situation is the main reason why humans have invented the concept of God, to explain the unexplaina ...[text shortened]... orld, so God didn't do it anyway. This way God's field of responibility keeps getting smaller.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow would you define complex? Would a single simple cell be complex?
i know. and you seem to be under the impression that the act of life forming from atoms of non-living things must necessarily be incredibly complex. i am saying that i don't think it needs to be.