# Meteorite Brought Life Ingredients To Earth In 2012, Scientists Say



## bigreddwon (Sep 13, 2013)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3899183/

Thoughts? 

Possible this happened,  before?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 13, 2013)

There's a lot of _ifs, suppositions, and assumptions_ about panspermia. Like their assumptions of the solvents in primordial vents. 

That being said, there's also, in my mind, a lot of questions regarding contamination that may have occurred on earth after it hit, and the environment it's been in since then. 

To me, from a purely logical standpoint, this would be a lot more impactful if it had been discovered on an asteroid still in space that is only being inspected in the space environment having never crossed the threshold into the spacecraft or other potentially contaminating environment. 

All of that aside, this is still pretty cool and gives us a good reason to continue research on asteroids to confirm or refute the panspermia theory, in addition to mining their resources.


----------



## David Parker (Sep 13, 2013)

happens all the time.  They find chunks of stuff falling from the sky that contain elements of Mars.  Apparently some meteors or what not deflect off the planet and then make a bee line for Earth.  They found items that suggest fossilized one-celled organisms on one piece of rock.  Looked like a small segmented worm thing.

(source was National Geo's   " Origins of the Universe " )  don't know if they have an agenda or not.  Looked legit though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2013)

David Parker said:


> happens all the time.  They find chunks of stuff falling from the sky that contain elements of Mars.  Apparently some meteors or what not deflect off the planet and then make a bee line for Earth.  They found items that suggest fossilized one-celled organisms on one piece of rock.  Looked like a small segmented worm thing.
> 
> (source was National Geo's   " Origins of the Universe " )  don't know if they have an agenda or not.  Looked legit though.



They disproved that. It looked a lot like single celled life, but, and I forget how, they debunked it. 

I personally believe it's only a matter of time before we discover life, in some form, on another planet. 

Even using conservative numbers, like 1:1,000,000 or even 1:1,000,000,000 there would still be several thousand examples, if the Drake equation were to hold up.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 16, 2013)

This is not the first time!


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> This is not the first time!



  Man, that movie creeped me out as a kid!


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's a lot of _ifs, suppositions, and assumptions_ about panspermia. Like their assumptions of the solvents in primordial vents.
> 
> That being said, there's also, in my mind, a lot of questions regarding contamination that may have occurred on earth after it hit, and the environment it's been in since then.
> 
> ...



This article is not about panspermia.  Panspermia is the theory that _life itself_ is transferred around the universe via meteors and comets.  This article is saying that meteors may have supplied the earth with the basic organic matter that mixed around in the "primordial soup" and eventually life arouse from it.  Big difference.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Big difference.



Not according to google's take on the definition. 



> pan·sper·mi·a
> 
> 
> /panËˆspÉ™rmÄ“É™/
> ...



Panspermia is a broader concept than ET hitching a ride on a comet, a la Heaven's Gate.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 16, 2013)

I have to say google is wrong on that one.  What you're talking about is refered to as pseudo-panspermia.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I have to say google is wrong on that one.  What you're talking about is refered to as pseudo-panspermia.



Then Webster's is wrong, too. I'm just using the definition that the experts on definitions returned with. 

Either way, the effect is the same. A rose is a rose, and pooh is pooh, even if you call them by each other's names.


----------



## David Parker (Sep 16, 2013)

I can conceive the components for life came from a hodge-podge of space debris.  Being the ideal distance between planet and sun, was the real determining factor.  Other planets in the system could have had the same result, but the conditions weren't right.  Other systems, who knows, I tend to believe there is something out there looking back.

I can also get my head around the idea that we are part of a bigger organism or energy.  Something along the lines of cells being a small piece/part of the body.

The most compelling theory to me is that we are all jacked-in to the matrix.  Just as plausible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2013)

David Parker said:


> I can conceive the components for life came from a hodge-podge of space debris.  Being the ideal distance between planet and sun, was the real determining factor.  Other planets in the system could have had the same result, but the conditions weren't right.  Other systems, who knows, I tend to believe there is something out there looking back.
> 
> I can also get my head around the idea that we are part of a bigger organism or energy.  Something along the lines of cells being a small piece/part of the body.
> 
> The most compelling theory to me is that we are all jacked-in to the matrix.  Just as plausible.



1) Our sample size of life is basically 1. There's a lot of life here, sure, but it's all carbon based and follows the same basic rules. There's nothing saying that all life is carbon based or follows those rules. There could be life in the methane lakes of the moons of Jupiter, I think is the one that has them, but we may not recognize it as such, even if we saw it. 

2) The scale scenario is a cool idea, I just can't jump the hurdle into thinking it's plausible. 

3) On plausibility I think it's much more likely that we are all jacked into a virtual, or create our own, reality than the possibility of our entire universe existing in a single cell within an unimaginably huge beast. 

But, I still stick with what I can see, so I believe the universe and reality are as they appear, and that statistics alone suggest the probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe we can observe.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then Webster's is wrong, too. I'm just using the definition that the experts on definitions returned with.
> 
> Either way, the effect is the same. A rose is a rose, and pooh is pooh, even if you call them by each other's names.



Not quite.  One theroy says there is life in other parts of the universe.  The others says that the building blocks for life exist else where in the universe.  I'd say thats a pretty big difference.


----------



## David Parker (Sep 16, 2013)

Yall think we are the most advanced example of life in the universe?  

I'm guessing yes b/c of one fact.  I haven't seen anything different to compare "us" with.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 16, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Yall think we are the most advanced example of life in the universe?
> 
> I'm guessing yes b/c of one fact.  I haven't seen anything different to compare "us" with.



Thats a tricky question.  How do you define advanced?  I'd say there are probably more advanced life forms on our plantet, if by advanced you mean complex.  If you mean intellegent, then I am almost certin that we are not the most intellegent in the universe.


----------



## David Parker (Sep 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Thats a tricky question.  How do you define advanced?  I'd say there are probably more advanced life forms on our plantet, if by advanced you mean complex.  If you mean intellegent, then I am almost certin that we are not the most intellegent in the universe.




 technological development primarily but even in a more general sense, we have used our brains to more effect.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Yall think we are the most advanced example of life in the universe?
> 
> I'm guessing yes b/c of one fact.  I haven't seen anything different to compare "us" with.



I actively hope we aren't. I cry for the universe that has us at the top of the pile.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 17, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Not quite.  One theroy says there is life in other parts of the universe.  The others says that the building blocks for life exist else where in the universe.  I'd say thats a pretty big difference.



Sure, if you separate them out. The definition I found for panspermia back both notions and it wasn't until you cited that other type that it got broken down. 

Since both definitions exist, and come from reputable sources, then I'd, and this is just limited to me, say that it's tomato: tomahto.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> This article is saying that meteors may have supplied the earth with the basic organic matter that mixed around in the "primordial soup" and eventually life arouse from it.  Big difference.



Would have required a whole bunch of it......otherwise, what would the organic matter that became alive eat?

Life from nothing requires two seperate sources simultaneously.

But, to the point of the thread.....did the meteor create some life when it got here?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Would have required a whole bunch of it......otherwise, what would the organic matter that became alive eat?
> 
> Life from nothing requires two seperate sources simultaneously.
> 
> But, to the point of the thread.....did the meteor create some life when it got here?



The first organisms were probably phototrophic, meaning they converted sunlight into energy, much like plants do today.  They could have also been extremophiles and converted things like sulfur and methane gas into energy/food.

The article basically says that the organic matter brought by comets/meteors  is what eventually gave rise to life, or provided the building blocks for life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 18, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> The first organisms were probably phototrophic, meaning they converted sunlight into energy, much like plants do today.  They could have also been extremophiles and converted things like sulfur and methane gas into energy/food.
> 
> The article basically says that the organic matter brought by comets/meteors  is what eventually gave rise to life, or provided the building blocks for life.



Exactly, they brought the amino acids that gave rise to proteins.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 18, 2013)

Doesn't Hawking even say nearly impossible for life to have started from scratch in the amount of time it's had on Earth?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Doesn't Hawking even say nearly impossible for life to have started from scratch in the amount of time it's had on Earth?



Dunno, good question, but either way it's a pretty long reach to say that, IMO.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Doesn't Hawking even say nearly impossible for life to have started from scratch in the amount of time it's had on Earth?



I think so, but he's not the only notable Scientist to look at the numbers and realized that they don't support the notion of life from sterility.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think so, but he's not the only notable Scientist to look at the numbers and realized that they don't support the notion of life from sterility.



Unless you're limiting your statement to life on Earth, and not in the entirety of the cosmos, then you're misrepresenting what he means. 

The elements created from the stars fusing hydrogen thrown together at random, along with pure statistical chance, and the length of time the universe has existed provide for all the possibility needed to have life. Ya know, if you consider what we have here as life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 18, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Unless you're limiting your statement to life on Earth, and not in the entirety of the cosmos, then you're misrepresenting what he means.
> 
> The elements created from the stars fusing hydrogen thrown together at random, along with pure statistical chance, and the length of time the universe has existed provide for all the possibility needed to have life. Ya know, if you consider what we have here as life.



Tell me.  If I toss a coin in the air what influences does chance have on which side it lands on.   You speak of chance as if it is a force such as gravity that has the ability to influence variables, where this is absolutely false.  Chance does nothing more than predict.  

You're a smart guy.  Have you looked at the statistical odds for a planet like ours to even be formed?  Yet it's here as if by design.  The entire reason for the multiverse theory being put forward in the first place is because the evidence for a design is overwhelming.  Despite not having one iota of evidence to support it, something had to be proposed and accepted to explain the evidence and it certainly could not be God.

And that's just one side of the coin.  The other side is life itself coming into being here on earth.  Hawkins may be an Atheist, but he's not going to deny the cold hard data.  He knows where it points, so in order to avoid the God answer he too goes outside the box and says it must have come from an extraterrestrial source.  Undoubtedly an extraterrestrial source from another universe.

I find it comical that for years Believers have been beat over the head with the scientific data and labeled as idiots, blindly believing "contrary to all evidence", but now it's the Atheist who are having to justify why they hold the beliefs they do which is contrary to where the evidence points.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2013)

What are the odds the universe would exist instead of nothing?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell me.  If I toss a coin in the air what influences does chance have on which side it lands on.   You speak of chance as if it is a force such as gravity that has the ability to influence variables, where this is absolutely false.  Chance does nothing more than predict.
> 
> You're a smart guy.  Have you looked at the statistical odds for a planet like ours to even be formed?  Yet it's here as if by design.  The entire reason for the multiverse theory being put forward in the first place is because the evidence for a design is overwhelming.  Despite not having one iota of evidence to support it, something had to be proposed and accepted to explain the evidence and it certainly could not be God.
> 
> ...



Are you sure you want to do this? 

Your faith in a creator requires the absence of evidence. If it was evidence based it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact, right? That's what I thought. 

Chance, as you put it, is another way of saying statistics played out on a cosmological time scale. In other words, you ever hear of the expression, if you give enough monkeys enough typewriters over long enough of a time frame then one of them will, by pure coincidence, happen to hit the same keys to produce a Shakespearean sonnet?

It's no different with the universe. Given the number of stars, and the material in the universe, it's just as likely that we are here, on Earth, as we would be to occur anywhere else in the cosmos. We have found so many exoplanets that are in the habitable zone of their home stars, and if you mash enough chemicals together over a long enough time then you get Amino acids which when you mash them up over enough time produces proteins, which then give rise to single celled, then multicellular, life. 

In other words, chance is a misnomer for a game of cosmic roulette played out over unfathomable lengths of time with unfathomable amounts of balls and wheels. 

Yes, I have looked at the odds, in short, and the math seems to corroborate that not only should there be life on earth, but that life should be relatively common throughout the universe, but the distances are so huge compared to a human scale that we are essentially no different than that of the Galapagos, which is isolated from the rest of the universe by an ocean of space. 

What is outside the universe? According to The Big Bang theory, absolutely nothing. No matter, no time, no energy. So how could anything come from there? Now, if you subscribe to the multiverse idea, which I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me of, then it might have crossed a worm hole from one to the other. Still, life had to originate somewhere, because we are here. 

Hawking may be an atheist, but he doesn't sound, or walk like one. A lot of his books leave room, even in his own words, for a creator, so by definition he is an agnostic. 

Chance doesn't predict. Chance makes an educated guess. Laws predict. The function of gravity, mass and distance can promise you that it's effect at sea level is 9.8m/s^2. A coin has two sides, thus there is a 50/50 chance of it landing one way or the other, but because it landed on heads last time, there is no way to tell if it will this time, or on tails. You can make inferences on chance, but your predictions will be full of assumptions and suppositions that very easily break down under scrutiny. That's not to say that you can't be right, just that you can't justify the outcome. 

What would be the statistical odds for our planet, and life to exist, according to you or your research?

There are, last I heard, around 300 Billion stars in the Milky way Galaxy, and it's a pretty small galaxy when compared to others out there, but let's go with that number, agreed? 

So, 300 Billion stars in a galaxy, on average. 

There are an estimated 170 Billion galaxies in the observable universe, which is limited by the speed of light. Inflationary expansion theory suggests that the universe may be larger than the 14.6 billion light years we can observe, but we'll stick with that. 

So, 300 Billion times 170 Billion is 51 trillion stars in the observable sky, using conservative estimates. 

Even if life only had a 1 in a trillion chance of getting started, based on statistics, and blind luck, then there are still 51 examples of planets with life in the universe. 

The Drake equation, made by a scientist much more informed on the chances of these circumstances than I, gave a much larger estimate. Keep in mind this is just for advanced life, which I think we could all agree would be much more rare than microbial, which outnumbers humans on this planet alone by unfathomable numbers. I believe, if I can remember since Google isn't cooperating, that the estimates were north of 1000 civilizations at least as advanced as us. 

Now, given all of that, I acknowledge that there is room for a creator. I just don't know and science can't find it, right now. 

I accept that the universe follows observable laws. Why those laws are the way they are can't be explained right now. It could be that the universe goes through Big Bang after BB, after BB, and with different conditions. Some of those result in life like we know it, some don't, and some result in nothing. There's no way to be sure since science breaks down in singularities and we can't see through them. The point being is that the laws of nature determine the outcome, not pure chance, and that there's room for a creator, by my own admission. 

Like I've always believed, I think that there will be a time when science and religion meet and realize they are two languages describing the same event. There's no reason at all why "let there be light" can't be a metaphor for the Big Bang. It doesn't weaken religion in any way, as far as I can tell, since someone, or something, had to set the initial conditions of the universe, the laws that it would obey, and set it all in motion. Sure, the BB says that E=MC^2, and that the initial energy of the BB transformed into the matter that we observe today, with remnant energy, but where did the initial energy come from? Science can't, for the time being, answer that. That's not to say that it's impossible, even though it might just be, just that we can't do it right now. 

The reason I asked if you're sure you want to do this is because that post was long, and if you don't believe any of what I just said, then we have nothing further to discuss, seriously. Those, except for my estimates of civilizations, are the facts and they are indisputable. Accept them, reject them, it makes no difference; they will remain regardless of your belief or rejection.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 19, 2013)

The shorthand, and credit to XKCD


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 19, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Are you sure you want to do this?
> 
> Your faith in a creator requires the absence of evidence. If it was evidence based it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact, right? That's what I thought. .



Actually there is an entire thread on this forum dedicated to the Christian definition of faith.  Mine is included in there as well.
Bottom line is no.  This statement is false.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Chance, as you put it, is another way of saying statistics played out on a cosmological time scale. In other words, you ever hear of the expression, if you give enough monkeys enough typewriters over long enough of a time frame then one of them will, by pure coincidence, happen to hit the same keys to produce a Shakespearean sonnet?
> 
> It's no different with the universe. Given the number of stars, and the material in the universe, it's just as likely that we are here, on Earth, as we would be to occur anywhere else in the cosmos. We have found so many exoplanets that are in the habitable zone of their home stars, and if you mash enough chemicals together over a long enough time then you get Amino acids which when you mash them up over enough time produces proteins, which then give rise to single celled, then multicellular, life.
> 
> ...



Ahhh yes, the typing monkey model from Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" which was actually borrowed from the T.H Huxley/Wilberforce debate.  Dawkins actually uses the monkey model to address his contention that unguided natural processes can account for the origin of biological information.   The model has since been proven unsustainable due simply to time constraints.  “Dawkins cites Isaac Asimov’s estimate of the probability of randomly assembling a haemoglobin molecule from amino acids.6 Such a molecule consists of four chains of amino acids twisted together. Each of the chains consists of 146 amino acids and there are 20 different kinds of amino acid found in living beings. The number of possible ways of arranging these 20 in a chain 146 links long is 20to the 146 power which is about 10 to the 190 power. (There are only about 10 to the 70 power of protons in the entire universe.)”...forcing Dawkins to conclude “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. You don’t need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.  
(Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “God's Undertaker: New updated edition.” Lion UK, 2012-07-25. )


As a side note I think the last I heard Dawkins was asserting that life arrived on earth by extraterrestrials!!.  
He recognizes the need for a designer, just as long as its not God.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What is outside the universe? According to The Big Bang theory, absolutely nothing. No matter, no time, no energy. So how could anything come from there? Now, if you subscribe to the multiverse idea, which I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me of, then it might have crossed a worm hole from one to the other. Still, life had to originate somewhere, because we are here.



I agree with your point.  Theoretically I would posit there is just as much empirically verifiable evidence for God as there is for the multiverse if not more.   My point is, it takes just as much faith, if not more to believe in the multiverse as it does to believe in God.  But yet as you state, we are here.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Hawking may be an atheist, but he doesn't sound, or walk like one. A lot of his books leave room, even in his own words, for a creator, so by definition he is an agnostic.



I think, given the data, he has no choice but to leave room for a creator.  It's either that or lose credibility by denying  where science is pointing.  I too think he is agnostic albeit one who really hopes Atheism is true.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Chance doesn't predict. Chance makes an educated guess. Laws predict. The function of gravity, mass and distance can promise you that it's effect at sea level is 9.8m/s^2. A coin has two sides, thus there is a 50/50 chance of it landing one way or the other, but because it landed on heads last time, there is no way to tell if it will this time, or on tails. You can make inferences on chance, but your predictions will be full of assumptions and suppositions that very easily break down under scrutiny. That's not to say that you can't be right, just that you can't justify the outcome.



You said it more concise than me, but we agree that chance itself exerts no power on the outcome.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What would be the statistical odds for our planet, and life to exist, according to you or your research?



I would like to break each of those and address them individually.  Let me say up front I am going to quote from the literature, because it is certainly beyond my education to speak of such with anything more than an amateurs voice.

Odds for our planet to even exist as is does:  ie capable of sub staining life:


“For life to exist on earth an abundant supply of carbon is needed. Carbon is formed either by combining three helium nuclei, or by combining nuclei of helium and beryllium. Eminent mathematician and astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, found that for this to happen, the nuclear ground state energy levels have to be fine-tuned with respect to each other. This phenomenon is called ‘resonance’. If the variation were more than 1 per cent either way, the universe could not sustain life. Hoyle later confessed that nothing had shaken his atheism as much as this discovery.”

“Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10 to the 16 power no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only 1 part in 10to the 40 power and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away.  He says, ‘It seems as though someone has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe... The impression of design is overwhelming.’

“It is argued that an alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 10-55 at the Planck time (just 10 – 43 seconds after the origin of the universe), would have led either to too rapid an expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or to too slow an expansion with consequent rapid collapse”

“Our universe is a universe in which entropy (a measure of disorder) is increasing; a fact which is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Eminent mathematician Sir Roger Penrose writes: ‘Try to imagine the phase space... of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’— which is to be placed at some point in the phase space... Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed “the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy – so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics – the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?’
His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10-123, that is 1 followed by 10-123 zeros, a ‘number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe there would not even be enough particles to do the job."


“The distance from the earth to the sun must be just right. Too near and water would evaporate, too far and the earth would be too cold for life. A change of only 2 per cent or so and all life would cease. Surface gravity and temperature are also critical to within a few per cent for the earth to have a life-sustaining atmosphere – retaining the right mix of gases necessary for life. The planet must rotate at the right speed: too slow and temperature differences between day and night would be too extreme, too fast and wind speeds would be disastrous. And so the list goes on. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross lists many such parameters that have to be fine-tuned for life to be possible, and makes a rough but conservative calculation that the chance of one such planet existing in the universe is about 1 in 10-30 power.”


“Arno Penzias, who used the propitious position of the space-platform of earth to make the brilliant discovery of the ‘echo of the beginning’, the cosmic background microwave radiation, sums up the position as he sees it: ‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

This last quote as well as the others came from John Lennox's book, "Gods Undertaker, Has Science Buried God? in which he summarized the above data.

“We should note that the preceding arguments are not ‘God of the gaps’ arguments; it is advance in science, not ignorance of science, that has revealed this fine-tuning to us. In that sense there is no ‘gap’ in the science. The question is rather: How should we interpret “the science? In what direction is it pointing?”


I will tackle the origin of life aspect as well as the remainder of your post a bit later, time permitting.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There are, last I heard, around 300 Billion stars in the Milky way Galaxy, and it's a pretty small galaxy when compared to others out there, but let's go with that number, agreed?
> 
> So, 300 Billion stars in a galaxy, on average.
> 
> ...


----------



## David Parker (Sep 19, 2013)

Bringing it back between the ditches.  Enjoy the artwork


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 19, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Bringing it back between the ditches.  Enjoy the artwork



Concept art for Mustafar?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As a side note I think the last I heard Dawkins was asserting that life arrived on earth by extraterrestrials!!.
> He recognizes the need for a designer, just as long as its not God.



Well, by definition, the christian god would be considered an extraterrestrial, would he not?  Therefor, is it that crazy of a thought that life was put him in some shape or fashion by extraterrestrials?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 19, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Well, by definition, the christian god would be considered an extraterrestrial, would he not?  Therefor, is it that crazy of a thought that life was put him in some shape or fashion by extraterrestrials?



I still have to finish up my reply to your post above, but just a quick note here.  

I guess technically you would be partially correct, however extraterrestrial carries with it the kind of implied connotation of existing inside the Universe.  God as I'm sure you know is held to exists outside the universe so in that regard at least it would be less than accurate.  Personally I like the term Supernatural for God.  It just seems more accurate.

As to your point for life being put here by him by extraterrestrials, to me seems harder to believe.  In light of there being no evidence for it, even if you hold the position there is no evidence for God, to assert that extraterrestrials acting on Gods behalf did the work requires more belief than a simple belief in God.   There's an extra step involved in that you have to believe in God and aliens.  

Hope that makes sense.

BTW if you want a good read regarding the Genesis account of creation and where the  current scientific evidence points pick up Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox.  A lot of conservative Christians and young earth Christians don't like it, because they feel it threatens their beliefs, but the scientific data is spot on and he really calls into question what most people, particularly Christians, THINK they know about the Genesis account.  Believer or not, I think you will be surprised by what you learn.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I still have to finish up my reply to your post above, but just a quick note here.
> 
> I guess technically you would be partially correct, however extraterrestrial carries with it the kind of implied connotation of existing inside the Universe.  God as I'm sure you know is held to exists outside the universe so in that regard at least it would be less than accurate.  Personally I like the term Supernatural for God.  It just seems more accurate.
> 
> ...



I hear you, and I just might pick up that book, but even if I buy off on Genesis, already acknowledging that it might be a metaphor, then that still leaves, well, I don't know how many other books that I can't wrap my head around.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I still have to finish up my reply to your post above, but just a quick note here.
> 
> I guess technically you would be partially correct, however extraterrestrial carries with it the kind of implied connotation of existing inside the Universe.  God as I'm sure you know is held to exists outside the universe so in that regard at least it would be less than accurate.  Personally I like the term Supernatural for God.  It just seems more accurate.
> 
> ...



I never implied that extraterrestrials created life on earth through god’s will.  I implied that maybe what we earthlings think of as god, could be just extraterrestrials.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> A lot of conservative Christians and young earth Christians don't like it, because they feel it threatens their beliefs, but the scientific data is spot on and he really calls into question what most people, particularly Christians, THINK they know about the Genesis account.  Believer or not, I think you will be surprised by what you learn.



SFD, I totally had you pegged as a "young-earth/7 literal days" Christian.

I think you mentioned that book before, and I do need to read it.  But, there are plenty of books out there where Christians do their best to conform science to a literal 7 day creation about 6k years ago.....these guys in particular:

http://www.creationtruth.com/staff.html

I took an origins elective (just for fun, need the credits)taught by Dr. Jackson when I attended Liberty Universtiy.  I had a lot of very good debates with the man.  I was the only "old earth" Christian in that class.....that was fun.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hear you, and I just might pick up that book, but even if I buy off on Genesis, already acknowledging that it might be a metaphor, then that still leaves, well, I don't know how many other books that I can't wrap my head around.



Not trying to convert you Stripe.  Just thought you would be the type that found the book interesting.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> SFD, I totally had you pegged as a "young-earth/7 literal days" Christian.
> 
> I think you mentioned that book before, and I do need to read it.  But, there are plenty of books out there where Christians do their best to conform science to a literal 7 day creation about 6k years ago.....these guys in particular:
> 
> ...




I can see no way that the 7 days are literally 7 24 hour days.  Even by the Genesis account the sun and moon were not created until the 4th day, so how could the first 4 days be 24 hour days.  It's sad to say as a Christian, but I had read and re read Genesis and had never even picked up on that until I read the book.  There's a lot more in the book.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 24, 2013)

Stripe.  Sorry so late finishing my response. 

I have previously provided data that suggests there very fact that a a planet was formed that is capable of supporting life is essentially nil which is why even many atheist/agnostic scientist admit the appearance of design.

So given, we have a planet whose life sustaining properties appears to be by design.  That however is a long way from actually LIFE itself.  

“According to geneticist Michael Denton, the break between the non-living and the living world ‘represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological systems, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.’1 Even the tiniest of bacterial cells, weighing less than a trillionth of a gram, is ‘a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of 100 thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world’.
Furthermore, according to Denton, there seems to be little evidence of evolution among cells: ‘Molecular biology has also shown us that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."

But still I am aware that by passing electrical current through chemical solutions scientist have been able to produce 22 of the 23 amino acids necessary for life and that fact is pretty well know, because its very common on this forum to see people on this forum speak of the assumptions drawn from this.  I think Bullets moniker says something to the effect that life is the product of the available chemistry set.  Regarding this I would like to quote Lennox addressing what is NOT generally known about this theory.

“Now suppose that we want to make a protein that involves 100 amino acids (this would be a short protein – most are at least three times as long). Amino acids exist in two chiral forms that are mirror images of each “other, called Land D forms. These two forms appear in equal numbers in prebiotic simulation experiments, so that the probability of getting one or other of the forms is roughly 1/2. However, the great majority of the proteins found in nature contain only the L-form. The probability of getting 100 amino acids of L-form is, therefore, (1/2)100, which is about 1 chance in 10 to the 30 power. Next, our amino acids have to be joined together. Functional protein requires all the bonds to be of a certain type – peptide bonds – in order for it to fold into the correct 3-dimensional structure. Yet in prebiotic simulations no more than half of the bonds are peptide bonds. So the probability of a peptide bond is about 1/2, and again the probability of getting 100 such bonds is 1 in 10 to the 30 power.  Thus the probability of getting 100 L-acids at random with peptide bonds is about 1 in 10to the 60power. In all known forms of life, the chirality of the molecules and the peptide bonds are maintained by the genetic machinery. In the absence of such complex information processing molecules in the prebiotic state, variable chirality, bonding and amino acid sequence would not lead to reproducible folded states which are essential to molecular function.”

Paul Davies puts it in a more understandable perspective.

“There are immense thermodynamic problems in producing the peptide chains of amino acids. The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes the natural tendency of closed systems to degenerate, to lose information, order and complexity; that is, to increase their entropy. Heat flows from hot to cold, water flows downhill, cars rust, etc. Now the second law has a statistical character – it does not absolutely forbid physical systems going against the flow ‘uphill’, but it stacks the odds very much against it. Davies says, ‘It has been estimated that, left to its own devices, a concentrated solution of amino acids would need a volume of fluid the size of the observable universe, to go against the thermodynamic tide, and create a single small polypeptide spontaneously. Clearly, random molecular shuffling is of little use when the arrow of directionality points the wrong way.”


According to both Lennox and Davies the chance formation of even these small chain amino acids however unlikely is dwarfed by the problem of protein building. Proteins necessary for life must be assembled in a very specific way and again as with simple amino acids there must be a physical mechanism in place to do this.  It's not a matter of just combining ingredients and providing energy.  They must be assembled.  As I quoted earlier, Sir Fred Hoyle put the odds of ONE simple protein spontaneously forming at 10 to the 40,000 power to one.

But even say that happens, it does not in itself account for life.  Again to quote Davies
“Life is actually not an example of self-organization. Life is in fact specified, i.e. genetically directed, organization. Living things are instructed by the genetic software encoded in their DNA (or RNA). Convection cells form spontaneously by self-organization. There is no gene for a convection cell. The source of order is not encoded in software, it can instead be traced to the boundary conditions in the fluid... In other words, a convection cell’s order is imposed externally, from the system’s environment. By contrast, the order of a living cell derives from internal control “as yet gives no clue how the transition is to be made between spontaneous, or self-induced organization – which in even the most elaborate non-biological examples still involves relatively simple structures – and the highly complex, information-based, genetic organization of living things”

From what I gather this is the death nail in the coffin for those who hold to the theory of life from non- life.  Even if you can get past the insurmountable odds of amino acid formation, protein formation, and some way or another posit a primitive cellular mechanism which assembles these proteins, there is something really, really BIG still missing.......blueprints with which to build off of and that requires an architect.  

I see no other way around it.  It takes an intelligent input at least at this level to account for life.  

“Stephen Meyer puts the issue this way: ‘Self-organizational theorists explain well what does not need to be explained. What needs explaining is not the origin of order... but the origin of information.”


I could go on and on regarding the concept of information, how it plays into both DNA and mRNA, and how it takes both of these to be present for cell replication to occur, and its simply amazing even for a novice like me.  But, there's really no point.  I hope I've given you enough info whereas even if you don't agree with me that at least you are willing to cede that I have enough evidence to justify what I believe.

In the end, I agree with you that both science and religion give two accounts of the same story, but i do not think they contradict each other as many mistakenly and wrongly assume, and honestly  we should expect no contradiction if both are telling the truth, albeit from different perspectives.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

When calculating the mathematical odds of a specific result, we begin with a specific goal in mind and measure the probability of getting there from a starting point.  We can calculate that the odds of being dealt a royal flush from a shuffled deck of 52 cards is 0.000154%, but this calculation begins with the knowledge that a royal flush is the goal.  If we begin with no specific goal in mind and are dealt 5 cards, the odds of being dealt 5 cards is 100%.  

If we approach the issue of calculating the odds of "life as we know it today", we should not assume that "life as we know it today" was the original goal.  

If I randomly mix varying amounts of 1000 different shades of paint resulting in a color I name "Blue #50", the odds of me creating "Blue #50" are 100%.  But when I ask someone else to attempt to re-create "Blue #50" without a recipe, just randomly, the odds become very slim.  

If we view "life as we know it today" as a specific goal which was known from the beginning, the odds of the cosmos getting specifically here are extraordinary.  If we view "life as we know it today" as the result of everything that has occurred, randomly or not, the odds of us getting here are 100%.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Stripe.  Sorry so late finishing my response.
> 
> I have previously provided data that suggests there very fact that a a planet was formed that is capable of supporting life is essentially nil which is why even many atheist/agnostic scientist admit the appearance of design.
> 
> ...



I've always given you, and anyone, enough room to believe what they will and I, yes actually, demand the same from you. 

I liken talking about panspermia to discussing the Big Bang. It makes for fine conversation, but there's no more reason for me to believe what I do than there is for you. 

I like the idea of panspermia because it agrees with our observable universe. 

It's a fact that meteors travel from Mars to the Earth, so the concept at least has legs. The big missing factor, and one that we can't know is how that life got started. 

To me, it's more likely that in a vast universe that the correct number of lucky breaks happened to produce us than there is a mystical being who poofed us into existence. I can't offer any more evidence for mine than yours, up to a point, but the main takeaway here is that my model gets closer to that moment while being in agreement with the current universe than the explanations of religion do. 

In other words, since we can observe extremophiles in the current biosphere, it's not too hard to imagine, in the current absence of proof, them existing in other similar areas in the universe. 

Further, since we know that material can be carried between planets, because we picked up a sample of it in that meteor, it isn't too far to go to think that this has likely been going on since planets existed in the universe. 

As to the paint metaphor, if you're looking for a targeted result, I would agree with your assertions. However, we only have one example of Blue #40, right now, but that doesn't mean that Blue #39 doesn't exist somewhere else. Life may not be carbon based everywhere, so the rules could open up for other examples of life. 

My faith in panspermia leaves me open to the possibility of being wrong. There may not be life elsewhere in the universe and I'd be ok with that. My question to you is, seeing as how the Bible makes no mention of life in other parts of the universe, or really anything outside of the sphere of the earth, how would you square that?

Would our observations be wrong if we encountered, say Vulcans, or would that be yet another example of the errant Bible? At what point does the Bible go from being intermittently errant for you to being completely wrong?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> When calculating the mathematical odds of a specific result, we begin with a specific goal in mind and measure the probability of getting there from a starting point.  We can calculate that the odds of being dealt a royal flush from a shuffled deck of 52 cards is 0.000154%, but this calculation begins with the knowledge that a royal flush is the goal.  If we begin with no specific goal in mind and are dealt 5 cards, the odds of being dealt 5 cards is 100%.
> 
> If we approach the issue of calculating the odds of "life as we know it today", we should not assume that "life as we know it today" was the original goal.
> 
> ...





Good post!


----------



## David Parker (Sep 26, 2013)

Timing is everything hunter


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Would our observations be wrong if we encountered, say Vulcans, or would that be yet another example of the errant Bible?



How would vulcans make the Bible errant?  

I would square it as one of those things that wasn't necessary to the work.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How would vulcans make the Bible errant?
> 
> I would square it as one of those things that wasn't necessary to the work.



Vulcans would be relevant if they have a soul.  The book of Revelations should mention more than a new heaven and a new earth if life from other planets will be involved.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Vulcans would be relevant if they have a soul.  The book of Revelations should mention more than a new heaven and a new earth if life from other planets will be involved.



That's my thinking. One garden of Eden, one earth don't exactly jive with multiple planets with life.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's my thinking. One garden of Eden, one earth don't exactly jive with multiple planets with life.



Unless they bring a Bible with them and worship Jesus.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Unless they bring a Bible with them and worship Jesus.



Those who don't are soulless heathens and don't figure into the story.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 26, 2013)

HUH? 

2012.....so life on Earth has only been here one year? 
That's some fast evolution right there!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2013)

As a believer, what would you do if the aliens came and told you about the history of their race and how they used to worship gods until they realized that they didn't exist?  Would you believe them and forsake your beliefs in gods?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> The book of Revelations should mention more than a new heaven and a new earth if life from other planets will be involved.



Ok, so we are discussing the universe according to HawgJawl.

Them's your rules.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> As a believer, what would you do if the aliens came and told you about the history of their race and how they used to worship gods until they realized that they didn't exist?



I would listen, and try to find the source of their realization.  Let's face it, just because they are aliens doesn't mean they are enlightened to the origins of the universe.....they will just have a mastery of space travel beyond our current comprehension.



ambush80 said:


> Would you believe them and forsake your beliefs in gods?



Ambush, I would view their perspective in the same way I view yours.  I would listen, and consider their logic, then square that with the things we know.  

You also "realized" at one point that god doesn't exist.  Personally, I am not convinced, and it's not because your case lacks logically, it's just that I see it differently.  I have always understood where you and the others are coming from.  So, I would most likely see the aliens story the same way.

Then I would ask them for a ray-gun.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 26, 2013)

> I would view their perspective in the same way I view yours. I would listen, and consider their logic, then square that with the things we know


What would they have to present to you for you to determine it was more logical than what you believe and would that change your beliefs?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've always given you, and anyone, enough room to believe what they will and I, yes actually, demand the same from you.
> 
> I liken talking about panspermia to discussing the Big Bang. It makes for fine conversation, but there's no more reason for me to believe what I do than there is for you.
> 
> ...




Stripe it must have been a long day for you.  You're running post together.  The blue 50 wasn't mine.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What would they have to present to you for you to determine it was more logical than what you believe and would that change your beliefs?



Perhaps an origins model that doesn't come across as speculation specifically designed to theorize an existence without an original cause.  The oc has to be addressed, because infinite everything makes no sense to me.  That would have to be proved scientifically. 

I have said this before, but the oc issue is the logical basis for my belief in God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Stripe it must have been a long day for you.  You're running post together.  The blue 50 wasn't mine.



I understand that, I wasn't limiting my post to a response to one person. It was a response to you, and a continuation of other topics.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 27, 2013)

David Parker said:


> technological development primarily but even in a more general sense, we have used our brains to more effect.


 We have a language far less complex than a whale, we have to use multiple trainers to train dolphins / porpoises because they end up training the trainer.  Marine mammals in many many ways "use their brains to more effect" than humans do.  So You have quantify a statement when you say, "We have used our brains to more effect," because that is simply not an accurate statement, even in a "general sense."


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 27, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Vulcans would be relevant if they have a soul.  The book of Revelations should mention more than a new heaven and a new earth if life from other planets will be involved.



Not really.  The Bible is a story of our planet.  When you read a history book about WW2, you don't have a chapter in the 1944 timeframe talking about the American Indian Wars or VietNam war.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps an origins model that doesn't come across as speculation specifically designed to theorize an existence without an original cause.  The oc has to be addressed, because infinite everything makes no sense to me.  That would have to be proved scientifically.
> 
> I have said this before, but the oc issue is the logical basis for my belief in God.



So if they showed you that all the matter and energy is infinite and eternal then you would change your mind?


----------



## David Parker (Sep 27, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> We have a language far less complex than a whale, we have to use multiple trainers to train dolphins / porpoises because they end up training the trainer.  Marine mammals in many many ways "use their brains to more effect" than humans do.  So You have quantify a statement when you say, "We have used our brains to more effect," because that is simply not an accurate statement, even in a "general sense."



I'd strip everthing away and conclude the point of being here is to exist.  We are far exceeding intelligent sea life in numbers and have reason to guide our effort toward securing our place.  Truly there is no promise that either man or beast will survive global catastrophe but I give us the edge.  Quantified or not.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I would listen, and try to find the source of their realization.  Let's face it, just because they are aliens doesn't mean they are enlightened to the origins of the universe.....they will just have a mastery of space travel beyond our current comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pew pew... Good response.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> We have a language far less complex than a whale, we have to use multiple trainers to train dolphins / porpoises because they end up training the trainer.  Marine mammals in many many ways "use their brains to more effect" than humans do.  So You have quantify a statement when you say, "We have used our brains to more effect," because that is simply not an accurate statement, even in a "general sense."



We agree!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> Not really.  The Bible is a story of our planet.  When you read a history book about WW2, you don't have a chapter in the 1944 timeframe talking about the American Indian Wars or VietNam war.



The bible is a story book that is supposed to answer the deepest questions... the meaning of life. I don't feel like it can leave that part out...


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Sep 27, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3899183/
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Possible this happened,  before?



"Their composition therefore has always been seen as an indication that the precursors to the evolution that led to the origins of life could have come from the extraterrestrial material of meteorites," study lead author Sandra Pizzarello, a biochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, told SPACE.com. "Since the origins of life are utterly unknown, the idea has its merits."

The merits of a scientific idea should be judged by the weight of the experimental evidence rather than the dearth of alternate ideas.

Taking the stuff from the meteorite (or identical chemicals) into the laboratory and coming out with some kind of nucleic acid-based protein synthesis would indicate plausibility much more convincingly than "the idea has merits since the origins of live are utterly unknown."

The reasoning here is no better than many ideas of Aristotelian Physics which were proffered and widely believed simply because competing (and experimentally tested) ideas had not yet been offered.  Likewise, as a hypothesis of origins, the meteor idea is no more reasonable than many theories of disease in the 15th-17th centuries that held sway because the germ theory had not yet been offered.

How much sense does it make to say "The miasmic theory of disease has merit, because the origins of disease are utterly unknown"?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

I agree... so why can you take the bible and say something like there's no better explanation... if I don't fill in all of the gaps with this leather bound, then it'll be utterly unknown.



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> "Their composition therefore has always been seen as an indication that the precursors to the evolution that led to the origins of life could have come from the extraterrestrial material of meteorites," study lead author Sandra Pizzarello, a biochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, told SPACE.com. "Since the origins of life are utterly unknown, the idea has its merits."
> 
> The merits of a scientific idea should be judged by the weight of the experimental evidence rather than the dearth of alternate ideas.
> 
> ...


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Sep 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree... so why can you take the bible and say something like there's no better explanation... if I don't fill in all of the gaps with this leather bound, then it'll be utterly unknown.



Good example of the strawman fallacy.  

If one begins with the axioms of science, "creationist" explanations fall flat, because they violate the axioms.

If one begins with the axioms of faith, the door is open to supernatural explanations, and one has a completely different epistemology.  

Judging supernatural explanations with a naturalistic/scientific epistemology is just as flawed as weighing naturalistic explanations with an epistemology that allows for supernatural events.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

Strawman!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Pew pew... Good response.



Thanks.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So if they showed you that all the matter and energy is infinite and eternal then you would change your mind?



Ultimately, the concept of infinite energy and infinite matter is the god of your gaps.  You know it, I know it, and the lord knows it.  

How do you know matter cannot be created?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ultimately, the concept of infinite energy and infinite matter is the god of your gaps.  You know it, I know it, and the lord knows it.
> 
> How do you know matter cannot be created?



I don't know ANYTHING that's infinite or eternal.  That's y'alls schtick.  

I've got no use for those concepts.  


But just to entertain the notions, I have an easier time believing that all the stuff is eternal as opposed to an eternal being.  Mostly because I can see the stuff.  The being.....nowhere to be found.  Furthermore, the 'being' just sounds like some thing that children or ancient, uneducated, primitive humaniods would come up with.  

Boy, people sure have flossed the notion of the being into some weird configurations.   I was watching something the other night and they were showing Catholic devotees celebrating something or other and was dumbfounded by the zeal and the pageantry.  They were carrying these giant, ornate floats on their backs.  I flipped the channel and there were some people in Jerusalem kissing a stone and weeping and shuddering.  On the next channel, an African witch doctor was dancing around covered in feathers eating ashes from the camp fire.  The next day at my parents church somebody wore a moo moo and got dunked into a tank.  Later that day I saw people closing their eyes and talking to no one apparent prior to eating.  

To someone not involved in any of that stuff it just seem ridiculous.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> To someone not involved in any of that stuff it just seem ridiculous.



I understand.  The moo-moo reference was pretty funny.  Never thought of it life that.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ultimately, the concept of infinite energy and infinite matter is the god of your gaps.  You know it, I know it, and the lord knows it.
> 
> How do you know matter cannot be created?



My concept of the world around me is based upon my life experiences.  Everything I could touch or see during my lifetime, was made from material or elements that already existed.  Everything I am familiar with is the result or by-product of  intentional or unintentional rearranging of exiting elements.  Not the majority, but all.  That is why my default belief is that the basic building blocks have always existed. 

What life experiences do you have involving things that "poofed" into existence from nothing?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> What life experiences do you have involving things that "poofed" into existence from nothing?



None.  Which is why I gotta figure something poofed it all in the first place.  It didn't all just get here then start rearrangin' itself to make HawgJawl.

Let's think about this logically, which side is the one which thinks everything came from nothing, or is infinite, and which side thinks one thing came from nothing and is infinite.  You are making every single particle in the universe god-like with your assumption that it always was and has created all that is.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> None.  Which is why I gotta figure something poofed it all in the first place.  It didn't all just get here then start rearrangin' itself to make HawgJawl.
> 
> Let's think about this logically, which side is the one which thinks everything came from nothing, or is infinite, and which side thinks one thing came from nothing and is infinite.  You are making every single particle in the universe god-like with your assumption that it always was and has created all that is.



Option "A" - The elements existed.

Option "B" - The elements "poofed" into existence.

During our lifetime, everything we touch, see, or know about through science, conforms to Option "A".

During our lifetime, nothing we touch, see, or know about through science, conforms to Option "B".

Based upon this, the default belief concerning events prior to our lifetime, should be Option "A" in the absence of evidence contadicting this.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> None.  Which is why I gotta figure something poofed it all in the first place.  It didn't all just get here then start rearrangin' itself to make HawgJawl.
> 
> Let's think about this logically, which side is the one which thinks everything came from nothing, or is infinite, and which side thinks one thing came from nothing and is infinite.  You are making every single particle in the universe god-like with your assumption that it always was and has created all that is.



I think you're hung up on this idea that everything that exists is ALOT of stuff.  And it is a huge amount compared to what your average Joe is familiar with. But it can ALL fit on the 'head of a pin' and that can be shown mathematically.  I'm not thoroughly convinced that theoretical maths are completely accurate but I understand enough of them to realize that they come from 2+2 and the like.  That's pretty solid.

I also understand that the notion of god(s) comes from prehistoric homonids cowering from lightning which is not solid at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Option "A" - The elements existed.
> 
> Option "B" - The elements "poofed" into existence.
> 
> ...



That's solid.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Option "A" - The elements existed.
> 
> Option "B" - The elements "poofed" into existence.
> 
> ...



Is this limited to only things that we can observe? 

What about the elements and other particles created by LHC impacts?


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 30, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is this limited to only things that we can observe?
> 
> What about the elements and other particles created by LHC impacts?



I realize that my statement is essentially 100% verses 0%, but even if evidence proved it to actually be 99% to 1%, my default belief will still be the 99%.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Based upon this, the default belief concerning events prior to our lifetime, should be Option "A" in the absence of evidence contadicting this.




First, that's your rule.  Second, we can use the logic we have to consider origins.  You are trying to explain that there was no origin, that everything there is always was and will be.  I'm saying "that don't make no sense."

I am going to tie in my response to you and Ambush for the sake of brevity:



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> But it can ALL fit on the 'head of a pin' and that can be shown mathematically. I'm not thoroughly convinced that theoretical maths are completely accurate but I understand enough of them to realize that they come from 2+2 and the like. That's pretty solid.



Ok.  I was doing some research on the topic the other day because I figured this thread was heading back that direction, and I found theories which contradicted this statement.  In fact, the "big bang" was not a pin-head in space exploding, it was space itself exploding, which means everything including space.....no necessarily small, could have been huge.

My point is we are discussing theory, and none of us has an answer.  The value of the theory is irrelevant to the size of the original matter, it is the eternal nature of that matter.  It could be the size of a pinhead, or a planet, solar system, galaxy, etc.  But, in order for that to be accurate, the computer I am typing on has to be eternal and assembled by chance because everything I do is just a random act of the universe if I am nothing more than arranged particles doing what arranged particles do.

^^^^In such circumstance, there is just as likely there to be computers on Mars without an intelligent designer.  Neither you nor I would expect to find a computer on Mars, becuase computers don't make themselves.  Intelligence makes computers.  But, if intelligence is just synapses firing, then why are those synapses limited to the carrier, why doesn't it exist outside the arrangements we have?

Could the elements that create my thoughts arrange without me?  Is there a solar system out there where there is intelligence outside the body?  If everything required is already there.....why not?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> I realize that my statement is essentially 100% verses 0%, but even if evidence proved it to actually be 99% to 1%, my default belief will still be the 99%.



Fair enough, my LHC example was only one. 

Take E=MC^2 and the atomic bombs. We've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that matter can transform to energy equivalent to the mass * the speed of light squared, so the reverse is also true. 

There's still the matter of deriving where the initial energy content of the universe came from, but we've shown that, given that initial energy, and the expansion/cooling of the universe, that all of the observable matter could be created. 

It's a long way from conclusively proving it, but when in the context of the CMB it is a lot closer to truth than a shot in the dark. 

It's a lot like looking at a murder scene with one person dead from a GSW that matches the caliber of weapon that a person covered in blood, matching the type of the victim, and GSR found at the scene would show. 

It's not open and shut, but it's enough to continue the line of thought and pursuit of them as the prime suspect.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> None.  Which is why I gotta figure something poofed it all in the first place.  It didn't all just get here then start rearrangin' itself to make HawgJawl.
> 
> Let's think about this logically, which side is the one which thinks everything came from nothing, or is infinite, and which side thinks one thing came from nothing and is infinite.  You are making every single particle in the universe god-like with your assumption that it always was and has created all that is.



I would like a show of hands on which members of this site think that "Something came from Nothing"


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> First, that's your rule.  Second, we can use the logic we have to consider origins.  You are trying to explain that there was no origin, that everything there is always was and will be.  I'm saying "that don't make no sense."
> 
> I am going to tie in my response to you and Ambush for the sake of brevity:
> 
> ...



Define "Space" as you are using it above.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

From: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. [Q1] [Q2] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[Q3] [Q4] These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.[Q5] In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.
Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe. On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation.[Q6] The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out.[Q7] [Q8] Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.[Q9] The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.[Q10] [Q11]

In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.[Q12]
Is the "Nothing" of the Physicists Really Nothing?

Now we come to an objection to all of the above. The objection is that when the physicists quoted refer to "nothing," they are, in fact, referring to something other than the literal absence of anything. To try to keep things as clear as possible, I will refer to the absence of anything as "nothingness." So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics is not nothingness. Quote [Q5] may seem, at first glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in a preexisting spacetime.

What can one say about this challenge? There are two things to say:

(i) First off, the reason most people affirm the proposition that something cannot come from nothing is because they do not see things coming into existence out of the empty space around them. They are willing to equate empty space with nothingness. Hence, showing that particles do, and universes might, spontaneously arise from empty space, does address the intent behind popular claims that the universe could not have come into existence from nothing. Once one has shown that universes can arise from empty space, not many people will remain so secure about their metaphysical intuitions that they will insist that empty spacetime itself must have come from something.

(ii) Second, even if we do count spacetime as something, this would have no bearing on Vilenkin-type proposals. At this point, critics contend that Vilenkin's proposal requires quantum mechanics, and that the laws of quantum mechanics are "something." This is a strange claim, for two reasons: (1) It seems as though the critics wish to reify natural laws, which are not things, but just descriptions of the way things work. It is unclear why one should regard the fact (if it is one) that universes come into existence from time to time in a manner describable by quantum mechanics, as a thing. (2) If if one does count facts as things, then nothingness is a logical impossibility: if nothing existed, then it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning that at least one thing (the fact that nothing exists) exists, which would, in turn, contradict the original hypothesis. Consequently, if one counts facts as things, then some fact must obtain; but, if at least one fact must obtain, why should it not be the fact that quantum mechanics applies?
Conclusion

I have not attempted to argue that the universe did come from nothing, or even to survey everything in cosmology or philosophy that bears upon the question of whether or not the universe was created. All I have attempted to do is to argue that an atheistic universe ex nihilo, in both a popular and a technical understanding of nihil, is possible. Even that modest step is bitterly contested by many theists, but modern physics appears to underwrite it decisively.
Supporting Quotes

[Q1] Paul Davies:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)

[Q2] Richard Morris:

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris 1990: 24)

[Q3] Paul Davies:

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies 1994: 32)

[Q4] John Barrow and Joseph Silk:

[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute—only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk 1993: 65-66)

[Q5] Richard Morris:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25)

[Q6] Heinz Pagels:

Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels 1982: 247)

[Q7] Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

[Q8] Paul Davies:

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies 1983: 31-32)

[Q9] Edward Tryon:

[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. (Tryon 1973:397)

[Q10] Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger 1996)

[Q11] William Kaufmann:

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval ... short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann 1985: 529-532)

[Q12] Martin Bojowald:

Vilenkin's tunneling condition relies on another effect of quantum mechanics, again a consequence of properties of the wave function. A wave function can often penetrate barriers with its tails, even if those would be too high for a corresponding classical particle...Vilenkin proposed in 1983 that the universe itself might have emerged by such a tunneling process. Our universe would the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big bang and its singularity. But from where did the universe tunnel, and from where came the bulk of the wave function, whose tail our universe is supposed to be, before the tunneling process? Vilenkin's answer, obvious only at first sight: From nothing ...

One can hardly attribute physical meaning to tunneling from nothing in a literal sense. Regardless, Vilenkin's postulate does have sense with regard to the wave function of the universe, endowed by the tunneling condition with certain initial values at vanishing volume. (Bojowald 2010: 222)

References

Barrow, John D. & Silk, Joseph. 1993. Left Hand of Creation. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Bojowald, Martin. 2010. Once Before Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks.

Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam.

Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.

Stenger, Victor. 1996. Inflation and creation. URL:<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/inflat.html>. Spotted 15 April 2011.

Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

"Nothing has not existed"

http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/

It is a lot to read through but I think it is worth the effort. This is the pdf article from the link.
http://baseforreincarnation.files.w...63851089-principle-base-for-reincarnation.pdf


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2013)

> In such circumstance, there is just as likely there to be computers on Mars without an intelligent designer. Neither you nor I would expect to find a computer on Mars, becuase computers don't make themselves. Intelligence makes computers.


It never made sense to me that this argument is put forth and requires us to believe that it applies all the way up until it gets to God. Then it no longer applies. If God made himself this theory is not valid because that alone proves something did in fact come from nothing. If the theory is valid then something made God. 
So its either valid or its not. In my mind anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I would like a show of hands on which members of this site think that "Something came from Nothing"


Not me. If there is nothing that nothing can not produce something.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Define "Space" as you are using it above.



The area where nothing is, gaps in the universe.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I would like a show of hands on which members of this site think that "Something came from Nothing"



....or is infinite, is the quote.  You are infinite, but were arranged by nothing, right?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Not me. If there is nothing that nothing can not produce something.



I agree. This whole "something from nothing" idea seems to have come from theists putting the statement out there to enhance their line of thought, but I have never talked to a single person that actually thinks once upon a time there was absolutely nothing and then all of a sudden there was something.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I agree. This whole "something from nothing" idea seems to have come from theists putting the statement out there to enhance their line of thought, but I have never talked to a single person that actually thinks once upon a time there was absolutely nothing and then all of a sudden there was something.



So.....you belive in infinite everything.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The area where nothing is, gaps in the universe.



Where are these gaps?
Are you talking about the area in between objects like planets and asteroids and Stars and such things? The areas between Galaxies?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> From: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html.



....I will see your "infidels.com" reference, and raise you a:

http://www.creationstudies.org/

I will take your link seriously when you take mine seriously.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Where are these gaps?
> Are you talking about the area in between objects like planets and asteroids and Stars and such things? The areas between Galaxies?



I'm talking about outter space, as folks refer to it since they are kids, 'cause it's not really the point.

But, for the sake of this discussion, I will let you define it, and we can work from there.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....or is infinite, is the quote.  You are infinite, but were arranged by nothing, right?



"Nothing" is not capable of doing anything. There has to be something to arrange things.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> It never made sense to me that this argument is put forth and requires us to believe that it applies all the way up until it gets to God. Then it no longer applies. If God made himself this theory is not valid because that alone proves something did in fact come from nothing. If the theory is valid then something made God.
> So its either valid or its not. In my mind anyway.



There's another step.  It's the original cause issue.  Everything natural must be infinite or created.  If it is created, something outside the natural would have to have gotten the ball rolling.  I don't believe everything is infinite, and I don't believe everything is chance (see my computer on Mars example."

If everything is by chance, we should not be surprised to find anything we have, anywhere in the universe.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Nothing" is not capable of doing anything. There has to be something to arrange things.



Yes.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> So.....you belive in infinite everything.



I believe that Energy and matter/anti-matter exist in varying forms infinitely.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'm talking about outter space, as folks refer to it since they are kids, 'cause it's not really the point.
> 
> But, for the sake of this discussion, I will let you define it, and we can work from there.



All I know, or have learned, is that there is matter/anti-matter and energy wherever there seems to be "nothing" out in Outer Space.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I believe that Energy and matter/anti-matter exist in varying forms infinitely.



So, your thoughts are eternal?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.



Where we differ is that I think you believe that there is a source that exists on a realm outside of "nothing", had an idea that it should create something, and somehow did.

I think there has always been some sort of energy, which constantly has and does change forms, that is responsible. I do not think it existed in a realm outside of "nothing" and poofed up some sort planned blueprint of literally billions of Galaxies that contain hundreds of billions of stars that each have millions of billions of planets around them and only ONE planet was planned to have billions of living creatures on which only ONE of those species being able to be given the opportunity to Look like, and Understand the Divine wishes of anything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> So, your thoughts are eternal?



The second law of thermodynamics supports this.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> So, your thoughts are eternal?



I have no idea. I think they are electrical energy that are thoughts at one point and are some form of energy at another.
Do I believe that everything I have ever thought is floating around just waiting to be discovered....No.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Where we differ is that I think you believe that there is a source that exists on a realm outside of "nothing", had an idea that it should create something, and somehow did.



Yep.



bullethead said:


> I think there has always been some sort of energy, which constantly has and does change forms, that is responsible. I do not think it existed in a realm outside of "nothing" and poofed up some sort planned blueprint of literally billions of Galaxies that contain hundreds of billions of stars that each have millions of billions of planets around them and only ONE planet was planned to have billions of living creatures on which only ONE of those species being able to be given the opportunity to Look like, and Understand the Divine wishes of anything.



I understand, but, to me at least, it does not make sense for us to exist as chance.  Perhaps it is my ego, or just a look at the universe as we know it.  Add in that I cannot comprehend an eternal energy without a source, or, eternal matter.  Eternal matter makes less sense to me than eternal energy.

Why does gravity do what gravity does?  Could chance have just as easily left it non-existent?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The second law of thermodynamics supports this.



See below.....



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> I have no idea. I think they are electrical energy that are thoughts at one point and are some form of energy at another.



And I think they are "nothing."  Yes, there are lectrical impulses firing, neurotransmitters working together, but the words forming in my head exist nowhere, as nothing, until they are spoken.  Then, they become energy in the form of soundwaves, but they are no longer thoughts.  In my head, I have written entire volumes on various subjects, each laced with poetic musings on life and existence.  They never translated to paper (at which point they become matter), or words (at which point they are energy), so they do not exist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> See below.....
> 
> 
> 
> And I think they are "nothing."  Yes, there are lectrical impulses firing, neurotransmitters working together, but the words forming in my head exist nowhere, as nothing, until they are spoken.  Then, they become energy in the form of soundwaves, but they are no longer thoughts.  In my head, I have written entire volumes on various subjects, each laced with poetic musings on life and existence.  They never translated to paper (at which point they become matter), or words (at which point they are energy), so they do not exist.




You're not going deep enough. 

Those thoughts, directly, are not in the universe outside of your head, but they do cause effects outside. 

Your body, creating those thoughts, uses a finite amount of energy, of which you get from burning food, and converting to heat and chemicals for your body to work. That activity is transformed to heat, which is then radiated to the universe at large, and the excess/waste of the food you ate is transformed to feces. So yes, the thoughts in your own head contribute to the entropy of the system.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It did not make sense to me at one time either. Then I thought if God is an Eternal Energy...what was his source?

Gravity is a by product of Mass spinning. The Masses are spinning because of the energy STILL left over from a giant explosion 13.7 Billion years ago. Gravity is defined and understood and I know you must have looked it up at some point. Planets ,stars etc did not all pop out "as-is" directly from that explosion, line up and have a pre-mixed bag of ingredients sprinkled onto them. it took TIME, more time than any one of us could imagine to get to exactly where they are now. It took billions of years to form each one, each one is a result of what it currently is... based off of the distance it is from a heat source and the available chemicals and other factors. Every single one of them, including ours is changing and will change. Every single one of them, including ours is PERFECT for what they are made up of. We are constantly comparing planets as to why they are not like ours, heck we should be thankful we are not like them....or No Us is the result!! The Sun IS going to burn out at some point. This planet WILL not continue to be as it is right now when that happens. There are many possibilities of what will happen to the planet slowly as this scenario takes place but I seriously doubt that some mystical being from beyond known space and time has that planned for us. It IS what it IS, enjoy it while you can. Everything seems to have an action and reaction in correlation to something else. We are just a result of all the actions and reactions that have gotten us, and every other single thing in this Universe, to where we are right now. It was different before, it is what it is right now, and it will change later. We just cannot comprehend the amount of time and actions/reactions that happen in order to pull it all off. I do not think there is a Goal. I think there are results.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> See below.....
> 
> 
> 
> And I think they are "nothing."  Yes, there are lectrical impulses firing, neurotransmitters working together, but the words forming in my head exist nowhere, as nothing, until they are spoken.  Then, they become energy in the form of soundwaves, but they are no longer thoughts.  In my head, I have written entire volumes on various subjects, each laced with poetic musings on life and existence.  They never translated to paper (at which point they become matter), or words (at which point they are energy), so they do not exist.



You bugger......You didn't read the link I posted or you might not be thinking of thoughts as nothing. They are a "known state" or an "unknown state" but they DO exist or you could not have those thoughts.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You bugger......You didn't read the link I posted or you might not be thinking of thoughts as nothing. They are a "known state" or an "unknown state" but they DO exist or you could not have those thoughts.





You are correct, I didn't read it.  I will when time allows (coming on month-end close, so I am a little bit limited with time).  When I do, I will do my best to have an intelligent counter-point


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's your ego.  Just telling you as a dude.

That fear that you felt without God, that was the natural state.  Don't saddle your kids with that crutch.  Teach them how to live like there's no tomorrow.

When you're alone, love the alone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Add in that I cannot comprehend an eternal energy without a source, or, eternal matter.


So would I really be stretching if I asked couldn't you compare God which you have no problem comprehending to an eternal energy without a source which you can not?
Edit - I guess Bullet asked basically the same question but am still interested in what you think about this specifically.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So would I really be stretching if I asked couldn't you compare God which you have no problem comprehending to an eternal energy without a source which you can not?



It goes back to the OC......can the physical exist without the not-physical?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So would I really be stretching if I asked couldn't you compare God which you have no problem comprehending to an eternal energy without a source which you can not?
> Edit - I guess Bullet asked basically the same question but am still interested in what you think about this specifically.



That is the Magical line which the religious draw and the non believers erase.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So would I really be stretching if I asked couldn't you compare God which you have no problem comprehending to an eternal energy without a source which you can not?
> Edit - I guess Bullet asked basically the same question but am still interested in what you think about this specifically.




And this is the weird thing to me: that they give it a personality and intellect.   Where is the evidence of that?

If the OC exists, our Universe may have been the result of the last one in a long line of supernatural flatulence.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

It occurs to me that over the past 5 years on here that the more that I type the words "Supreme Being" the more ridiculous they get.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It goes back to the OC......can the physical exist without the not-physical?


Im thinking this -


> eternal energy without a source


Could be used in part to describe or are attributes given to this -


> God


If you disagree then I can see why one is comprehendible and not the other. In which case... never mind 
I think what Im asking is, is it possible you are being selective in your comprehension? Or maybe does faith replace comprehension when it comes to God?
They just don't seem that far apart from each other to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I think what Im asking is, is it possible you are being selective in your comprehension? Or maybe does faith replace comprehension when it comes to God?
> They just don't seem that far apart from each other to me.



It is easier for me to see comprehend something beyond the physical kick-starting the physical than it is for eternal energy and matter, if that makes sense.

I will readily admit that I _want_ to believe in God.  Perhaps that skews things a bit (I am admitting for the sake of honest discussion).  However, that does not change my belief that I am just not able to see how energy and matter can be eternal.......given that they are physical.  I have seen models which indicate the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing, how can that be if it is eternal?  My point is that there are models for any number of things which are generally self-serving to the perspective one wants to believe.

......and, ultimately, I do not believe life can come from inanimate matter.  I have seen the models where it is theoretically possible, but, again, we can theorize on a lot of stuff.  But to say it all happened by chance, given the right mixture of stuff, is just difficult for me to comprehend.  It is not difficult at all for me to think of our universe as a bubble, and outside that bubble exists things we cannot comprehend.  That sounds like the mindless ramblings of a cave-man, I know, but, it becomes more logical the mroe we understand our universe (expanding/contracting).  We had some good threads on the topic.....but from where are we expanding, from where are we contracting?  If you answer "nothing," then you have just given an answer with as much basis as my belief in a "supreme being."  Truthfully, we do not know.  We take what we have as evidence, put it together, and form our conclusions.  I see life as evidence of God.  I see existence of evidence of origins.  You(pl) do not.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....I will see your "infidels.com" reference, and raise you a:
> 
> http://www.creationstudies.org/
> 
> I will take your link seriously when you take mine seriously.



I take all links and information seriously. I just tend to gravitate to the ones that seem more plausible and make the most sense to me. Details and repeatable tests that we take as facts seal the deal.

I'll give you just one example of why I tend not to go with creationstudies.org "facts"


> The Age of the Earth...
> 
> As Bible believers we are always faced with the question of time. The 'molecules to men' model of Darwinian evolution requires an enormous amount of time to be factored in to the equation. It is really not much more than the 'magic ingredient' in the Theory of Evolution or the concept that given enough time, anything is possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It is easier for me to see comprehend something beyond the physical kick-starting the physical than it is for eternal energy and matter, if that makes sense.
> 
> I will readily admit that I _want_ to believe in God.  Perhaps that skews things a bit (I am admitting for the sake of honest discussion).  However, that does not change my belief that I am just not able to see how energy and matter can be eternal.......given that they are physical.  I have seen models which indicate the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing, how can that be if it is eternal?  My point is that there are models for any number of things which are generally self-serving to the perspective one wants to believe.
> 
> ......and, ultimately, I do not believe life can come from inanimate matter.  I have seen the models where it is theoretically possible, but, again, we can theorize on a lot of stuff.  But to say it all happened by chance, given the right mixture of stuff, is just difficult for me to comprehend.  It is not difficult at all for me to think of our universe as a bubble, and outside that bubble exists things we cannot comprehend.  That sounds like the mindless ramblings of a cave-man, I know, but, it becomes more logical the mroe we understand our universe (expanding/contracting).  We had some good threads on the topic.....but from where are we expanding, from where are we contracting?  If you answer "nothing," then you have just given an answer with as much basis as my belief in a "supreme being."  Truthfully, we do not know.  We take what we have as evidence, put it together, and form our conclusions.  I see life as evidence of God.  I see existence of evidence of origins.  You(pl) do not.


Gotcha. By the way Im not debating your points. Things start getting foggy for me on this particular subject of discussion. I think my position is "I don't know". For me personally though I can't make the jump from "I don't know" to God.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Gotcha. By the way Im not debating your points. Things start getting foggy for me on this particular subject of discussion. I think my position is "I don't know". For me personally though I can't make the jump from "I don't know" to God.



It's a heck of a leap. A heck of a leap.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll give you just one example of why I tend not to go with creationstudies.org "facts"





....but, you do get the point I am making, right?  Those folks on that link can build you a model explainging anything you want to know, and it fits nicely in with their belief system.  I know, I took a class taught by one of them once, very convincing, very confident.  Ultimimately, I left as skeptical of their "literal 7, 24 hr days" as I am of your infinite matter.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Gotcha. By the way Im not debating your points. Things start getting foggy for me on this particular subject of discussion. I think my position is "I don't know". For me personally though I can't make the jump from "I don't know" to God.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It is easier for me to see comprehend something beyond the physical kick-starting the physical than it is for eternal energy and matter, if that makes sense.
> 
> I will readily admit that I _want_ to believe in God.  Perhaps that skews things a bit (I am admitting for the sake of honest discussion).  However, that does not change my belief that I am just not able to see how energy and matter can be eternal.......given that they are physical.  I have seen models which indicate the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing, how can that be if it is eternal?  My point is that there are models for any number of things which are generally self-serving to the perspective one wants to believe.
> 
> ......and, ultimately, I do not believe life can come from inanimate matter.  I have seen the models where it is theoretically possible, but, again, we can theorize on a lot of stuff.  But to say it all happened by chance, given the right mixture of stuff, is just difficult for me to comprehend.  It is not difficult at all for me to think of our universe as a bubble, and outside that bubble exists things we cannot comprehend.  That sounds like the mindless ramblings of a cave-man, I know, but, it becomes more logical the mroe we understand our universe (expanding/contracting).  We had some good threads on the topic.....but from where are we expanding, from where are we contracting?  If you answer "nothing," then you have just given an answer with as much basis as my belief in a "supreme being."  Truthfully, we do not know.  We take what we have as evidence, put it together, and form our conclusions.  I see life as evidence of God.  I see existence of evidence of origins.  You(pl) do not.




I liked believing in god. I really, really did.  The trouble for me was that I made him to be what I wanted him to be even when I believed in the Christian God.   I did the same to all the other god's I sampled.  Eventually I just made up a mish mash of all of them, keeping the parts I liked.   When I realized that the notion of him didn't come from me but from someone else's ideas the wheels came off.

I can see our Universe as a distinct bubble and imagine, IMAGINE other realms of existence.  I can even imagine that any beings in those other realms may have notions (however they experience notions) of god(s).


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....but, you do get the point I am making, right?  Those folks on that link can build you a model explainging anything you want to know, and it fits nicely in with their belief system.  I know, I took a class taught by one of them once, very convincing, very confident.  Ultimimately, I left as skeptical of their "literal 7, 24 hr days" as I am of your infinite matter.



Anyone can say anything and sound convincing, it is the verifiable facts that separate what I read and what I tend to believe.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It did not make sense to me at one time either. Then I thought if God is an Eternal Energy...what was his source?
> 
> Gravity is a by product of Mass spinning. The Masses are spinning because of the energy STILL left over from a giant explosion 13.7 Billion years ago. Gravity is defined and understood and I know you must have looked it up at some point. Planets ,stars etc did not all pop out "as-is" directly from that explosion, line up and have a pre-mixed bag of ingredients sprinkled onto them. it took TIME, more time than any one of us could imagine to get to exactly where they are now. It took billions of years to form each one, each one is a result of what it currently is... based off of the distance it is from a heat source and the available chemicals and other factors. Every single one of them, including ours is changing and will change. Every single one of them, including ours is PERFECT for what they are made up of. We are constantly comparing planets as to why they are not like ours, heck we should be thankful we are not like them....or No Us is the result!! The Sun IS going to burn out at some point. This planet WILL not continue to be as it is right now when that happens. There are many possibilities of what will happen to the planet slowly as this scenario takes place but I seriously doubt that some mystical being from beyond known space and time has that planned for us. It IS what it IS, enjoy it while you can. Everything seems to have an action and reaction in correlation to something else. We are just a result of all the actions and reactions that have gotten us, and every other single thing in this Universe, to where we are right now. It was different before, it is what it is right now, and it will change later. We just cannot comprehend the amount of time and actions/reactions that happen in order to pull it all off. I do not think there is a Goal. I think there are results.



Although I agree with you on most points you've made in this thread, I've got to call your bluff on this one.  Gravity is one of the biggest mysteries in the world of physics.  It is not quite understood, and it's origins have never been attributed to spinning mass.  You can however, create the illusion of gravity by spinning an object, quite like what you feel in carnival rides.  But to say gravity is a product of spinning mass is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!  Come on man, pulling "facts" out of a hat don't legitimize your argument.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Although I agree with you on most points you've made in this thread, I've got to call your bluff on this one.  Gravity is one of the biggest mysteries in the world of physics.  It is not quite understood, and it's origins have never been attributed to spinning mass.  You can however, create the illusion of gravity by spinning an object, quite like what you feel in carnival rides.  But to say gravity is a product of spinning mass is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!  Come on man, pulling "facts" out of a hat don't legitimize your argument.



You are correct about the spinning part. It is the Earth's Mass that keeps us planted on it.
Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles.

I had centrifugal force in my head and that would have us all flying off instead!......if it were not for Gravity.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Where we differ is that I think you believe that there is a source that exists on a realm outside of "nothing", had an idea that it should create something, and somehow did.
> 
> I think there has always been some sort of energy, which constantly has and does change forms, that is responsible. I do not think it existed in a realm outside of "nothing" and poofed up some sort planned blueprint of literally billions of Galaxies that contain hundreds of billions of stars that each have millions of billions of planets around them and only ONE planet was planned to have billions of living creatures on which only ONE of those species being able to be given the opportunity to Look like, and Understand the Divine wishes of anything.



What is energy made of? Do you have any examples of energy, which is not even a substance, turning into physical matter?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 30, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The second law of thermodynamics supports this.



From what I understand, the laws of physics did not exist at the point of singularity.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What is energy made of? Do you have any examples of energy, which is not even a substance, turning into physical matter?



Particle Accelerators turn energy into matter.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2013)

http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/10types/typesnuclear.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's a heck of a leap. A heck of a leap.


Yup. Im more comfortable with "I don't know" than saying the answer to something that cant be proven is something that cant even be proven to exist. I guess that's where faith comes in to replace the lack of facts.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Particle Accelerators turn energy into matter.


Can you point out where you got this info?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

From what I understand, particle accelerators speed up particles(hence the name), I'm not seeing how it turns a non substance into physical matter.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy





bullethead said:


> http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/10types/typesnuclear.html



Those are different types and forms of energy, I'm not arguing that there are not many types of energy or that energy doesn't exists.

What is energy made of?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can you point out where you got this info?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator
> 
> From what I understand, particle accelerators speed up particles(hence the name), I'm not seeing how it turns a non substance into physical matter.



You asked so I pointed you in the right direction. If you want the answer do the homework. I tried to post links that kept it fairly simple.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Those are different types and forms of energy, I'm not arguing that there are not many types of energy or that energy doesn't exists.
> 
> What is energy made of?



You not arguing there are many types of energy and you are not reading any of the articles. The headline "Fusion" in the second link gives a brief explanation of what you are asking. It specifically talks about the Big Bang.
I am not a physics professor but I was able to find answers to the exact questions you are asking so all I ask is that if the links I provided are not acceptable then please type in "Can energy be turned into matter" and then "What is energy made of" and you will have so much to read through that you won't even have time to check AAA today.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2013)

And then check into Photons having a life of a billion-billion years.......mind boggling.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/24/what-is-the-lifetime-of-a-photon


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> From what I understand, the laws of physics did not exist at the point of singularity.



Well, laws did exist, but there's no way for us to know what they were, short of observing the LHC and making inferences. However, everything that happened immediately following the Big Bang was a result of natural laws that we can observe. 

Therefore, at T+1 from Big Bang, measured in Planck time, and if you haven't you should check that out, E=MC^2 was in full effect, so that energy could expand and cool and form matter/antimatter pairs, although with a slightly less than perfect 50:50 ratio, since absolutely nothing in the universe is perfect.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I liked believing in god. I really, really did.  The trouble for me was that I made him to be what I wanted him to be even when I believed in the Christian God.   I did the same to all the other god's I sampled.  Eventually I just made up a mish mash of all of them, keeping the parts I liked.   When I realized that the notion of him didn't come from me but from someone else's ideas the wheels came off.



The thing about God is that, if he exists, he is what he is, regardless of what we want him to be.  Which is why I say that a man killing goats in his name does not change him, nor does a preacher who misses the entire point of Grace, nor does a dork accountant who spends way too much time on a hunting forum (me).  We all have our notions, but the variance amongst them are irrelevant to the reality.  If God exists, I cannot change him, neither can you.

That's why the differing belief systems don't really work as evidence to the contrary of his existence for me, if that makes any sense.



ambush80 said:


> I can see our Universe as a distinct bubble and imagine, IMAGINE other realms of existence.  I can even imagine that any beings in those other realms may have notions (however they experience notions) of god(s).



One of those beings could be God.........


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 1, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> However, everything that happened immediately following the Big Bang was a result of natural laws that we can observe.



What are the odds of that?  All these laws existing (which don't have to), working together, across billions of years, to form you.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What are the odds of that?  All these laws existing (which don't have to), working together, across billions of years, to form you.



Either way all the odds, all the everything, turned out to be what it is.
God or chance, we are still here as is everything else in the entire Universe.
What makes me think it all is more a product of randomness is the random uncaring acts throughout the Universe. The Sun is going to burn itself out and this planet will cease to exist as we know it....if we are not blasted by an asteroid that will wipe out all human kind as we know it first. Or another of many possibilities that will cease existence.
It does not make sense that there is a plan or a planner. It does not make sense that an intelligent being would create something it cares about and sit it in the middle of an 6 lane highway on top of a bundle of dynamite with a lit fuse.
I cannot comprehend any being capable of creating things on this level and not valuing it.
If there is a "God" responsible for this then I would think it is along the lines of a Psychopathic Genius Artist  Madman with Homicidal tendencies that creates then smashes the creation so no one but itself could appreciate it. Otherwise why design a self destruct button?....or so many self destruct button?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Either way all the odds, all the everything, turned out to be what it is.
> God or chance, we are still here as is everything else in the entire Universe.



Yes.



bullethead said:


> The Sun is going to burn itself out and this planet will cease to exist as we know it....if we are not blasted by an asteroid that will wipe out all human kind as we know it first. Or another of many possibilities that will cease existence.



Yes.    



bullethead said:


> What makes me think it all is more a product of randomness is the random uncaring acts throughout the Universe.......It does not make sense that there is a plan or a planner. It does not make sense that an intelligent being would create something it cares about and sit it in the middle of an 6 lane highway on top of a bundle of dynamite with a lit fuse.



You are looking at it from a negative instead of a positive.  If there were no death, there would be no life becuase death would not clear the previous generation for the next, leaving few resources.  Life is short, but I view it as a gift, I'm sure you do as well.....regardless of the giver.



bullethead said:


> I cannot comprehend any being capable of creating things on this level and not valuing it.
> If there is a "God" responsible for this then I would think it is along the lines of a Psychopathic Genius Artist  Madman with Homicidal tendencies that creates then smashes the creation so no one but itself could appreciate it. Otherwise why design a self destruct button?....or so many self destruct button?



The possibilities are endless.  But, consider that if a God exists, he views the universe as a whole where you view it from an individual perspective.  That does not help when we see evil in the world.  But it may open up the possibilities that there are reasons for the natural cycles we find cruel.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What are the odds of that?  All these laws existing (which don't have to), working together, across billions of years, to form you.



I agree, that's why I'm an agnostic rather than atheist. I can recognize the sheer odds that any of this would happen. I still think that the universe isn't in its only iteration and that other "settings" have been tried before. There's no evidence of this, of course, so it's my faith, but it's also one that we may eventually come to explain given the forward leaning nature of science. They don't rest on their laurels, they tackle the next problem.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's why the differing belief systems don't really work as evidence to the contrary of his existence for me, if that makes any sense.



It doesn't for me either. It works as evidence that none of the belief systems are worth any more of my time.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JB I don't sugar coat or make excuses for the flaws.

I am fine with death and the human life cycle. I don't want to live forever. I am talking about the entire planet/solar system/galaxy/Universe. It is both beautiful and ugly, forgiving and cruel, precise and random. I have accepted that it is what it is and right here and now I get to exist and play my part in it all. I am convinced there is no one or nothing overseeing it all in any sort of caring way that a parent would have for it's children. That is baloney. The arguments and excuses just do not add up with results. I have considered the possibilities and in the Good Book that everyone always refers to, there is no plan for the Universe. That book was written for the people(God's Children) on this planet. What is in that book and what goes on in real life are two different things on many levels. The discussion about it in here says something for the lack of universal agreement and understanding of it all despite the claims of having a divine all knowing all powerful, capable of anything deity involved. It does not add up. Neither does the randomness of the Universe yet here we are. I can accept  the odds and randomness of the Universe, I am disappointed that our supposed creator is bound to the same odds and randomness.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Either way all the odds, all the everything, turned out to be what it is.
> God or chance, we are still here as is everything else in the entire Universe.
> What makes me think it all is more a product of randomness is the random uncaring acts throughout the Universe. The Sun is going to burn itself out and this planet will cease to exist as we know it....if we are not blasted by an asteroid that will wipe out all human kind as we know it first. Or another of many possibilities that will cease existence.
> It does not make sense that there is a plan or a planner. It does not make sense that an intelligent being would create something it cares about and sit it in the middle of an 6 lane highway on top of a bundle of dynamite with a lit fuse.
> ...


There was a documentary on last night that addressed this very subject. It was about the Top 10 ways humans can go exstinct. Absolutely amazing and in no way was it just theories. All based on scientific data, facts and history of our planet. Showed how we are tracking the paths of asteroids/meteors/comets etc and the absolute inevitability that we will be hit again. Whats suprising is this was only like number 8 on the list. Earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases etc were all addressed. Should have been a required show for those who say that God made a perfect world just for us. Not hardly.  The human species is one of the most vulnerable things that exist in this world.
And again this show was not about theories. It was completely about what science knows to be facts, it shows you how those facts are true and the history of our world.
Its absolutely amazing what science is doing and how many facts and how much information is out there the average person has no clue about.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> There was a documentary on last night that addressed this very subject. It was about the Top 10 ways humans can go exstinct. Absolutely amazing and in no way was it just theories. All based on scientific data, facts and history of our planet. Showed how we are tracking the paths of asteroids/meteors/comets etc and the absolute inevitability that we will be hit again. Whats suprising is this was only like number 8 on the list. Earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases etc were all addressed. Should have been a required show for those who say that God made a perfect world just for us. Not hardly.  The human species is one of the most vulnerable things that exist in this world.
> And again this show was not about theories. It was completely about what science knows to be facts, it shows you how those facts are true and the history of our world.
> Its absolutely amazing what science is doing and how many facts and how much information is out there the average person has no clue about.



In so many ways our current knowledge about the understanding of the world and universe has long surpassed the ancient writings (that includes scientific and religious writings). With the billions of people on the planet most of us are comfortable within our own little world we have built for ourselves. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, whatever helps a person get through life and deal with the inevitable is fine with me. I am glad that I have arrived to the conclusions that I have and I am content to continue the search. I will never know all the answers but it is fun searching while it lasts. I am glad that I am not set in any one particular way and I am glad that I have done enough research into many different things.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> JB I don't sugar coat or make excuses for the flaws.



Not sure I am sugar coating anything.  I call life a gift, that's how I feel.  I could'a said "all things work together for the good...." but I try to avoid scripture in here, no sense in debating the merits of something with somebody who doesn't believe it, so I stuck with individual anecdotes.



bullethead said:


> I am talking about the entire planet/solar system/galaxy/Universe. It is both beautiful and ugly, forgiving and cruel, precise and random.



Could it exist as a non-cyclical thing?



bullethead said:


> I can accept  the odds and randomness of the Universe, I am disappointed that our supposed creator is bound to the same odds and randomness.



In what way is the creator bound?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The human species is one of the most vulnerable things that exist in this world.



Yet, we dominate it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yet, we dominate it.



So did the dinosaurs, for millions of years, until one day...they didn't and were wiped off the face of the erf.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So did the dinosaurs, for millions of years, until one day...they didn't and were wiped off the face of the erf.



The point was specific to human vulnerability.  I don't doubt that humans are fragile.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The point was specific to human vulnerability.  I don't doubt that humans are fragile.



And my point was that all "dominance" over a planet is fleeting, like the fleas dominating the dog.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 2, 2013)

> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> The human species is one of the most vulnerable things that exist in this world





JB0704 said:


> Yet, we dominate it.


I think this might fall under the category of "brain flatulence", which we all have from time to time so I will refrain from posting link after link after link of hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, earth quakes, volcanos etc where us "dominant" humans are reduced to screaming, hysterical, horrified nothings running for our lives because we have absolutely zero power to stop whats happening.
We dominate only until the world around us decides to dominate us.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I think this might fall under the category of "brain flatulence", which we all have from time to time so I will refrain from posting link after link after link of hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, earth quakes, volcanos etc where us "dominant" humans are reduced to screaming, hysterical, horrified nothings running for our lives because we have absolutely zero power to stop whats happening.
> We dominate only until the world around us decides to dominate us.





http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?ID=2147487569&ProductID=180471282

http://www.globalindustrial.com/g/o.../securall-tornado-and-hurricane-safe-shelters

....and, my personal favorite:

http://www.guardian-self-defense.com/bear_spray_category.htm?gclid=CIfY2quz-LkCFcFj7AodWw8AyA

T-rex had nothing on us


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And my point was that all "dominance" over a planet is fleeting, like the fleas dominating the dog.



Yes, but why?  Is it because of random changes and chance, or is it by design?  

I just put 3 links above for Earthquake bracing of structures, hurricane shelters, and bear spray.  We do alright for a fragile species (and yes, we are very fragile compared to dinos).


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?ID=2147487569&ProductID=180471282
> 
> http://www.globalindustrial.com/g/o.../securall-tornado-and-hurricane-safe-shelters
> 
> ...



Mans insistence that it can beat nature is hilarious sometimes. I hope those shelters are comfortable because if you get buried by molten lava you'll be there a while. Well until you die anyway.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> In what way is the creator bound?



Bound within the confines of the pages of a book. I don't think of what could happen in a person's imagination, I look for what is actually happening and has happened and will happen without a hint of creator in the mix.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but why?  Is it because of random changes and chance, or is it by design?
> 
> I just put 3 links above for Earthquake bracing of structures, hurricane shelters, and bear spray.  We do alright for a fragile species (and yes, we are very fragile compared to dinos).



Why is it fleeting? I would argue, but have no concrete proof of, one aspect is because of evolution and biological arms races, with the other aspect being pure randomness. 

That's not really a why, if you take down another level, merely a how. I'm also not overly concerned with a why since my worldview doesn't hinge on complete understanding, or rationalization, of it. I'm not saying yours does, just that mine doesn't. 

We've done alright, yes, but we've also done pretty badly, too. The Bubonic plague and Spanish flu, if we hadn't had upper level brains, could have very easily been extinction level events, and even might have been with the upper brain. Just because we have the capacity to understand how to save ourselves, doesn't mean we will be capable, either through inability or lack of time, to stop them all. 

Case in point, the B612 foundation is working on asteroid prevention, which is cool, but does absolutely 0 to help with the eventuality of another CME knocking out the power grid. It's happened before, and so long as the sun shines, will happen again, unless we figure out how to stop it. Humanity will eat itself, by and large, if our current civilization, wholly dependent on electricity, were to collapse. No water from the lines, no gas from the pumps, no money to barter with, and no ability to care for themselves. 

Now, all of this could be by design, I don't think so, but the reasons why aren't answered by faith either. What would God's purpose of an asteroid be, or a CME, or a "zombie" inducing infection? Could it be the veiled occurrence of the rapture? Maybe, but we won't know that until he reveals himself to us, and some here would say that we still would have to be willing to hear him, or see him, do so. 

My question there is this; "What's the difference between the hobo at the gas station saying he's Jesus, on his second coming, and the actual Jesus, if no proof is required?" What would it take to convince you (infinitive, not directly) that this guy is telling the truth, and why is my skepticism about his divine status so "evil"?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but why?  Is it because of random changes and chance, or is it by design?
> 
> I just put 3 links above for Earthquake bracing of structures, hurricane shelters, and bear spray.  We do alright for a fragile species (and yes, we are very fragile compared to dinos).



The thing is, if you want to see it, you will see design; like the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast.   You stack the deck.  No matter what happens, no matter what we may discover about the world or ourselves you can say that god did it or it was his plan.  (I mean you as in believers in general)

The history of belief shows that with every new discovery, the religious community has to backtrack on it's claims.  Now there's all this Old Earth/New Earth creationism.  When people start coming to their senses in a few generations, all the weird stuff: staffs to snakes, burning bushes and even resurrections will be shelved under "metaphor".  Eventually I think that people will recognize religion for what it is.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Mans insistence that it can beat nature is hilarious sometimes. I hope those shelters are comfortable because if you get buried by molten lava you'll be there a while. Well until you die anyway.



I'm sure such a fate would be very uncomfortable, but of all the critters that have ever roamed the earth, we have the best chance to think our way around such a mess......not saying we are invincible, but, we are a lot more durable, and it ain't for physical prowess.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I look for what is actually happening and has happened and will happen without a hint of creator in the mix.



Then we are back where we started......where did all this come from?  You say "it's always been here," I say "something got it started."


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My question there is this; "What's the difference between the hobo at the gas station saying he's Jesus, on his second coming, and the actual Jesus, if no proof is required?" What would it take to convince you (infinitive, not directly) that this guy is telling the truth, and why is my skepticism about his divine status so "evil"?



I don't think your skepticism is evil.

To answer your question, I dunno, perhaps a miracle.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 2, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My question there is this; "What's the difference between the hobo at the gas station saying he's Jesus, on his second coming, and the actual Jesus, if no proof is required?" What would it take to convince you (infinitive, not directly) that this guy is telling the truth, and why is my skepticism about his divine status so "evil"?



There is no difference, you should treat the Hobo as he is indeed Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 3, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'm sure such a fate would be very uncomfortable, but of all the critters that have ever roamed the earth, we have the best chance to think our way around such a mess......not saying we are invincible, but, we are a lot more durable, and it ain't for physical prowess.


Sure I agree with that. But your point here is only that we dominate over other animals. As of today every animal, human or otherwise that's anywhere near Yellowstone when it erupts is dead regardless if they ordered a shelter off the internet, or can solve complex math problems etc.
I mean in New Orleans mans best effort to think around a mess was putting up levees'. In spite of that New Orleans still got a little moisture in the streets.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure I agree with that. But your point here is only that we dominate over other animals. As of today every animal, human or otherwise that's anywhere near Yellowstone when it erupts is dead regardless if they ordered a shelter off the internet, or can solve complex math problems etc.



Then we can agree that man is very vulnerable, yet more durable than most species?




WaltL1 said:


> I mean in New Orleans mans best effort to think around a mess was putting up levees'. In spite of that New Orleans still got a little moisture in the streets.



I don't think we are going to refer to the debacle in New Orleans as man's best effort.......that was a total failure for man to actually use his brain (best defense against nature).  I will agree that it adds to the vulnerability side of this debate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 3, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> > Then we can agree that man is very vulnerable, yet more durable than most species?
> 
> 
> Absolutely we can agree. And you get that absolutely because you used the word "most". If you had said "all" I would have to learn more about micro organisms and all those tiny things before I could agree.
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 3, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't think your skepticism is evil.
> 
> To answer your question, I dunno, perhaps a miracle.



Thank you, but I was speaking from the perspective of the deity I am questioning that it would considered a sin, and thus evil.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thank you, but I was speaking from the perspective of the deity I am questioning that it would considered a sin, and thus evil.



Humor me for a sec, if you don't mind, and check out the below scripture:



> 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,



.....if your skepticism were to one day lead you to an answer, would it still be evil?  Personally, I think it would be an example of things working together for good, but that is a big picture thing.  I know my previous skepticism brought me to a much more solid faith than that which I was forced to have as a child.  My faith is my own now, because I believe it, and I can give you an answer why I have hope.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Absolutely we can agree. And you get that absolutely because you used the word "most". If you had said "all" I would have to learn more about micro organisms and all those tiny things before I could agree.



  Yea, I saw that coming, and made sure the statement avoided absolutes......great minds, and all 



WaltL1 said:


> True but up until the point the levees' washed away I assume man pretty much figured we had nature dominated in this case. We only know now that it was a total failure because nature showed man who was really in charge.



I remember as a kid hearing about how one day the big one was going to wipe out New Orleans.  I think it is a better example of poor use of resources than anything, but were chasing rabbits now.



WaltL1 said:


> And my friend, to me, you are still a long way away from showing this to be true -



The only thing I can imagine being sturdier than us is roaches, and Honda Accords......those two can survive anything


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 3, 2013)

> JB0704 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, I saw that coming, and made sure the statement avoided absolutes......great minds, and all
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If not, I thought it might interest you. If you've seen it, never mind.



I had not seen that, about the best youtube clip I have seen in a very long time!!  Great stuff.  Never think about jungle people with musical abilities.  Very, very cool.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 3, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I had not seen that, about the best youtube clip I have seen in a very long time!!  Great stuff.  Never think about jungle people with musical abilities.  Very, very cool.


Yeah it was interesting. He wouldn't allow them to take his picture because he holds the belief that it will steal his soul but videoing him was fine and he was singing about Jesus.
Basically a mixture of his original beliefs and new beliefs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 4, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Humor me for a sec, if you don't mind, and check out the below scripture:
> 
> 
> 
> .....if your skepticism were to one day lead you to an answer, would it still be evil?  Personally, I think it would be an example of things working together for good, but that is a big picture thing.  I know my previous skepticism brought me to a much more solid faith than that which I was forced to have as a child.  My faith is my own now, because I believe it, and I can give you an answer why I have hope.



We agree on that much, that if my skepticism led me to faith that it would have served a purpose. However, what do you think of my skepticism that leads me away?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> However, what do you think of my skepticism that leads me away?



I don't know that there is a difference between your skepticism and mine.  I honestly was on the edge of being convinced that God just did not exist, or was indifferent.  I questioned religion, logic, and particularly the literal nature of the Bible.

I first had a deer stand epiphany on God followed by a drunken "coming to Jesus."

Now......I know that the Bible is very clear on the sinful nature of being drunk.  However, in my drunken state one night I realized that I was the biggest loser that I knew.  

 I don't know that the drunken night was evil because it led to good.  

These days, I do love my beer, but I avoid gettin' drunk even though I know some good has come out of it in the past even where it is clearly sinful.  In the same way I don't question my faith, even though I know that the questioning had a very good result in the past.  I'm comfortable now.  

All that to say this......there ain't nothing wrong with examining why you believe what you believe, or if what you believe is true.  I think it would be a lot worse to be an agnostic professing to be a Christian than just being honest about who and what you are.  Your questions will lead you where they should, and that's between you and God (or you and you if you are correct  ).


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 4, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know that there is a difference between your skepticism and mine.  I honestly was on the edge of being convinced that God just did not exist, or was indifferent.  I questioned religion, logic, and particularly the literal nature of the Bible.
> 
> I first had a deer stand epiphany on God followed by a drunken "coming to Jesus."
> 
> ...


So JB what was it that clicked in your brain that changed this -





> I realized that I was the biggest loser that I knew.


Just saying ok God is real wouldnt change somebody from being a loser. They would just be a loser who believed in God right? So you had to make some changes in your behavior etc to go from loser to not loser in your mind.
Couldn't you have made those same changes without accepting God? Why do you think God was your motivator instead of family or your own personal desire not to be a loser or any number of other reasons?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So JB what was it that clicked in your brain that changed this -



I was spending a Friday night gettin' wasted with a buddy, no girls in sight.  I was a single Dad with a dead-end job who had been given the cold-shoulder by his hom echurch over his divorce.  I was mad at the entire universe for my situation..........

........and then it occurred to me that I was my biggest problem.



WaltL1 said:


> Just saying ok God is real wouldnt change somebody from being a loser. They would just be a loser who believed in God right? So you had to make some changes in your behavior etc to go from loser to not loser in your mind.



Yes, absoultely.



WaltL1 said:


> Couldn't you have made those same changes without accepting God? Why do you think God was your motivator instead of family or your own personal desire not to be a loser or any number of other reasons?



Understand that I believe, and have said a lot on here, that I do not think a person has to be a Christian to live a good and moral life, nor do I think that Christianity inherently makes anybody better than anybody else.  As with anything in life, it's what we do with what we have, and how an individual applies it which makes the difference on a human level.

So, I can only relate this to me.......

I felt like I was fighting against what I believed, and getting in my own way.  There is some more to this that I will avoid for the sake of this board, but I had to clear "me" out of the way, and follow those things that I believed to be true.....teachings of Jesus.  Now, many people can do the same without actually believing in Jesus, but, as a general rule, Christianity (NT stuff), is a pretty good blueprint for life......do unto others, don't get drunk, be good to your wife and kids, love your neighbors, feed the poor, help the needy, all that.....very good things.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 4, 2013)

> So, I can only relate this to me.......


Actually that's exactly what I was looking for.


> Understand that I believe, and have said a lot on here, that I do not think a person has to be a Christian to live a good and moral life, nor do I think that Christianity inherently makes anybody better than anybody else. As with anything in life, it's what we do with what we have, and how an individual applies it which makes the difference on a human level.


I take this for granted when we discuss things and you can take it for granted that I know this about you.


> Christianity (NT stuff), is a pretty good blueprint for life......do unto others, don't get drunk, be good to your wife and kids, love your neighbors, feed the poor, help the needy, all that.....very good things


I agree. I don't need to say any more than that because you already know where I would go from there.
And thanks for you sharing your personal thoughts.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually that's exactly what I was looking for.
> 
> I take this for granted when we discuss things and you can take it for granted that I know this about you.
> 
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 4, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know that there is a difference between your skepticism and mine.  I honestly was on the edge of being convinced that God just did not exist, or was indifferent.  I questioned religion, logic, and particularly the literal nature of the Bible.
> 
> There might not have been a difference when you were doubtful of your faith, but I would believe that there is now. Mainly in the fact that you're comfortable, as you say below, and that you've dropped the questions.
> 
> ...



The breaking point, and I believe I speak for many on here, is when believers take those beliefs and try to pass them off as facts. No one is ever, as far as I've seen, saying that the belief is the problem. It's when someone tries to say that it's a fact that Jesus walked on water, when all that it really is that it is a fact that the Bible said it happened, but the actual event is open for debate. I've read books that had the earth being obliterated by alien forces, asteroids, and grey goo of our own creation. Just because a book says something happened doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of objective quantification. 

If the Bible says that Jesus walked on water and you (infinitive) want to believe it then that's fine. Until we can get parchments from a skeptic, who never converted, or of fishermen that were on the water at the time, stating that this did happen then it is a single sourced event that should be, relative to factuality, treated with skepticism. 

Now, some will say that those books I read were obviously fiction, and I'll agree that they were in the section of the store under that heading, but it all falls back to belief. It's one source for "information" and if I want to believe that it did, or will happen, then that's fine. It's when I try to hold it out as factual, in direct contravention of observable evidence, that it breaks and as well it should. 

When SFD says that it was a fact that Jesus did X, we scoff, because it is single sourced. The only fact is that the Bible says that it happened and the Bible relies completely on itself for its authority. So if you, again infinitive, want to believe that what the Bible says is fact, then that's fine, but don't expect to be able to hold it up to scrutinizing eyes as fact. 

In my own experience I went from a youthful follower, meaning that I followed my parents to church, and a lot of them, without doing anything but going through the motions. I went to VBS and I smiled at the stories and went along to get along, I did my Communion rites at age 12 like my friends, but there was always a feeling that I had to shut off my brain to do it all. There were so many questions, metaphor or literal translations, conflicting views on murder and violence, hypocrisy of sinful worshippers, and the fashion show of it all. When I said we went to a lot of churches, let me quantify that. Both of my parents were raised Catholic in Wisconsin and Illinois, but there weren't any of those around us. We tried Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, CoG, UMC, and many more that I'm sure I'm forgetting. None of them delved any deeper than the Bible itself, always relying on its authority to justify itself, and brushing off the really interesting questions as things that we just shouldn't worry about. The message to me was that I would have to ignore the dinosaur fossils, the carbon dating of rocks to 4.6 billion years ago, the observable universe as measured by the speed of light being 14 billion years old, that there's little mention of Christ's youth, and, as Hawg has pointed out, the difference in the message from not only denomination to denomination, but from church to church within the same denomination. Like he said, if there's a unified God that all denominations worship then it seems weird that the messages get so garbled, provided that God is supposed to speak to these leaders, directly to the Pope and indirectly to anyone else if Catholicism is to be believed. How then do we have so many religions, with mostly the same creation stories, but with so different interpretations on the impacts of religious law on society. 

To SFD's point, it is curious how so many religions, completely removed by both characters and distance, can come to the same stories regarding floods, ages, and whatnot, but that curiosity quickly evaporates when you put all of them on timelines not only with each other, factor in conquests from one culture to another, as well as the preceding religion. You can almost draw a straight line from a belief of Christianity, and most other religions, to the inclusion/ conquest of another culture and the sources for some of the interesting corollaries between the stories. The dates we observe holidays, the great floods, and many more seem to be conveniences allowed to the incorporation of another culture in order to make the transition more palatable. 

Now, someone mentioned the NT and its rules for life, the golden rule, respecting the elders of your community, and so on, and we agree that they are great rules. However, a lot of people, even those like us who are skeptical, still voluntarily subscribe to them even without the faith imbuing them upon us. That's the most interesting part to me, since that seems to be where the rubber of religion meets the road of reality as a very creative way to lend an air of authority to social rules in order to persuade, or intimidate, those who might have otherwise pushed the bounds. As with any bell curve you'll still have outliers who either don't need the religion to abide by them and will do it of their own volition, and those who will completely ignore religious law like they would man's law. The kicker is what happens in the middle, and you get a very broad level of acceptance. 

I just feel that we've left religion in the dust, as a means of control. If people still want to believe, on a personal, and communal, level, then so be it. I'm all for it if it makes them happy. However, we as a society can agree on the vast majority of laws and customs that were once the sole realm of religion to give credence to, and that requires nothing more than logic. The Golden Rule, for example, has a built in logic check, that doesn't require a God to enforce it. Even without agreeing on the existence of God, you and I can both agree to the notion that it is a bad idea for people to wander the streets doing whatever they please, because a) it's just wrong, and b) they wouldn't appreciate a bigger, stronger version of themselves returning the favor. The idea transcends religion so it would seem to me that two adults should be able to have a conversation about it without one of them going, "Well I do this because my God says so," and just leaving it at that. The Gods, and the commandments, differ from person to person, but there are many moral edicts that are nothing more than a use of deductive reasoning when applied to the consequences. 

That was a lot longer than I intended, but it just seemed to flow out of me, so please pardon my wordiness.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2013)

Striper, good post.  We agree on quite  a few things, I will give a better response after a while.  I got a bunch of post-close reports due and I have been playing on this forum all morning


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 4, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Striper, good post.  We agree on quite  a few things, I will give a better response after a while.  I got a bunch of post-close reports due and I have been playing on this forum all morning



No worries, I need to go check my email extraction.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The breaking point, and I believe I speak for many on here, is when believers take those beliefs and try to pass them off as facts. No one is ever, as far as I've seen, saying that the belief is the problem. It's when someone tries to say that it's a fact that Jesus walked on water, when all that it really is that it is a fact that the Bible said it happened, but the actual event is open for debate. I've read books that had the earth being obliterated by alien forces, asteroids, and grey goo of our own creation. Just because a book says something happened doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of objective quantification.
> 
> If the Bible says that Jesus walked on water and you (infinitive) want to believe it then that's fine. Until we can get parchments from a skeptic, who never converted, or of fishermen that were on the water at the time, stating that this did happen then it is a single sourced event that should be, relative to factuality, treated with skepticism.
> 
> ...



Nice post stripeRR.
The part I highlighted in blue is interesting and I would also like to add that those traits were not invented by Jesus. They were around long before his arrival and the NT tells us what many already knew about treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. Since then, religion almost tries to make those teachings as if Jesus invented them and many followers(in my opinion based off of interaction) believe that....as if humans did not posses those qualities before Jesus or would not have them if Jesus did not live.


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 4, 2013)

I know that most on here want everything fact based, but here's a theory of why there are different denominations and translations of the Bible, and why there is or seems to be different goals for Christians.  When some believe there should be a common goal for all Godly men, but isn't.
If you follow creation and can credit it as being perfect, no sin, briars, shame etc. (and i know most of you dont) Then man sinned after being tempted and each generation is one step further from perfection, subsequently drifting further from God and his message until your left with a populace of nonbelievers.
Back to the meteor, while I'm open minded enough to accept everyone's view of there world, how can one accept that there's no God, because science can't prove it, but believe energy happened on its own without proof.  Or is not really knowing enough?  I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the Atheist mindset.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> I know that most on here want everything fact based, but here's a theory of why there are different denominations and translations of the Bible, and why there is or seems to be different goals for Christians.  When some believe there should be a common goal for all Godly men, but isn't.
> If you follow creation and can credit it as being perfect, no sin, briars, shame etc. (and i know most of you dont) Then man sinned after being tempted and each generation is one step further from perfection, subsequently drifting further from God and his message until your left with a populace of nonbelievers.
> Back to the meteor, while I'm open minded enough to accept everyone's view of there world, how can one accept that there's no God, because science can't prove it, but believe energy happened on its own without proof.  Or is not really knowing enough?  I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the Atheist mindset.



If energy cannot always be, and energy cannot poof into existence on it's own, How can your God?
Once you give a human quality to it, a God is easier to give these magical powers to.


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 5, 2013)

I can see that view, but lets remove the human quality.  Lets assume energy is eternal and somehow evolved over millennia into what we are now.  Is it possible that before this current evolution there was another evolution.  One that started with a higher energy source that evolved into a higher intelligence and power than us, that has the ability to create life, ( a God if you will). And I realize this doesn't explain my God.   I know this is far fetched, but if you accept that human creation is not understood then any theory is possible, right?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> I can see that view, but lets remove the human quality.  Lets assume energy is eternal and somehow evolved over millennia into what we are now.  Is it possible that before this current evolution there was another evolution.  One that started with a higher energy source that evolved into a higher intelligence and power than us, that has the ability to create life, ( a God if you will). And I realize this doesn't explain my God.   I know this is far fetched, but if you accept that human creation is not understood then any theory is possible, right?



When dealing with the unknown any guess is as good as the other. When dealing with known, possibilities are narrowed down to being more likely than not. We know energy can turn into matter and has when the Big Bang occurred, we know that we are made up of matter and we are made up of the same matter that Stars,Planets and everything else in the Universe is made from. We do not know that energy by itself can be intelligent and able to create things by willing them into existence.


----------

