Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
As soon as you present some evidence from quantum physics that is inherently and conclusively linked to the origin of the universe, I will concede this point. But as of now, I have never seen quantum evidence that had any conclusive evidence that could be conclusively and directly link it to the origin of the universe.

Physicists say the evidence will be here within the next 20 years. Hawking is even more optimistic. He says between 5 to 10. Personally, I'm more conservative. I think about 20 years. Either way, the evidence is coming.

Shadowy Man · 03-14-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor

This universe (and planet) is LOADED with trillions of extremely complex laws and schemes that govern the functionality and development of all biological, and non-biological systems.

Actually, you can explain an enormous amount of what we see with a few very simple, basic 'laws'.

Refractor · 03-14-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
This is faulty logic, though. Number 2 should read "virtually all observed physical events have a physical cause that is separate and distinct from the event and is generated within the physical universe." We have absolutely no evidence of causes stemming from the "supernatural."

When we say "universe" we are talking about ALL physical things. How can the ALL physical things also have physical cause? That's impossible. That would be the same as saying that the universe created itself. If the universe didn't exist until it was created, it couldn't have been around to be it's own cause! So its axiomatic and intuitively obvious that the cause was separate and distinct from the universe (which is all physical things). That, by default, means supernatural. You say we have absolutely no evidence of supernatural causes even though logical induction leads to the conclusion that the entire universe itself is one gigantic evidence of a supernatural cause.

Quote:

That isn't even a valid option to consider if your goal is to use established observations to derive probabilistic explanations.

No, what you are suggesting as a modification to number 2 is the only thing that is not a valid because it leads to the logical paradox that the universe caused itself, yet we have no physical evidence that a physical thing than be both it's own cause and effect at the same time.

Quote:

Number 5 would only follow if we were allowed to consider supernatural causes, but nothing in our experience lets us do that. Your whole argument about observations and likelihoods crumbles here.

Not at all. (See previous rebuttals)

Refractor

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
That still doesn't explain why organic molecules would organize themselves into such complex systems, and somehow, have purpose for each system imbued into them.

It's almost if a transcendant lifeforce is manifesting itself into any organic substance...

The problem is that you are looking for purpose. There is no purpose behind chance operations. For every molecule that has manifested into an organic substance, there are trillions upon trillions that tried but failed because they lacked the necessary beneficial qualities. That is chance. Not purpose.

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 01:34 PM

double post

Soma · 03-14-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
The problem is that you are looking for purpose. There is no purpose behind chance operations. For every molecule that has manifested into an organic substance, there are trillions upon trillions that tried but failed because they lacked the necessary beneficial qualities.

Yes, but the things those organic substances have assembled into have purpose: A heart pumps blood throughout the body, a brain coordinates bodily actions, etc.

What causes organic substances to assemble into things which have a purpose? It seems almost as if they are following a design.

Refractor · 03-14-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
Baloney. If you stick some ammonia, methane and a few other simple chemicals into a jar and subject them to ultraviolet light then after a week or two you get a mixture of organic molecules, including amino acids (the building blocks of protein). So current theories propose a "primordial soup" of dilute organic chemicals. Somewhere a molecule happened to form which could make copies of itself out of other molecules floating around in the soup, and the rest is history.

You responded to my comment by saying "baloney" even though I specifically said "living organisms". An amino acid is not a "living organism". So I suggest you put your "baloney" in a sandwich and out of these message boards.....and please, please learn the difference between amino acids and actual living ORGANISMS before you respond in the future.

Thanks!

Refractor

Mageth · 03-14-2003, 01:41 PM

No, what you are suggesting are a modification to number 2 is the only thing that is not a valid because it leads to the logical paradox that the universe caused itself, yet we have no physical evidence that a physical thing than be both it's own cause and effect at the same time.

And first and foremost, you'll also notice I never once claimed that the universe "MUST" have had a cause. I have only claimed that it MOST LIKELY had a cause, and it does.

So its axiomatic and intuitively obvious that the cause was separate and distinct from the universe (which is all physical things).

You're confusing me here. You seem to be claiming that it's axiomatic that the universe has a cause, that the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause (or is only most likely to have a cause), and that the claim that the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause is a logical paradox.

Could you clarify?

Shadowy Man · 03-14-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
When we say "universe" we are talking about ALL physical things. How can the ALL physical things also have physical cause? That's impossible. That would be the same as saying that the universe created itself. If the universe didn't exist until it was created, it couldn't have been around to be it's own cause! So its axiomatic and intuitively obvious that the cause was separate and distinct from the universe (which is all physical things). That, by default, means supernatural. You say we have absolutely no evidence of supernatural causes even though logical induction leads to the conclusion that the entire universe itself is one gigantic evidence of a supernatural cause.

Nope. Sorry. The universe has always been here.

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
Yes, but the things those organic substances have assembled into have purpose: A heart pumps blood throughout the body, a brain coordinates bodily actions, etc.

What causes organic substances to assemble into things which have a purpose? It seems almost as if they are following a design.

It is still chance. The explanation is very lengthy. Basically, when simple yet large molecules (called macromolecules) reproduce, you can detect certain errors in the reproduction. This is due to the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics and the thermal motion of atoms. Under certain conditions and environments, the errors prove to be more beneficial in the molecules that have them, than in the ones that do not. So the errors get passed on. To make a very long story short, this is what is thought how DNA came to be. Remember also that this stuff takes millions of years to develop.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2003, 01:34 PM	#135
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	double post

03-14-2003, 01:41 PM	#138
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	No, what you are suggesting are a modification to number 2 is the only thing that is not a valid because it leads to the logical paradox that the universe caused itself, yet we have no physical evidence that a physical thing than be both it's own cause and effect at the same time. And first and foremost, you'll also notice I never once claimed that the universe "MUST" have had a cause. I have only claimed that it MOST LIKELY had a cause, and it does. So its axiomatic and intuitively obvious that the cause was separate and distinct from the universe (which is all physical things). You're confusing me here. You seem to be claiming that it's axiomatic that the universe has a cause, that the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause (or is only most likely to have a cause), and that the claim that the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause is a logical paradox. Could you clarify?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.