|
Science, or miracle, or both?
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 253
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Science, or miracle, or both?
3
Feb 14, 2024, 8:48 AM
|
|
I once heard a guy propose that given the proper elements and conditions, life isn't really a miracle, it's simply inevitable. Sort of like if you mix yellow and blue you will get green, every time, everywhere in the universe. His idea was that water plus whatever chemicals will eventually lead to life, every time.
That doesn't necessarily speak to the existence or absence of God directly, but if there is one, it might speak to how his machine works. That is, it could be on auto-drive.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlotte-stingray-no-male-companion-232457706.html
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [94487]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95648
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Ex nihilo nihil fit!
2
Feb 14, 2024, 11:15 AM
|
|
When science works its way past that it might make me wonder a bit. Everyone believes what they believe by faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1673
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Ex nihilo nihil fit!
1
Feb 14, 2024, 6:28 PM
|
|
No they don’t. That’s like saying we don’t have sufficient evidence for anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14075
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 12:32 PM
|
|
Goldblum is really smart, and he is from outer space, so maybe he's onto something.
https://youtu.be/sCPbxmnGshI?feature=shared
I heard another earthbound guy say (read, actually) that the formation of life is statistically impossible. (Dr Eugene Koonin, prof at Ga Tech, and other similar people.) The proteins have to line up in a way to form rna, and the chance of that happening randomly is 1 over a number that is larger than the number of atoms in the universe (or some such number). As for every time, we haven't done it once. "If they can put a man on the moon ...". So, define miracle.
"Hey, God, I figured it out. Start with these chemicals and ..."
"Go get your own chemicals."
So, "both" might be the answer, which raises another question: If a miracle begins a thing, is everything that happens downstream a miracle?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
That actually leads me to another philosophical question, which I have never really considered.
Start with the premise that the universe is infinite. We can define it as infinite time, infinite space, I'm not sure an exact definition really matters in this case, for this point.
Given something is infinite, does that then lead to the inevitability that all things will, in time or space, will eventually occur? I'm not really talking about the concept of parallel universes and all of that. In a single, infinite universe, must all things happen, eventually? Or not? I'm not really sure, to be honest.
It's really a question about the nature of infinity and what all that encompasses. It's akin to the idea of a monkey on a typewriter who will eventually, given enough billions of years, type out Romeo and Juliet. Will he also, given infinite time, type out War and Peace, and Wuthering Heights, and the Oxford English Dictionary?
Another version of that would be the stack of cards that, when shuffled enough, will eventually come out Ace-King, in every suite, in order. The probability is incredibly miniscule, but if time and space is infinite, do probabilities even matter?
The implications of infinity are tough to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14075
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:20 PM
|
|
Very fun. Some people have yet to understand that all conclusions contain premises, but that's another subject.
I think you are right that if the universe is infinite, nothing is prevented by small probability. Time is no longer a constraint, as infinite space sort of equals infinite time. So, sure, I suppose everything possible would happen somewhere.
I don't think you are proposing that premise. I think the prevailing view is that it is finite. The proposal for naturally occurring life, as I understand it, is a hypothetical multiverse, which presumably contains infinite universes, and there you go.
And that too is an interesting question: Is there an inconsistency in an atheist proposing infinity as an answer to a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:31 PM
|
|
>I think the prevailing view is that it is finite.
I'm almost tempted to say that because time and space DO exist, the universe must be finite, though it is perhaps imperceptibly large. If the universe was infinite, I'm not sure time and space would matter, or perhaps even exist. That I'll have to ponder a bit more.
>Is there an inconsistency in an atheist proposing infinity as an answer to a problem?
Another interesting point. I'll have to think on that one too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2260]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2652
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 5:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
The agnostic doesn't claim to have any conclusions. That would be you.
Your conclusions are based on the bible being the word of god, a premise for which you have no proof of it being true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94487]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95648
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Our problem with infinite and eternal is that...
1
Feb 15, 2024, 3:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
no one comprehends either. When a conversation broaches those terms our logic/reasoning becomes foolishness. I'm not attacking you or anyone, I just want you to consider the loss of logic we suffer when we consider the infinite.
With our minds we look into a place of darkness, a forbidden place which we can not comprehend. We can speculate but our speculation(s) can be neither proven true nor false. When a man stand and speaks of infinite as if he comprehends it, he humbles us and we are open to a fool's speculation.
'The implications of infinity are tough to grasp.'
Maybe not:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94487]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95648
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You know, the obvious rebuttal to my statement(s) would be...
1
Feb 17, 2024, 11:31 AM
|
|
that from a position of disbelief in God a man would say life on earth seems to be a rarity but it proves that life can occur in this universe. With endless venues the probability that life occurs elsewhere is then 1 or as some like it 100%.
Fordtunate Son, asking how many other places in this vast universe have life is more common sense that asking if it's possible or might it be so.
I don't doubt you take the gloves off when you're addressing me. It's disrespectful as if I've never been a disbeliever!  lol, I disbelieved pretty hard one time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 1:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Wow, the talent in that scene is amazing. No idea Carrey and Wayans were in that movie. Goldbloom and Davis were in this spooky one too, a terrifying remake of the campy 50's original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14075
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Gina had a thing.***
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14075
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
And yes, when that movie came out, we didn't even know who those people were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 1:15 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
>If a miracle begins a thing, is everything that happens downstream a miracle?
That is a really, really, good question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 1:23 PM
|
|
It reminds me of the nature of matter itself mystery. Since atoms, as we know them, are mostly nothing, what is the nature of matter other than mostly nothing?
Where is the matter in an atom - what we call matter is just the illusory, perceptive byproduct of some interaction of those deeper elementary forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14075
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:31 PM
|
|
As I understand it (the amount of which is a drop in a thimble), the distance between a nucleus and an electron is, on scale, similar to planetary distances. And similarly, the distance between atoms. So, the universe is as large looking inward as outward, or something like that. Except that electrons are not physical objects occupying a specific place. Is an atom, as we know it, mostly a mathematical representation? Don't know. But something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:49 PM
|
|
>Is an atom, as we know it, mostly a mathematical representation?
In some ways yes, by necessity. One of the practical problems with things that small is that we "see" by way of light photons bouncing off of the object and then that reflected light striking our eyes. But when the object you are looking at is smaller than a light photon itself, the photon displaces it when it hits it, changing either its position or path. That's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
A rudimentary analogy would be a poll table. You can only "see" a ball, say the 8-ball, if you roll the cue ball to it, and the cue ball then bounces back to your hand. That would be how "sight" works, but with cue balls instead of photons.
But of course, once the cue ball hits the 8-ball, it changes the 8-ball's position, so when the cue ball gets back to your hand, what you "see" of the 8-ball is no longer where it is actually at. You "see" where the ball was, before you impacted it by looking at it. It's a physical limitation of the universe based on the way we physically "see" things.
In the other direction, the speed of light is so slow at the universal scale it's practically motionless. So while a light ray can whip around the earth like 8 times a second or so, it takes several seconds I think to get to the moon, and maybe 15-20 minutes to get to Mars.
So, for those galaxies billions of light years away, it's like watching a frozen picture on the wall, and the original subject of that picture could well have been long burnt out by now and collapsed into being a black hole. Another physical limitation due to the very limited "speed" of light in relation to the size of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:54 PM
|
|
*pool
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94487]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95648
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We'll get there if the world continues long enough.
1
Feb 16, 2024, 8:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
I believe God created such a huge universe to help us reach for things beyond our grasp. We've already discovered the atom and a couple layers of the smaller particles of which the atom is composed. We have some wonderful theories which can be proven true or false in all our sciences.
The greatest mystery is love that's selfless, self sacrificing. It's rare and those enjoying it will not interrupt their love relationships by submitting it for examination to help those of us who don't have it to understand.
I suspect we won't crack that nut in this life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2260]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2652
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 4:00 PM
|
|
You dropped a bomb on the main board and forgot to spray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43012
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Except we have not found it anywhere else
2
Feb 14, 2024, 5:16 PM
|
|
of course we don't have the ability to look very far and we have only been sending out signals about 100 years. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, so our signal has only made it 1000th the way across our own galaxy. Even if there was advanced life 50 light years away, we'd have to wait another 50 years to get their signal. It would have to be very strong or it would deteriorate.
The galaxy and universe could be teaming with life, but we haven't found it. All we know is that everywhere we look on earth has insane life diversity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30172]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8948
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Except we have not found it anywhere else
1
Feb 14, 2024, 6:06 PM
|
|
Yes to both, I think. The scale of what we are dealing with is akin to someone saying "Well, no other life exists anywhere because I can't find any here in my room...I've looked everywhere." A single, clear view of the Milky Way helps to understand the scale problem with thinking that way.
As to the diversity of life, although it bloomed into a debate on abiogenesis on the mange, what really caught my attention was that this particular case was asexual. It's not a unique case, I've heard of it happening in sharks and other life forms as well as well on rare occasions.
These cases always some from a living source themselves, so I see the abiogenesis stuff as "we'll see what happens," but for the here and now we have undisputed evidence of life arising from a single sex. The question that leads me to is, "if sexes aren't necessary to have life, then why are there sexes?"
Maybe sexes contribute to that diversity you speak of, which gives more variation to life, and thus more chances to adapt favorably to environment. So sexes would be an evolutionary advantage. Idk.
On another topic related to life, if you are familiar with the ancient Egyptian view of the soul, they made a very clear distinction between one's personality and one's life force. That is, a tree is surely alive, but it has no personality that we can perceive. A third element would be consciousness, or awareness of self and existence, which would seem to be dependent on life as well.
That is, something can be alive, but not have consciousness or a personality that we can perceive. But so far as we know, there is nothing that has a consciousness and a personality that is not also alive.
So there may be an order of Life>>>Consciousness(awareness)>>>>Personality(outward expression)
A bacterium may be alive, and be somehow aware of its existence, but still be unable to outwardly express any of that to us. So it has climbed the first two latter rungs, but maybe not the third, evolutionarily speaking.
We tend to lump all three together, and they are very closely related, but they are also very possibly separate elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 253
|
|
|
|
50
