Is Life Possible Without a Creator?

[Saint]

"What IF " there is no God

IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existence of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Can you do the same for the existence of god?

 

[Saint]

if there is a God like that in bible, i can't survive till now, he could have killed me already.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

how to explain the universe and exitence. please tell me you have heard of:
A)the big bang theory,
B)charles darwins "origin of the species"
C)evolution

if not go study,

also could you please give some concrete proof for the exitence of god, that does not require me to have blind faith[?]

thank you and kind regards

the DR of DEATH

 

[rocket art]

I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

oh? care to elaborate?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Saint
IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existence of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

it is pretty much as drdeath said, with the addition of an understanding of probobility, and chemical compounds (especially those present in warm seas of our creation (i've forgotten the term used to describe it-- was it the something soup?). the "falling together" of these chemicals out of which the first life was formed was a very improboble event, but in a universe as big as ours it isn't so unlikely. we're just lucky that it happened to us. (see the Weak Anthropic Prinsiple for further ideas).

 

[Tiberius]

I know where this is going so let's just save a few pages of thread here...

We'll say, evolution, you say "but why?", we'll say star formation, you'll say "but why?", we'll say big bang, you'll say "but why?" and finally we'll say...

We have no idea why existence exists - and neither do you. Making up fairy tales to explain it so that you can pretend that you DO know doesn't get us anywhere. It could have very easily been some unexplainable mindless natural phenomenon that has "always been" and, in fact, the odds of this seem more likely to me than the odds of it being some powerful entity with a human-like personhood to it, or even a living entity at all.

The most mature thing would be to realize that none of us know such a fundamental thing - and it's very likely humanity itself will never know or be able to prove either way. That won't stop wishful thinkers from creating their own "gods of the moment" as centuries go by though.

But as for me, I don't question what the meaning of life is. I've already decided what the meaning of my life will be - the question has been answered, period. None of the above will change or affect that in the least, so at most, the god question is an entertaining but irrelevant subject.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Hmmm...having a problem seeing how that is possible. Would you care to expound?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Saint
IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existence of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and slendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Mentat
The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and slendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.

true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by maximus
true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it?

I was actually using an infinite-space-with-local-expansion model, but, if I had been talking about a finite space model, you would be correct (except for the part about "there was nothing and then...", that's just nonsensical, since there was no time when there wasn't anything (IOW, there didn't "come to be" something, but it has always been).

 

[The Grimmus]

Originally posted by drdeath
how to explain the universe and exitence. please tell me you have heard of:
A)the big bang theory,

yes but can you exsplain where the energy and the big bang originated form or what was there before.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

we do not need to as far as i know it was something to do with either chaos theory, quantum theory, or the laws of probobility, maybe a mix of all three. who knows, who cares. you can't proove the exitence of god, we can prove almost all of the science involved.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
... but can you explain where the energy and the big bang originated from or what was there before?.

Yep.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and splendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.

I should have saved that quote about how the internet proves that a million monkeys, given enough time, will NOT compose the Declaration of Independence.

Then I'm reminded of those miners who were trapped last year and were rescued by the arduous efforts of a hundred people. Then, when one of them was brought to the surface, he had the stupidity to say "Well, I guess it just wasn't my time to go."

I know there's a point here somewhere.

Finders keepers? (?)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it?

Not if you accept the word "eternal" and see the Universe as same.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Say more.

 

[Royce]

Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.

Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.

M. Gaspar, me too.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

ooooh nice snappy reply there gasper nice going.

i'll let you have the joy of explaining it to the simpletons

chow

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by drdeath
ooooh nice snappy reply there gasper nice going.

i'll let you have the joy of explaining it to the simpletons

chow

Really? Which ones? (Which replies? Which simpletons?)

Please don't encourage my "snappy" side. It's off-putting to those
I care about the most.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

i actually replied to the post where you simply said "yes" but by the time i had typed my reply i was sundenly way to late.

hey snappy is good, its scary, and people tend to agree with you

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
yes but can you exsplain where the energy and the big bang originated form or what was there before.

Asking what was there, "before" the big bang, is asking what was there "before" the beginning of time, and thus has no merit.

As far as asking where the energy came from, the net energy of the Universe is equal to zero, so there needn't have been any energy at all - Quantum Fluctuations could have produced matter and gravitational fields (which cancel each other out, energy-wise), and the Big Bang could have started from there.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Care to formulate this using mathematics. i.e. relationship between force and level of consciousness?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.

One has objective evidence, the other does not. This has been brought up enough times to be obvious. It can never be proved that there is a God. And, while you can never prove that there isn't one, you can get along perfectly in Science without Him (as Science is, by nature, agnostic).

Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.

You are missing the fact that mathematics supports my claim. It is just a simple extrapolation of the nature of infinity - since, no matter how long the Universe goes on without conscious life (for example), it will always have an infinite amount of time left to produce it in, and thus the chance will always be 100%.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.

a fairy tale is a little more than a fairy tale if you have substancial evidence to support it, don't you think?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I should have saved that quote about how the internet proves that a million monkeys, given enough time, will NOT compose the Declaration of Independence.

I'm sorry, M. Gaspar, but you are wrong - since, given an infinite amount of time, it is mathematically impossible that they not compose the Declaration of Independence from random typings. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is a uniform, orderly, structured, piece of organized writing; while the Universe is messy, disorderly (and tending toward increase in entropy), and without much structure at all (that which isn't compromised by typical chaos is compromised by QM). So there really is no comparison.

Then I'm reminded of those miners who were trapped last year and were rescued by the arduous efforts of a hundred people. Then, when one of them was brought to the surface, he had the stupidity to say "Well, I guess it just wasn't my time to go."

I know there's a point here somewhere.

Finders keepers? (?)

Well, I don't see much point to the mention of the experience of the miners, but you probably had a reason...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by plus
Care to formulate this using mathematics. i.e. relationship between force and level of consciousness?

Somehow I get the feeling our wishes for an explanation are going to go unanswered....

 

[M. Gaspar]

Another Take...

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.

If I am correct, the position of Mentat and his ilk is that the Universe is a closed system with zero net energy which sprung into being due to fluctuations in that energy, and given enough time -- e.i., 15 billlion years and counting -- It organized itself, quite by chance, into a BIG SYSTEM of little sub-systems ...of which we, stars and atoms are examples.

According to Royce and his fellows (and fellowesses), the Universe was "created by" a "Great Outside Force" -- with intention/will/purpose (the content of which we can only guess at) -- which ("Who"?) continues to mediate what's going on.

My take, however, is a bit different. I see the Universe as an ORGANISM with NATURAL TENDENCIES which in each of Its INCARNATIONS "simply" "does Its thing" ...which is to say, reassembles Its parts in the physical, mental and (maybe) spiritual domains ...all of which are interconnected in "the end".

More to come.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
One has objective evidence, the other does not. This has been brought up enough times to be obvious. It can never be proved that there is a God. And, while you can never prove that there isn't one, you can get along perfectly in Science without Him (as Science is, by nature, agnostic).

But we can prove there's a Universe ..so let's give It It's props!

You are missing the fact that mathematics supports my claim. It is just a simple extrapolation of the nature of infinity - since, no matter how long the Universe goes on without conscious life (for example), it will always have an infinite amount of time left to produce it in, and thus the chance will always be 100%.

You don't have to "produce" what you already have! Didn't you see the "Wizard of Oz" and get the point of the quests of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion? Now there's a fairy tale we can sink our teeth into!

Still more.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, M. Gaspar, but you are wrong - since, given an infinite amount of time, it is mathematically impossible that they not compose the Declaration of Independence from random typings. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is a uniform, orderly, structured, piece of organized writing; while the Universe is messy, disorderly (and tending toward increase in entropy), and without much structure at all (that which isn't compromised by typical chaos is compromised by QM). So there really is no comparison.

Them is fightin' words, Mentat!

First, let us send the monkeys on their way and focus on your statement regarding the Universe. I cannot see how YOU and all of your materialist brethren (and cisterns?) can continue to make the statement that the Universe is messy, disorderly and tending toward chaos.

Will you LOOK at the sustained organization of sub-systems within the "body" of the Universe? Just look at the those exquisite little systems we call atoms. They're not just "cute"...they are dynamic, coherent systems that keep on going! And even tho they're dead as doorknobs in your estimation, they assemble into larger dynamic, coherent systems like you, me and the monkeys. Let us not forget the stars and their galaxies and EVERYTHING ELSE for that matter. It's all ORGANIZED -- tho ever-changing -- NOT CHAOTIC!

What makes something "chaotic" anyway...the fact that we -- the puny and myopic viewers -- can't predict what the components will do? Feh. And Entropy?! I'm working on it!

Well, I don't see much point to the mention of the experience of the miners, but you probably had a reason...

My point, dearest Mentat, is that the Universe goes through all Its arduous efforts to produce you and me, and all one of us can do is say "Serendipity! Whatta life!"

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My take, however, is a bit different. I see the Universe as an ORGANISM with NATURAL TENDENCIES which in each of Its INCARNATIONS "simply" "does Its thing" ...which is to say, reassembles Its parts in the physical, mental and (maybe) spiritual domains ...all of which are interconnected in "the end".

This only implies that the Universe has a body, which could very well be correct, i.e., in terms of the processes related to the body, but where is "the mind" which governs these processes? Indeed that would make more sense, for you can't have order without a mind to maintain it. And for that matter, neither would you have a mind without a "spirit" (soul) to stir it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If I am correct, the position of Mentat and his ilk is that the Universe is a closed system with zero net energy which sprung into being due to fluctuations in that energy, and given enough time -- e.i., 15 billlion years and counting -- It organized itself, quite by chance, into a BIG SYSTEM of little sub-systems ...of which we, stars and atoms are examples.

You are rather wrong here; not because I wouldn't support the possibility of that theory, but because I don't have an "opinion", in the common sense. As my good buddy Royce knows full well, I am the true Devil's Advocate .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Them is fightin' words, Mentat!

Bring it on, Gaspar!

First, let us send the monkeys on their way and focus on your statement regarding the Universe. I cannot see how YOU and all of your materialist brethren (and cisterns?) can continue to make the statement that the Universe is messy, disorderly and tending toward chaos.

Will you LOOK at the sustained organization of sub-systems within the "body" of the Universe? Just look at the those exquisite little systems we call atoms. They're not just "cute"...they are dynamic, coherent systems that keep on going! And even tho they're dead as doorknobs in your estimation, they assemble into larger dynamic, coherent systems like you, me and the monkeys. Let us not forget the stars and their galaxies and EVERYTHING ELSE for that matter. It's all ORGANIZED -- tho ever-changing -- NOT CHAOTIC!

M. Gaspar, let's look at the those cute little atoms for a second. Were you aware that every singler one of it's particles is indeterminate, and is in fact everywhere at the exact same time? How's that for chaotic?

Now let's go to "higher" systems, such as Galaxies. Not only do the same Quantum rules apply to the Galaxy, but it also has to contend with colliding stars, black holes, supernovae, and all other forms of "mess".

Also, remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Any closed system must either increase in entropy or remain the same, but it cannot decrease in entropy.

I could go on but you get the picture don't you?

What makes something "chaotic" anyway...the fact that we -- the puny and myopic viewers -- can't predict what the components will do? Feh. And Entropy?! I'm working on it!

Keep working on it, since it is increasing, whether we admit it or not.

Besides, it isn't about whether "puny myopic viewers" can predict it or not, the components are indeterminate in themselves, it's nothing to do with our inability to measure them.

My point, dearest Mentat, is that the Universe goes through all Its arduous efforts to produce you and me, and all one of us can do is say "Serendipity! Whatta life!"

But saying that the Universe went through some kind of effort is implying that it took a path of greater resistance, and that is against obvious observation (all things in the Universe (except some conscious beings) take the path of least resistance). After all, should we decide that the Universe is conscious and that it "tried" to make the it's inhabitants, we must find out where it got the extra energy from (and it can't be from outside of itself, since everything is "in the Universe").

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This only implies that the Universe has a body, which could very well be correct, i.e., in terms of the processes related to the body, but where is "the mind" which governs these processes? Indeed that would make more sense, for you can't have order without a mind to maintain it. And for that matter, neither would you have a mind without a "spirit" (soul) to stir it.

My friend, Iacchus:

If you have been following my posts at all, you will know that I believe that the Universe has a MIND ...and has had one from the git-go! I believe a kernal of consciousness exists as part of every particle of baryonic matter...however unimaginably simple this level of awareness might be. I also believe that all dynamic, coherent systems have their own consciousness ...which would include atoms, stars, galaxies, bugs, rocks, you name it, it's thinkin' ...too varying degrees.

As to soul, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is another "realm" of dynamic, coherent systems ..."souls" being systems that retain experience/info across lifetimes on the physical "plane".

As to what is "stirring the soup"? My guess is that it is the CONSCIOUSNESS of the SOUL ...more specifically, the INTENTION of the SOUL to manifest certain EXPERIENCES for the purpose/function of SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION...which, boiled down, would be the acquisition of COMPASSION.

With that, I must admit, that I -- as a reflection of my soul -- am not too highly evolved.

And, sometimes, I am.