First cause

[rational experiences]

No.
The current model of gravity doesn't account for quantum gravity. So it can't account for everything within its own scope.

The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory.

Evolution theory does account for the things within its scope.
So evolution theory is a much stronger theory then GR.

This is why they call evolution theory the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences, as it is capable of tieing all biological science together in a single, central, coherent model. Micro-biology, genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, comparative genetic, molecular biology, etc etc. It all fits nicely into this single well-supported, well-established idea, giving it an insane amount of explanatory power.


General Relativity on the other hand... it works quite well. So well that it enables us to build things like satallite based GPS systems. But Newtonian physics also worked quite well. So well that we still use Newtonian physics in practical applications for medium sized objects moving at medium speeds, where relativistic effects are negligable and it would be overkill to include it. The newtonian physics works well enough there.

For GPS systems, GR works well enough.
But as @Polymath257 said, as we approach the more extreme cases of extreme speed or gravitation or the extremely small, then things get tough to the point of eventually breaking down.

Evolutin theory doesn't have such a problem.

Father said to me today in AI conditions, recording of all humans who died today sharing their NDE life memories to then own a speaking voiced summation, changing all day long.

That our brother the scientist is a liar.

If he could not own building his machines then all of his fanciful thoughts as he looks at or into natural bodies living in natural forms would own no place in our life.

If only that were real, a NON presence of his machine.

So when his brother living consciously harmed by science Stephen Hawking, advised him that he became aware that his use machines was trying to eradicate and replace life on Earth with all mechanical and machine applied human controlled attacks, then he was correct.

For if he could not own a machine or apply use of the machine he would not feel anywhere as near as powerful as what he pretends he is.

As if he personally were the owner/builder and operating male/man inside of the ultimate machine, the UFO...wishing it were real in all of his dreams about what sorts of machine he can build and apply operation of.

Therefore first of all he coerces the peer group to believe that he knows and understands the presence of all living things, in acute detailing that has taken years and years of studies and referencing and applying human themes to each body.

Most of which in study existed and lived or died without his life bio body existing or his consciousness thinking.

Then he suggests that a living bio male with his machine by his theories owns the creation of everything from a place that he says is nothing, to a beginning then all reactions of everything reacting. When it already all exists.

Yet he is pressing the buttons on his machines claiming, yes, that is right I have nearly successfully created everything in exact orders.

Meanwhile in out of space....the Asteroid stones heated and releasing their gases historically for a very long time becoming smaller and smaller in mass, have assisted Earth to regain a gas mass history that it had lost.

So his conscious psyche aligned to the wisdom of what he idealizes is then claiming I am in out of space....I am the Saviour you know. For it is proven in male psyche evaluation and self expression that he said personally that HE was the Saviour, and that he was the asteroid wandering star mass....the SAVIOUR...and he proves he believes it real.

By how he expresses his AI subliminal thoughts.

 

[Polymath257]

You have to define what "created" means to you.
The universe is here - so someone or something
"created" it.

Why do you think that is necessary?

Typically, to be 'created' means there is a conscious mind that intends to form the thing.

 

[McBell]

You have to define what "created" means to you.
The universe is here - so someone or something
"created" it.

Oh goody, Who created God?
Remember, if god is here someone or something "created" it, right?

And the second you claim god is an exception, you shoot your argument in the foot.

 

[PruePhillip]

Oh goody, Who created God?
Remember, if god is here someone or something "created" it, right?

And the second you claim god is an exception, you shoot your argument in the foot.

Yes, an exception.
Whatever you believe created the universe must, by definition, live OUTSIDE of the universe.
The rules don't apply anymore in this case. There's no space, no time, no energy, no physical
laws... nothing that's a part of our universe. So arguing "who created God" is pointless - you can't
ask any question about something you can't comprehend, or even describe with maths.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why do you think that is necessary?

Typically, to be 'created' means there is a conscious mind that intends to form the thing.

True, and according to science, there MUST BE A REASON for the universe being here.

 

[Polymath257]

True, and according to science, there MUST BE A REASON for the universe being here.

Nope. According to science, the universe is one of the things that *cannot* have a cause.

Causes *only* make sense *within* the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the second you claim god is an exception, you shoot your argument in the foot.

​

Yes, an exception.

Whatever you believe created the universe must, by definition, live OUTSIDE of the universe.

"live"?

The rules don't apply anymore in this case. There's no space, no time, no energy, no physical
laws... nothing that's a part of our universe.

Which doesn't tell us anything about that environment, which means that we have no clue about which rules do and do not apply.

So arguing "who created God" is pointless - you can't

I'ld say that arguing about anything in that unknovn environment / reality is pointless. Including ideas like "god lives there".

ask any question about something you can't comprehend, or even describe with maths.

It goes for assertions too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True, and according to science, there MUST BE A REASON for the universe being here.

A "reason", only in the sense of that the big bang was a thing which requires an explanation.

What I find fascinating about the big bang, the origins of the universe in general, is that not only do we not have answers... it's actually even quite hard and in some cases impossible, to know if the questions are even valid in the first place.

For example, what we currently know suggests that "what caused the big bang" is very likely an invalid question... as it makes a couple of unwarranted assumptions, like causality being a thing when you remove the space-time continuum.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, an exception.
Whatever you believe created the universe must, by definition, live OUTSIDE of the universe.
The rules don't apply anymore in this case. There's no space, no time, no energy, no physical
laws... nothing that's a part of our universe. So arguing "who created God" is pointless - you can't
ask any question about something you can't comprehend, or even describe with maths.

Actually, this exact same reasoning shows that the universe itself *cannot* be caused. The whole notion of cause *only* makes sense *within* the universe. No space, no time, no physical laws. So causality simply doesn't apply.

So arguing 'who created the universe' is pointless---you can't.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, this exact same reasoning shows that the universe itself *cannot* be caused. The whole notion of cause *only* makes sense *within* the universe. No space, no time, no physical laws. So causality simply doesn't apply.

So arguing 'who created the universe' is pointless---you can't.

If the universe "cannot be caused" then it makes an interesting, mind twisting problem.
How did it get here? Remember, it can't be here "forever" - saying God was here forever
is a statement the atheist would challenge as being incomplete, yet have no problem in
saying the universe was somehow, here forever.

 

[PruePhillip]

View attachment 39781




"live"?


Which doesn't tell us anything about that environment, which means that we have no clue about which rules do and do not apply.



I'ld say that arguing about anything in that unknovn environment / reality is pointless. Including ideas like "god lives there".



It goes for assertions too.

I like the foot.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. According to science, the universe is one of the things that *cannot* have a cause.

Causes *only* make sense *within* the universe.

And "who created God" is also an impossible question to even ask.
Maybe it really is just turtles all the way down.

 

[Polymath257]

If the universe "cannot be caused" then it makes an interesting, mind twisting problem.
How did it get here? Remember, it can't be here "forever" - saying God was here forever
is a statement the atheist would challenge as being incomplete, yet have no problem in
saying the universe was somehow, here forever.

I don't see a problem with God being around forever, but I see no reason to go that extra step from the universe being around forever.

I'm not sure why you say that the universe *can't* have been around forever. I see basically two possibilities: either time (and the universe) is infinite into the past, in which case the universe has been around forever, or time (and the universe) is finite into the past, in which case, there is no cause for the universe (because there is no 'before the universe') and the universe has been around for all time.

I'm not sure what is so 'mind-twisting' about the universe not being caused if you accept that God might not be caused. of the two, we actually know the universe exists. Putting God in only adds another, unnecessary, level to an already workable system.

 

[Polymath257]

And "who created God" is also an impossible question to even ask.
Maybe it really is just turtles all the way down.

I don't see it as any more impossible that asking what created the universe.

The point is that causes only make sense *within* the universe. So, even to ask whether something outside of the universe caused the universe is a basic mistake.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't see it as any more impossible that asking what created the universe.

The point is that causes only make sense *within* the universe. So, even to ask whether something outside of the universe caused the universe is a basic mistake.

If there's no "outside" to the universe then we have hit a philosophical, logical
and scientific conundrum - how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist?

Science will say "There is no REASON for us being here."
but that's not scientific - how do you test that?

or science will say "So WHO created God?"
in the same breath as saying "the universe was here forever."

In this (rare) instance scientists sound like the religious.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't see a problem with God being around forever, but I see no reason to go that extra step from the universe being around forever.

I'm not sure why you say that the universe *can't* have been around forever. I see basically two possibilities: either time (and the universe) is infinite into the past, in which case the universe has been around forever, or time (and the universe) is finite into the past, in which case, there is no cause for the universe (because there is no 'before the universe') and the universe has been around for all time.

I'm not sure what is so 'mind-twisting' about the universe not being caused if you accept that God might not be caused. of the two, we actually know the universe exists. Putting God in only adds another, unnecessary, level to an already workable system.

I see your point. The current problem is that cosmologists believe the universe "began"
and will expand indefinitely.

 

[McBell]

Yes, an exception.
Whatever you believe created the universe must, by definition, live OUTSIDE of the universe.
The rules don't apply anymore in this case. There's no space, no time, no energy, no physical
laws... nothing that's a part of our universe. So arguing "who created God" is pointless - you can't
ask any question about something you can't comprehend, or even describe with maths.

Ah.
Goody.
We are allowed to make arbitrary exceptions.

I choose to not drag another completely unknown guess into the mix.
So the universe is the exception, not god.

Now that we got that settled.....

 

[Polymath257]

If there's no "outside" to the universe then we have hit a philosophical, logical
and scientific conundrum - how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist?

Why do you think it needs to be 'created'?

Science will say "There is no REASON for us being here."
but that's not scientific - how do you test that?

Well, usually by looking at testable theories and applying them to the universe as a whole. So, quantum mechanics is a non-causal description of subatomic physics. We *know* that quantum effects become important in the very early universe, so at the point they do, notions of causality start to be less relevant.

or science will say "So WHO created God?"
in the same breath as saying "the universe was here forever."

I usually only ask that of those that insist the universe needs a cause. I *don't* think the universe does. In fact, I think it self-contradictory to ask that there be a cause for the universe.

In this (rare) instance scientists sound like the religious.

I think that is because of a misunderstanding of how science works.

 

[Polymath257]

I see your point. The current problem is that cosmologists believe the universe "began"
and will expand indefinitely.

Whether it will expand indefinitely is still open.

And whether it actually 'began' is also open, although there was definitely a 'big event' 13.7 billion years ago. Whether it even makes sense to talk about before that is very much an open question.

But, again, if it began 13.7 billion years ago, SO DID TIME. And if time itself began then, then there could not be a time before (otherwise time would have begun earlier). And if there was no TIME before, then there was no CAUSE before.

 

[PruePhillip]

Whether it will expand indefinitely is still open.

And whether it actually 'began' is also open, although there was definitely a 'big event' 13.7 billion years ago. Whether it even makes sense to talk about before that is very much an open question.

But, again, if it began 13.7 billion years ago, SO DID TIME. And if time itself began then, then there could not be a time before (otherwise time would have begun earlier). And if there was no TIME before, then there was no CAUSE before.

Both our points are valid. There's a verse in Revelations where it speaks of the end of
the world with the words, "there's no more time." Makes me wonder - could anything
"exist" in a realm without time? Zero chance of ever finding out. Time has to be the most
interesting of all properties of the universe - maybe it's a field like many other things are
(even the Higgs particle, giving objects mass, is another field.)
But we can't say there's no realm without time.