YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I like your first statement there -- "The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Multiverse?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
In that case, one might wonder why you and I and others are here.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I like your first statement there -- "The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets."
Thanks, Christian.
God did it. But my thread is of use both for Evolutionists and Creationists.
After it has emerged.
But prior to it - near zero.
1. I have presented my argument in the thread, namely the rule of sterility of all cosmos does not allow life on Earth. If it is on Earth, then it is scientific miracle.
2. Yes, there are talks now of non-local laws of nature. Namely, quantum entanglement.
But I have unpublished yet argument, that even entanglement is just a local law.
Thus, all that matters are the things on Earth. There is no connection with the Multiverse, hence it can not alter the processes on Earth. The probability, that life will emerge on Earth if we were some billions of years ago on Earth, is small Q<1. But the probability, that this Earth will be surrounded by N lifeless planets, is P=Q*V=Q*(1-Q)^N<Q. Both these events have happened. One has happened with probability Q and the other with probability P. Both events must happen for Earth to get alive.
Thus, the real probability of life on Earth is dependent on the number of lifeless planets out there.
Hereby the Q is being calculated from the local laws of physics. The P is non-locality.
Well, there is non-locality in nature.
Obviously not near enough to zero.
But we'll have a better understanding of the actual likelihood of life arising here after we've got a satisfactory description of abiogenesis. Until then, it's all guesses.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I have mind-vision. I have presented a logical theory, which is not debunked yet by you. Thus, according to Presumption of Innocence, the theory adequately describes reality.
Only to those who believe in your version of a god
Humanity has only been around for 2 or 3 million years to make these laws and proclaim there god belief to the universe. The universe has been around for close on 14 billion years and says, "la, la, la, I can't hear you".
So have I. The more common word for it is imagination.
What, of how life began on earth? With respect, you've resented nothing remotely resembling a "logical theory".
There is no presumption of innocence in science. So unless you're actually talking about the principles of criminal law, I suggest you find something else to stand on.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Then there is the Presumption of Guilt in Science.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You are not above the gods. All humans have a god. Including atheists.
Prove it
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There are two spirits only: God and satan. No third god.
Prove it
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
\subsection{Truth as God of Science}
Science is not going to change just because you want it so badly.
Because Science is like a proud beautiful lady, like the one in the
clip ``Roxy Music -- Avalon'' YouTube. Established proud beings are
of eternal value, they cannot be changing against their will:
``Sophie Ellis Bextor -- Won't change you'' on YouTube.
Editor: ``Has it ever occurred to you to look at the basis of
your logic, reasoning, and understanding? Since your ideas run
into opposition with journal reviewers, perhaps it is you that
needs to change and not the rest of the world.''
I have accepted Lord Jesus as my healer. The outside population
dislikes Him and thinks that His words are crazy: ``And when His
friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him: for they said,
He is beside Himself.'' Mark 3:21. It is not necessarily true in my
case because I am not running amok. Please recall that I have
publications in some top journals. Do I have to give you the
references? So, I suggest you enjoy my unusual brain pattern.
Nobody involved has expressed regret for murdering my Lord. The
world needs some positive change, in my opinion, not so much me.
Humans can hardly survive without the basis of personality, it
is their god. We can freely choose a god. Material gods are a
statue of Zeus, Shiva, Perun, in absence of my God the functions
of god can take human leaders like Buddha, Stalin, Putin, Trump,
Elvis Presley; leading atheists like Dr. Richard Dawkins and
Dr. Steven Hawking; bands like Beatles and Queens. Because I am
a truth seeker by profession (I am a scientist) I know that my God
is Spirit; it means, He is not material. His holy name is
Absolute/Objective Truth because He is the Spirit of Truth. And the
Truth says: ``If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, I will be ashamed of them.''
Mark 8:38.
Why then Adolf Hitler is an Absolute Monster and mother Theresa is
an Absolute Saint, if according to the amazing genetical research,
the total difference between their organisms should be less than 0.1 \%?
Hereby the genetic difference between chimps and the well-educated
Mother Theresa is less than 2 \%. It is because immortal souls exist.
The souls of Hitler and Theresa are perfectly 100 percent different
from each other. Therefore, God exists, He is the Spirit of Saints.
And satan exists, he is the spirit of sinners and disbelievers (because
there is no ``neutral'' god).
That is not proof, that is your opinion and considering you said in post #30
I really don't think you are a good judge of reality
ElishaElijah
Return
“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”
Romans 11:25-32 ESV
While it's true that scientific method demands high standards of ethics amongst its practitioners, it's not true that enquiring into the subject matter of science ─ ie nature ─ involves matters of guilt and innocence
Which is why you don't find presumptions of guilt or of innocence as part of those enquiries.
But one thing we know about the origin of life on earth is that it happened billions of years before there were any gods.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There are two options only:
1. God is existent,
2. god is not existent.
Because the basis of a person is god, then there are two gods.
Last edited:
Or maybe you are are just talking nonsense... And 3. god is a made up figment of some people's imagination.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I have used logic.. Do you hate the Laws of Aristotle's logic?