Self-existence of god or the universe.

[Atomist]

We believe in God.

wtf? how is that a quality of non-physical life. That seems like a complete non-sequitur.
I believe in god=>I have non-physical life.

Edit: I don't even think non-physical life is coherent.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't even believe in "life". The way I see it, there is only energy in different forms. People treat "life" as if it is something different and mysterious which it is not. Considering this whole Universe started out as a big ball of energy, then logically, that is all it is now. Things just got arranged differently...energy changed form. There is no "life", there is no "death", only energy which can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form.

 

[Wotan]

"If you say physical substance....
your are the sum of your chemistry, and terminal."

Correct. And your point is . . . ?

 

[Etritonakin]

Its probably been done to death, but I just wondered what the most intelligent responses to the following question are:

How is a self-existent creator any more or less logical than a self-existent universe? Either way all that exists exists arbitrarily instead of something else or nothing at all. Now one can go further with the problem of evil versus arguments from design etc etc, but from a pure "why is it there in the first place" standpoint, I see no reason to think either one makes more "sense."

I read recently (not sure how accurate the article may have been) that Stephen Hawking essentially said that a creator/God was not necessary for the universe to have come to exist -but that the laws of physics, etc., would have caused the universe to spontaneously be created from nothing.

I'm not sure exactly what was said, and I'm not trying to say I'm as intelligent as Stephen Hawking -but even if the above is correct, there was never really "nothing".

In fact, the existence of anything makes the existence of ABSOLUTE nothingness an impossibility. There was never "nothing".

We see from our own existence that design is a reality in the universe -as we have the ability to design -and understand that whatever happened before us made us what we are. Being designers ourselves, we can at least see that design is something we employ to affect other forms of life (gene manipulation, selective breeding, etc.)-and might even one day be able to create a life form from the elements. It is not an impossibility.

Therefore, the fact that (what has been proven concerning) evolution occurs does not negate the possibility of design -because we plainly see both natural evolution and design. The fact that evolution occurs does not even negate the possibility that evolution itself was designed -or is a by-product of design. If we say that evolution can produce designERS -and that we might use that capability to affect or create other life forms, we must accept the possibility that we could have been affected by design ourselves. (As young as we are compared to the universe, we already seek ways to bring life to lifeless planets.)

If the laws of physics cannot be broken -even though they are more complex than we may understand -then it may be said that what became of the universe after the "big bang" was not truly random. In fact, it could not have turned out any other way. If we believe we are the first designers with the ability to manipulate the laws of physics for our purposes, then everything from the big bang to our first decision could not have been any different. Even the formation of the earth would have been inevitable -part of an equal and opposite reaction to the initial action. The events which caused life would have been bound to happen -and every seemingly random mutation and instance of natural selection would have -in reality -been an unavoidable natural consequence -until a being exerted its WILL.

Still.... if we can look backward in time and reverse-engineer how the universe came to exist -and realize it could not have been different -we can say that the "design" of the universe was contained in the "big bang" -just as the "design" of a tree is contained within a seed -whether you attribute the original design of either to a designER or not...

...but we can NOT say that it is not attributable to a designER. We cannot say -simply because we came to exist after the "big bang" -and are essentially within what came after the big bang -that an intelligence did not exist before and without the big bang. It is perfectly possible that there was never NO ONE -though it is difficult for us to comprehend, as we did have a beginning. We can easily imagine eternity going "forward", so to speak -but why would "backward" be any different?

Is a designer necessary?

We can imagine forces, etc. eventually causing the universe -and ourselves, and have viewed such as random events -but we should see that they are not truly random at all. We should also not overlook the fact that WILL is a force -and we see from our own existence that it is a force which can manipulate all other forces given knowledge and means -which can be gained/increased by will. So -it is essentially the strongest force -so long as no other force can cause its nonexistence. Our own will can be negated by our death, but a being capable of will and not subject to death would therefore be the strongest force possible. It is quite possible that such a being designed and intiated our universe -but is it absolutely NECESSARY?

Could the universe truly have been initiated WITHOUT WILL?

more later

(I just read something above about "non-physical life" -not sure what was meant, but... as it relates to God, Christ, humans potentially becoming immortal, etc... humans are essentially composed of flesh. Angels, for example, ARE "spirits" -but this does not mean they are not composed of "something". Even when describing the transfer of a human's "spirit" into an immortal body, it is written that the immortal body is WORKED -essentially crafted -and if worked, then it must be worked of "something". That something is not flesh, but it is "real" -so one might say by scientific definition that it is "physical" -but in such a manner as to not be subject to decay as flesh is. It is essentially composed of "spirit" -whatever that might actually be in scientific terms -and is a body which -by its design and composition -allows one to have creative power similar to that of the being which eventually became Christ -when he created all things by fiat. It might be described as a direct interface for exerting one's will rather than an indirect interface such as human hands....

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. )

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't even believe in "life". The way I see it, there is only energy in different forms. People treat "life" as if it is something different and mysterious which it is not. Considering this whole Universe started out as a big ball of energy, then logically, that is all it is now. Things just got arranged differently...energy changed form. There is no "life", there is no "death", only energy which can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form.

This is a misunderstanding. Energy is only a property, not something which exists independently. You will never find energy existing unless you're talking about something existing which has energy as a property; just like you will never find "length" or "red" existing unless you're actually talking about something else which possesses length or redness as a property.

 

[Willamena]

More like, apparently some people have no basis for making the claim that all of life can't be explained by physical interactions. Unless you have a very detailed description of how the body and mind works with both physical and spiritual processes, I'd say that's you.

Biological function can be explained by physical interactions, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 'life'.

The life that (literally) animates you is the same life that (nonliterally) animates the world --both biological and otherwise.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is a misunderstanding. Energy is only a property, not something which exists independently. You will never find energy existing unless you're talking about something existing which has energy as a property; just like you will never find "length" or "red" existing unless you're actually talking about something else which possesses length or redness as a property.

So energy is a property of basically everything that exists. Exactly how does this make what I said before wrong? I think it is you who are misunderstanding me.

 

[Meow Mix]

So energy is a property of basically everything that exists. Exactly how does this make what I said before wrong? I think it is you who are misunderstanding me.

Could be; I interpreted your comment about the universe starting as a "big ball of energy" to literally mean you thought it existed only as energy rather than as things which possess energy. My bad, it's just a really common misconception

 

[Falvlun]

Could be; I interpreted your comment about the universe starting as a "big ball of energy" to literally mean you thought it existed only as energy rather than as things which possess energy. My bad, it's just a really common misconception

Just for clarification sake on my end: Since all matter could be converted to energy, ala E=mc^2, doesn't that make energy a little bit more than just a property of something?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Just for clarification sake on my end: Since all matter could be converted to energy, ala E=mc^2, doesn't that make energy a little bit more than just a property of something?

I would say you are correct.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just for clarification sake on my end: Since all matter could be converted to energy, ala E=mc^2, doesn't that make energy a little bit more than just a property of something?

I would say you are correct.

No. Matter does not convert to energy. Nor is there a conservation of matter.

The "m" in E = mc^2 stands for "mass," which is a different concept than matter. Mass, like energy, is also just a property. You will never find "energy" or "mass" existing by themselves; only things which possess them -- in the exact same sense that you will never find a clump of "length" in the universe (just things which possess it).

E = mc^2 is deeply related to momentum p, which light has (p = E/c). For matter p = mv. The equivalency comes from E/c = p = mv; though we substitute "c" for "v" since c is the velocity of light... thus E/c = p = mc.

So E/c = mc

So E = mc^2

Matter is not conserved (though it is in everyday situations, there are exotic instances in which it isn't). In fact it appears and disapears in the quantum vacuum all the time; the energy/mass is transferred though. Energy/mass is always conserved.

 

[Etritonakin]

Help me wrap my head around this -newbie here....

If "matter" is not conserved -appears/disappears in the quantum vacuum -and its energy/mass is transferred -are you saying that matter does not "convert to" energy, etc... but rather breaks down into energy/mass, etc... and so "disappears" ...and can be rearranged/recombined -and reappear as matter?
Also, can components of one type of matter break down -and become components of even another type of matter with different properties based on how the components reassemble?

Just iggy this if it's too off-base.

(I ain't no physickist -but I knows what matters! -Popeye)

 

[Runewolf1973]

No. Matter does not convert to energy. Nor is there a conservation of matter.

The "m" in E = mc^2 stands for "mass," which is a different concept than matter. Mass, like energy, is also just a property. You will never find "energy" or "mass" existing by themselves; only things which possess them -- in the exact same sense that you will never find a clump of "length" in the universe (just things which possess it).

E = mc^2 is deeply related to momentum p, which light has (p = E/c). For matter p = mv. The equivalency comes from E/c = p = mv; though we substitute "c" for "v" since c is the velocity of light... thus E/c = p = mc.

So E/c = mc

So E = mc^2

Matter is not conserved (though it is in everyday situations, there are exotic instances in which it isn't). In fact it appears and disapears in the quantum vacuum all the time; the energy/mass is transferred though. Energy/mass is always conserved.

It really makes no difference. That which we call "life" is ultimately made up of the same basic "star-stuff" that everything else is made up of whether it be matter or energy.

 

[Thief]

It really makes no difference. That which we call "life" is ultimately made up of the same basic "star-stuff" that everything else is made up of whether it be matter or energy.

Whether it be matter or energy.....
Your mind and heart have some control...in hand.

If your hand does anything at all....
it's because you thought you should...
or you felt like it.

Spiritual life is more than chemistry.

 

[jmvizanko]

Whether it be matter or energy.....
Your mind and heart have some control...in hand.

If your hand does anything at all....
it's because you thought your should...
or you felt like it.

Spiritual life is more than chemistry.

Only if the psyche is not composed entirely of the physical processes in the brain. I didn't realize you had a much greater understanding of the brain than all of humanity, and thus are able to claim that the previous sentence is true....

 

[Etritonakin]

Only if the psyche is not composed entirely of the physical processes in the brain. I didn't realize you had a much greater understanding of the brain than all of humanity, and thus are able to claim that the previous sentence is true....

Not necessarily.

I think what he was getting at was....

Though the human "psyche" or "spirit" is composed of something -it employs the physical processes in the brain. It is not merely subject to them. It interacts with them -and can manipulate them. The psyche or spirit essentially resides in the physical processes -similar to a program residing on a hard drive (though not quite so simple). While the hard drive with a program residing on it is physically the sum of its parts, it is also much more. The human spirit or psyche may potentially be composed of something not "material" by the scientific definition -but just as "real".

 

[jmvizanko]

Not necessarily.

I think what he was getting at was....

Though the human "psyche" or "spirit" is composed of something -it employs the physical processes in the brain. It is not merely subject to them. It interacts with them -and can manipulate them. The psyche or spirit essentially resides in the physical processes -similar to a program residing on a hard drive (though not quite so simple). While the hard drive with a program residing on it is physically the sum of its parts, it is also much more. The human spirit or psyche may potentially be composed of something not "material" by the scientific definition -but just as "real".

I can't tell whether or not you are positing that the psyche, or "spirit" (whatever that means) is a separate entity than the physical processes of the brain or not. If you think it isn't, then my response is the same to you, where do you get this idea from? We just don't know enough about the physical processes of the brain to draw the conclusion that they don't compose all that is our psyche.

 

[Etritonakin]

I get the idea from the fact that I can get an idea -and willingly form an idea.

By "spirit" I mean that which gives us the capability to understand, create -and be self-aware.

I'm saying that whether or not physical processes compose all that is our psyche, our psyche is much more than that which composes it. It is not merely composed -it is a composER.

A program on a hard drive is "composed of" positive and negative (or non-present) magnetic pulses. It can also exist as electrical pulses caused by those magnetic pulses -1's and 0's on paper, etc., etc. So its composition is not as important as its arrangement, purpose, etc...

From a biblical point of view, the "spirit" can be transferred from one body to another -similar to transferring a program from one drive to another (the processor, interface devices etc., being similar to a body. A computer program can change physical composition many times, but is the same so long as the code is not changed). It is not necessarily dependent on any one body's physical processes for its existence, but the body it resides within allows it to interface with the external -to allow the program (the self-aware human "spirit" can self-program) to affect its environment.

The spirit is essentially the "ghost in the machine".

Biblically, it is said that the body returns to dust, and the spirit to God who gave it (until it is resurrected -put within a body again).

Whether or not our "spirit" is simply our "code" existing in God's mind until he puts it within a body again -or is our "code" existing as an arrangement of some "stuff" -not necessarily composed of "matter" -as not all that exists or can be arranged is "matter" by the scientific definition -but composed of SOMEthing -really doesn't matter to the end result.

I think I just hurt my brain.

 

[Etritonakin]

Help me wrap my head around this -newbie here....

If "matter" is not conserved -appears/disappears in the quantum vacuum -and its energy/mass is transferred -are you saying that matter does not "convert to" energy, etc... but rather breaks down into energy/mass, etc... and so "disappears" ...and can be rearranged/recombined -and reappear as matter?
Also, can components of one type of matter break down -and become components of even another type of matter with different properties based on how the components reassemble?

Just iggy this if it's too off-base.

(I ain't no physickist -but I knows what matters! -Popeye)

Cuz I'm thinkin' the ol' alchemists just didn't have the right understanding or equipment!
Cuz if lead and gold are made of the same stuff in different quantities and in a different arrangement....

hehehehehehehehe

Anyway... I'm off to frag some newbs in BFBC2 (don't even get me talkin' about the cyber-universe)

 

[Runewolf1973]

Cuz I'm thinkin' the ol' alchemists just didn't have the right understanding or equipment!
Cuz if lead and gold are made of the same stuff in different quantities and in a different arrangement....

hehehehehehehehe

Anyway... I'm off to frag some newbs in BFBC2 (don't even get me talkin' about the cyber-universe)

This is just my understanding of it but... Isn't there a reason why the elements such as gold and lead have atomic numbers? Are they not composed of atoms, simply arranged a little differently?