(I was having a brisk debate with King Atheist Blob about wether God exists or not and I feel this subject deserves it's own thread)


My assertion:

The Universe started off as extremely simple (only basic atoms like Hydrogen and Helium*) and complexity is increasing.

Stars manufactured more complex elements generation by generation and eventually enough elements existed for life to emerge, which in turn increases in complexity.

In a "dead" universe, matter would not organize itself. We are in a living Universe where matter is organizing itself.

(*I said that Hydrogen was the only element in the Universe at first, but Blob corrected me and let me know that Helium was generated within the first three minutes.)


The challenge:

Explain that, you Godless heathens!

Entropy is still increasing because the universe is expanding.

What do I win?! A cookie? Please be a cookie!

Originally posted by Ed Blank
(I was having a brisk debate with King Atheist Blob about wether God exists or not and I feel this subject deserves it's own thread)


My assertion:

The Universe started off as extremely simple (only basic atoms like Hydrogen and Helium*) and complexity is increasing.

Stars manufactured more complex elements generation by generation and eventually enough elements existed for life to emerge, which in turn increases in complexity.

In a "dead" universe, matter would not organize itself. We are in a living Universe where matter is organizing itself.

(*I said that Hydrogen was the only element in the Universe at first, but Blob corrected me and let me know that Helium was generated within the first three minutes.)


The challenge:

Explain that, you Godless heathens! Explain what? That your assertion is unsubstantiated (though possibly true) or specifically how stars produce other elements from hydrogen?

If the latter then there is a problem:
Ed
Abstract mathematical theories don't explain anything.Well as Newton discovered "the language of science is mathematics". That is all I have to offer, so you have rejected anything I say off the bat.

As it happens you have chosen one of the better understood phenomena of the first three minutes - its the physical process of nuclear fusion that causes hydrogen (and other more fundamental stuff) to become other elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Star_formation_and_evolution
Here's how the hydrogen becomes helium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
Here's how a slightly less established explanation of how carbon, oxygen and other elements arise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

But I fear your are arguing from ignorance Ed.

Firstly I have the impression that if science currently has no answer for a specific question then your fanciful speculations are proved correct in your mind.

Secondly, you are not interested in my answers but rather the holes in my answers. Firstly entropy, when this showed untenable you attack mathematical abstraction, then you declare your ignorance of how hydrogen can fuse into other elements as proof of your stance. So keep digging and you'll find your gap eventually, either in my personal knowledge or in science itself. Then you will know you are right even more than you know you are right now.


BTW In what sense is the universe living? Is matter collectively conscience by it's nature? Is it embued with the life of an independent, matterless entity? How should we expect matter to behave if it intentionally organise itself? Should it break scientific laws? But these laws are based on observations of nature, so are you saying the laws themselves contain the proof that matter is living? And why... well that's enough questions. I guess I'm just asking what you are proposing. Perhaps detailed authoritative links like I provided would be helpful.

There you go. Shoot me down and declare yourself right.

Ed, I'd like to ask...assuming that your statement that we exist in a "living universe" is true...why does that mean that God must exist?

One of the unintended consequences in our study of the way things work, both on Earth and on a grand scale, in this case the universe, is that everything we see works according to the laws of physics, chemistry or mathematics. Everything we've been able to study so far can be explained by science. One of my little phrases is that we've not yet observed anything that required the "M" factor, "M" meaning miracle. This includes the birth of a new human being to new stars to black holes, everything we have been able to observe can be explained, charted, graphed. What I really mean is that we've yet to come across a process where things just happen. Having said that I KNOW that science is not going to have everything explained for quite some time.

I can also say that from time to time, I do tend to lean toward the idea of a supreme being from time to time. At least in so far as what has been related in near death experiences, but there really isn't a way to prove that, yet.

What I do resent by those who strongly believe in God or Allah is that they will come up with some argument that goes like "Well can you explain how X, Y and Z came about?" and when you can't they say it was because God did it and he is above the comprehension of science and you really need to believe in Jesus Christ. This rubs me the wrong way. I have a somewhat tough time believing in something I really can't see.

Not that I really have a problem with religion per se, it can be a source of incredible strength and comfort for those who believe and it can also be a powerful source of good, but IF I ever find my way into believing in Jesus Christ, it is going to have be on my own.

I can also add that I have a very, very low opinion of those who make fun of people who do Believe, or desecrate a church or start with their Anti-semitism crapola. You can dislike or not believe in a religion, but one should have the decency to respect a person's decision to worship or not.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You can dislike or not believe in a religion, but one should have the decency to respect a person's decision to worship or not.

Dammit.

I tried at first with Jere and Stop but the kind of crap they come out with makes it really hard.

Sal i have utter respect for, and whilst im against Starks total obsessesion with sarcasm and ignoring Blobs points, does make some solid arguments every now and then.

But then this is what it fulls down to isnt it, this is where things really start to get difficult.

If we respect a persons decision to worship something which no one can prove exists then why do we send people who see images everywhere and talk to imaginary freinds and monsters to crazy houses?

Also should we respect any and all choices of humans so long as it doesnt physically harm or intentionally mentally harm another human being? Because if we give these rights to religious fanatics we should give them to every other single person with an out there agenda.

Originally posted by Blob
In what sense is the universe living?

The whole thing has a singular will which we have a sliver of.

[/B][/QUOTE] Is matter collectively conscience by it's nature? Is it embued with the life of an independent, matterless entity?[/B][/QUOTE]

Just like your body is embewed with a conciosness which permeates the whole thing

[/B][/QUOTE] How should we expect matter to behave if it intentionally organise itself? Should it break scientific laws? But these laws are based on observations of nature, so are you saying the laws themselves contain the proof that matter is living?[/B][/QUOTE]

According to our mundane understanding of objects, they break down.

Somehow they came together in the first place. Seemingly lifeless particles organized into perfect biological molecules and chemicals over billions of years. That's compelling enough.

[/B][/QUOTE] I guess I'm just asking what you are proposing. Perhaps detailed authoritative links like I provided would be helpful.[/QUOTE]

I am proposing that the Universe is alive and, just like any mundane living thing on Earth, has will. My point is very simple but I know of no autoritative websites which endorse the particular brand of deism that I am describing.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ed, I'd like to ask...assuming that your statement that we exist in a "living universe" is true...why does that mean that God must exist?

The word "God" is a real sticking point for some.

The Universe is alive and it has will. Lifeforms exist because It want's us to.

Originally posted by Blob
If the latter then there is a problem:
Well as Newton discovered "the language of science is mathematics". That is all I have to offer, so you have rejected anything I say off the bat.

I never said "mathematics" was bullshit.

I said "abstract mathematics" is bullshit.

There is a lot of math that has nothing to do with reality so a mathematical formula in and of itself can't prove anything.

For instance: the "imaginary number".

It's fun for mathematicians to be able to continue to solve equations even though there is no square root of a negative number, but it's still an "imaginary number". (Also, there is no such thing as infinity, negative numers, planes, lines, or points. Just mathematical tinkertoys)

You obviously have very little sequential thought ability, or you choose to ignore it.

You choose not to believe in mathamatical formulas that can be proven and then turn around and choose to believe in a 2000 year old superstitions.

If that's what works for you. Go for it. But please stop trying to get everyone else to think the same way. Many of us enjoy our freedom of thought and ability to contemplate abstracts.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
I never said "mathematics" was bullshit.

I said "abstract mathematics" is bullshit.Which branch of mathematics is not abstract? Perhaps you are thinking of applied mathematics; i.e. the (incredibly powerful and successful) application of mathematical abstraction to reality.

Ideas are abstractions. Are they bullshit too?

There is a lot of math that has nothing to do with reality so a mathematical formula in and of itself can't prove anything.I agree. String theory would be one (a controversial coment many atheists would disagree with.)

For instance: the "imaginary number". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
imaginary numbers have no meaning; however, in many areas of science and mathematics, imaginary numbers (and complex numbers in general) are essential for describing reality. Imaginary numbers have essential concrete applications in a variety of sciences and related areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and cartography. They are absolutely indispensable in advanced mathematics.

In electrical engineering, when analyzing AC circuitry, the values for the electrical voltage (and current) are expressed as imaginary or complex numbers known as phasors. There is, however, nothing imaginary (in the non-mathematical sense) about these voltages and they can cause actual damage/harm to either humans or equipment even if their values contain no "real part". Like words, imaginary numbers are a way of thinking about and expressing ideas. It is powerful and has enabled us to harness electricity to the extent where comfortable westerners, like you and I Ed, take it for granted.

It's fun for mathematicians to be able to continue to solve equations even though there is no square root of a negative number, but it's still an "imaginary number". (Also, there is no such thing as infinity, negative numers, planes, lines, or points. Just mathematical tinkertoys) [/B] Lot's of maths is certainly in the realm of application-less geeky fun, But not the examples you have given.

Infinity is essential for calculus and calculus is essential for the theory of gravity as well as pretty well every scientific and mathematical development since Newton invented calculus. Throw away your computer please.

Negative numbers are very very real indeed for most people. Or perhaps you are lucky enough to have always kept your bank account in the black. Never pay your debts please, they are only an abstracted tinker toy.

planes, lines, points - geometry is a personal pet hate but even I grudgingly admit this branch of mathematics helped build the house I am in. Please sleep rough.

If I were a christian I might ask "why are you angry at mathematics, Ed?"

You are citing your own ignorance of maths, and what maths is, as evidence for your position. It doesn't wash.

Show me an infinite plane or a point with no dimension. Your house is made of boards and bricks not lines (which are infinite and have no thickness). A drawing of a line segment or a point even has thickness. When you inagine a line in your head, it has thickness enough for you to mentally "see" it.

Electricity is no imaginary number, it is a bunch of electrons.

I'm not angry at math. Math (and language for that matter) are not real. Some math is critical for understanding, but a debt is not a "negative number". It is a record of what a person owes. negative numbers are handy for that kind of immaterial stuff but show me a negative apple.

Originally posted by Echo2
You obviously have very little sequential thought ability, or you choose to ignore it.

You choose not to believe in mathamatical formulas that can be proven and then turn around and choose to believe in a 2000 year old superstitions.

If that's what works for you. Go for it. But please stop trying to get everyone else to think the same way. Many of us enjoy our freedom of thought and ability to contemplate abstracts.

I have as good an imagination as all the Humans. I like abstract ideas as much as the next guy. I like Matrix Reloaded, too. Do I have to think Morpheus is real to enjoy the movie?

You missed the whole point. Oh well, never mind. I don't have the time to explain it to you.

Just a couple more jabs at the Scienceophiles:

The supposed age of the universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

"If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate."

Obviously the universe is a certain age, which is older than the stars.

Is a photon a wave or a particle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

"In the usual formulations of classical mechanics a given object is either a particle or a wave. For example, an electron is a particle (because they are observed to behave in particle-like ways), and light is a wave (because it behaved in wave-like ways, such as interference; see below). This categorisation was applied even to objects below the scale of direct observation, essentially by analogy with macroscopic phenomena.

However, problems emerge with the viewpoint: electrons too can be made to interfere and thus appear wave-like; light (especially in the photoelectric effect, as analysed in 1905 by Einstein) can possess particle-like properties. Quantum mechanics emphasises the primacy of measurement and not attributing properties to objects beyond what can be measured. Hence the concept of wave-particle duality arose: it is not necessary, or useful, to say that an electron is a particle - or a wave - just that in certain circumstances it behaves like a wave, and in others like a particle."

A photon is [whatever it is], it doesn't change from wave to particle because it wants to piss us off. We don't know what it truly is.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Just a couple more jabs at the Scienceophiles:
What a fucking world, where science is ridiculed. Maybe you'd be better off using leeches to cure your sicknesses, caused by lack of sanitation? Shall we take away your computer? Your electricity?

This is what a lack of adequate education gets us: ignorant, uninformed people.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
A photon is [whatever it is], it doesn't change from wave to particle because it wants to piss us off. We don't know what it truly is.

You're right there Ed, but we're finding out.

I asked you earlier how the fact that we were in a living universe meant that God must exist. You answered:
The Universe is alive and it has will. Lifeforms exist because It want's us to.

You also posted:
I am proposing that the Universe is alive and, just like any mundane living thing on Earth, has will. My point is very simple but I know of no autoritative websites which endorse the particular brand of deism that I am describing.

Do you have evidence that this is true, other than the fact that matter is "organized"?

Obviously the universe is a certain age, which is older than the stars.
Obviously you didn't know that astrology, er I mean astronomy isn't an empirical science. It takes light time to travel, we don't know how old the Universe is, astronomists like to guess more than other fields of science. Not everything in astronomy is based entirely off of mathmatics, which physics is. Where else do you think all of the alien crazies specialize?

A photon is [whatever it is], it doesn't change from wave to particle because it wants to piss us off. We don't know what it truly is.
Holy shit. We solved that one a long time ago. Light travels in waves and the energy is packaged into particles called photons, which are either massless or have a mass so small that it's immeasurable(Planck size). Just because the energy of light are particles doesn't mean that they have to travel in a straight line. Also, regarding the double-slit experiment in particular the peculiarity of it is the fact that even if you fire the photons at the paper one at a time the same patern emerges, which led Feynman to think that a particle follows every(read infinite) path yet the energy must remain constant and thus they "cancel" each other out leading to one result.

Originally posted by Echo2
You missed the whole point. Oh well, never mind. I don't have the time to explain it to you. Ed's actually very boring to engage in dialogue with. You compose a thoughtful response and he just comes back with some crude misrepresentation or vague nothingness. There are many times I have corrected him and many points I have made that he has just ignored.

For example. no one has said maths exists in reality. No one has said maths is anything more than an abstraction of the mind and that it has many applications from science to finance. But Ed retorts: show me a negative applelol. No one claimed maths objectively exists external to the human mind. Yet Ed thinks this straw man supports his viewpoint.

Also note Ed said there is a distinction between maths and abstract maths. He is wrong but does not acknowledge it; like a bull in a china shop of human thought he just snorts and continues the rampage. Yet when I miss a single question of his he declares victory!

His arguments boil down to nothing more than "I don't understand such and such, therefore living universe". He does not understand entropy, mathematics, nuclear fusion, the 1st 3 minutes of the big bang... the list goes on. When corrected he ignores it (with one single exception) and just spouts yet more ignorance-based absurdities.

He hunts desperately for gaps. The amusing thing is that physics is in utter crisis and is indeed full of contradictions, controversy and schisms. Yet Ed can't seem to find them. I wouldn't fancy having Ed on a design team. Imagine how he would insist on throwing out every prototype rather than engage in meaningful problem-solving activities.

BTW Ed I see we're back to your original question of how life first arose. You asked this way back:
Here's the one question that proves to me that the Universe has a singular will: How did mud come to life on Earth? (Science still can't explain that one)I ask for a third time Ed. If it does do will you abandon your beliefs?

Actually I hadn't realised that when you ask such a question you are prepared to accept such a simple sound-bite answer as:
Ed
We are in a living Universe where matter is organizing itself. At that primary school level I do indeed have an answer. Carbon is a very versatile building block capable of being graphite, diamond or the basic component of self-replicating molecule chains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
Carbon is a remarkable element for many reasons. Its different forms include one of the softest (graphite) and one of the hardest (diamond) substances known to man. Moreover, it has a great affinity for bonding with other small atoms, including other carbon atoms, and its small size makes it capable of forming multiple bonds. Because of these properties, carbon is known to form nearly ten million different compounds, the large majority of all chemical compounds.By your low standards I could argue carbon explains why.

Meanwhile Ed makes unsubstaniated assertions that make no sense whatsoever. I am proposing that the Universe is alive and, just like any mundane living thing on Earth, has will. "Alive just like any mundane thing living on earth" - so you mean alive in the day to day sense of here on earth. Biology explains life, why do you contend science cannot then explain the "alive-just-like biological organisms' universe too? How does the universe reproduce (please don't cite the mathematical mulit-universe theory, it is automatically bullshit remember); respire; respond to stimulus (and where does that stimulus come from if it is it's own environment); what are the details of its metabolism if science breaks down and cannot explain it?

I know of no autoritative websites which endorse the particular brand of deism that I am describing.A truly original thinker!

Alas, you are not the first. Try these:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/alivtime/alive.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Earth

http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_valis.htm

http://www.livingcosmos.com/

And a little less authoritively:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/9912/paraw.htm

http://www.davidicke.com/

http://www.timecube.com/

The only thing you can feed a know it all is his own nonsense. Bon apetit, Ed.

I know of no autoritative websites which endorse the particular brand of deism that I am describing.I should mention the purpose of providing urls is not to find others who endorse your views. It is to evidence or substantiate the particular claims and assumptions you make when you justify your stance.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
What a fucking world, where science is ridiculed. Maybe you'd be better off using leeches to cure your sicknesses, caused by lack of sanitation? Shall we take away your computer? Your electricity?

This is what a lack of adequate education gets us: ignorant, uninformed people.

science is great (little "s"). Worship of Science (capital "S") is the same thing as any type of fanatiscism.

I am not making fun of science itself, I am making fun of people who think that modern science is advanced enough to be practically infallable.

Your mother is ignorant and uninformed, by the way. You unwashed troglodite.

"Holy shit. We solved that one a long time ago. Light travels in waves and the energy is packaged into particles called photons, which are either massless or have a mass so small that it's immeasurable(Planck size). Just because the energy of light are particles doesn't mean that they have to travel in a straight line. Also, regarding the double-slit experiment in particular the peculiarity of it is the fact that even if you fire the photons at the paper one at a time the same patern emerges, which led Feynman to think that a particle follows every(read infinite) path yet the energy must remain constant and thus they "cancel" each other out leading to one result."

Being a wave and a particle at the same time doesn't make logical sense (I'll go ahead and beat you to it: "It doesn't have to make logical sense, the mathematics works so we just ignore the fact that it's counterintuitive")

The photon travels every possible path instantaneously... that's the dumb shit I am fighting against.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Your mother is ignorant and uninformed, by the way. You unwashed troglodite.
Uh huh...

Blob. It was you who posted:

"Infinity is essential for calculus and calculus is essential for the theory of gravity as well as pretty well every scientific and mathematical development since Newton invented calculus. Throw away your computer please.

Negative numbers are very very real indeed for most people. Or perhaps you are lucky enough to have always kept your bank account in the black. Never pay your debts please, they are only an abstracted tinker toy.

planes, lines, points - geometry is a personal pet hate but even I grudgingly admit this branch of mathematics helped build the house I am in. Please sleep rough."

in order to prove the "existence" of mathematical concepts. Now it's:

"For example. no one has said maths exists in reality. No one has said maths is anything more than an abstraction of the mind and that it has many applications from science to finance."

Okay, we agree finally. Math is very handy but, like language, exists only in the minds of men. (The next step from there, to me, is that mathematical formulae, like the one that says an electron travels every possible path when fired at a slit in a card, are not enought to prove anything about anything.)

About Science explaining life and me abandoning my beliefs:

If a science ever explains how the Universe spawned life and can prove that this happened randomly, I will abandon my beliefs instantly.

One more thing: Are you small minded enough to take the word "alive" and try to apply it to the Universe-as-entity and actually apply the middle school definition? We need sustainence. A self contained entity like the entire Universe woul drequire no outside sustainence because there is no "outside" of itself. Even if there are multitudes of parallel little "universes", they all exist within one realm which, when taken in toto would be considered the actual big Universe. God is not a male and there is no Godette.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Uh huh...

Oh man, that really shut me down. I guess I need to abandon my intellectual/spiritual journey right here. I can't possibly go on after misspelling "troglodite"... I mean "troglodyte" Oh no! Not again!

Hey man, if you can't recognize the irony there, that's your business.

Being a wave and a particle at the same time doesn't make logical sense (I'll go ahead and beat you to it: "It doesn't have to make logical sense, the mathematics works so we just ignore the fact that it's counterintuitive")
It makes perfect logical sense. Little particles that flow up and down in wave like motion? Is that simple enough for you? It's more complicated than that, but have some elementary school basics.

The photon travels every possible path instantaneously... that's the dumb shit I am fighting against.
It's not my fault you don't think the world is more than you can see. OH WAIT, that's right! You DO, it just the stuff that we can't see and there is no evidence, no logical reasoning behind that you believe! How could I forget that you don't understand anything!


Okay, we agree finally. Math is very handy but, like language, exists only in the minds of men. (The next step from there, to me, is that mathematical formulae, like the one that says an electron travels every possible path when fired at a slit in a card, are not enought to prove anything about anything.)
Unlike blob who's concessions hold only hints of truth, I'll stand by math. Mathematics is nothing other than an exact description of the way things work. Mathematics is not used to try and explain things there is no reason or evidence behind. Only in very recent times has theory and math attempted to go past what we can now accurately empirically test. If you wish to say that superstring theory has no empirical backing, go ahead, the scientific world will agree. It's the only thing that has made significant progress recently either and the same scientist will tell you that too. However, all of the math you are currently attempting to "disprove" is ancient math that even kindergardeners can understand. That math was specificically forumulated and designed to follow what we observed and tested, repeatedly. You may wish to claim that negative numbers do not exist, but you're wrong. A negative sign shows multiple things depending on what you're looking at. It can either be opposite charge(something that we know to exist), opposite direction(hey, that would be behind you!), a specific lack of something(if you can't figure that out, then I don't think you should be arguing science whatsoever), etc. Imaginary numbers generally are used to denote that you've run into an error and if you wish to stay in this universe you might want to try something else. Infinity is completely true. Where does y=x end? At 5,000,000,000,000,000,000? How about 10^10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000? Neither? Something higher? Wait, does it stop? NO. If x is increased at a constant rate, y is defined to alway equal it, meaning the expression will never prove false. You can try, that might get you to shut up... for the rest of time. Infinity is as real in math as it is this world. Stay on a line. Go around the world, now keep going as long as x=1. Hey, it always equals one. You can keep going forever(well, if you want to be moronically snobby about it, until you die). If you could live forever, would you stop? No. Is the universe infinite? Maybe, we don't know. If it isn't, the greatest mystery I can ever imagine would be what's beyond it? Oh, nothing... what the fuck is nothing?

If a science ever explains how the Universe spawned life and can prove that this happened randomly, I will abandon my beliefs instantly.
No field of science even truely pertains to that idea. We're trying to figure out how it works still, after we figure that out we might be advanced enough to determine the origin, but if you think that's what science and math is attempting to do, you're very sadly mistaken.

One more thing: Are you small minded enough to take the word "alive" and try to apply it to the Universe-as-entity and actually apply the middle school definition? We need sustainence. A self contained entity like the entire Universe woul drequire no outside sustainence because there is no "outside" of itself. Even if there are multitudes of parallel little "universes", they all exist within one realm which, when taken in toto would be considered the actual big Universe. God is not a male and there is no Godette.
Are you small minded enough to take what little you know about the workings of the universe and attempt to formulate a theory out of it and then declare it the undeniable truth and think it disproves science? Are you small minded enough to think you know everything there is to know about quantum theory and declare it all to be false?

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Okay, we agree finally. Math is very handy but, like language, exists only in the minds of men.Well done. Any misunderstanding was entirely due to your straw man representation of my post as saying something other than this.

(The next step from there, to me, is that mathematical formulae, like the one that says an electron travels every possible path when fired at a slit in a card, are not enought to prove anything about anything.)Actually experiments show that, not maths. However maths can describe and predict the process.

If a science ever explains how the Universe spawned life and can prove that this happened randomly, I will abandon my beliefs instantly.Science is about explaining non-random processes so your wording is flawed. However, I acknowledge that if science demonstrates how self-replicating hydrocarbon molecules can arise you will abandon your beliefs. Strange that you base your entire world view on this single premise though.

One more thing: Are you small minded enough to take the word "alive" and try to apply it to the Universe-as-entity and actually apply the middle school definition?Er... that's your argument not mine. I was merely asking for details. Talk about blatant projection.

middle school Get your own put downs.

We need sustainence. A self contained entity like the entire Universe woul drequire no outside sustainence because there is no "outside" of itself.Silly idea this living universe concept of yours then.

Even if there are multitudes of parallel little "universes", they all exist within one realm which, when taken in toto would be considered the actual big Universe.The multi-verse hypothesis describes a universe as an utterly closed system that can have no interaction with anything else, including other universes. Therefore, although the prefix 'uni' is misleading, it is entirely reasonable to talk about many universes that are not components of a larger system; i.e. no meta-universe exists. BTW Personally I am as of yet unconvinced regarding the multi-verse hypothesis (atheists do not uncritically accept science as you and theists love to asert) so it's no good aiming your anti-intellectual fire on that and expecting me to defend it.

God is not a male and there is no Godette. The word is goddess.

The photon travels every possible path instantaneously... that's the dumb shit I am fighting against.I take it you are against the formula E=mc2 which states that matter and energy are equivalent.

Blibblob made a good point on this. A particle has a wave-like distribution of probable positions - this is what is meant by wave-particle duality. Conversely a wave (photon) is a packet (particle) of wave-like probability distributions - this is also what is meant by wave-particle duality. It's not unlike the way a swarm of locusts is a gaseous cloud from a distance, but individual complex organisms close up. It depends quite literally on where you are looking from, but is not contradictory.

So again, like with entropy, nuclear fusion etc you are arguing "I don't understand such and such, therefore living universe" (though not living in any sense of being alive we now learn).

Poor Ed! There is a huge huge crisis in modern physics that desperately needs resolving. An anti-intellectual like you would love it! For all your attacks on human knowledge can you still not work out what it is?

I am not against science or math.

I am not arguing for Creationism.

It is very clear that complexity is increasing in the Universe and "random" doesn't explain that.

The only science that comes close to explainign how something can come from nothing (quantum fluctuations) is not science at all, it's abstract mathematics.

Because I question some assertions put forth by Science (capital 'S': the Church of Scientific Dogma) I am "against science".

I am for science (little 's'). I am against Science (big 'S').

No matter how far Science advances, it will be upheaved soon enough and stood on it's ear by people who can examine it critically.

We are made of dirt and water which, somehow, on it's own, congealed into animals. That's evidence in and of itself that the dirt and water have a plan.

PEACE BE UNTO THEE

I take it you are against the formula E=mc2 which states that matter and energy are equivalent.
No, I was talking specifically about Dr. Feynman's theory. First of all, nobody seems to be familiar with the experiment. Newton proclaimed that light travels in a line of particles, others, of course disagreed with him. Now Young attempted to prove him wrong, and did, with the double slit experiment. By shining light through two slits an interference pattern emerged on the other side, something that would not happen if it was a particle, but would if it was a wave. Newer experiments show that light also follows properties that cannot be attributed to a wave, but a particle. However, the most peculiar thing is that if electrons(all matter(yes, light counts) particles do this) are fired one by one through the slit the interference pattern still emerges. Feynman declared that the particles travel not through just one of the slits, but through both of them. But not just that, but that they travel every possible path, an infinite number of them. Now, to finish explaining I must explain one more thing. One of Feynman's first declarations was noting that if by examining the particle(Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), we affect the particle(Schrodinger's Cat). That means we cannot know where exactly a particle is, as it moves when we examine it, we can only assign probabilities to it's location. Now, through that idea, Feynman was capable of proving that the average of all of the possible paths equal the probability of it's location. The same formulas can be used to deterimine countless other things too, such as the amount of energy any given wave has and gives off. Much more complicated and I will not explain. If you want to know, look that up...
(The actual experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)


The only science that comes close to explainign how something can come from nothing (quantum fluctuations) is not science at all, it's abstract mathematics.
Ahem. I shall say it again. THERE IS NO SCIENCE THAT DEALS WITH SOMETHING COMING FROM NOTHING. Thank you...

No, I was talking specifically about Dr. Feynman's theory.This was to Ed not you.

That said I disagree with some of your points Blibblob. When I have time I will address them. I think it will be more fun to engange in dialogue with someone knowledgable and reasonable like yourself.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
It is very clear that complexity is increasing in the Universe and "random" doesn't explain that.Not according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which you yourself referred to.

The only science that comes close to explainign how something can come from nothing (quantum fluctuations) is not science at all, it's abstract mathematics.Wrong. It's an observed phenomonen which has since been modelled using the language of maths.

Because I question some assertions put forth by Science (capital 'S': the Church of Scientific Dogma) I am "against science".

I am for science (little 's'). I am against Science (big 'S').If they are admitted assertions how can it be dogma?

No matter how far Science advances, it will be upheaved soon enough and stood on it's ear by people who can examine it critically.Like the Taliban, for example.

We are made of dirt and water which, somehow, on it's own, congealed into animals. That's evidence in and of itself that the dirt and water have a plan.You lack imagination. You project what you see at the biological scale onto the macro and micro scale. This is anthropomorphism; it's the same phenomonen that leads children to personify their cuddly toys and adults to personify their car.

PEACE BE UNTO THEE Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your PEACE.

Blob, you keep insulting me and that is very rude.

I curse you.

ED:
you Godless heathens!Here's another insult: hypocrite.

May you have a hard time getting to sleep for the next month.

(By the way you are a self proclaimed "Godless heathen"

"Heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your God")

Originally posted by Ed Blank
May you have a hard time getting to sleep for the next month. And may you have a long, happy and healthy life despite our philosophical differences, Ed.

This was to Ed not you
I know, however I believed you showed a lack of understanding in the area by even mentioning E=mc˛(I do not believe it to pertain whatsoever to that specific topic). Regardless, Ed has shown again and again that he cannot even comprehend the basics of it so I tried yet another way to explain it, alas apparently he, in his infinite knowledge and wisdom, has ignored it.

How so?

Waves (energy) are equivalent to particles (mass) i.e. E=mc2.

I'm just saying that what you're saying is too simple to apply. The priciple is too basic and doesn't factor into Feynman's theory at all. I mean, the first problem related to light, and light particles are massless(either that or it's immeasurable(which is string theory and does't apply yet)), so they technically don't have any energy to give off according to that formula.

so they technically don't have any energy to give off according to that formula.Yes but they can be seen to behave as though particles of a mass equivalent to the energy determined by their frequency.

Einstein correctly guessed that waves have an energy E given by a frequency f.
E=hf
(h is a constant known as plank's constant)

To consider the mass of the equivalent particle we use E=mc2; i.e.
m = hf/c2

So a photon of frequency f is equivalent to a particle of mass m.

Regardless, Ed has shown again and again that he cannot even comprehend the basics of it so I tried yet another way to explain it, alas apparently he, in his infinite knowledge and wisdom, has ignored it.He simply sticks his fingers in his ears, shuts his eyes and loudly sings "I am right". No wonder he repeats and repeats so many basic factual blunders, including that old theistic favourite: science just says everything is "random". :@@:

But, photons don't have a real mass! Of course they have an appearence of mass at any given velocity, but their invariant mass(oo, new word I found, it's the mass at rest) is zero. Photons have energy and have an appearence of mass yet move at the speed of light and by definition cannot have actual mass. And which is why I said they don't have any energy to give off according to E=mc˛.

I'd never heard of "invariant mass" - nice find!

Photons do have momentum though:
http://online.cctt.org/physicslab/content/PhyAPB/lessonnotes/dualnature/Compton.asp

This not just theoretical. It has an application in solar sails.
When a beam of light is pointed at a bright mirror-like surface, its photons reflect right back, just like a ball bouncing off a wall. In the process the photons transmit their momentum to the surface twice – once by the initial impact, and again by reflecting back from it.
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/whatis.html

The first solar sail will be launched on 31 May.
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/

Technically all that says is that photons carry energy that can be emitted in the form of electrons that have mass. It doesn't say that photons have mass momentum, energy momentum seen as mass.

The circle jerk has ended.

Where is the love fellas?

(I wasn't ignoring your profound insights Blibblob. I don't think the discussion of any particular nuance of any particular theory is broad enough to cover the general question I was posing, which is still on the table.

But you guys are too busy trying to shoot holes in arguments with authoritative websites to have an original thought.)

Hello there Ed! Back for a quick snipe I see! Trust it felt good.

Hope your life continues to be happy and healthy.

Your curse doesn't seem to be working by the way. I'm sleeping like a baby. Would you like me to send you a lock of hair to boil up with ear-of-bat so that you can cast a more effective evil spell on me?