Questions Related to the Origins of ALL Things

[Philip]

Particularly for the NON-theists amongst us, I'm curious as to how they would answer the following:

Related to the ORIGIN of all things, DO you or do you NOT agree with the following statements - and if not, WHY not?

- SOME THING or things HAD to be eternally existing.

- There had to be immense, eternally existing energy, OR some source for it, that was eternal.

- EVERYTHING that exists either had to have a source OR be eternal - as NOTHING can SELF-create itself.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, become intelligent.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, self-organize.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, recognize advantages or potential in juxtapositions or configurations.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, design or orchestrate things, or even recognize advantages of such - as they can't THINK, plan or strategize, in ANY way!

- The universe reveals mechanisms and designs that operate with extraordinary consistency, with much of it being FAR beyond what we can scarcely understand about it.

- When we study the universe, earth, life, etc., we see impressive design and functionality throughout it.

[Audie]

Particularly for the NON-theists amongst us, I'm curious as to how they would answer the following:

Related to the ORIGIN of all things, DO you or do you NOT agree with the following statements - and if not, WHY not?

- SOME THING or things HAD to be eternally existing.

I dont know what time is, and infinite time i understand even less.

- There had to be immense, eternally existing energy, OR some source for it, that was eternal.

Oh? Why? I think it is said the net energy of the universe is zero.

- EVERYTHING that exists either had to have a source OR be eternal - as NOTHING can SELF-create itself.

I am aware of this assertion, My take is that people over the centuries have made somewhat comparable assertions based on their thin understanding, about a lot of things that seemed logical.

At the end of the 19th century there was a smug assurance among physicists that they about hod things wrapped up.

I personally do not think anyone is remotely competent to make the statement you made.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, become intelligent.

So you say. You might skip the "random' which is used inappropriately.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, self-organize.

Really? I could cite ever so many examples to the contrary.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, recognize advantages or potential in juxtapositions or configurations.

huh

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, design or orchestrate things, or even recognize advantages of such - as they can't THINK, plan or strategize, in ANY way!

Well now you are getting into news of the tautological

- The universe reveals mechanisms and designs that operate with extraordinary consistency, with much of it being FAR beyond what we can scarcely understand about it.

Kind of my point, we dont understand enough to come to the conclusions you come to.

We are probably worse off than cat-philosophers and their cosmology concerning the origin of catfood.

- When we study the universe, earth, life, etc., we see impressive design and functionality throughout it

.

"Design' is an anthromomorphic word (so bite me if I spelled it wrong)
and as such is inadequate for thigns non human and much subject to equivocation.

[Philip]

There had to be immense, eternally existing energy, OR some source for it, that was eternal.

Audie: Oh? Why? I think it is said the net energy of the universe is zero.

Energy exists. It is a "thing." It has either ALWAYS existed, in some form, or not. If it has ALWAYS existed, then it is eternal. If not, it was created or derivative of something else that was ultimately eternal.


EVERYTHING that exists either had to have a source OR be eternal - as NOTHING can SELF-create itself.

Audie: I am aware of this assertion, My take is that people over the centuries have made somewhat comparable assertions based on their thin understanding, about a lot of things that seemed logical.

At the end of the 19th century there was a smug assurance among physicists that they about hod things wrapped up.

I personally do not think anyone is remotely competent to make the statement you made.

This is a staggering position to have. So do you believe there are things that A) DON'T have a source, but that B) also are not eternal? This means they can self create themselves - a logical impossibility. What other option is there???!!! Yes, give me a "competent" answer. Is it the eternal aspect you have a hard time with? Saying physicists of the past didn't understand things has nothing at all to do with the ONLY two options available to this question. Notice, at this point, I'm not asking for identification of the derivative source of every existing thing. But just give me just one other option that ANY scientist has EVER put forth. They all insist that the universe had a source - many insist upon that the source(s) are ultimately eternal. But next to no one suggests things can self create themselves. ONE other option characteristic, it's all I'm asking for.

Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, self-organize.

Audie: Really? I could cite ever so many examples to the contrary.

Remember, we are speaking of untold numbers of UNGUIDED things that supposedly developed and operate via pure CHANCE. And NOT per the long-observed, immense, unfathomable, highly predictable precision and necessary collective unison of what we redundantly observe! So, at the very least, the way things are is eternal - not blindly stumbled upon. Whatever makes the incredible precision and functionality possible, must be eternal. You might just say, "the rules of the universe simply exist and are as they ARE." But when you say that, you are referring to some guidance that is ultimately eternal. And let's not forget, science postulates that the many THINGS of awesome design and function, prior to the Big Bang, didn't even exist. So they all things had a source, and they IMMEDIATELY appeared obeying laws of incredible consistency, that locked their parameters as to what is and isn't possible. And governing laws themselves are not PHYSICAL things, they are merely observations of the consistency of their guiding functions. Guiding laws can't create themselves either. If they existed independently of being created, they are eternal. So, there HAVE to be laws that are eternal, as they show every hallmark of what can only reasonable be described as being of revealing incredible intelligence and design, per their effect and control upon the objects they guide. This is logic 101! But by reasonably describing what is observed as showing every possible marker of intelligence and design, we must say this ability came from something eternal and extraordinarily consistent. We don't see random chaos, but controlled order and strict parameters.

Audie: "Design' is an anthromomorphic word (so bite me if I spelled it wrong)
and as such is inadequate for thigns non human and much subject to equivocation.

Do you have a better word that also checks all the boxes for things described as being designed? The scientific literature prolifically describes the universe in terms of "design" and "functionality." It just doesn't address a possible "DESIGNER!"

[Audie]

There had to be immense, eternally existing energy, OR some source for it, that was eternal.

Audie: Oh? Why? I think it is said the net energy of the universe is zero.

Energy exists. It is a "thing." It has either ALWAYS existed, in some form, or not. If it has ALWAYS existed, then it is eternal. If not, it was created or derivative of something else that was ultimately eternal.

If the net energy is zero, what might that imply?



EVERYTHING that exists either had to have a source OR be eternal - as NOTHING can SELF-create itself.

Audie: I am aware of this assertion, My take is that people over the centuries have made somewhat comparable assertions based on their thin understanding, about a lot of things that seemed logical.

At the end of the 19th century there was a smug assurance among physicists that they about hod things wrapped up.

I personally do not think anyone is remotely competent to make the statement you made.

This is a staggering position to have. So do you believe there are things that A) DON'T have a source, but that B) also are not eternal?

"Things" is a bit vague, but yeah, screwdrivers have a source.

This means they can self create themselves - a logical impossibility. What other option is there???!!!

Hmmm. God is all powerful but cannot create himself?

But not, I dont think things create themselves.

Yes, give me a "competent" answer. Is it the eternal aspect you have a hard time with? S

Isnt time kind of a question for everyone? If someone knows what it is, I hope they will tell me.

Saying physicists of the past didn't understand things has nothing at all to do with the ONLY two options available to this question.

I dunno, seems to me that physicists today are still like cats figuring out catfood.

Maybe there are only two options there, or maybe neither of those is an option.

Notice, at this point, I'm not asking for identification of the derivative source of every existing thing. But just give me just one other option that ANY scientist has EVER put forth. They all insist that the universe had a source -

The word "source" may need a lot of defining and clarifying.

many insist upon that the source(s) are ultimately eternal. But next to no one suggests things can self create themselves. ONE other option characteristic, it's all I'm asking for.

Why exactly is god said to be an exception to all logic and rules that apply to all else?

Regardless, I dont have an option, or an opinion on this. Im the cat who doesnt come up with a solution to the catfood problem. Sorry.


Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, self-organize.

Audie: Really? I could cite ever so many examples to the contrary.

Remember, we are speaking of untold numbers of UNGUIDED things that supposedly developed and operate via pure CHANCE.

I dunno, are we? Disirre gardless, the list of things that self organize and function.

And NOT per the long-observed, immense, unfathomable, highly predictable precision and necessary collective unison of what we redundantly observe!

Seriously, your lists of adjectives are wearing me out! and "necessary collective unison of what we redundantly observe" is kinda gobblede.. can you rephrase that in more normal talk? Not trying to be tiresome but sometimes your way of writing overwhelms your mesage.

So, at the very least, the way things are is eternal - not blindly stumbled upon

.

No idea what that means.

Whatever makes the incredible precision and functionality possible, must be eternal

I suppose, chances are electricity, magnetism, strong force, weak force etc wotn speed up, slow down, turn around or cease.

. You might just say, "the rules of the universe simply exist and are as they ARE."

Dunno that it is a case of "simply". More of a mind boggling mystery.

But when you say that, you are referring to some guidance that is ultimately eternal.

I dont say that, nor do I so refer.

And let's not forget, science postulates that the many THINGS of awesome design and function, prior to the Big Bang, didn't even exist.

It is an idea. But then, prior (if such has any meaning) to ye BB, how many other universes may have or still be in existence.

Audie: "Design' is an anthromomorphic word (so bite me if I spelled it wrong)
and as such is inadequate for thigns non human and much subject to equivocation.

Do you have a better word that also checks all the boxes for things described as being designed? The scientific literature prolifically describes the universe in terms of "design" and "functionality." It just doesn't address a possible "DESIGNER!"

(It aint a case of "political")

Nope, I dont have a new word to offer.

Do you feel that a crystal, or a river system are designed?

[hughfarey]

Particularly for the NON-theists amongst us, I'm curious as to how they would answer the following:

Actually, I hope the responses of theists might be of interest too...

Related to the ORIGIN of all things, DO you or do you NOT agree with the following statements - and if not, WHY not?
- SOME THING or things HAD to be eternally existing.

This statement pre-supposes that time itself is eternal, which is far from necessary. I think most cosmologists think that time and space began at the same time.

- There had to be immense, eternally existing energy, OR some source for it, that was eternal.

I'd go along with the source.

- EVERYTHING that exists either had to have a source OR be eternal - as NOTHING can SELF-create itself.

A useful axiom, with which I concur, but not, I think, necessarily true. In your reply to Audie you said that "next to no one suggests things can self create themselves." I don't think that's true either. Lots of cosmologists think that the universe did indeed self create itself. I disagree with them, but more on philosophical than logical grounds.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, become intelligent.

This is both unnecessarily emotionally charged, and also too broad to be assessable in terms of truth or falsehood. If you mean that humans could not have evolved over 3.5 billion years from non-living matter, then I think you're wrong.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, self-organize.

Same as above.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, recognize advantages or potential in juxtapositions or configurations.

If recognition of potential is a feature of intelligence, then obviously not.

- Blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent things cannot, unguided, design or orchestrate things, or even recognize advantages of such - as they can't THINK, plan or strategize, in ANY way!

Same as above.

- The universe reveals mechanisms and designs that operate with extraordinary consistency, with much of it being FAR beyond what we can scarcely understand about it.

Fair enough.

- When we study the universe, earth, life, etc., we see impressive design and functionality throughout it.

This depends what you mean by design. Does the Andromeda galaxy show design and functionality? If so, then I agree. If not, then I don't.

I think that your airy collection of adjectives - blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent - do not together provide a good description of anything. Audie is right in that anthropomorphic characterisation is often not helpful here. What exactly do you mean by 'blind' and 'random', for example? It also sounds to me as if you include your predicate with your subject here, so that your statements are really no more than self referential statements of the obvious. Of course "blind, random, non-living, non-intelligent" things are blind, and random, and non-living, and non-intelligent.

What you really want to know, I suspect, is how non-theists, and theists like myself, explain why there is anything rather than nothing (the origin of the Universe), and how intelligence as we understand it arrived without the direct intervention of God a few thousands of years ago (evolution). Is that right?

[Audie]

What you really want to know, I suspect, is how non-theists, and theists like myself, explain why there is anything rather than nothing (the origin of the Universe), and how intelligence as we understand it arrived without the direct intervention of God a few thousands of years ago (evolution). Is that right?

At the risk of making myself open to a charge if being shallow or blithely unconcerned about
what may be a fundamental question-

I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

And, here I differ for sure from those who apply theology and philosophy to the subject-

I dont think I, or they, have a prayer of knowing where the universe came from.

Too bad,I guess: and Im too old now to have a prayer of being Ms Universe either, so I miss out on both.
Thst might also be too bad, but what's to do now about either but mope, or go on to things that might matter?

The origin of intelligence seems to my small understanding as but a series of reasonably well
known steps. "Evolution", and all that rot.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

Well that is changing the subject more than a little, but if I detected such as you describe
that would be keen, sure.

Your saying there is such a god, or someond else saying some other sorta god,
no, that does not affect my life. As long as they dont fire up the
inquisition again.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

Well that is changing the subject more than a little, but if I detected such as you describe
that would be keen, sure.

Your saying there is such a god, or someond else saying some other sorta god,
no, that does not affect my life. As long as they dont fire up the
inquisition again.

Changing the subject? I just responded to what you said.

So it would make a difference in your life, if there were a loving God who created the universe?

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

Well that is changing the subject more than a little, but if I detected such as you describe
that would be keen, sure.

Your saying there is such a god, or someond else saying some other sorta god,
no, that does not affect my life. As long as they dont fire up the
inquisition again.

Changing the subject? I just responded to what you said.

So it would make a difference in your life, if there were a loving God who created the universe?

Apparently not, it's been 32 years under this hypothetical god, and nothing has come of it.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I dont think it makes any difference to my life which version, of what if any
explanation for the origin of the universe is true.

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

Well that is changing the subject more than a little, but if I detected such as you describe
that would be keen, sure.

Your saying there is such a god, or someond else saying some other sorta god,
no, that does not affect my life. As long as they dont fire up the
inquisition again.

Changing the subject? I just responded to what you said.

So it would make a difference in your life, if there were a loving God who created the universe?

Apparently not, it's been 32 years under this hypothetical god, and nothing has come of it.

Ok. I think I understand what you mean. Even if God did create the universe, it's not evident to you, therefore it has no influence in your life.

Is that accurate?

[Audie]

So, you can honestly say that it makes no difference to you if a loving, personal God made the universe, or the universe came about by purely naturalistic means, and God doesn't exist?

Well that is changing the subject more than a little, but if I detected such as you describe
that would be keen, sure.

Your saying there is such a god, or someond else saying some other sorta god,
no, that does not affect my life. As long as they dont fire up the
inquisition again.

Changing the subject? I just responded to what you said.

So it would make a difference in your life, if there were a loving God who created the universe?

Apparently not, it's been 32 years under this hypothetical god, and nothing has come of it.

Ok. I think I understand what you mean. Even if God did create the universe, it's not evident to you, therefore it has no influence in your life.

Is that accurate?

Sounds right.

[RickD]

With that said, do you mind if I ask God to reveal Himself to you, in a way that you can understand?

[Audie]

With that said, do you mind if I ask God to reveal Himself to you, in a way that you can understand?

Any time.

[Philip]

RickD wrote: With that said, do you mind if I ask God to reveal Himself to you, in a way that you can understand?

Audie: Any time.

For that understanding to become reality, one must, at the very least, sincerely WANT to know the truth about it. IF a person has the attitude and level of resistance to the truth, that NO level of evidence is sufficient, that NO calculated improbability will ever be allowed to dissuade their belief, or if they strongly desire to remain an unbeliever out of anger at the world, others, or whatever perceived unfairness about the world as it is NOW (yes, MAN has made this world a hell for many), or even from just a simple desire to remain their own little god (the only person they will ever be willing to submit to), then they'll not find or perceive of His existence or relevance. But being WILLING and also DESIRING the truth can change everything - even in people not necessarily seeking it.