I am against religion and I think religion must be eliminated worldwide along with the fanatics in it, no matter which religion but the recent events and reaction around a movie speak well. Once one said 'if religion was so stable people wouldn't be affected by a movie'. Of course I do not give more credit to prayers at the Vatican, Catholics, Protestants or anywhere else for that matter, convicting people of Demon possession and stuff like that The lighter believers should be repogrammed and reeducated. NWO boys, it's coming.. and for the better.
Quite right you are. Which the bible predicted would happen. Ah the irony. Oh...sorry, never-mind me, I couldn`t help myself responding to this.
The bible also asserts that the Earth is held up on immovable pillars, has 4 corners, mentions unicorns 8 times and points out that God can't defeat iron chariots.
Really, anything this book "predicts" is raw coincidence. I'd also like to see what passage you're using to make that claim, because I am 100% sure it will be some insanely vague sentence.
Another note on predictions: keep in mind we only remember predictions that turn out to be wrong. Over the years people have predicted anything from 9/11 to aliens landing in alaska in order to to kill us by poisoning our soap supply. Guess which of those we remember as being stunningly correct.
1.The bible also asserts that the Earth is held up on immovable pillars, has 4 corners, mentions unicorns 8 times and points out that God can't defeat iron chariots.
2.Really, anything this book "predicts" is raw coincidence. 3.I'd also like to see what passage you're using to make that claim, because I am 100% sure it will be some insanely vague sentence.
1.Can you please link verses when you make those statements?. I honestly dont know what they refer to.
Yes, the mention of `4 corners` is there, presumably asserting that the earth is flat. However, its more often a figure of speech and the only thing that the people in those days would have understood.
The shape of the earth being a sphere is there in the bible. Making the above claim valid(because a statement of the earth being flat `specifically` is not mentioned in the bible).
2. To be honest, it doesn`t `predict`(thats sort of guessing) but rather it details the future unfolding(Yes my wording has heavy bias).
3. The Book of Revelations is full of metaphors, because the terms/concepts such as `New World Order` etc weren`t invented at the time by us, and smart people would be able to figure it out regardless(Not that I consider myself smart, because the study of it is too exhaustive for my liking)
So, lets summarize as best as possible:
"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.Revelation 17:12 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. Revelation 17:13
But anyway, Someone(in a powerful/influential position) is going to come up with a brilliant plan/s to solve huge problems(currency, failing economies, banking systems, etc). Power will be signed over to him.
13:7-8 "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
The Power of the Beast - "He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them." Today the world is prepared for a one world governmental philosophy. That philosophy, propagated by Satan and advocated by the intellectual, godless, atheistic leaders of world governments today, is rapidly spreading across the earth.
As already seen, humankind has just about come to the conclusion that the only solution to the problem of continuous war is a one world government.
The one world government will be the devil's government. In the midst of that time and once entrenched he will assume control himself and, as verse 7 tells us, will exercise power over "every tribe, people, language and nation."
and finally complete control: 13:16-17 "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:" "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Lol?
The tech is already there, and its application is being used in hospitals, Exclusive clubs(cant find that link again), etc and all for varying different purposes at the moment. Eventually(In the NWO and one world currency and all that) its going to replace the `cash in the bank/in your wallet system` all together. Which is a brilliant idea(Efficient and easy to control/maintain) when you think of it, it would solve most of all the world problems(Crime, etc). I would have implemented such a thing if I were in power to do so (and if I didn`t know any better), but of course we`re warned against accepting this "tag" and being under the system.
Quite right you are. Which the bible predicted would happen. Ah the irony. Oh...sorry, never-mind me, I couldn`t help myself responding to this.
One of the most detestable things about religion is probably the yearning of its practitioners for the world to just end already. Instead of seeking to create a paradise here on earth while we are still alive and have the chance, there is instead a desire for the believers to be separated from the flock and lifted into paradise, and to hell with everyone else. It's a good thing that this wretched fantasy will never come to pass. People have been predicting this end-of-the-world scenario in their own lifetimes for millenia now.
One of the most detestable things about religion is probably the yearning of its practitioners for the world to just end already. Instead of seeking to create a paradise here on earth while we are still alive and have the chance, there is instead a desire for the believers to be lifted into paradise, and to hell with everyone else. It's a good thing that this wretched fantasy will never come to pass. People have been predicting this end-of-the-world scenario in their own lifetimes for millenia now.
Poor Gradius. Always talking without knowledge and being stereotypical. Tisk tisk.
And none of you realized that the Internet is this "NWO" and that cats rule it? I'm going to predict that someone will make a reply to this thread sometime in the future.
Lol, there he goes again with that ridiculous biblical nonsense. Poor EternalWraith.
Anyone remember Family Radio predicting the end of the world and then tried to use biblical passages to save face? Those ignorant fools... Doomsday hype is just an extension of people's fears about their own mortality.
Lol, someone should combine all these crazy ideas for a crazy Starcraft 2 role play map. Ancient aliens, illuminati, gods, Bush is a reptilian, Obama is a Kenyan muslim, Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter, Elvis is from Mars, etc.
And none of you realized that the Internet is this "NWO" and that cats rule it? I'm going to predict that someone will make a reply to this thread sometime in the future.
I had half a mind to lock the thread to prevent future replies JUST to be evil like that ;P
And none of you realized that the Internet is this "NWO" and that cats rule it? I'm going to predict that someone will make a reply to this thread sometime in the future.
Lol, there he goes again with that ridiculous biblical nonsense. Poor EternalWraith.
Anyone remember Family Radio predicting the end of the world and then tried to use biblical passages to save face? Those ignorant fools... Doomsday hype is just an extension of people's fears about their own mortality.
Lol, someone should combine all these crazy ideas for a crazy Starcraft 2 role play map. Ancient aliens, illuminati, gods, Bush is a reptilian, Obama is a Kenyan muslim, Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter, Elvis is from Mars, etc.
Doubting is good. When you doubt something that tells you to doubt what you think you know about something, you`d better have 100% certainty against that thing. Otherwise you`re in fairy-tale land.
There`s also no `doomsday` message in the bible, that the world will `suddenly` end. Things will just so happen to take a turn for the worst(which is happening in the world already) and etc etc.
Those ideas you mentioned are all ridiculous. But you can throw the bible in there too just because you`re inclined by ignorance to do so?, Sure go ahead.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Logic, hope if any disaster happens you guys will think logically. But you can just stand still waiting, for example for the tsunami to take you, I am ok with that too:D
I have a question or two for you EternalWrath. You have clearly done your homework and I respect that.
There are many events in the Bible that can and have been corroborated with empirical evidence. Many events are plain untrue / just stories, but there are certainly a good deal of them that we can accept as being true (with some margin of error on the recorder's part). Let's say that again: there are many events described in the Bible that actually did happen.
But you seem to imply that your belief in god stems from logic. To me there seems to be a gap here... Simply because the Bible is correct about some (or even many) things, does not mean it is right about everything. We have evidence to support that certain events took place, but we have absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of God (I genuinely would like to see some, without pointing to the Bible).
There is a gap here, is there not? If not, what am I missing (evidence for God existing)? If so, can you be clear about what you fill this gap with? Belief or evidence? If evidence, what evidence?
@Everyone
Shall I post it? Have we cleared all the side talk?
Lol, ignorance causes people, like yourself, to believe in fairy tales such as the bible. Reason allows people to be skeptical of such fairy tales and to acknowledge contradicting evidence. Do you have enough faith in your religion that if you were to jump off a bridge or skyscraper, your invisible almighty god will save you? Of course, you might say that's now how your god works, a lazy excuse. Perhaps that god does not exist, if that god exists, you are such an insignificant creature that it would not bother to save you, if that god exists, it doesn't care what you do, etc. A myriad of possible explanations, for which the sum of the total probability is 1 or 100%. The gathering of empirical data shifts the probability of any individual explanation. As technology, science, and time progresses, scientific explanations are reaching 100%, while religious explanations are dropping to 0%.
The time of the invasion of the body snatchers nears!
I have a question or two for you EternalWrath. You have clearly done your homework and I respect that.
There are many events in the Bible that can and have been corroborated with empirical evidence. Many events are plain untrue / just stories, but there are certainly a good deal of them that we can accept as being true (with some margin of error on the recorder's part). Let's say that again: there are many events described in the Bible that actually did happen.
But you seem to imply that your belief in god stems from logic. To me there seems to be a gap here... Simply because the Bible is correct about some (or even many) things, does not mean it is right about everything. We have evidence to support that certain events took place, but we have absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of God (I genuinely would like to see some, without pointing to the Bible).
There is a gap here, is there not? If not, what am I missing (evidence for God existing)? If so, can you be clear about what you fill this gap with? Belief or evidence? If evidence, what evidence?
//////////////////// On faith, Reason, Knowledge, Belief //////////////////
The gap is `Experience`. Experience is the direct foundation of evidence, and the indirect foundation of faith. Hence unless you witness the power of God made manifest in your life, You will very much be in the dark and rightly so. Faith is the realization of Knowledge which is and becomes the path to Experience/Truth
Faith is `belief` in motion and thus `faith` is the active causation unto experience. Know that knowledge and experience/truth are intertwined, and that knowledge bears witness and remembrance of experience/truth.
Belief is not a matter of`logic`(but can be motivated by logic and basic/functional knowledge) and may be wrong, and then faith(actions, intent, purposes) becomes misplaced because of that, and the end experience a negative if you become aware and eventually know of it.
If the desire is truth/experience unto anything, then one must exercise faith
The desire(being either positive or negative aka no desire) is motivated on perceived relevance(Which is also a belief)
Faith is the culmination of truth as we can imagine in this diagram:
It merges belief INTO truth/experience
Do you `know` your parents are indeed your biological parents?
Could you have been adopted? . Would you take their word against it?
Would you go out of your way to prove it?. If so, How far?
Again, this is established because of your perceived relevance of the matter(Which, again, is a belief). At such a late stage of life, do you think it really matters?. Like almost all people, you would believe it does not matter and thus your actions(faith) will take its course(Giving no attention to the matter)
Which brings us to our point;
Some people believe the origin and reason of our existence to be critically important, others not so. The term `important` here is subjective.
////////////////// Evidence //////////////
For the sake of argument and understanding, We shall set the word God to reference "First cause" or `Source`. For the first cause is the ultimate truth of the matter.
Now, as to the `evidence` for God(the First cause). Lets take the novel approach.
Before we can evaluate/conclude any such evidence, we would need to define `God`(the First Cause) and so then understand what we are looking for.
YET BEFORE we even go there, let us go through a discourse on deductive reasoning. For counter argumentative purposes and to exclude metaphysics. Although we cannot prove that X does not exist, we tend to reject its existence, based on the fact that the weight of evidence(and/or lack thereof) suggests that it does not exist. Nothing is stopping anyone from believing in whatever anyway, but as we said only faith gets you to the truth/experience.
Invisible pink unicorns
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink(a stronger spectrum) electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Spaghetti and meatballs are the physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Santa Claus
Is the existence of God/The First cause comparable to the existence of Santa Claus, spaghetti, or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Santa Claus, unicorns and flying spaghetti are contingent beings and are dependent on this constructed universe to exist , whereas The First causewould have to be non-contingent.
Therefore, to make an analogy between The First Cause(The Prime Matrix) and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti is logically flawed from the outset.
First Cause/Source/GOD
Time
Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time. Not only space, but `time` also has a beginning - at that was at the moment of creation(Big Bang). Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward. Time is relative and also an illusion.
The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance (Their source of origin). This cannot be refuted as its a logical truth.
Hence anyone that asks for proof/evidence of the First cause is in fact believing(for lack of knowledge and logic) that contradictions are possible
CONCLUSION
The question "Proof/evidence for the First cause/Source?", Is actually the answer in itself. This may sound like a lazy and unresearched answer, However closer analysis reveals the truth. Its like the cake saying "Wheres the proof of flour?". This logic will iron itself out for you by the end of this message.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CAUSATION AND CORRELATION
The former does not imply the latter. On Chance occurrences.
[Some Quotes from Scientists] Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
The laws of science… contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Thomas Edison
I believe that the science of chemistry alone almost proves the existence of an intelligent creator.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): [i]"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist):"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist):"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies:"The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA):"We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer):"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist):"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics):"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist):"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic):"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics):"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
[b]Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician):"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist):"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist):"As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist):"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists):"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia):"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)"Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)"It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics):"From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
Etc etc etc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now, the laws of physics and all the constants in the Universe. We can explain how it functions(atleast, most of it), but can we explain why it functions? or why it is what it is?. Yes. (AA) The laws of any system exist only for its outcome/purpose[Logical truth]. The outcome of our reality is `existence/life/consciousness`.
Planck epoch being the earliest known moment in time. Photons. Hydrogen and helium being the first elements created shortly thereafter. Etc etc
Lets refer to the process that triggered this as S(Source)
S = Source
What triggered S = ?Circular logic(We then will ask what triggered the trigger of S, ad infinitum, and since we proved there was no time prior to the big bang, then this question makes no sense ). How do we answer this then?. We just have to say nothing triggered S(Will be understood later). Where was S triggered? = S is triggered in S When was S triggered? = @Planktime Why was S triggered = Universal outcome(existence and life, refer above to AA)
`Chance` is but a set(finite) of selection processes within a system of which the probability factor(for success) is determined by variables for the very same intended outcome!.
I.E Coin tossing is not random or chance at all. When its said that there is a 50/50 chance for either side, it really means that 50% of the variable application is unaccounted for and being negated on the selection process.
Example 1: Coin flip via Selection process fingers on variables requisite for intended outcome = intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process fingers on variables not requisite for intended outcome != intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process "Coin-flipper" device on variables requisite for intended outcome = intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process "Coin-flipper" device on variables not requisite for intended outcome != intended outcome
So, whatever selection process occurred from/within (S) to form the Universe is irrelevant. Making chance[of selection processes] irrelevant. Only fact is that the variables requisite for the intended outcome was perfect(Refer again to AA).
Mini conclusionMisunderstanding of the word `Chance` poses a question that causes misinterpretations in logic patterns
Well, thats the end of: Quantum mechanical superposition, and its sub theories of many worlds, multiverses etc
To add further onto that. I put my keys in my jacket pocket, and I know its there. Take off jacket. Someone(a blind person) steals the keys(Unknown to me) from simply feeling the jacket and finding the pocket. The keys are not in a superposition state, which is `depending` on any `observer effect` to collapse onto reality.
Everett(The guy that developed the theory) regarded MWI(many-worlds interpretation) as falsifiable since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI(Ye sure..). Also its seen as violation of the principle of locality, which contradicts special relativity. Violates Occams's razor theory. No point throwing wonky metaphysical ideas to defend those and many other claims against it.
As of 2010, there are no feasible experiments to test the differences between MWI and other theories.
Multiverse aka : A universe must exist for every physical possibility. There are Earths where the Nazis prevailed in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein, Where Blizzard actually released games exactly on time instead of "Soon", and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent beings who read New Scientist.
Anyway, every physical possibility goes down to the atomic level. All the physical laws would be different, which would never give rise to a universe like ours at all.
Dawkings suggests infinite big bangs going off. Not only is this circular logic on circular logic, but Now, where is this occurring?(According to Dawkings, he thinks it occurs on a larger multiverse...and here we go again). There is actually Zero evidence for multiverse theory, and ultimately it doesn`t lead to the answers we are looking for. It cant even answer itself, and never will.
Secular websites put it this way. "Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age"
On Multiverse. Given this belief then, one would also expect to find universes in which Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and the Easter Bunny existed. It would even be logical to believe that there would be at least one universe in which a being such as God existed. So, the multiverse does not get rid of God, but requires that He exist.
CONCLUSION
Is it logical to believe that the universe occurred by chance?. Not in the slightest. However, this can be understood more clearly later on.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On Macro Randomness.
We have said that the origin of a system(outcome) is not dependent on chance(in the conventional meaning). Now lets see if sub-systems can form in a system from randomness(random assembly) of variable interactions. Its possible. However, initial conditions in the system will affect variable interactions to the point where the formation of sub system(outcomes) might become impossible.
In this case, we`ll see if the Universe self assembled on its variables through randomness. The lower the randomness factor, the lower the initial and post conditions required. The higher the randomness factor, the tighter and stronger the initial and post conditions have to had been.
Brace your mind:
Given the data available in 1979, Roger Penrose (a world-class mathematician) calculated the odds of our observed universe occurring by accident to be less than one in 10^(10^30). The calculation was based on thermodynamics and entropy considerations. Since 1979, additional Anthropic coincidences have been discovered, making random occurrence even more unlikely.
10^30 is 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, i.e., 1 followed by 30 zeros; 10^50 is 1 followed by 50 zeros.
Penrose's calculated probability was one part in 10^(10^30), which is 1 followed by 10^30 zeros. And 10^30 is itself 1 followed by 30 zeros. So, the probability works out to be one part in 10^(100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000), i.e., 10 raised to the power of 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, or 1 followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros (i.e., 1 followed by a nonillion zeros).
Epistemic Probability(Probability for a claim being true, aka in this case of random assembly of the universe from its variables): 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 … … … … … 00001
Its estimated that If we would to write this number out, as 0.0000 0000 …, with all of its zeros, we would need a computer hard-drive much larger than the size of our entire universe, just to hold all of the zeros that It would contain.
So, what does all this mean?. Well..., It means that it is reasonable(understatement) to conclude that our universe did not self assemble by accident/chance/randomness. The evidence (observation of extremely-low epistemic-probability) points to deliberate interference on and post initial conditions that designed, created and fine-tuned the universe.
Some other data: The Big-bang
The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability(chance of natural/random self assembly) of the explosive force/density: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001
Gravity
The force of gravity had to be tuned to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, for stars capable of supporting-life to exist (based on balancing electromagnetic forces with gravitational forces).
This is one part in 10^40, which is 1 followed by 40 zeros.
Epistemic probability(chance of natural/random self assembly): 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001
Electrons & Protons
The number of electrons had to be matched to the number of protons to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00, for formation of stars and planets.
This is one part in 10^37, which is 1 followed by 37 zeros.
Epistemic probability((chance of natural/random self assembly): 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01
Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant
It has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10^120
"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the "problems" associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant "lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions." They admit that "there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state" and that their study, "Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis." They also state, "A possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
More examples of extreme fine tuning can be found on processes(Formation of Carbon chemistry, Strong nuclear force<> Weak nuclear force, etc), dispelling the notion of random self assembly of the universe from its variables. It might be slightly plausible on a single process or a few, however there are too many processes on which this occurs. For example, when we find structures from the ancient world(Temples, Roman coliseum Etc) we dont even remotely assume that a tornado threw it all together(which is possible but not probable at all without it being considered a miracle AKA direct variable manipulation/interference)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On Micro Randomness.
[Evolution on random assembly]
Scientific Facts
N:R(Current reasoning) (1) (Reject the second law of thermodynamics)
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 81. (Dr. Orgel is an atheist who has been working on origins of life research for over 30 years.)) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies).
(2) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose , the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.
(3) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication
(4) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either).
(5) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication .
(6) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Purine and pyrimidine Structural components, or building blocks, of DNA and RNA. Nucleotides consists of a base plus a molecule of sugar and one of phosphate.nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 82.).
(7) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (1997. MEETING BRIEFS: Primordial Soup Researchers Gather at Watering Hole. Science 277: 1034.). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself (Robertson, M.P. and W.G. Scott. 2007 The Structural Basis of Ribozyme-Catalyzed RNA Assembly. Science 315: 1549.).
(8) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
(9) (Discard geological data)
Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least 4.3 billion years ago: Bortman, H. 2001. Life Under Bombardment,
Dimroth, E. and M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: Evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161-1185.
(10) (Discard chemistry data)
Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup." (Shapiro R. 1995. The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536683?dopt=Abstract)
(11) (Discard geological data : Discard chemistry data)
Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." All possible intermediates suffer severe problems . Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (Shapiro, R. 1999. Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life : http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4396).
(13) (Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism)
The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (Szathmáry, E. 2000. The evolution of replicators. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355: 1669-1676.). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (Knauth, L.P. 2000. Life on Land in the Precambrian and the Marine vs. Non-Marine Setting of Early Evolution. First Astrobiology Science Conference, April 3-5, 2000, NASA Ames Research Center)
(14) (Life spontaneously arose by chance at least 30 separate times, each within a period of 10 million years)
Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (Chyba, C. and C. Sagan. 1992. Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538392?dopt=Abstract). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth's oceans (Kerr, R. 1999. Early Life Thrived Despite Earthly Travails. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5423/2111. "For its first half-billion years, Earth endured a punishing rain of impacts, which vaporized the oceans and scorched the globe so fiercely that some researchers now propose that life could have first evolved on a more hospitable world, then later hitchhiked to Earth on a meteorite."), destroying all life.
(15) (Discard evidence)
Complex bacterial life (oxygenic photosynthesis) had appeared by 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and R. Frei. 2004. U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland–Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis.http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/0012821x/2004/00000217/00000003/art00609.), leaving virtually no time for prebiotics to have evolved into the first life forms.
"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).
"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication." (Leslie Orgel)
'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History).
Etc etc
Now we come to a logical statement
If Source can create(which it did), How can Source NOT be able to modify?. Creation from Source is already Modification from Source(It can only create from itself), and sub variables/systems cannot become independent from its original parent/rule structure. It can seem that way because we can easily lose track. Take for example and based on mathematical logic: The poset system following the explanatory diagram
Seems complex and hard to follow?. Hardly(its only 6 variables), but now imagine all constants and variables of the universe being expressed through that. We aren`t even mapping quantum laws through that nor applying Total order theory. It would seem near infinite(but not), This is why sub-systems can look to be independent, but in the larger scope, thats not the case.
So Source being able to interfere/modify is a logical truth.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Proof of Macro and Micro interference/modifications explained above. If people still dont get/understand it: Recommended literature:
Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism"
Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads"
In other discussions, Flew admitted that he had a difficult time believing in any scientific theories that attempted to explain the origin of the first replicator. He also indicated that the Big Bang creation event had been a problem for his atheism "because it suggested that the universe had a beginning and that the first sentence of Genesis (In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") was related to an event in the universe." Flew was uncomfortable with alternatives, saying, "I did not find the multiverse alternative very helpful. The postulation of multiple universes, I maintained, is a truly desperate alternative."
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind [Paperback]
Likewise and on a slightly similar note, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
The relation to S(Source) and U(Universe/or Us)
OnlySource exists
U is not separate from the Source
Everything NOT Source is Sub-Source
Sub Source(unto ad infinitum) = Degree of difference (and thus degree of separation) from Source
Sub Source still inherits from hierarchy and even all the way unto the ultimate prime quality/essence of Source(Im not going to try and teach this because it would not be understood)
Source is infinitely becoming Source through this process which means Source = Source
This is the truth of the matter.
Scientists are still tripping here and there on various logic gaps(Thinking the universe is eternal @ Zero energy state etc), Still pursuing chain<>logic, etc.
It is actually possible to comprehend Source in a finite understanding. Just like a kid cant understand Quantum physics without going through the elementary knowledge, The same way Source can only be fully known when we raise our understanding and consciousness and...become Source.
Anyway, This `Source` is what I give the title of `God`(Because, it rolls out better on the tongue).
. Jesus came trying to teach people of these things. The result of that?, Well, he was hated, despised, and eventually crucified by his own people(But he rose from the dead). His teachings, when I come to reflect on it now, are truly harmonious mathematical expressions(masked in the materialistic word).
Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?(John 10:32 - 34)
God is not someone with a white beard in the sky demanding false worship and prayers and throwing thunderbolts at people randomly. That is the misconception of the whole world. But the scope of this message is not to show you how I can destroy all religions in this world, or reveal to you the perfect expressive name of the Source/God, or to show evidence of the bible(10 plagues of Egypt, proof of Christ and the early Apostles/chrisitans, etc etc), or to express the reason for duality in reality, or to explain faulty human logic(If miracle can be explained = Naturalistic (No God), If miracle cant be explained = No proof, No God) or to show educated people how broken human evolution theory is(Satan really fights back hard on this one) , or to explain the teachings of Christ and other biblical secrets, To show scientifically how the universe WAS actually created in 6 days, To show even how the bible correlates to the periodic table, etc Because frankly Im too tired after having written this out, and people must believe in their limits of their experience.
I just want to conclude with the final and perfect expression of Source To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
(Revelation 3:21)
To overcome the seperation. We need to `backtrack`. Eventually we become the Source again.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
(John 14:6)
Jesus is apparently the decompiler back to the Source. From Sub-source to Source.
But as I said, Its all about moving toward `experience`.
I think you just explained in a really detailed way that something exists (or existed) that put everything into motion. May have missed something important though, it's late.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am against religion and I think religion must be eliminated worldwide along with the fanatics in it, no matter which religion but the recent events and reaction around a movie speak well. Once one said 'if religion was so stable people wouldn't be affected by a movie'. Of course I do not give more credit to prayers at the Vatican, Catholics, Protestants or anywhere else for that matter, convicting people of Demon possession and stuff like that The lighter believers should be repogrammed and reeducated. NWO boys, it's coming.. and for the better.
Quite right you are. Which the bible predicted would happen. Ah the irony. Oh...sorry, never-mind me, I couldn`t help myself responding to this.
The bible also asserts that the Earth is held up on immovable pillars, has 4 corners, mentions unicorns 8 times and points out that God can't defeat iron chariots.
Really, anything this book "predicts" is raw coincidence. I'd also like to see what passage you're using to make that claim, because I am 100% sure it will be some insanely vague sentence.
Another note on predictions: keep in mind we only remember predictions that turn out to be wrong. Over the years people have predicted anything from 9/11 to aliens landing in alaska in order to to kill us by poisoning our soap supply. Guess which of those we remember as being stunningly correct.
1.Can you please link verses when you make those statements?. I honestly dont know what they refer to.
Yes, the mention of `4 corners` is there, presumably asserting that the earth is flat. However, its more often a figure of speech and the only thing that the people in those days would have understood.
The shape of the earth being a sphere is there in the bible. Making the above claim valid(because a statement of the earth being flat `specifically` is not mentioned in the bible).
2. To be honest, it doesn`t `predict`(thats sort of guessing) but rather it details the future unfolding(Yes my wording has heavy bias).
3. The Book of Revelations is full of metaphors, because the terms/concepts such as `New World Order` etc weren`t invented at the time by us, and smart people would be able to figure it out regardless(Not that I consider myself smart, because the study of it is too exhaustive for my liking)
So, lets summarize as best as possible:
"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. Revelation 17:12
They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.
Revelation 17:13
So, some type of new treaty will be signed involving 10 heads of state presumably. This is all for the purpose of solving certain problems under a totally new order or system. I can only speculate that it involves the European Union somehow.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100180416/barroso-calls-for-a-new-eu-treaty-and-a-federal-europe-time-for-david-cameron-to-stand-up-for-britain/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577437912053045368.html
But anyway, Someone(in a powerful/influential position) is going to come up with a brilliant plan/s to solve huge problems(currency, failing economies, banking systems, etc). Power will be signed over to him.
13:7-8 "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
The Power of the Beast - "He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them." Today the world is prepared for a one world governmental philosophy. That philosophy, propagated by Satan and advocated by the intellectual, godless, atheistic leaders of world governments today, is rapidly spreading across the earth.
As already seen, humankind has just about come to the conclusion that the only solution to the problem of continuous war is a one world government.
The one world government will be the devil's government. In the midst of that time and once entrenched he will assume control himself and, as verse 7 tells us, will exercise power over "every tribe, people, language and nation."
and finally complete control:
13:16-17 "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:" "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/263797/
http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21944/
Lol?
The tech is already there, and its application is being used in hospitals, Exclusive clubs(cant find that link again), etc and all for varying different purposes at the moment. Eventually(In the NWO and one world currency and all that) its going to replace the `cash in the bank/in your wallet system` all together. Which is a brilliant idea(Efficient and easy to control/maintain) when you think of it, it would solve most of all the world problems(Crime, etc). I would have implemented such a thing if I were in power to do so (and if I didn`t know any better), but of course we`re warned against accepting this "tag" and being under the system.
One of the most detestable things about religion is probably the yearning of its practitioners for the world to just end already. Instead of seeking to create a paradise here on earth while we are still alive and have the chance, there is instead a desire for the believers to be separated from the flock and lifted into paradise, and to hell with everyone else. It's a good thing that this wretched fantasy will never come to pass. People have been predicting this end-of-the-world scenario in their own lifetimes for millenia now.
Poor Gradius. Always talking without knowledge and being stereotypical. Tisk tisk.
@EternalWraith: Go So it seems like than, that Nostradamus is a prophet for you.
This thread just getting more and more funny. So what conspiracy theory will be mentioned next after nwo?
Ahhh I know, it will be 9/11!
And none of you realized that the Internet is this "NWO" and that cats rule it? I'm going to predict that someone will make a reply to this thread sometime in the future.
Lol, there he goes again with that ridiculous biblical nonsense. Poor EternalWraith.
Anyone remember Family Radio predicting the end of the world and then tried to use biblical passages to save face? Those ignorant fools... Doomsday hype is just an extension of people's fears about their own mortality.
Lol, someone should combine all these crazy ideas for a crazy Starcraft 2 role play map. Ancient aliens, illuminati, gods, Bush is a reptilian, Obama is a Kenyan muslim, Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter, Elvis is from Mars, etc.
I had half a mind to lock the thread to prevent future replies JUST to be evil like that ;P
@ProzaicMuze: Go
Doubting is good. When you doubt something that tells you to doubt what you think you know about something, you`d better have 100% certainty against that thing. Otherwise you`re in fairy-tale land.
There`s also no `doomsday` message in the bible, that the world will `suddenly` end. Things will just so happen to take a turn for the worst(which is happening in the world already) and etc etc.
Those ideas you mentioned are all ridiculous. But you can throw the bible in there too just because you`re inclined by ignorance to do so?, Sure go ahead.
Guys, all I can tell you, is that when that day comes, just call out His name. You know what His name is.
Don't be afraid, ashamed, or anything. Just call Him, and He'll be there for you.
:)
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go Logic, hope if any disaster happens you guys will think logically. But you can just stand still waiting, for example for the tsunami to take you, I am ok with that too:D
I have[finally] completed my reply to TLBarrin
@Everyone
Shall I post it? Have we cleared all the side talk?
I shall await your document like the Israelites awaited Moses and his ten commandments to descend from Mt. Sinai.
@Gradius12: Go
It's gonna be a huge trollface.
@EternalWraith: Go
Lol, ignorance causes people, like yourself, to believe in fairy tales such as the bible. Reason allows people to be skeptical of such fairy tales and to acknowledge contradicting evidence. Do you have enough faith in your religion that if you were to jump off a bridge or skyscraper, your invisible almighty god will save you? Of course, you might say that's now how your god works, a lazy excuse. Perhaps that god does not exist, if that god exists, you are such an insignificant creature that it would not bother to save you, if that god exists, it doesn't care what you do, etc. A myriad of possible explanations, for which the sum of the total probability is 1 or 100%. The gathering of empirical data shifts the probability of any individual explanation. As technology, science, and time progresses, scientific explanations are reaching 100%, while religious explanations are dropping to 0%.
The time of the invasion of the body snatchers nears!
////////////////////
On faith, Reason, Knowledge, Belief
//////////////////
The gap is `Experience`. Experience is the direct foundation of evidence, and the indirect foundation of faith. Hence unless you witness the power of God made manifest in your life, You will very much be in the dark and rightly so.
Faith is the realization of Knowledge which is and becomes the path to Experience/Truth
Faith is `belief` in motion and thus `faith` is the active causation unto experience. Know that knowledge and experience/truth are intertwined, and that knowledge bears witness and remembrance of experience/truth.
Belief is not a matter of`logic`(but can be motivated by logic and basic/functional knowledge) and may be wrong, and then faith(actions, intent, purposes) becomes misplaced because of that, and the end experience a negative if you become aware and eventually know of it.
If the desire is truth/experience unto anything, then one must exercise faith
The desire(being either positive or negative aka no desire) is motivated on perceived relevance(Which is also a belief)
Faith is the culmination of truth as we can imagine in this diagram:
It merges belief INTO truth/experience
Do you `know` your parents are indeed your biological parents?
Could you have been adopted? . Would you take their word against it?
Would you go out of your way to prove it?. If so, How far?
Again, this is established because of your perceived relevance of the matter(Which, again, is a belief). At such a late stage of life, do you think it really matters?. Like almost all people, you would believe it does not matter and thus your actions(faith) will take its course(Giving no attention to the matter)
Which brings us to our point;
Some people believe the origin and reason of our existence to be critically important, others not so. The term `important` here is subjective.
//////////////////
Evidence
//////////////
For the sake of argument and understanding, We shall set the word God to reference "First cause" or `Source`. For the first cause is the ultimate truth of the matter.
Now, as to the `evidence` for God(the First cause). Lets take the novel approach.
Before we can evaluate/conclude any such evidence, we would need to define `God`(the First Cause) and so then understand what we are looking for.
YET BEFORE we even go there, let us go through a discourse on deductive reasoning. For counter argumentative purposes and to exclude metaphysics. Although we cannot prove that X does not exist, we tend to reject its existence, based on the fact that the weight of evidence(and/or lack thereof) suggests that it does not exist. Nothing is stopping anyone from believing in whatever anyway, but as we said only faith gets you to the truth/experience.
Invisible pink unicorns
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink(a stronger spectrum) electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Spaghetti and meatballs are the physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Santa Claus
Is the existence of God/The First cause comparable to the existence of Santa Claus, spaghetti, or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?. Logical for a negative belief.
Santa Claus, unicorns and flying spaghetti are contingent beings and are dependent on this constructed universe to exist , whereas The First cause would have to be non-contingent.
Therefore, to make an analogy between The First Cause(The Prime Matrix) and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti is logically flawed from the outset.
First Cause/Source/GOD
Time
Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time. Not only space, but `time` also has a beginning - at that was at the moment of creation(Big Bang). Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward. Time is relative and also an illusion.
The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance (Their source of origin). This cannot be refuted as its a logical truth.
Hence anyone that asks for proof/evidence of the First cause is in fact believing(for lack of knowledge and logic) that contradictions are possible
CONCLUSION
The question "Proof/evidence for the First cause/Source?", Is actually the answer in itself. This may sound like a lazy and unresearched answer, However closer analysis reveals the truth. Its like the cake saying "Wheres the proof of flour?". This logic will iron itself out for you by the end of this message.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CAUSATION AND CORRELATION
The former does not imply the latter.
On Chance occurrences.
[Some Quotes from Scientists]
Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
The laws of science… contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Thomas Edison
I believe that the science of chemistry alone almost proves the existence of an intelligent creator.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): [i]"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
[b]Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
Etc etc etc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now, the laws of physics and all the constants in the Universe. We can explain how it functions(atleast, most of it), but can we explain why it functions? or why it is what it is?. Yes. (AA) The laws of any system exist only for its outcome/purpose[Logical truth]. The outcome of our reality is `existence/life/consciousness`.
Planck epoch being the earliest known moment in time. Photons. Hydrogen and helium being the first elements created shortly thereafter. Etc etc
Lets refer to the process that triggered this as S(Source)
S = Source
What triggered S = ?Circular logic(We then will ask what triggered the trigger of S, ad infinitum, and since we proved there was no time prior to the big bang, then this question makes no sense ). How do we answer this then?. We just have to say nothing triggered S(Will be understood later).
Where was S triggered? = S is triggered in S
When was S triggered? = @Planktime
Why was S triggered = Universal outcome(existence and life, refer above to AA)
`Chance` is but a set(finite) of selection processes within a system of which the probability factor(for success) is determined by variables for the very same intended outcome!.
I.E Coin tossing is not random or chance at all. When its said that there is a 50/50 chance for either side, it really means that 50% of the variable application is unaccounted for and being negated on the selection process.
Example 1: Coin flip via Selection process fingers on variables requisite for intended outcome = intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process fingers on variables not requisite for intended outcome != intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process "Coin-flipper" device on variables requisite for intended outcome = intended outcome
Coin flip via Selection process "Coin-flipper" device on variables not requisite for intended outcome != intended outcome
http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/the-coin-flip-a-fundamentally-unfair-proposition
If you know the variables you will know the outcome. If you want to know the outcome, you will need to know the variables.
So, whatever selection process occurred from/within (S) to form the Universe is irrelevant. Making chance[of selection processes] irrelevant. Only fact is that the variables requisite for the intended outcome was perfect(Refer again to AA).
Mini conclusion Misunderstanding of the word `Chance` poses a question that causes misinterpretations in logic patterns
Well, thats the end of: Quantum mechanical superposition, and its sub theories of many worlds, multiverses etc
To add further onto that. I put my keys in my jacket pocket, and I know its there. Take off jacket. Someone(a blind person) steals the keys(Unknown to me) from simply feeling the jacket and finding the pocket. The keys are not in a superposition state, which is `depending` on any `observer effect` to collapse onto reality.
Everett(The guy that developed the theory) regarded MWI(many-worlds interpretation) as falsifiable since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI(Ye sure..). Also its seen as violation of the principle of locality, which contradicts special relativity. Violates Occams's razor theory. No point throwing wonky metaphysical ideas to defend those and many other claims against it.
As of 2010, there are no feasible experiments to test the differences between MWI and other theories.
Multiverse aka : A universe must exist for every physical possibility. There are Earths where the Nazis prevailed in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein, Where Blizzard actually released games exactly on time instead of "Soon", and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent beings who read New Scientist.
Anyway, every physical possibility goes down to the atomic level. All the physical laws would be different, which would never give rise to a universe like ours at all.
Dawkings suggests infinite big bangs going off. Not only is this circular logic on circular logic, but Now, where is this occurring?(According to Dawkings, he thinks it occurs on a larger multiverse...and here we go again). There is actually Zero evidence for multiverse theory, and ultimately it doesn`t lead to the answers we are looking for. It cant even answer itself, and never will.
Secular websites put it this way.
"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age"
On Multiverse. Given this belief then, one would also expect to find universes in which Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and the Easter Bunny existed. It would even be logical to believe that there would be at least one universe in which a being such as God existed. So, the multiverse does not get rid of God, but requires that He exist.
CONCLUSION
Is it logical to believe that the universe occurred by chance?. Not in the slightest. However, this can be understood more clearly later on.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On Macro Randomness.
We have said that the origin of a system(outcome) is not dependent on chance(in the conventional meaning). Now lets see if sub-systems can form in a system from randomness(random assembly) of variable interactions. Its possible. However, initial conditions in the system will affect variable interactions to the point where the formation of sub system(outcomes) might become impossible.
In this case, we`ll see if the Universe self assembled on its variables through randomness. The lower the randomness factor, the lower the initial and post conditions required. The higher the randomness factor, the tighter and stronger the initial and post conditions have to had been.
Brace your mind:
Given the data available in 1979, Roger Penrose (a world-class mathematician) calculated the odds of our observed universe occurring by accident to be less than one in 10^(10^30). The calculation was based on thermodynamics and entropy considerations. Since 1979, additional Anthropic coincidences have been discovered, making random occurrence even more unlikely.
10^30 is 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, i.e., 1 followed by 30 zeros; 10^50 is 1 followed by 50 zeros.
Penrose's calculated probability was one part in 10^(10^30), which is 1 followed by 10^30 zeros. And 10^30 is itself 1 followed by 30 zeros. So, the probability works out to be one part in 10^(100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000), i.e., 10 raised to the power of 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, or 1 followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros (i.e., 1 followed by a nonillion zeros).
Epistemic Probability(Probability for a claim being true, aka in this case of random assembly of the universe from its variables): 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 … … … … … 00001
Its estimated that If we would to write this number out, as 0.0000 0000 …, with all of its zeros, we would need a computer hard-drive much larger than the size of our entire universe, just to hold all of the zeros that It would contain.
So, what does all this mean?. Well..., It means that it is reasonable(understatement) to conclude that our universe did not self assemble by accident/chance/randomness. The evidence (observation of extremely-low epistemic-probability) points to deliberate interference on and post initial conditions that designed, created and fine-tuned the universe.
Some other data:
The Big-bang
The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability(chance of natural/random self assembly) of the explosive force/density: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001
Gravity
The force of gravity had to be tuned to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, for stars capable of supporting-life to exist (based on balancing electromagnetic forces with gravitational forces).
This is one part in 10^40, which is 1 followed by 40 zeros.
Epistemic probability(chance of natural/random self assembly): 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001
Electrons & Protons
The number of electrons had to be matched to the number of protons to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00, for formation of stars and planets.
This is one part in 10^37, which is 1 followed by 37 zeros.
Epistemic probability((chance of natural/random self assembly): 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01
Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant
It has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10^120
"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the "problems" associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant "lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions." They admit that "there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state" and that their study, "Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis." They also state, "A possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
More examples of extreme fine tuning can be found on processes(Formation of Carbon chemistry, Strong nuclear force<> Weak nuclear force, etc), dispelling the notion of random self assembly of the universe from its variables. It might be slightly plausible on a single process or a few, however there are too many processes on which this occurs. For example, when we find structures from the ancient world(Temples, Roman coliseum Etc) we dont even remotely assume that a tornado threw it all together(which is possible but not probable at all without it being considered a miracle AKA direct variable manipulation/interference)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On Micro Randomness.
[Evolution on random assembly]
Scientific Facts
N:R(Current reasoning)
(1) (Reject the second law of thermodynamics)
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 81. (Dr. Orgel is an atheist who has been working on origins of life research for over 30 years.)) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies).
(2) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose , the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.
(3) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication
(4) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either).
(5) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication .
(6) (Discard chemistry data : science of the gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Purine and pyrimidine Structural components, or building blocks, of DNA and RNA. Nucleotides consists of a base plus a molecule of sugar and one of phosphate.nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 82.).
(7) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (1997. MEETING BRIEFS: Primordial Soup Researchers Gather at Watering Hole. Science 277: 1034.). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself (Robertson, M.P. and W.G. Scott. 2007 The Structural Basis of Ribozyme-Catalyzed RNA Assembly. Science 315: 1549.).
(8) (Science of the Gaps ("promissory materialism"))
Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
(9) (Discard geological data)
Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least 4.3 billion years ago:
Bortman, H. 2001. Life Under Bombardment,
Dimroth, E. and M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: Evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161-1185.
Carver, J. H. 1981. Prebiotic atmospheric oxygen levels http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v292/n5819/abs/292136a0.html
Ohmoto H., Y. Watanabe, H. Ikemi, S.R. Poulson, B.E. Taylor. 2006. Sulphur isotope evidence for an oxic Archaean atmosphere http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16929296?dopt=Abstract
Dustin Trail, D., E. B. Watson and N. D. Tailby. 2011. The oxidation state of Hadean magmas and implications for early Earth’s atmosphere
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/nature10655.html
Although life arose at least 3.5 billion years ago
(Schopf, J.W. 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/260/5108/640 ).
(M. T. Rosing. 1999. 13C-Depleted Carbon Microparticles in >3700-Ma Sea-Floor Sedimentary Rocks from West Greenland: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5402/674)
(10) (Discard chemistry data)
Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup." (Shapiro R. 1995. The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536683?dopt=Abstract)
(11) (Discard geological data : Discard chemistry data)
Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." All possible intermediates suffer severe problems . Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (Shapiro, R. 1999. Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life : http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4396).
(12) (Discard chemistry data)
Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (Shapiro, R. 2000. A replicator was not involved in the origin of life : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10868906?dopt=Abstract). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/15311070260192237?journalCode=ast).
(13) (Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism)
The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (Szathmáry, E. 2000. The evolution of replicators. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355: 1669-1676.). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (Knauth, L.P. 2000. Life on Land in the Precambrian and the Marine vs. Non-Marine Setting of Early Evolution. First Astrobiology Science Conference, April 3-5, 2000, NASA Ames Research Center)
(14) (Life spontaneously arose by chance at least 30 separate times, each within a period of 10 million years)
Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (Chyba, C. and C. Sagan. 1992. Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538392?dopt=Abstract). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth's oceans (Kerr, R. 1999. Early Life Thrived Despite Earthly Travails. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5423/2111. "For its first half-billion years, Earth endured a punishing rain of impacts, which vaporized the oceans and scorched the globe so fiercely that some researchers now propose that life could have first evolved on a more hospitable world, then later hitchhiked to Earth on a meteorite."), destroying all life.
(15) (Discard evidence)
Complex bacterial life (oxygenic photosynthesis) had appeared by 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and R. Frei. 2004. U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland–Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/0012821x/2004/00000217/00000003/art00609.), leaving virtually no time for prebiotics to have evolved into the first life forms.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In other news:
http://lifeorigin.org/
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/scientist-politician-atheist-off.html
"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).
"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication." (Leslie Orgel)
'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History).
Etc etc
Now we come to a logical statement
If Source can create(which it did), How can Source NOT be able to modify?. Creation from Source is already Modification from Source(It can only create from itself), and sub variables/systems cannot become independent from its original parent/rule structure. It can seem that way because we can easily lose track. Take for example and based on mathematical logic: The poset system following the explanatory diagram
Seems complex and hard to follow?. Hardly(its only 6 variables), but now imagine all constants and variables of the universe being expressed through that. We aren`t even mapping quantum laws through that nor applying Total order theory. It would seem near infinite(but not), This is why sub-systems can look to be independent, but in the larger scope, thats not the case.
So Source being able to interfere/modify is a logical truth.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Proof of Macro and Micro interference/modifications explained above. If people still dont get/understand it:
Recommended literature:
Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism"
Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads"
In other discussions, Flew admitted that he had a difficult time believing in any scientific theories that attempted to explain the origin of the first replicator. He also indicated that the Big Bang creation event had been a problem for his atheism "because it suggested that the universe had a beginning and that the first sentence of Genesis (In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") was related to an event in the universe." Flew was uncomfortable with alternatives, saying, "I did not find the multiverse alternative very helpful. The postulation of multiple universes, I maintained, is a truly desperate alternative."
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind [Paperback]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061335304/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=savedbygracemini&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0061335304
Likewise and on a slightly similar note, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
The relation to S(Source) and U(Universe/or Us)
Only Source exists
U is not separate from the Source
Everything NOT Source is Sub-Source
Sub Source(unto ad infinitum) = Degree of difference (and thus degree of separation) from Source
Sub Source still inherits from hierarchy and even all the way unto the ultimate prime quality/essence of Source(Im not going to try and teach this because it would not be understood)
Source is infinitely becoming Source through this process which means Source = Source
This is the truth of the matter.
Scientists are still tripping here and there on various logic gaps(Thinking the universe is eternal @ Zero energy state etc), Still pursuing chain<>logic, etc.
It is actually possible to comprehend Source in a finite understanding. Just like a kid cant understand Quantum physics without going through the elementary knowledge, The same way Source can only be fully known when we raise our understanding and consciousness and...become Source.
Anyway, This `Source` is what I give the title of `God`(Because, it rolls out better on the tongue).
. Jesus came trying to teach people of these things. The result of that?, Well, he was hated, despised, and eventually crucified by his own people(But he rose from the dead). His teachings, when I come to reflect on it now, are truly harmonious mathematical expressions(masked in the materialistic word).
Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (John 10:32 - 34)
God is not someone with a white beard in the sky demanding false worship and prayers and throwing thunderbolts at people randomly. That is the misconception of the whole world. But the scope of this message is not to show you how I can destroy all religions in this world, or reveal to you the perfect expressive name of the Source/God, or to show evidence of the bible(10 plagues of Egypt, proof of Christ and the early Apostles/chrisitans, etc etc), or to express the reason for duality in reality, or to explain faulty human logic(If miracle can be explained = Naturalistic (No God), If miracle cant be explained = No proof, No God) or to show educated people how broken human evolution theory is(Satan really fights back hard on this one) , or to explain the teachings of Christ and other biblical secrets, To show scientifically how the universe WAS actually created in 6 days, To show even how the bible correlates to the periodic table, etc Because frankly Im too tired after having written this out, and people must believe in their limits of their experience.
I just want to conclude with the final and perfect expression of Source
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
(Revelation 3:21)
To overcome the seperation. We need to `backtrack`. Eventually we become the Source again.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
(John 14:6)
Jesus is apparently the decompiler back to the Source. From Sub-source to Source.
But as I said, Its all about moving toward `experience`.
I think you just explained in a really detailed way that something exists (or existed) that put everything into motion. May have missed something important though, it's late.