What created everything? (beliefs, belief, fanatics, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like or dislike your answer. I only do how the universe works. You anti-whatever guys are the ones that place emtion over observation, not me.
Says you, emotionally ignoring the observation I posted that scientists have made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Lets look at life. "life" is a volume of space that is doing a lot of work "w=f*d work. It actually is a volume that has nothing "alive" init, but it is doing so much work that we classify it as "alive". A cell, is the smallest unit doing so much work that we classify it as life.
Now, two simple notions that lead me to conclude that we are in a living system (not universal, thats too big) is a calculation and a measurement. The calculation is a "work" calculation comparing the work done in a cell to the work being done by the volume in question. second, a measurement, comparing an unknown volume to a known volume.
That really is enough for us regulars that don't have an axe to grind. It doesn't mean a god, but we don't have run away from the idea either. Us being surrounded by the biosphere offers a mechanism, explanation, and makes predictions. "deny everything" does not, thus its less valid.
To top it off, I go QM. QM demonstrates that the universe quantum computed you. Thats just a fact. You are a data construct of the universe. I can go deeper, but it basically self evident so I won't waste time.
And the bot awakes. If only it had some actual science behind it's output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You are the one that won't like the answer because my stance is more valid than your stance. you are also in this game for a different reason than I am. I only do how the universe works, I could care less about what literal fundy theist use and think.
So you emotionally keep asserting while ignoring the observation I posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
its real simple harry ol' chum. whatever you classify a human as, the universe is "more" of that classification. to deny that is not a me problem. I also wont shy away from it because I am mad at how theist mis use that information.
So the aquarium is more of a fish than the fish in it?
Wikipedia
Conservation of energy.
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
Above is the law of Conservation of energy. I didn't make it up, nor did I overstate it. It's one of the foundations of modern physics. It's a LAW, which indicates that it is considered inviolate. Is it really inviolate? Could we, at some point in the future, discover that there are variations to the law. Of course that is ALWAYS a possibility. But as it stands, the question is settled. Like it or not, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Which means that it is eternal.
The question has been answered. Those that for personal reasons prefer to make up a different answer and declare it to be true choose not to accept this answer. But the question HAS BEEN ANSWERED.
Life comes from non life. How do we know that? Because life is composed of non living material. Scientists classify things as alive if they can carry out these 8 LIFE FUNCTIONS.
Life is composed of four basic organic compounds; carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. In between these simple organic compounds and the prokaryotes, the simplest form of true life (single celled bacteria) which are formed from these organic compounds, there is a stage known as protobiont.
Wikipedia
Protocell
A protocell (or protobiont) is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[1][2] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
Biology Cabinet
Scientists think that the protobionts are the evolutionary precursors of prokaryotic cells. Protobionts may be originated as an array of microspheres of diverse organic and inorganic compounds enclosed by lipidic membranes. Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other organic substances were the most important autocatalytic organic compounds. Water was a very important factor in the assembly of the protobionts' endoplasm. After this event, several microspheres could self-organize into organelles that were able to perform specific functions; for example, lysosomes, peroxisomes, vacuoles, etc.
Gradually, some segments of the external membrane would invaginate for forming membranous organelles, like endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. First protobionts would not have a nucleus membrane (nuclear envelope); consequently, they could be identified like prokaryotes. Protobiont
Rocks are composed of exactly the same protons, neutrons and electrons that living things are composed of. The protons, neutrons and electrons that make up rocks are interchangeable with the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up living things. Livings things, driven by quantum mechanics, have undergone a molecular process called organic chemistry. Quantum mechanics and organic chemistry are not intuitive or easy to understand however. It's certainly much easier to propose that voodoo and make believe did it all. Or to put it another way, ignorance is the easier path.
Scientific principles are not created to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about their existence, this is true. Scientific principle have been painstakingly created by examining the evidence at hand, and then accepting what is observed at face value. So the people who do not like the evidence that has been presenting itself are faced with two choices: One is to go through the time and effort to learn, understand and accept what the evidence is telling us, so as to be eligible for the high paying scientifically based tech jobs. Or to make up answers they find personally satisfying, which in turns makes them only eligible for waiting on tables, and flipping burgers. Education is the pathway to higher paying jobs. Education is also proving to be the death knell for superstition and make believe, however.
I am not going to debate you too hard on this. Anti-god, or anti-Christian this case, like my god only has a bit of tunnel vision. It’s not bad per-say, but it is an issue when we are describing how the universe works based in a personal fear of religion.
Let’s break down what you gave me: I actually use the definitions you gave me to support the chemistry and physics of my claim.
Life comes from non-life. How do we know that? Because life is composed of nonliving material. Scientists classify things as alive if they can carry out these 8 LIFE FUNCTIONS.
Respiration:
This is a limited definition of life. It’s basically electrons in a higher state using oxygen to go get to a lower energy state. So long as we have a potential difference life can do life. “oxygen” just is good on earth.
“Regulation”:
Yeah, the biosphere and universe are best described as “in homeostasis”. Its what I use for my conclusions.
Reproduction:
Yes, the biosphere reproduces. Just look at mass extinctions and rebuild. Plus, when we terra form, that is reproduction. Add to that the notion that black holes may produce universe.
Excretion: can a life form use its own “waste”? Yeah, cells do it all the time. One can easily see a more complex organism use its waste more efficiently. The biosphere is more complex than humans. It has to be, it includes humans.
Growth … simple enough … the universe is growing. The biosphere grows.
“Nutrition”: again, eating food is a 1st grade understanding. It’s really about processing information with a power source. Back to w=f*d. life is a lot of work in a small volume with an outside energy source,
Transport? A very limited point of view, not needed to classify a life form.
Synthesis: yeah, life does stuff. The biosphere and universe most certainly “synthesis”.
Toss is QM and we have “life”.
All in all, claiming that many spiritual people are just feeling the system around them and not understanding it is far in away more valid than deny anything one can out of a religious phobia. People with a phobia, while having some valid points, are clouded by that phobia. That’s just a basic understanding.
Describing humans in a system of life, the biosphere, offers a mechanism, explanation, and makes predictions. denying everything does not.
Says you, emotionally ignoring the observation I posted that scientists have made.
And the bot awakes. If only it had some actual science behind it's output.
So you emotionally keep asserting while ignoring the observation I posted.
So the aquarium is more of a fish than the fish in it?
lmao, try to stay with observations. The observations I gave you make your stance less valid. You avoiding the observations and joking around do not make you stance any more or less valid.
lmao, try to stay with observations. The observations I gave you make your stance less valid. You avoiding the observations and joking around do not make you stance any more or less valid.
Your 'observations' were question begging assertions.
It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything that can be observed is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, I did not exist as a discreet individual prior to 1948. The material that had the potential to become me however, existed with my parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in my body, from the moment of my conception to this very moment has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms. Everything is recycled and reused. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then the material that the universe is composed of has in fact existed eternally. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was born as a result of conditions which already existed.
There have been three scientific discoveries in relatively recent times that serve to generally explain the existence of the universe , and as a by product, the existence of life... including human beings. The first was, as I mentioned above, the law of conservation of energy, which was first stated as a physical law in the late 19th century. The second is Einstein's famous E=MC², first published in 1905, which tells us that matter M is simply one of the forms that energy E takes. The third is the recognition, the foundation of understanding for which was first lain down in the 1920's, that matter/energy constantly interacts with itself at the quantum level. An ongoing interaction referred to as quantum mechanics.
These three concepts represent the underpinnings for understanding why the universe exists, and how it works. These three concepts do not sustain the emotional needs of individuals who have a deep rooted desire to believe that they were created for a special purpose however.
I am not going to debate you too hard on this. Anti-god, or anti-Christian this case, like my god only has a bit of tunnel vision. It’s not bad per-say, but it is an issue when we are describing how the universe works based in a personal fear of religion.
Let’s break down what you gave me: I actually use the definitions you gave me to support the chemistry and physics of my claim.
Life comes from non-life. How do we know that? Because life is composed of nonliving material. Scientists classify things as alive if they can carry out these 8 LIFE FUNCTIONS.
Respiration:
This is a limited definition of life. It’s basically electrons in a higher state using oxygen to go get to a lower energy state. So long as we have a potential difference life can do life. “oxygen” just is good on earth.
“Regulation”:
Yeah, the biosphere and universe are best described as “in homeostasis”. Its what I use for my conclusions.
Reproduction:
Yes, the biosphere reproduces. Just look at mass extinctions and rebuild. Plus, when we terra form, that is reproduction. Add to that the notion that black holes may produce universe.
Excretion: can a life form use its own “waste”? Yeah, cells do it all the time. One can easily see a more complex organism use its waste more efficiently. The biosphere is more complex than humans. It has to be, it includes humans.
Growth … simple enough … the universe is growing. The biosphere grows.
“Nutrition”: again, eating food is a 1st grade understanding. It’s really about processing information with a power source. Back to w=f*d. life is a lot of work in a small volume with an outside energy source,
Transport? A very limited point of view, not needed to classify a life form.
Synthesis: yeah, life does stuff. The biosphere and universe most certainly “synthesis”.
Toss is QM and we have “life”.
All in all, claiming that many spiritual people are just feeling the system around them and not understanding it is far in away more valid than deny anything one can out of a religious phobia. People with a phobia, while having some valid points, are clouded by that phobia. That’s just a basic understanding.
Describing humans in a system of life, the biosphere, offers a mechanism, explanation, and makes predictions. denying everything does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I am not going to debate you too hard on this. Anti-god, or anti-Christian this case, like my god only has a bit of tunnel vision. It’s not bad per-say, but it is an issue when we are describing how the universe works based in a personal fear of religion.
"Your God" is endowed with the attributes that it pleases you to endow Him with. I do not fear religion in the same way that I do not fear God... which in turn is the same way that I do not fear ghosts under my bed or demons hiding in my closet. Make believe only affects those that choose to believe in it.
Wikipedia
Voodoo death
Voodoo death, a term coined by Walter Cannon in 1942 also known as psychogenic death or psychosomatic death, is the phenomenon of sudden death as brought about by a strong emotional shock, such as fear. The anomaly is recognized as "psychosomatic" in that death is caused by an emotional response—often fear—to some suggested outside force. Voodoo death is particularly noted in native societies, and concentration- or prisoner of war camps, but the condition is not specific to any particular culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death
"Your God" is endowed with the attributes that it pleases you to endow Him with. I do not fear religion in the same way that I do not fear God... which in turn is the same way that I do not fear ghosts under my bed or demons hiding in my closet. Make believe only affects those that choose to believe in it.
Wikipedia
Voodoo death
Voodoo death, a term coined by Walter Cannon in 1942 also known as psychogenic death or psychosomatic death, is the phenomenon of sudden death as brought about by a strong emotional shock, such as fear. The anomaly is recognized as "psychosomatic" in that death is caused by an emotional response—often fear—to some suggested outside force. Voodoo death is particularly noted in native societies, and concentration- or prisoner of war camps, but the condition is not specific to any particular culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death
This alleged phobia is just another straw man and ad hominem from Arach so that they can pretend our judgement is clouded.
It is like their redefinitions, such as the biosphere reproduces! Arach as clearly not observed there is only ONE biosphere. There are no baby biospheres running around.
The need for dishonesty even for ersatz gods is an observation that puts them on the same level as the classical religions.
Imagine wanting to hang out in the science lab all day but can't because some people keep wanting to discuss religion, which in turn you've got to keep setting them straight. Persistence is the key as evidenced by King Sisyphus.
"Your God" is endowed with the attributes that it pleases you to endow Him with. I do not fear religion in the same way that I do not fear God... which in turn is the same way that I do not fear ghosts under my bed or demons hiding in my closet. Make believe only affects those that choose to believe in it.
Wikipedia
Voodoo death
Voodoo death, a term coined by Walter Cannon in 1942 also known as psychogenic death or psychosomatic death, is the phenomenon of sudden death as brought about by a strong emotional shock, such as fear. The anomaly is recognized as "psychosomatic" in that death is caused by an emotional response—often fear—to some suggested outside force. Voodoo death is particularly noted in native societies, and concentration- or prisoner of war camps, but the condition is not specific to any particular culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death
err, I am an atheist tired. I make no choices based on a god thing that isn't real. I only do how the universe works. I am not interested in changing the universe based on some adolescent view of religion that some people have. not you, but some others.
I don't think you are being totally honest about fearing religion. The vigor that you reject a claim that we are in a system of life, when its clearly a more valid claim, is leaving me to wonder why? its far more valid to claim we are in a system of life (the biosphere) than it is to claim we are in a system of non-life or in-between.
I even demonstrated it using your definition of life. Something like "fire" does not fit the definition because the complexity vs volume ratio is not present. Nor, if we make a measurement will something like fire hold up.
That claim offers a mechanism, explanation, and makes predictions. why do you reject it when its so clearly a more valid stance?
thats what I am claiming. You claim to know QM, so I am using QM to demonstrate that. from quantum entanglement to quantum computing. Human are a data construct of the universe. You are you because if the states changes allowed by QM. Those state changes only have to be in a pattern ... and they are. no voodoo needed.
Imagine wanting to hang out in the science lab all day but can't because some people keep wanting to discuss religion, which in turn you've got to keep setting them straight. Persistence is the key as evidenced by King Sisyphus.
imagine our dismay when people shoot down a more valid claim, like we are in a system of life (the biosphere) out of hand with no understanding of what the system is?
why do people do that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
