^why this much late, why not early or why not later? You know that the natural process needs things to work with. If every thing which would needed to give rise to creation were already present, what took it so long; there was nothing to stop the natural process? If those things were not already present then there's no other place to get them from, so where did they come from?
I'm sorry, I don't get the question. Are you asking why humans evolved at the exact time that they did? Or asking what purpose for the timing of the evolution? Or are you asking for transitional forms leading up to humans and their time frame?
If you could rephrase or give the example later, I would appreciate it.
But I would point out it may be irrelevant to the thread as the point being discussed was that "Since humans exist, they must have been caused and whatever the cause let's call it god".
I believe that any definition of god must include that it is a conscious, intelligent being.
The natural processes I believe created everything are not conscious or intellgent.
You are mistaken we live a miserable life on this earth. My life is quite enjoyable, thank you very much.
Yup, mine too.And I dont have to spend what life i do have worrying about "Hell". I can simply get on with things.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Well, if it was through natural processes, there would be no purpose as to the timing.
Therefore, humans would be result of one more step in the changes of genetic material of living creatures as it (1) adapts to the payoffs of different environmental conditions and (2) is constricted by the gaussian likeliness of permutations given the proceeding arrangement of genetic material.
Why weren't humans developed at the instant of the Big Bang? Well no planet yet so it would have violated premise (1).
Why didn't humans come about 350 million years ago? We'll I'd surmise the drastic change in genetic material that would had to have taken place to go from the human ancestor at that time directly to human was drastic, so it did not take place in favor of other permutations from that ancestor that survived. If it did it would have violated premise (2).
Why did humans appear about 300k years ago? Because the change in genetic material from the direct human ancestor was not drastic and not preceeded by another possible change (therefore passing premise (2)) and the payoff of environmental conditions were favorable for human survival given their physical and mental attributes (poor neaderthals).
The timing of humans appearing on earth was the sum result of the state of nature progression influenced by the differing payoffs and genetic changes that occured.
(That was a tough question, but probably not how you think.)
so where the proof in allt hsi which says that what you believe is right ?
talking about the big bang where the matter came fromso that there will be an explosion ?
god says ''[12] Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
[13] Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
[14] Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the Best to create! '' surat al muminun.
if those who pretend to know when man was created why they didn't know how man was formed inside his mother till the last century when our prophet told us about it forteen century ago.who is worth believing then the one who speaks facts or the one who have just theories ?
and by the way our faith is not the blind kind of faith in fact there is now faith in islam without knowledge
This is a very old topic of discussion amongst instructors of debating. It is a very vivid tool for showing it is impossible to prove a negative and impossible to prove a fact unless all parties agree to the same references.
Sort of like telling a person that the word gold exists and you are using an English dictionary while the other person is using a Spanish dictionary.
I will let the thread continue, but keep in mind this can go on ad infinitum with no agreement.
so where the proof in allt hsi which says that what you believe is right ?
Hi there. We aren't talking proofs here. As an agnostic I don't believe the TRUTH to be ultimately knowable.
As for the quran's description of embryology, I would raise the usual counter arguments. For those visit another thread.
If we could, I'd like to get back on track...
The premise put out was that "Since humans are here, we must have been caused and since we can call that cause (whatever it is) god, there must be a god"
My counter was that "my basic definition of god would include consciousness and intelligence and since another possiblity would be non-conscious natural causes and I would not call natural causes "god", the premise fails."
The theists next counter should be to either say why (1) natural processes can be included in a definition of god or (2) natural processes are not a possiblity.
First, do human beings exist or not? No one can rationally prove that we do not exist. Any person that argues that we do not exist, disproves himself or herself by the very fact of the denial. Non existent beings don’t speak. So, it is clear that we exist because we cannot deny it without being stupid or mad. Since we did not make ourselves, it follows that something made us. This is also clear.
35 pages of this...
"The Bridge" is equivocating when he speaks of "made". One meaning of "made" is "designed" as in "something designed us". But something that is made does not have to be designed. Humans are not made in the same way that chairs or watches are made.
Some people call this Cause “God”. So, if we replace Cause with God, we can see that questions as to whether or not God exists become nonsensical. The real issue is never whether there is God but what kind of God are we talking about.
If we replace the word cause with "Frank the Bus Driver" we can see that questions as to whether or not Frank the Bus Driver exists become nonsensical. Or maybe that whole paragraph is nonsensical. Or maybe we could replace cause with evolution - unlike with God or Frank the Bus Driver we would be able to perform tests to check the validity of such an assertion.
@Gator
I'm not talking about the humans specifically; my question is regarding the creation, you can say the universe in other words.
Let's recall the definition and basic assumption: A process tells us how things came about. Now, for evolution process to work and explain the coming of our creation, there must be some things to start with. We assumed that they were always present. Let's call these things 'alpha' for simplicity.
So, in the beginning there was nothing beside alpha, and alpha doesn't have a conscious. If there was no other factor present, how did the first change come about - meaning how did it start to evolve? Without any first and subsequent changes it should be just sitting there no matter how many years pass by. For now, let's assume that 'alpha' has been evolving from eternity and then some X years ago it became/gave rise to our universe. There was nothing else beside alpha so nothing could limit its changes and nor it had a conscious. So why did it evolve into universe or gave rise to universe recently? Remember that there was nothing to limit it and there's no way it could have controlled its own changes due to absence of consciousness. So, I can conclude that alpha didn't have everything which by evolution could give rise to us. So then, where did it get it from because there was nothing beside alpha? But if you say alpha had everything then go back to original question.
Now, if you say because not all the changes had taken place but then again I ask, there was nothing to limit it and it had everything then changes should took place right away. To say otherwise is saying that it was limited by certain factors but there was nothing beside alpha and so how could anything limit it! Even so, why did all the changes completed only recently took place now? Why not earlier or later? You could say they just did. So, I ask is this a valid and logical conclusion and evidence?
@Gator
I'm not talking about the humans specifically; my question is regarding the creation, you can say the universe in other words.
OK. Just a quick thing, evolution has nothing to do with creation or giving rise to life. Its just how things changed once life began. Once again we are dealing with philosophical questions so there is no evidence and noone knows the true answers.
Alright, I'm going to try present a possible scenario with and unconscious cause. This is just my thoughts given your parameters.
Before the universe there was unconscious "alpha".
The basic nature of "alpha" was fluctuating?
Then in a certain moment in these fluctuations "alpha" released energy.
The energy turned into matter (E=mc^2) and gave rise to the universe et al.
That would account for an non-conscous start to the universe and take care of the timing question.
OK. Just a quick thing, evolution has nothing to do with creation or giving rise to life. Its just how things changed once life began. Once again we are dealing with philosophical questions so there is no evidence and noone knows the true answers.
Alright, I'm going to try present a possible scenario with and unconscious cause. This is just my thoughts given your parameters.
Before the universe there was unconscious "alpha".
The basic nature of "alpha" was fluctuating?
Then in a certain moment in these fluctuations "alpha" released energy.
The energy turned into matter (E=mc^2) and gave rise to the universe et al.
That would account for an non-conscous start to the universe and take care of the timing question.
Thanks, this is fun.
Did Alpha exist since infinity?
If it did was it in a steady state in the beginning?
Oh hang on there is no beginning?
So it was in an unsteady state since infinity? That in itself is a contradiction.
What caused the unsteady state? If Alpha is one single entity and has existed since infinity then how can it be unstable?
And I still haven't got to the the question about the composition and source of Alpha...
If it did was it in a steady state in the beginning? No there was no beginning and not in a steady state because its basic structure acted upon itself continuously creating fluctuations
Oh hang on there is no beginning? Right no beginning.
So it was in an unsteady state since infinity? That in itself is a contradiction. For matter or energy that would be the case but this is neither.
What caused the unsteady state? If Alpha is one single entity and has existed since infinity then how can it be unstable? See above.
And I still haven't got to the the question about the composition and source of Alpha... Great!
If its not matter or energy then "it" does not exist....
Fascinating. Exactly how do you reach that conclusion; you seem to be missing an argument? Imagine that you are holding a red rose, which you proceed to sniff. Your experience of the colour red undoubtably exists, is that experience matter or energy? Your experience of the smell exists, is that experience matter or energy? Indeed, your thought of the imaginary rose exists; is that thought made of matter or energy?
Is the human soul made out of matter or energy? Is God made out of matter or energy?
You do realise to cause a Big Bang you would need matter and energy?
I think that might be news to most cosmologists. Which particular theory are you referring to?
BTW, I wouldn't dismiss Gator's friend 'alpha' too quickly, particularly if we return to renaming and call it `a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity'
Fascinating. Exactly how do you reach that conclusion; you seem to be missing an argument? Imagine that you are holding a red rose, which you proceed to sniff. Your experience of the colour red undoubtably exists, is that experience matter or energy? Your experience of the smell exists, is that experience matter or energy? Indeed, your thought of the imaginary rose exists; is that thought made of matter or energy?
Is the human soul made out of matter or energy? Is God made out of matter or energy?
I think that might be news to most cosmologists. Which particular theory are you referring to?
So you are comparing an experience in my head to the source of Big Bang? what exactly is that supposed to mean?
So according to you the big bang had nothing to do with matter or energy? How do you explain the Sun and the matter in the universe?
I have to say your posts have always been full of many sarcastic words but never any real information. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
BTW, I wouldn't dismiss Gator's friend 'alpha' too quickly, particularly if we return to renaming and call it `a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity'
Dang! Great catch Trumble!
Yes islamiclife's "alpha" (he started it) and what I'm describing is the theory of folds in the fabric of space time and the curvature which fluctuates without cause which cause particles to appear and disappear from nothing sponaneously all the time. (very roughly speaking).
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks