PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     order
       where did laws come from?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is order in all things. Without that NOTHING could exist. Matter could/can not "evolve" laws. Even the theorized "Big Bang" could not happen without GOVERNING
regulators/laws what "scientists" must assume
even to speculate about anyhting.
O.K. Just tell me what evolutionists "theorize" about their origin?
B.T.W. I asked that question receiving either
defening silence or side talk for replies.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:21 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
And why couldn't the "laws" that govern our universe arise naturally?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:56 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whatever caused the laws of the universe to arise is something outside of this universe. We cannot use science to study it and therefore it lies outside of all human investigation. I say I don't know and it is impossible for me to ever know. You say God.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:44 PM on May 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't understand why the account name doesn't work. but the above post was made by me. Name is supposed to be David Hume
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:49 PM on May 17, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The existence of universal regulators and the
search for understanding their origin IS an absolutely scientific problem. The "Big Bang" is
a theory speculated by  cosmological evolutionism. It is strictly connected with the biological evolution speculations.



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 9:55 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is strictly connected with the biological evolution speculations.
no it isnt
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:15 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The existence of universal regulators and the
search for understanding their origin IS an absolutely scientific problem


ummm... no. Our understand of the Big Bang is based on taking the conditions of the current universe and using our understanding of the laws of physics to trace it back to its origin. This is know as extrapoliation. We indentify patterns in the universe and trace those back to the source. The problem is that at one point during the Big Bang all the laws of physics break down. We cannot trace back to before that point in time because at that point the laws of Physics, the pattern, breaks down.


-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:19 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"All the laws of physics" break down? Does somebody know ALL the laws? If not then this
is a statement of belief. Extrapolation can be acceptable as long as we know the real limits
of the extent we use (engineering, technology,
applied sciences etc.) not in "cosmology" or dealing with the problems of infinity. Laws work all the time never anybody could prove they did not. Speculations. hypotheses even
trying to use mathematical twists are in the
area of unprovable.
Yes, the same is valid in biology. Just to say it
is not, does not qualify as argument of sound reason. If you say the involvement of life makes the difference then come the inevitable
problem: there are no "buliding-blocks" of life.
You can not create life by increasing the complexity of non-living matter. That is proven
scientifically. No "spontaneous generation" or
"abiogenesis" exists in the domain of reality. If you believe differently that is your "religion".



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:18 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. We have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.

Can experts now explain the origin of the universe? Many scientists, uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of nothing. Does that sound reasonable to you? Such speculations usually involve some variation of a theory (inflationary universe model) conceived in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth. Yet, more recently, Dr. Guth admitted that his theory “does not explain how the universe arose from nothing.” Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American article: “Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.”

If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an explanation? Indeed, you have valid reasons to consider some evidence that many have overlooked but that may give you real insight on this issue. The evidence includes the precise measurements of four fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes affecting matter. At the mere mention of fundamental forces, some may hesitate, thinking, ‘That’s solely for physicists.’ Not so. The basic facts are worth considering because they affect us.
Fine-Tuning
The four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved.

Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. We already mentioned one force, gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. ‘Would that be serious?’ some might wonder. Yes, because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.

And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.

Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (1041). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: “With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” You can imagine what that would mean for us!

What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had only 39 zeros (1039)? “With just this tiny adjustment,” continues Breuer, “a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.” And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.

Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently “burning” stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen? The ancient man Job was asked: “Did you proclaim the rules that govern the heavens, or determine the laws of nature on earth?” (Job 38:33, The New English Bible) No human did. So from where does the precision come?

The Two Nuclear Forces
The structure of the universe involves much more than fine-tuning just gravity and the electromagnetic force. Two other physical forces also relate to our life.

These two forces operate in the nucleus of an atom, and they give ample evidence of forethought. Consider the strong nuclear force, which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, various elements can form—light ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. Would our lives be affected? Well, if the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both.

The fourth force in this discussion, called the weak nuclear force, controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. ‘Is this force fine-tuned?’ you might ask. Mathematician and physicist Freeman Dyson explains: “The weak [force] is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak [force] were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties.” Yes, this precise rate of burning keeps our earth warm—but not incinerated—and keeps us alive.

Furthermore, scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements. “If those nuclear forces were in any way slightly different from the way they actually are, the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which you and I are composed,” explains physicist John Polkinghorne.

More could be said, but you likely understand the point. There is an amazing degree of fine-tuning in these four fundamental forces. “All around us, we seem to see evidence that nature got it just right,” wrote Professor Paul Davies. Yes, the precise tuning of the fundamental forces has made possible the existence and operation of our sun, our delightful planet with its life-sustaining water, our atmosphere so vital for life, and a vast array of precious chemical elements on earth. But ask yourself, ‘Why such precise tuning, and from where?’

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:16 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking writes, "...according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature within a black hole. This is rather like the big bang at the beginning of time... At this singularity the laws of science and our ability to predict the future would break down."

Its really just a long mathematical exercise to realize this truth. Do I understand the math behind it? No, but i'm more than willing to leave that work in the hands of the world's competent physicists.

Gabor, I find the organization of your thoughts and arguments to be rather difficult to follow. But I will try to respond as best as I can. Let me know if I missed something or misunderstood.

Extrapolation can be acceptable as long as we know the real limits
of the extent we use (engineering, technology,
applied sciences etc.) not in "cosmology" or dealing with the problems of infinity


Why exactly? If we know the pattern is true than why can't we trace it as far as it will allow us to go. If we can't continue to trace the pattern to its full extent then that must mean that the pattern breaks down at some point. But you also say that the Laws of Physics, the pattern, "work all the time." How can you say that the laws only work within "real" limits and then turn around and say they always work. It's a blatant contradiction. What physicists have done is followed the pattern under the assumption that it is always true. The problem that they encountered is that the pattern itself eventually leads them to a point where it is no longer true.

mathematical twists are in the
area of unprovable.


Actually I'm under the impression that mathematics is the only thing that can be proven beyond a doubt. Math is conclusive. It works deductively instead of emperically like science.

Yes, the same is valid in biology
What is also valid in biology? That extrapoliation requires limits on patterns or that patterns are never limited? or that speculations and hypothesises are unprovable?

Hypothesis are definately unprovable. That is the whole nature of science. A scientific theory or hypothesis or law etc. cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. That is only possible within mathematics. The fact that it is impossible to completely prove something however does not rule it out as the closest approxiamation we have to the truth.

You can not create life by increasing the complexity of non-living matter. That is proven
scientifically. No "spontaneous generation" or
"abiogenesis" exists in the domain of reality. If you believe differently that is your "religion".


1. All life is a composition of various molecules
2. molecules are made of atoms
3. molecules and atoms exist outside of life, they are the building blocks

How exactly has it been scientifically proven that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis do not exist in the domain of reality? Are you referring to the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Those two experiments did not prove that spontaneous generation is impossible. They just dispelled popular myths about the origin of maggots and bateria. No scientist ever working on spontaneous generation ever proved that it does not "exist in the domain of reality." And quite frankly based on the number of scientists still working in the area of abiogenesis I don't think that they believe it is impossible either. I would love to indulge you on a topic about abiogenesis, but for the sake of brievity and to stay on topic I think I will abstain.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:41 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry the above was posted by me. Still getting used to these boards.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:42 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bah alright got it right this time.


-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:43 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exptrapolate means to use working formulas in areas which are not empirically known yet but can be reasonably predicted. (Using the experience gained building a 50 storey structure to infer that we can build a 200 storey one). This is a good technological exptrapolation. But to say that something can come out of nothing is turning sanity of terms into madness. Nothing is the lack of something,
(not vacuum as some prefer to propose - vacuum IS space) and NOTHING can come
out of NOTHING.
Laws work all the time under given conditions.
The theory of relativity talks about the behavior of matter when its speed approaches
the speed of light. Nobody was ever able to
experimentally show those assumed "close to
light-speed" properties. That fact relegates the
whole idea into the area of speculation even
if it is "proven" by equations.
When the respectable science of math and physics is used to support philosophical prejudices I call it twisting.  
.
What is the problem with the "building blocks of life" idea. You say:

"All life is a composition of various molecules"

No, all LIVING SYTEMS are  compositions molecules.
A living system has life in it. But it is not life itself. When the organism dies, it is still a "composition of various molecules" but life
is not there anymore.

Some say that we can "insulate" gravity. Once it is solved we just put that gravity shield underneat us and we will lift up (actually centrifugated away) is this science? I do not
think so. Some say inert matter comes alive if
we wait enough time. Is that science? I do not
think so. The sun is a light-emitting body but not light itself.

It is not that Pasteur or anybody disproved the
possibility of "spontaneous generation" of life.
No, rather those who try to "prove" the possibility of it hit the wall regularly. It is like
the "perpetuous motion" concept. They go against unchangeable laws/regulators.

What do you think would happen if a little "insignificant" regulator would cease to
work i.e. friction?

Imagine the result.












-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 4:20 PM on May 21, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Laws work all the time under given conditions.

Thank you for making that concession. Before you did not include the "under given conditions" part.

I don't quite understand your definition of what is good extrapolation and what is bad extrapolation. 200 story buildings (I believe we already have these) or the math in Einstiens equations. I don't understand the differences you are trying to draw. If we can deduce the behavior of a tall building based on the behavior of a short building, why can't we deduce the behavior of matter at high speeds based on matter at low speeds. What you consider to be speculative or non-speculative seems to be based more on personal incredulity than on any actually working definition.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Math can be proven to an absolute. Truth attained by mathematics does not change based on further research.  Thats the good thing about math. It's static. It won't cheat on you.

When the respectable science of math and physics is used to support philosophical prejudices I call it twisting.

There is no philosophical ideas that I am trying to support with science. In fact I try to always keep the objectivity of science seperate from philosophy's subjectivity. BUT, science tells us there was a Big Bang. No it doesn't tell us that something came from nothing. I never said that something came from nothing. I too find that hard to conceptualize. HOWEVER, science DOES tell us that at some point the conditions (remember what you said about conditions and the laws of physics earlier) of the universe were such that the laws of physics break down.  The big bang is mostly based on extrapolation, but its good extrapolation. At least the world's leading physics and astronomers tell us that it is good extrapolation.

A living system has life in it. But it is not life itself. When the organism dies, it is still a "composition of various molecules" but life
is not there anymore.


umm... right. exactly what I said. I said that all life is a composition of various molecules. I did not say that all compositions of various molecules are life. Its like saying that all hawks are birds of prey, but not all birds of prey are hawks.  What I did is a simple logical device called modus ponens. You tried to make it look like I said something I did not. Well, I didn't say it.

Some say that we can "insulate" gravity. Once it is solved we just put that gravity shield underneat us and we will lift up (actually centrifugated away) is this science? I do not think so

How exactly does this relate to anything?

Some say inert matter comes alive if
we wait enough time. Is that science? I do not
think so.


Actually we say that inert matter can become life if given the right conditions and enough time. Is it science? The leading scientists and much of the world thinks so. Waving your personal magic anti-science stick isn't going to change anyones mind. Abiogenesis is partially based on guess what, extrapolation. We see a long pattern of complex life getting simplier and simplier and smaller as it starts to look more and more like the component molecules that make it up. Then we hit a wall. The geological column ends. All life before it was either too soft to fossilize or its fossils were destroyed by over 3 billion years of Earth's geological metamorphisis. We see a pattern with a gap it in. Human intuition forces us to fill in the pattern using the same forces (mutation and selection) that we saw shaping the rest of the pattern.  Extrapolation is a key tool in science. You don't think so? Are you sure that isn't just more of your own incredulity?

The sun is a light-emitting body but not light itself.

A very poor analogy considering that the sun is not a component of light, but that inert matter is a component of life.

No, rather those who try to "prove" the possibility of it hit the wall regularly

Actually there has been a tremendous amount of progress. Amino acids formed spontaneously in lab and found on asteriods, and the creation of RNA in lab. Hell, RNA alone
might even be considered life. It is self replicating in certain environments. Once replication is around evolution can take over.
It took life billions of years to develop. You expect scientists to figure out exactly how in a couple hundred. And if they can't do it you denounce its scientific validity??? Rubbish.

It is like
the "perpetuous motion" concept. They go against unchangeable laws/regulators.


Good thing abiogenesis doesn't go against any regulators. If you think it does, name one.

What do you think would happen if a little "insignificant" regulator would cease to
work i.e. friction?


Also a good thing that abiogenesis doesn't force us to imagine this scenario. Guess what scenario does make us imagine it. Every single individual supernatural act. Supernatural actions defy all the laws of physics. But based on your erronous belief that abiogenesis goes against the laws of physics you attempt to find another explanation that actually does go against them -- God?!?!? Can't you see the flaws in your own logic?


-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:42 PM on May 21, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let us simplify the discussion. My original question was: "where did the laws come from?" A guest (might have been you) said "I say I do not know, you say God". Do you consider the "I do not know" part scientific?
I can accept that if you add to it a little "but willing to find the answer". You need not to put
any effort to defend math. I think it is true science, it is conclusive as you said with my full
agreement. Yet one from your side just recently wrote to me that the 1+1=2 may not be always true. This a "popperian" nonsense.
Since it is not "falsifiable" it is not scientific,
therefore mathematics is not science is it ? But all the above are not the answer to the origin
of laws problem. Another guest wrote an excellent and thorough message about the fine
tuned condition of the universe. I really enjoyed to read it and happily agreed. Too bad
I do not know the writer's name.
One of my mathematics lecturers' favourite saying was "one's mental power can be measured by one's ability to abstract." I think
he was right. It is inevitable to realize: without
order nothing can exist even the so called "chaos" depends on laws. No chance for
"chance". I would still like to see a "theory" which tells us how the laws "evolved".
"In the beginning was the word..." (John1:1 partial)








(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:24 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:30 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:33 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:35 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:36 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 5/22/2003 at 12:37 PM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 12:20 PM on May 22, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"A living system has life in it. But it is not life itself. When the organism dies, it is still a "composition of various molecules" but life
is not there anymore."

You're confused about what life is.  It's not a mystical force or spark, it's a process.  A living thing isn't living because it has life in it, it's alive because it's biological parts carry out this process.  Therefore, when an organism dies, it is still a composition of various molecules but it's biological composition has been damaged and can no longer sustain the process of life.

"You can not create life by increasing the complexity of non-living matter. That is proven
scientifically. No "spontaneous generation" or
"abiogenesis" exists in the domain of reality. If you believe differently that is your "religion"."

You assert that science has proven that life can not arise from non living matter, and once again you are mistaken.  Science has not proven this, quite the contrary, science is now trying to demonstrate how life arose from non living matter.  

"Let us simplify the discussion. My original question was: "where did the laws come from?" A guest (might have been you) said "I say I do not know, you say God"."

You have yet to explain why the laws were not intrinsic to the energy that formed the universe from the big bang.  It is a massively complex task trying to understand the origin of the universe and there are many theoriticians and physicists working on this task.  I'll tell you right now that it's well beyond my meager brain.  Your claim that God is the creator is certainly one possiblity.  But between God and the universe arising naturally, God is the least likely choice.  Why? Because nothing we've observed in this universe, absolutely nothing, has required a supernatural explaination.  Everything we have figured out, everything we now understand is explained by natural causes, weather, lightning, gravity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, everything!  Just because we don't know yet how life arose from lifeless matter or how time and space formed doesn't mean there isn't a naturalistic answer.  But because everything we have managed to understand so far has been natural, it stands to reason everything else we don't understand yet will be natural also.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:47 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:47 PM on May 23, 2003 :
"A living system has life in it. But it is not life itself. When the organism dies, it is still a "composition of various molecules" but life
is not there anymore."

You're confused about what life is.  It's not a mystical force or spark, it's a process.  A living thing isn't living because it has life in it, it's alive because it's biological parts carry out this process.  Therefore, when an organism dies, it is still a composition of various molecules but it's biological composition has been damaged and can no longer sustain the process of life.

"You can not create life by increasing the complexity of non-living matter. That is proven
scientifically. No "spontaneous generation" or
"abiogenesis" exists in the domain of reality. If you believe differently that is your "religion"."

You assert that science has proven that life can not arise from non living matter, and once again you are mistaken.  Science has not proven this, quite the contrary, science is now trying to demonstrate how life arose from non living matter.  

"Let us simplify the discussion. My original question was: "where did the laws come from?" A guest (might have been you) said "I say I do not know, you say God"."

You have yet to explain why the laws were not intrinsic to the energy that formed the universe from the big bang.  It is a massively complex task trying to understand the origin of the universe and there are many theoriticians and physicists working on this task.  I'll tell you right now that it's well beyond my meager brain.  Your claim that God is the creator is certainly one possiblity.  But between God and the universe arising naturally, God is the least likely choice.  Why? Because nothing we've observed in this universe, absolutely nothing, has required a supernatural explaination.  Everything we have figured out, everything we now understand is explained by natural causes, weather, lightning, gravity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, everything!  Just because we don't know yet how life arose from lifeless matter or how time and space formed doesn't mean there isn't a naturalistic answer.  But because everything we have managed to understand so far has been natural, it stands to reason everything else we don't understand yet will be natural also.










-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:10 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who says the laws were "intrinsic" properties
of matter? The evolutionists. The burden of proof is on them not on me. The question is unequivocal : where did the laws come from?
If you say they are "intrinsic" with matter, go ahead, prove it. I am eager to hear how the law of gravity is the "natural" associate of a piece of stone. Give me the "scientific" theory
for that.



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:30 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, by mistake I put the whole message of
Demon on the message board. Web master would you please delete that? Thank you.



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:37 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to the "finely tuned state of the universe", a guest said:

"Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned."

Show me the evidence!  There is no evidence that this universe is finely tuned.  This is merely a creationist's desperate ploy to justify their primitive dogma.  The universe has not evolved to satisfy our needs, we have evolved to live in this universe.  All your points on fine tuning can be dismissed out of hand as an arguement of incredulity.  

"If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an explanation?"

No, we should not.  Primitive man couldn't explain many natural phenomenon like lightning, the sun, disease, ect.  By your reasoning they were better off sticking with a supernatural explaination, the gods are angry, Apollo is riding his chariot across the sky, demons cause illness...  This kind of "thinking" has always been and will always be detrimental to mankind.  

"The question is unequivocal : where did the laws come from?"

I think the answer is obvious, they came from the Big Bang.   If the begining of our universe can be traced back to the Big Bang, then it follows that the origin of the physical laws that govern it also originated with the Big Bang.  If you want me to get any more specific, your out of luck.  Like I said before, we don't know the answers yet.  There are a lot of complicated hypothesises being put forth, but no conclusive answers yet.  But science has a way of eventually finding the answer.  If you feel a burning need to understand the origin of the universe, then get a Phd. in physics.  Then you'll be in a better position to effectively falsify the current hypothesises.  Until then your arguement is nothing more than "I don't understand it, therefore God did it!"  

"Who says the laws were "intrinsic" properties
of matter? The evolutionists. The burden of proof is on them not on me. "

Sorry, the point is that all processes in the universe are a product of natural causes.  Since everything we've seen is so far is natural, reason demands that everything we haven't seen (or understood) is natural.  The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of a supernatural explaination, which no one has been able to do yet.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:56 PM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, you are overly confident in what you call "science". I put the quotation marks there
because what you mean is just so called science. Science originally means "knowledge"
what means something what we know, not
something what we do not know. Actual science has a branch which is investigation. In
that there are hypotheses and theories used.
That part MUST BE falsifiable. The problem is
Karl Popper generalized that condition for the
whole concept of science and that is a mistake.
Those who accept tha "falsifiability" idea say
"science can never state anything with absolute certainty. That is a nonsense. An evolutionist told me that 1+1=2 may not be
true scientifically. So math which is "conclusive" is not science is it? That is an utter absurdity. That derails mental sanity
into fog grabbing.
The fine tuning of the world around us is measurable. You say "show me the evidence".
It is like saying "show me the evidence motorized flying is possible". Do you think also
that 1+1 may be something different from 2?
"Primitive man" you say "could not explain" natural phenomena so they explained them by
assuming divine activity. You say "science" can
explain them. Really? One question for you can
"science" prove whether infinity in any dimension does or does not exist?
Your answer for the origin of laws problem:
you think it "is obvious"  they "came from the
Big Bang".
Your devotion to the cosmological evolution ideas is impressive. But your conclusion is anything but reasonable.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 08:15 AM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gabor at 09:30 AM on May 23, 2003 :
Who says the laws were "intrinsic" properties
of matter? The evolutionists. The burden of proof is on them not on me. The question is unequivocal : where did the laws come from?
If you say they are "intrinsic" with matter, go ahead, prove it. I am eager to hear how the law of gravity is the "natural" associate of a piece of stone. Give me the "scientific" theory
for that.


According to Einstein, mass causes a distortion of space-time, one of the manifestations of which is gravity.  Other effects include "frame dragging", where space-time is "dragged along" by for instance a spinning mass.  This has been observed in astronomical objects, and a spacecraft will be launched later this year to observe the effect in near-earth space.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:20 AM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Those who accept tha "falsifiability" idea say
"science can never state anything with absolute certainty. That is a nonsense. "

And with this sentance, you show that you don't really understand science at all.  A scientific theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it.  As new evidence is discovered a theory must be able to incorporate it, the new evidence either fulfills a prediction of the theory further strengthing it, or it must change to include the new evidence or a new theory must be put forth that better explains the old evidence and the new.  This is sciences greatest strength.  It is flexible, it can change to reflect new discoveries, it does not stagnate.  Once you declare something proven to 100% certainty, it ceases to be a scientific theory and becomes dogma.  So I strongly disagree with your assertion that  it is nonsense.

"An evolutionist told me that 1+1=2 may not be true scientifically."

"Do you think also
that 1+1 may be something different from 2?"

Math is a tool of science.  And in the binary system   1 + 1 = 10.  

"The fine tuning of the world around us is measurable. You say "show me the evidence".
It is like saying "show me the evidence motorized flying is possible". "

Measurable??!!  Show me the measurements!  There is no evidence for a fine tuned universe!  You make a very poor analogy, yes you can show me evidence of motorized flying but you STILL can't show me evidence of a fine tuned universe.  It would be an incredibly inefficient, clumsy fine tuned adjustment the creator made if it took billions of years for humanity to arise out here on the fringes of the milky way.  As I said before, we evolved to live in this universe, the universe did not evolve to suit us.  Show me your evidence that if the universe wasn't fined tuned, some other form of life couldn't have come about.

""Primitive man" you say "could not explain" natural phenomena so they explained them by
assuming divine activity. You say "science" can
explain them."

Are you trying to say science hasn't explained many natural phenomenon?  We know how gravity works, we understand disease, the list goes on and on.  And because of this understanding, mankind has benefitted.  So yes, science has been able to explain many aspects of the world, the universe, we live in.

"One question for you can
"science" prove whether infinity in any dimension does or does not exist? "

Yeah, I think science can.  Certainly not now, but eventually.  I'd really be disappointed if scientists never tried.

"Your answer for the origin of laws problem:
you think it "is obvious"  they "came from the
Big Bang".  Your devotion to the cosmological evolution ideas is impressive. But your conclusion is anything but reasonable."

But you haven't shown me any evidence why my conclusion is unreasonable.  






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Space-time distortion"? "Caused by mass"? Are these the things which can be understood
by a few "adepts" or "initiated ones"? The spacecraft they will launch will give data which
will be "interpreted" by the "masters" and published in the media as revelation. How did they get all these far away "secrets" known?
The "majority of scientists" agree? Does the majority of those guys really get the theory of
"relativity" or "quantummechanics"? I strongly
doubt. Why does mass cause "space-time" "distortion". What is that at all?IF that is true (nobody knows for sure) the question still remains: is that a law? If it is where did it come from? Or chaos is the rule and mass causes space-time distortion sometimes and sometimes does not?



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 11:01 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gabor at 11:01 PM on May 24, 2003 :
"Space-time distortion"? "Caused by mass"? Are these the things which can be understood
by a few "adepts" or "initiated ones"?


No, it's covered early in any post-grad physics degree program.

The spacecraft they will launch will give data which will be "interpreted" by the "masters" and published in the media as revelation. How did they get all these far away "secrets" known?

By measuring the properties of closely orbiting stars.
The "majority of scientists" agree? Does the majority of those guys really get the theory of
"relativity" or "quantummechanics"? I strongly
doubt.

So, your objection is based on the fact that YOU don't understand it.  I'm sure that will really help everyone else.


Why does mass cause "space-time" "distortion". What is that at all?IF that is true (nobody knows for sure) the question still remains: is that a law? If it is where did it come from? Or chaos is the rule and mass causes space-time distortion sometimes and sometimes does not?


First one to answer those questions gets a Nobel Prize for sure.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:18 AM on May 25, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest: (would you please identify yourself? I would greatly appreciate it:do not hide please)
I was trained in structural engineering at a well
acknowledged university (Budapest Technical University - the largest in Hungary). In high school math (Calculus, integral-differential equations, functions, trigonometry) I did with flying colours. I've read a popularizing book by
Heisenberg himself on "quantummechanics" another one about Einstein's work by Infeld. ("Einstein") which is rather a biography and one on the relativity theories themselves (I can not recall the author's name) . So would you please provide me those "high school math" equations with the
factors explained by which I may stretch my mind and get the meaning of space-time distortion? And how it causes the attraction
of masses? It will be an exciting time finally to
learn what gravity is. Thank you.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 3:23 PM on May 25, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way Guest: are you the one who gave that nice description on how fine-tuned the Universe is? If you are your response to my latest post is a bit disappointing. If not, I am happy. Thanks and best regards.

(Edited by Gabor 5/26/2003 at 09:39 AM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 3:27 PM on May 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my login doesn't seen to work here, this side of the board was supposed to have been deactivated several weeks ago, I don't now why they keep it up.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:46 AM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way Demon you wrote:

Math is a tool of science.  And in the binary system   1 + 1 = 10.


Could you explain to me how it works? I've done some extended studies on the binary and hexadecimal systems and would really be interested how 1+1=10 in the binary since evidently you want to demolish my argument
that 1+1=2. So do you intend to tell me
that 1+1 equals 10 somehow?

And you are an evolutionist are not you?



(Edited by Gabor 5/31/2003 at 10:46 PM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:44 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I accept evolution.

And if you've done extended studies on binary and hexadecimal systems you should know the binary system only has 2 characters, 1, 0.
10 binary is equal to 2 hexadecimal.
So consider your point thoroughly demolished.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:54 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In base 10, each digit can be one of 10 characters (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9).

Each PLACE is that digit times 10^x (ten to the x power).   So the number nine would be 9 times 10^0 = 9 times 1 = 9.   The number 10 would be 1 times 10^1 = 1 times 10 = 10.

In base 2 binary, each digit can only be 0 or 1.

Each PLACE is that digit times 2^x.   So you can think of each place being 1,2,4,8,16,etc.

Thus, 01 (1) + 01 (1) = 10 (2).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:46 AM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the initial question was whether 1+1=2 is absolute truth.

Yes in this universe it is absolute truth that 1+1=2

(or in binary, 1+1=10...same meaning, different number system)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:01 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, of course.
01 + 01 = 10 is the same as 1 + 1 = 2
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:45 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,
In the binary system each position of a digit is
the multiplication of the former by 2(instead of 10 as in the decimal system). Therefore
2^1=2. It is binary 10, (1 at first position and 1 at the second representing 2) not decimal 10. Thank you Guests (both of you if you are two persons) to show Demon that the truth
about 1+1=2 is NOT demolished. Evolutionists
do not like math. Probability, statistics work against evo speculations not to mention the "falsifiability" idea (Popper) that excludes mathematics from the domain of "science" does
not it? So let us relax 1+1 still equals 2. And that IS absolute and NOT falsifiable. Cheers.

(Edited by Gabor 6/1/2003 at 9:32 PM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 9:30 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, since I accept evolution, I guess I'm an evolutionist.  And I like math just fine.
And you are incapable of coming up with any statistics that  work against evolution.  Creationists are infamous for making up numbers that somehow disprove the evolution.  It is impossible because evolution is an observable phenomenon.  But creationists will use all kind of big numbers that they don't even understand and mean nothing then claim that evolution can't happen.  

And Gabor, you have yet to provide any evidence to support any of your claims.

Here is what you said:

"An evolutionist told me that 1+1=2 may not be
true scientifically."

If you are working in binary 1 + 1 = 2 is not true because the character 2 does not exist .  So, in this example, 1 + 1 = 2 is not "scientifically" true.

"Do you think also
that 1+1 may be something different from 2?"

Yes, depending on what number system you are using 1 + 1 may be something other than 2.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:07 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, maybe not the character '2', but the value 2.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:34 AM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon
I think you mistake the symbol itself for something what it simbolizes.
That problem comes up with the falsification idea too. If we try to find something (investigation - scientific or other) it must be falsifiable or else it cease to be a looking for something. But once it is found it is possessed.
It can not be proven false. That is why I say
Karl Popper's fasifiability principle is true for
search for knowledge NOT for knowledge.
"Scio" as I remember means to know in latin.
If "science" can not say surely about anything
as evolutionists adamantly say then for them
science is ignorance. If I am not sure about something I can only make guesses about it.
That is why I say that the "falsifiability principle" to be used to define what science is
is a misconception though widely applied recently. By defining science by that is to exclude absolutes from the domain of real science which is evidently absurd. 1+1=2 is absolutely
true as the Guest wrote and can not be disproved.
So according to the evo line it is not science is it?
Cheers!


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:22 AM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In a GF(2) algebra a value can only have a value of "0" or "1", so 1+1 cannot equal or have a value equivalent to "2".

This is the basis for the error control coding you are using  to communicate this very instant.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:13 AM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest,
Would you please give me some more info on
GF(2) you write about. It must be something
unknown to me.
B.T.W. If the value of anything is limited to 1
then 1+1 can not be assumed, therefore
1+1=2 can not even be formulated. But that is only if it is given as a preliminary condition.
Otherwise 1+1 still equals 2. Thanks.



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 2:09 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gabor it is clear that 1+1=2 is absolute truth. I agree with you, some of the guest posts above on this are mine.

However I do not see what this has to do with evolution.
I hope you are not trying to say that because some evo's got this question wrong, therefore evolution is wrong. (!)
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:09 PM on June 4, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void,
No I do not think that if evolutionists are wrong in one thing then evolution is wrong. What the existence of absolutes proves is that
there is ORDER maintained by universal regulators (LAWS) which govern over everything. Those laws are not the "intrinsic"
properties of matter as some evolutionists would like to faithfully profess. They are absolute uncheangable, infinite in existence (eternal). So the "Big Bang" theorists (cosmological evolutionists) were helpless but
assume that the laws were there when all things started. The same problem exists with
the so called biological "evolution". Without laws the root of those ideas is nonexisting.
Actually ORDER (LAWS) provide the possibility of any "existence".



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 12:47 PM on June 8, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nope, you provide no evidence that these LAWS were imposed by a supernatural deity.  Since we have NEVER witnessed anything in the universe that requires a supernatural agent, it is reasonable to conclude that the origins of this universe are natural and required no supernatural deity.  You ramble on with these pointless philosophical arguements that are really meaningless.  You provide no evidence to back up your hairbrained claims.  Order naturally arises in our universe, despite your feeble attempts to disprove it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:22 PM on June 8, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gabor,

Lets for a moment say that universal laws could not have been set up naturally.
Why not a supernatural event being the cause rather than a supernatural being?

Why does the supernatural spark that began it all have to be alive or conscious or immortal?

Did the creation of the universe require intelligence? No, the laws could have been picked by random.

So even if we entertain the possibility that the universe has no natural cause, this still doesn't prove a supernatural power exists.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 9:50 PM on June 8, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amazing replys. Demon, Void, what are you arguing about? The question is where the laws
did come from? If as you Void say they could have resulted as a "supernatural event" instead of "being" I must tell you that you bang on open doors. Tell me how they could
have been "picked" by an "event"?
Demon are the thing what we "witnessed" in the universe so all embracing that you feel confident to utter the sure sounding "nope"?
Are not you an ant standing in front of a TV set
saying : "this is an all 'natural' thing" ?


(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 12:05 AM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 12:06 AM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 12:07 AM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 12:09 AM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 11:18 AM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/9/2003 at 11:20 AM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 12:03 AM on June 9, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell me how they could
have been "picked" by an "event"?


I do not have to explain this for a supernatural event. Because it is supernatural it doesn't follow laws of logic and doesn't necessarily have to pick anything.

Anyway there is always the multiple universe theory - this universe is just one that produced us out of an infinite others all of which have random laws. You will dismiss this as non-provable, but then neither is a God creator so both have equal viability and untestibility if assigned to the supernatural.

The laws have shaped this universe. If they were different, the universe would be different.
The fact that we are part of the universe means that we are a product of the laws. It does not prove that they have been fine tuned for us.

To any lifeform in any possible universe it will always be the case that the existing laws accomodate them wheras others wouldn't. This looks like design but obviously does not have to be.
In a natural universe where life exists the laws will look designed but they won't be. This immediately shows that even if the laws in our universe seem fine tuned, that doesn't prove intelligent design, we would expect nothing but fine-tuning.

In short conclusion: we would expect a naturally designed universe's laws to look fine tuned for everything that existed in it.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:51 AM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not have to explain this for a supernatural event. Because it is supernatural it doesn't follow laws of logic and doesn't necessarily have to pick anything.


The fact is :  there is order. Chaos does not "evolve" into order by itself. Even to assume it would not be sane. The reason we
can think with is itself proves the existence of
"supernatural". Without order as I said before
even the so called chaos can not exist.

The laws have shaped this universe. If they were different, the universe would be different.
The fact that we are part of the universe means that we are a product of the laws. It does not prove that they have been fine tuned for us.


The real question is not whether they were fine tuned or not. Where did they come from?
That is the question which is actually decisive.



-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:19 AM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact is :  there is order. Chaos does not "evolve" into order by itself. Even to assume it would not be sane.

You have yet to show us why order can not arise from chaos.  Especially when we see that order does arise from chaos in the natural world.  And I certainly don't agree that the only reason we can think is because of a supernatural cause.  Opinions  don't cut it, show us the evidence!  

The question is where the laws
did come from?


And I still say they don't have to come from anywhere.  However matter and energy formed, the "laws" arose with that formation.  You keep asking the question "where did the laws come from"  and because you can't get an answer, you say it must have been God.  Sorry, all the evidence points to a natural cause.  Your incredulity and wishful thinking don't define reality!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:42 PM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The real question is not whether they were fine tuned or not. Where did they come from?

Noone knows where they come from. You offer a God hypothesis to explain where laws come from but that is not the only hypothesis. I have already listed a few and I am sure with a few hours thinking I could come up with a dozen more.

The fact there are laws in the universe proves nothing until we know how they came to exist.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 12:52 PM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void,

If you do not know where a TV set came from
its existence does prove to you nothing?
Strange logic.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 08:44 AM on June 11, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I do know where a TV comes from because it is a human invention. I don't know where universal laws come from.

You believe universal laws are created by God because of faith. There is no evidence for it - it is a faith position, that is the point of faith, no evidence.

God is not the only explaination for the origin of laws - there are others which are equally unprovable and undisprovable.

For people that don't have faith in one particular hypothesis, all are possibilities.

It is much like the question: where does lightning come from?
There was a time when we didn't know any knowledge on the subject. Therefore God, aliens, whatever were valid possibilities at that time but we couldn't say that one was definitely true based on evidence.





(Edited by Void 6/11/2003 at 11:01 AM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:59 AM on June 11, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.