Origin of Life

midnight star · #31 11th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Magisterium

I've a question. Are there any athiestic theories which actually account for the creation of basic materials? From what I've had the occasion to read about (particualrly the big bang), it seems that they all "begin" with some existing material which reacts to combines in some obscure way. However, they seem to ignore that fact that these materials had to have an origin and an agent to produce the motion which caused the reaction. In this respect, it seems the deist position is the only logical one because science seems to demand some intelligent initiator.

In theory, one does not necessarily have to account for the original of the original materials at all. We assume that for the big bang to occur, there had to be a bundle of material to go "bang". The we question where did this material come from. As strange as it may sound, as it goes against the whole cause and effect thing, it may be that the material always existed. Its a tricky topic because it gets involved with time. Did time have a starting point? Lets say it did not. Hard to imagine, because infinite time is something tricky to wrap your head around. I admit these are all strange ideas, and they aren't to be taken as serious scientific theory, just philisophical mind experiments. Who knows if the laws of physics worked the same way before the big bang as they did during and after. If any one his read Hume, you'll be familar with the idea of physical laws being less like laws and more the reliable conicidences. Just because gravity can be tested to be 9.8 m/s/s 200,000,000,000 times in a row does not necessarily mean that on the 200,000,000,001st time it will be 9.8 m/s/s. It's an interesting concept. It holds that physical laws are useful, as they get us through life, but, in the end they are more physical habits than laws. Just an interesting thought.

trunks2k · #32 11th February 2004, 04:02 PM

Who knows if the laws of physics worked the same way before the big bang as they did during and after.

They didn't. Someone explained it to me like this: the "pre" big bang the volume of the universe was 0, so was time, but the mass was almost infinitely large. So if you were to try to apply the laws of physics to "pre" big bang environment you'd end up dividing by 0 and multiplying by numbers that are pretty much infinite. I think that's all where quantum physics starts coming into play.

midnight star · #33 11th February 2004, 04:36 PM

That depends on what theory you take. String theorists would disagree, at least as represented by Brian Greene, auther of The Elegant Unvierse. The universe did not start from zero mass, but from a finite amount of initial matter. If I had the book up here I'd look it up.

midnight star · #34 11th February 2004, 04:37 PM

My bad, I meant to say things did not start at zero volume. I'm sorry, I'm a bit out of it.

tcampen · #35 12th February 2004, 12:04 AM

Just because real science doesn't deal with the supernatural doesn't mean such theories are "atheistic." Rather, they are scientific - subject to the scientific theory. Science is independent of religion.

Rather than using innacurate labels, why not evaluate the strength of the hypothesis or theory itself? I realize it isn't the easy road, but at least it is the honest one.

Magisterium · #36 12th February 2004, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Nathan David

I don't see how not having an explanation logically demands an intelligent creator. How does intelligence relate to the ability to create ex nihilo? Humans are intelligent, but we can't create ex nihilo.

The ability to create ex-nihilo (or of nothing) requires a decision. This becomse more clear when you understand that if there is nothing, there is nothing to move this "creator" to create except the will of the creator itself.

Additionally, certain scientific principals (namely the law of preservation of energy) demands that the sum of energy which "sparked" the universe into existence must be equal or greater that the amount of energy within it now.
(positively stated "the net sum of energy in a system can never exceed the amount of energy placed into it)

Magisterium · #37 12th February 2004, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by midnight star

In theory, one does not necessarily have to account for the original of the original materials at all. We assume that for the big bang to occur, there had to be a bundle of material to go "bang". The we question where did this material come from. As strange as it may sound, as it goes against the whole cause and effect thing, it may be that the material always existed. Its a tricky topic because it gets involved with time. Did time have a starting point? Lets say it did not. Hard to imagine, because infinite time is something tricky to wrap your head around. I admit these are all strange ideas, and they aren't to be taken as serious scientific theory, just philisophical mind experiments. Who knows if the laws of physics worked the same way before the big bang as they did during and after. If any one his read Hume, you'll be familar with the idea of physical laws being less like laws and more the reliable conicidences. Just because gravity can be tested to be 9.8 m/s/s 200,000,000,000 times in a row does not necessarily mean that on the 200,000,000,001st time it will be 9.8 m/s/s. It's an interesting concept. It holds that physical laws are useful, as they get us through life, but, in the end they are more physical habits than laws. Just an interesting thought.

I understand what you are saying, particularly about natural laws not being laws at all but more of couriously repetitive occurences. (where laws are what should happen not necessarilly does happen). However, this distraction misses the point of my question. If a theory is supposed to explain the origin of the universe, but stops short of the origin of the universe it does not meet it's goal. In that respect, theories which claim to offer an "alternative" to creationism but stop short of the creation, then they are not really an alternative.

As you may have guessed, I recognize and accept the scientific principle of evolution, but I reject Darwin's Theory of evolution because it takes what is reasonable and observable and it projects it back making it unreasonable and even in this it falls way short of it's goal which is to offer a scientific alternative to creationism.

Arikay · #38 12th February 2004, 02:43 AM

I believe in quantum mechanics we see the causless creation of virtual particles and quantum fluctuations, which pop into and then out of existance, and we haven't seen a need for an inteligent decision to create these particles.

It is thought that the total net energy of the universe is 0. Thus its possible that no energy was created or destroyed when the universe began, but zero energy was spread out in a very interesting way.

Originally Posted by Magisterium

The ability to create ex-nihilo (or of nothing) requires a decision. This becomse more clear when you understand that if there is nothing, there is nothing to move this "creator" to create except the will of the creator itself.

Additionally, certain scientific principals (namely the law of preservation of energy) demands that the sum of energy which "sparked" the universe into existence must be equal or greater that the amount of energy within it now.
(positively stated "the net sum of energy in a system can never exceed the amount of energy placed into it)

midnight star · #39 12th February 2004, 02:57 AM

Fair enough. I guess my best response is that because atheists are unable to explain the original material of the universe, it does not pose a threat to their worldview. Just because one cannot explain it now, does not mean it cannot be explained in time. Are you familar with a log function curve looks like. The farther you progress in time (along the X axis), the longer it takes for increases the Y value to occur. This is similar to scientific discovery. The closer physicists try and get to zero the time, the more difficult things become. Lets say we figure out up until .001 seconds after the Big Bang, who knows how long it will take to figure out what happens in the .0009 seconds beween .0001 and .001 seconds after the bang. Even though the amount of time is so miniscule, so much is going on that it makes everything remarkably complicated. What I'm trying to say is that an atheist with patience doesn't need to account for the exact orgins yet. Theres no rush, and if we put faith in science, we'll eventually get to it. (This by the way is not my opinion, I'm not an atheist, I'm pagan =) )

professor frink · #40 12th February 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Magisterium

The ability to create ex-nihilo (or of nothing) requires a decision. This becomse more clear when you understand that if there is nothing, there is nothing to move this "creator" to create except the will of the creator itself.

How did the creator create itself if it wasn't created until it was created?