Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

BCP1928 · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
Yes I agree. He was visibly and it seems physically there. Though the idea of resurrecting a physical body is beyond the conception of what we think is physical as its impossible to do.

That's why (most) Christians think it was a miracle.

stevevw said:
The physical is a hard concept I think. It seems to be more about space, occupying space. In fact space is weird. Bodies occupying some sort of space.

It seems whatever realm Christs body was in it defied space and time as we know it. So in that sense its a different kind of physical, if you could call it that. If we never die and get ill or suffer in Gods Kingdom then this defies the physical paradigm used by science.

I agree there is obviously some visible and it seems physical presense as Thomas touches Christs wounds. Like you said Jesus ate. You only eat if you have a digestive system lol.

Its hard to understand. But I think as the body has been described as a sort of vessel. It could be like the church and Christs body. There is the building or body and there is the spirit that is within this that is the 'self' or spirtual you that goes on and recieves a new body (vessel).

Which to many and even scientists within QM and even the ancient philosophies. That talk of the a spirit that transcends and can take on a new form. Its a very interesting area of research. Thats why I say we can learn a lot about ourselves from all these ancient beliefs.

You know how we usually think of physical objects acting in a certain way within our word. Like a solid object cannot go through a wall or become airbourne without some propolsion.

So it may be that its not the physical body that changes so much. But the realm it exists within. What we consider space and time may be changed to a different realm where time and space as we know it is different. Or does not exist.

But then if humans still eat. Do they need medical care. Its too hard to work out. But one thing is sure at least for Christians. Its not this fallen world and there will be a new earth whatever that means.

Hans Blaster · Jan 11, 2026

JacquelineDeane55 said:
I admit that the first time the theory of evolution was explained to me I laughed a lot and made fun of it because according to my own logic it was ridiculous to claim that something could be billions of years old! I mean, that ought to be impossible! It just sounded so far-fetched to me that I had a good laugh.

Why is it ridiculous for something to be billions of years old?

JacquelineDeane55 said:
Sorry if you are an evolutionist.

I am not a biologist.

Hans Blaster · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
The nonlocal universe
We propose that the universe is nonlocal and that the appropriate worldview or paradigm for this understanding is nonlocal realism. Unlike local realism, the worldview of nonlocal realism encompasses meaning, mind and universal consciousness.

The nonlocal universe - PMC

We propose that the universe is nonlocal and that the appropriate worldview or paradigm for this understanding is nonlocal realism. Currently the worldview of local realism guides and frames the understanding and interpretations of science. Local ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We've already discussed the Stromm paper and the biblographic survey. This is the only other item that is "peer reviewed".

In this case it was reviewed by the peers of the authors, but those peers are not physicists. It was a biology journal which is an absolutely garbage place to publish a paper on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. The authors choice of venue is telling. They strongly suspected their work would not pass muster if sent to an appropriate journal.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2026

BCP1928 said:
Right, and Christians will have a conversion experience. But only Evangelical Protestants call the experience by that name.

I don't really care. Its ironic that I get criticised for bringing up metaphysics in a science thread. Yet its quite ok to being up peoples personal beliefs and scrutinised them. As though attacking and discrediting my belief will somehow discredit what I am saying.

BCP1928 said:
How can you not? Those things are all battle fronts in the Evengelical Protestant culture war, a war that the Catholic Church has largely opted out of since Roe v. Wade. They are your radical left-wing enemies now, and the Justice Department has a task force trying to figure out how the Catholic Church may be deprived the religious protection of the 1st Amendment.

So what are ypu saying now. That I am Catholic and my enermy is the Protestants. I thought you said I was a Protestant. Make up your mind lol.

BCP1928 said:
Even if that was true you haven't made your point.

What is my point. Or what is the point I am suppose to make.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
We've already discussed the Stromm paper and the biblographic survey. This is the only other item that is "peer reviewed".

In this case it was reviewed by the peers of the authors, but those peers are not physicists. It was a biology journal which is an absolutely garbage place to publish a paper on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. The authors choice of venue is telling. They strongly suspected their work would not pass muster if sent to an appropriate journal.

See this is an example of exactly how I said this thread would go. Your now attacking the sources as not being scientific enough. Perhaps they are not. Perhaps there is some merit. Certainly the people involve believe so.

But so what. How does defeating everything I put forward change the fact that the science can never defeat supernaturalism or consciousness beyond brain.

Do you believe that if you can discredit every link I put that somehow this means there is no supernaturalism or consciousness beyond brain.

We have not even got into any specific and already links are being dismissed. How on earth can anyone ever support supernaturalism on this thread. Thats why I said we may as well concede because theres too many objections. You can't even get any links through the front door. Let alone present any evidence.

Nevertheless I was not linking those articles to prove any specific idea they contained. Only to show that the idea of spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical. Or some sort of aspect beyond the physical world is common across all walks of life. Its not some make believe fad or delusion of evolution that happened to humans.

NxNW · Jan 11, 2026

expos4ever said:
Did the resurrected Jesus eat? Yes. Did the resurrected Jesus ask his followers to touch him? Yes. Did the resurrected Jesus walk around in two legs. Yes.

There is no doubt that Jesus was resurrected bodily.

Oh, there's plenty of doubt. I doubt Jesus ever existed. I doubt the existence of the supernatural, and I doubt that there is life after death.

This is the science forum, and I've never seen any evidence to change my mind. Nor have I seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation.

NxNW · Jan 11, 2026

JacquelineDeane55 said:
I admit that the first time the theory of evolution was explained to me I laughed a lot and made fun of it because according to my own logic it was ridiculous to claim that something could be billions of years old! I mean, that ought to be impossible!

The sun is about 5 billion years old, with another 7 billion years of hydrogen left to "burn".

JacquelineDeane55 said:
It just sounded so far-fetched to me that I had a good laugh.

The Argument from Incredulity; how quaint!

JacquelineDeane55 said:
Sorry if you are an evolutionist.

Nothing to be sorry about!

sjastro · Jan 11, 2026

This ramble of yours is largely noise but I will separate out the relevant points which highlight your inanity and dishonesty.

stevevw said:
That link does not dispute MN. It is talking about the line between what is methodology and when it steps into metaphysical naturalism. Why would anyone dispute MN when its the very measure we are using to determine what is naturalism and what is something beyond metaphysically.

Its like saying we want to determine what is bad morally but we have no good to compare. Otherwise everything is naturalistic or everything is supernaturalistic. So the logic does not even work is is the reality in your claim.

There are three parts to this. There is MN which is science. Are you saying I dispute science itself.

Then there is the line between what is MN and when it steps into metaphysics. But this does not dispute MN. Just the line at which people claim something is naturalistic or not ie consciousness. We all agree consciousness is real. We all agree with MN when it maps out the Neural Correlated of Consciousness (NCC).

But we disagree on whether NCC can produce experience is is only a measure of the activity and not the nature of the phenomena being explained. So a dispute over what and where that line is between the physical and something beyond.

Then there is the purely supernatural or non physical or is the basis rather than the physical.

So its understandable that these get confused. But theres no way in the world I am rejecting MN. It is the very method that describes Gods creation through nature.

If you want to use my words out of context and then create a misrepresentation based on those words. Then what about the 100 times I have clearly used MN or referred to it in support. Why are you not highlighting those words and rather taking my words out of context. If I show you 100 times me supporting MN does that defeat your claim based on the same logic.

This is an example where the inanity and lying overlap.
Your support for MN using a creationist site which I pointed out in another post which you never responded to is based on a lie.
Here is an excerpt.

If you were an honest poster, you could have disputed my post or not link it at all.
Instead you reposted the link knowing very well it is highly questionable and then went on this long-winded incoherent rant in trying to justify your support for MN based on this lie.

stevevw said:
This is the other part. Not only do you create strawmen. You then use the most extreme and hyperbolic language to make your point. Like everything said is the most stupid, idiot and crazy thing anyone has said in the history of the world lol.

Its an appeal to emotion and morality as though the extreme words themselves somehow give your arguement more weight. If you have to do that in the first place then it shows your arguement is weak and it cannot stand with such language.

Firstly stating "everything (you) said is the most stupid, idiot and crazy thing anyone has said in the history of the world" is indeed hyperbolic and unrealistic but here is the reasoning behind my statement, based on this excerpt.

I think it is incredibly stupid to flood posts with links with a caveat you don’t necessarily have to believe in them.
Did it ever occur to you it destroys your credibility and why should anyone believe anything you write. I rest my case.

stevevw said:
So what. That actually shows I am not bias. I am considering all points of view. Just because I mention that for example there are other religious beliefs doesn't mean I substribe to them.

They were simply mentioned to support the point I made that it is common as a human behaviour that humans look to some form of belief thus supporting the idea that there is some sort of something beyond the physical.

Now address this point specifically instead of creating strawmen. Refute that humans naturally believe in some sort of supernatural being beyond the physical. Show how it logically follows that this somehow negates my own belief or that I believe in such things because I mention them

Then show me I am lying. You just created a strawman to accuse me of lying. Now show me that I am wrong about your strawman.

Ok hopefully this will shut you up and your extremism.

Stevevw said
Post #195 This was to someone else
I think the science is the same. Its just that one side is using it to show Gods design and purpose. While the other is trying to show how naturalism can create life without any design and purpose. As a random accident.

I have said this at least 10 times. That the science is the same for both sides who hold different metaphysical beliefs. They both see the same observational science or naturalism. But one believes this represents Gods supernatural creation while the other believes its all naturalism with no supernaturalism.

Post #283 This was to another poster
I am conceding and not disputing any of the science or physical reality. I don't want science to do anything that it is not doing now. It is revealing what we are arguing about as to what is reality. If it was not for science then we would not know in the first place. Its the same observational evidence that have two opposing metaphysical beliefs.

How can I concede that the physical science is correct if I don't also agree with the method. I said this about 20 times or more in this thread.

Post #230 This was to you earlier on
I am saying when someone takes what science measures and finds and then claims that this is the only ontology thats real is when it moves from methological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism.

I clearly explained to you the difference several times earlier. It was the exact same explanation I have given to other posters. Its a consistent position all through this thread.

In fact another poster and I agreed on the science and MN only a couple of pages back in post #320

If we agree on the science and naturalism. But disagree on what that represents or reveals ie ontological naturalism or supernaturalism. And if this is beyond science and stepping into metaphysics.

Post #107
I agree and thats why I am not arguing things from a scientific perspective. If I did I would concede. Give up and acknowledge the science is good at accounting for the physical causes. Case closed lol.

Then how can we ever argue about whether life was formed naturally or supernaturally. This was said way early in this thread showing its been my position all along and you have misunderstood it aor created a misrepresentation of it.

I will tell you again. I am not disputing the science and its method (MN). I am not even disputing the naturalistic processes and causes its describing.

How can I when I am using those findings and descriptions all the time. I refer to the findings of QM and I agree. I refer to evolution and I agree. I refer to neurology and the physical brain activity when I say how can that physical brain activity explain subjective consciousnes.

So I am not disputing the science or its method. I am conceding to it. But I am saying that these findings and descriptions do not account the ultimate reality that formed life or existence itself.

That to then use those findings and descriptions to defeat other metaphysical beliefs about the same scientific evidence. Is then stepping into metaphysics. Its saying that the physical or naturalistic is the only cause of everything and there is no supernaturalism.

Thats metaphysics. Can you see the difference. The step from both sides agreeing on the science. Into each side using that science and observational findings to claim an ultimate ontology as to what caused life and existence.

In this long-winded rant the theme is you agree with the science but let’s look at one of your paragraphs with the reference to QM emboldened which clearly shows you not disputing the science is a bald faced lie.

“How can I when I am using those findings and descriptions all the time. I refer to the findings of QM and I agree. I refer to evolution and I agree. I refer to neurology and the physical brain activity when I say how can that physical brain activity explain subjective consciousnes.”

Here is your response to me on QM which reveals multiple lies.

The first lie which you continue to perpetrate despite being told otherwise the consciousness interpretation is a fringe idea which has been steadily losing support since the 1970s due to quantum decoherence.
The second lie is claiming the consciousness interpretation fits well with observation better than materialistic and deterministic interpretations given most QM interpretations lead to the same predictions.
Why make a stupid commentary on a subject you know very little about or understand?

The bottom line is your dishonesty is based on cherry picking the science and then claiming you support it and do not dispute it.

On a final point I have no doubt you cannot accept the idea of Christians embracing science instead of your cherry picked version given posts by @BCP1928 and @Hans Blaster point out of your tendency towards Evangelism which as a group are the ones most likely to reject science.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2026

BCP1928 said:
That may well be and science does not deny it or rule it out. You're just irked because they pretty much have already ruled out your version of the Christian God as a likely candidate.

I must have missed this. How ironic after all these pages that the claim science that pretty well ruled out the Christian God as creator. Well my version of it. Whatever that means.

partinobodycular · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
How on earth can anyone ever support supernaturalism on this thread.

I have no idea... but obviously continuing to beat a dead horse as you've chosen to do isn't going to work.

stevevw said:
Thats why I said we may as well concede because theres too many objections.

Indeed, at some point you should in fact concede, because continuing to repeat the same discredited arguments won't suddenly make them credible.

stevevw said:
Nevertheless I was not linking those articles to prove any specific idea they contained. Only to show that the idea of spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical. Or some sort of aspect beyond the physical world is common across all walks of life. Its no some make believe fad or delusion that happened to humans.

By now you should realize that an argumentum ad populum isn't going to work either.

Bottom line... come back when you have evidence.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2026

partinobodycular said:
I have no idea... but obviously continuing to beat a dead horse as you've chosen to do isn't going to work.

Yes I get OCD about it and try to find a way around it. I hate giving up lol. The thought comes in my head "but is it really beating a dead horse" lol.

partinobodycular said:
Indeed, at some point you should in fact concede, because continuing to repeat the same discredited arguments won't suddenly make them credible.

What is the discredited arguement.

partinobodycular said:
By now you should realize that an argumentum ad populum isn't going to work either.

Um actually sometimes in situations like this is its a line of evidence. Though limited. But thats about the only thing we can appeal to.

I don't think its actually just because its popular either. I think there is some merit to these ideas being explored. They are taken seriously and have produced some interesting results that seem to fit the observations.

I mentioned earlier that both sides look at the same evidence but see a different representation of that evidence. I mentioned how some see the evidence for consciousness supporting something beyond the physical brain. While others see the evidence is all contained within the physical brain.

But I suspect the kind of evidence will be different. One based on NCC and the other extending to experiential research. How could we reconcile two different kinds of research. They belong in different paradigms. How can two different paradigms of science be compared. Say psychology and physics or neurology.

partinobodycular said:
Bottom line... come back when you have evidence.

Well thats why I am sort of persisting because I am trying to work out what kind of evidence is needed. Or rather is acceptable. Thats why I keep linking science or articles on these alternative ideas as they are probably the closest to evidence for something beyond the physical. Such as consciousness or mind being fundemental over matter.

Apart from that religious belief doesn't help. Only in that psychological research shows belief in the supernatural is something natural to humans. This line of research is proving fruitful in understanding human cognition and also showing that religious belief is not a byproduct of evolution. But apart from that I don't know.

But heres the other point. No person can argue for the supernatural creation of life on this thread. Not just me. So it makes the entire thread useless for everyone except those who believe life was formed naturalistically. They can have a field day preaching to the converted. I will agree with them.

But how does that sort out the OP. Theres no way we can discuss it. Only one side of the evidence will be allowed. All the other evidence like experiential, testimony and ID will be classed as unscientific.

BCP1928 · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
I don't really care. Its ironic that I get criticised for bringing up metaphysics in a science thread. Yet its quite ok to being up peoples personal beliefs and scrutinised them. As though attacking and discrediting my belief will somehow discredit what I am saying.

We are not attacking or discrediting your beliefs, just saying that it's odd that they don't line up with Catholic teaching, since you claim to be a Catholic.

stevevw said:
So what are ypu saying now. That I am Catholic and my enermy is the Protestants. I thought you said I was a Protestant. Make up your mind lol.

I don't care what you call yourself. Your theology--as much as we can tell what it is--lines up with the theology of the Christian Nationalists, who are virulently anti-Catholic. Do you care?

stevevw said:
What is my point. Or what is the point I am suppose to make.

We never can tell. That's why these threads get so long.

BCP1928 · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
Yes I get OCD about it and try to find a way around it. I hate giving up lol. The thought comes in my head "but is it really beating a dead horse" lol.

What is the discredited arguement.

Um actually sometimes in situations like this is its a line of evidence. Though limited. But thats about the only thing we can appeal to.

I don't think its actually just because its popular either. I think there is some merit to these ideas being explored. They are taken seriously and have produced some interesting results that seem to fit the observations.

I mentioned earlier that both sides look at the same evidence but see a different representation of that evidence. I mentioned how some see the evidence for consciousness supporting something beyond the physical brain. While others see the evidence is all contained within the physical brain.

But I suspect the kind of evidence will be different. One based on NCC and the other extending to experiential research. How could we reconcile two different kinds of research. They belong in different paradigms. How can two different paradigms of science be compared. Say psychology and physics or neurology.

Well thats why I am sort of persisting because I am trying to work out what kind of evidence is needed. Or rather is acceptable. Thats why I keep linking science or articles on these alternative ideas as they are probably the closest to evidence for something beyond the physical. Such as consciousness or mind being fundemental over matter.

Apart from that religious belief doesn't help. Only in that psychological research shows belief in the supernatural is something natural to humans. This line of research is proving fruitful in understand human cognition and also showing that religious belief is not a byproduct of evolution. But apart from that I don't know.

But heres the other point. No person can argue for the supernatural creation of life on this thread. Not just me. So it makes the entire thread useless for everyone except those who believe life was formed naturalistically. They can have a field day preaching to the converted. I will agree with them.

But how does that sort out the OP. Theres no way we can discuss it. Only one side of the evidence will be allowed. All the other evidence like experiential, testimony and ID will be classed as unscientific.

You are not being asked for evidence of the supernatural, you are being asked to provide evidence of your claim that the supernatural can act in observable ways in the natural universe.

Ophiolite · Jan 11, 2026

BCP1928 said:
You are not being asked for evidence of the supernatural, you are being asked to provide evidence of your claim that the supernatural can act in observable ways in the natural universe.

I would settle for a self-consistent, clear, specific, technical definition of the supernatural.

Hans Blaster · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
See this is an example of exactly how I said this thread would go. Your now attacking the sources as not being scientific enough. Perhaps they are not. Perhaps there is some merit. Certainly the people involve believe so.

They aren't, which my post clearly stated.

stevevw said:
But so what. How does defeating everything I put forward change the fact that the science can never defeat supernaturalism or consciousness beyond brain.

I am not trying to "defeat supernaturalism". If I was, I certainly wouldn't expect it could be done knocking down everything put forward by "Steve from Brisbaine".

You were asked by @Ophiolite

"No scientist researching QM is researching "a spirit that transcends the physical". Feel free to produce peer reviewed papers from reputable journals in order to refute me"

Of the "papers" you posted two had been discussed by me before, I responded about one of them, and the rest didn't even come close to the "produced peer reviewed papers" challenge.

stevevw said:
Do you believe that if you can discredit every link I put that somehow this means there is no supernaturalism or consciousness beyond brain.

I am not trying to "defeat supernaturalism". If I was, I certainly wouldn't expect it could be done knocking down everything put forward by "Steve from Brisbaine".

stevevw said:
We have not even got into any specific and already links are being dismissed. How on earth can anyone ever support supernaturalism on this thread. Thats why I said we may as well concede because theres too many objections. You can't even get any links through the front door. Let alone present any evidence.

Nevertheless I was not linking those articles to prove any specific idea they contained. Only to show that the idea of spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical. Or some sort of aspect beyond the physical world is common across all walks of life. Its not some make believe fad or delusion of evolution that happened to humans.

As I've said I'm only interested in your claim that fundamental consciousness is somehow part of my field. This third paper, the one that I responded to, was a paper published by a biological journal about the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. I hope that you can see that the reviewers were not and could not be experts on the material presented. The journal's editors *failed* when they published it. They should have turned it down for being out of scope for their journal.

timewerx · Jan 11, 2026

Would it be more miraculous for life to arise spontaneously from energy after billions of years that those particles and energy worked tirelessly for an eternity, never giving up to make life happen?

You must have stronger faith to believe that's what truly happened.

Ophiolite · Jan 11, 2026

timewerx said:
Would it be more miraculous for life to arise spontaneously from energy after billions of years that those particles and energy worked tirelessly for an eternity, never giving up to make life happen?

You must have stronger faith to believe that's what truly happened.

The answer to your first paragraph, as written, is "No, it would not be more miraculous." And therefore the response to the second paragraph is, "consequently you don't require any faith at all to accept it as, if we subtract the bombastic phraseology, the most plausible explanation for life."

partinobodycular · Jan 11, 2026

stevevw said:
What is the discredited arguement.

This is part of your problem. It's an age old technique. Throw so many weak arguments into the discussion that no one will have either the time or the inclination to refute them all. It can appear as though you're hoping that by sheer numbers alone you can turn a lot of weak arguments into one strong one. It's a strategy that's popular with NDE defenders et al. I realize that in your case it's probably unintentional. And to your credit, as highlighted by the following quote, you seem to recognize this problem.

stevevw said:
Um actually sometimes in situations like this is its a line of evidence. Though limited. But thats about the only thing we can appeal to.

I get it, the evidence is somewhat subjective. But then again proponents of a flat earth, or bigfoot, or reincarnation, will make the exact same claim. And unfortunately, in a science forum, they're exactly who your 'supernatural' claims are going to get lumped in with, and for obvious reasons.

So what's a proponent of the supernatural to do? Look for the points of agreement. Agree that your arguments are weak. Agree that the evidence is subjective. And agree that your interpretation of it is biased. Because all of those things are true. This won't necessarily help you win any arguments, but it will at least establish that you're rational. You recognize the weaknesses in your position.

Don't attack your opponents, even when they're the one's not being rational, it'll only turn into quid pro quo. Simply explain to them, as clearly as you can, why you disagree. That's the point that you have to get across to them... not that they're wrong, but rather why you disagree. The better that you can do that the more productive the discussion will be.

One final point. From my perspective as a person with a short attention span. Your posts can sometimes be too long and redundant, with too many tangents. So, if you could try to be a bit more succinct I'd really appreciate it.

partinobodycular · Jan 11, 2026

timewerx said:
Would it be more miraculous for life to arise spontaneously from energy after billions of years that those particles and energy worked tirelessly for an eternity, never giving up to make life happen?

I don't think that the emergence of life after billions of years is miraculous at all. In fact I think that it's pretty much inevitable. I have to admit though that I'm somewhat of a fan of Penrose's CCC, and the simple idea that entropy always increases. That's it... one simple rule that you can put on a T-shirt that accounts for absolutely everything else.

Now that's miraculous!!

Hans Blaster · Jan 11, 2026

timewerx said:
Would it be more miraculous for life to arise spontaneously from energy after billions of years that those particles and energy worked tirelessly for an eternity, never giving up to make life happen?

How do you measure the level of miraculousness?

Then there are the really bad "science" claims in you post...

1. Life did not arise from "energy". Life is made of stuff, not "energy".
2. Life did not arise from "particles and energy" either.
3. "energy and particles" don't "work tirelessly". "Work" is the application of a force over a distance.
4. Life on Earth is detected going back to within 1 billion years of the formation of the Earth. So by whatever means, it wasn't billions and billions of years.
5. The Universe as we know is only 13.8 billion years old, so that "tireless enternity" is not real either.

Your whole sentence is big pile of nonsense unconnected to reality. Would you care to ground your claim in reality?

timewerx said:
You must have stronger faith to believe that's what truly happened.

Faith is useless in science.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Area Meathead

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Area Meathead

the village i--o--t--

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Similar threads