• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Are we evolving?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Sinful2B, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    EDX - read back - we've covered all that already, but thanks for your input.
     
  2. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    +106
    Atheist
    Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.
     
  3. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    No. Some systems are more stable than others, and thus are more likely to exist than others. For example, it is more likely that a hydrogen atom will have its electron in the lowest energy level than in, say, the 5th level. Thus, the former system is more disposed to existance than the latter.
    However, if we are talking of the fundaments of reality themselves (fundamental particles, energy, etc), then the same occurs: some are more likely to exist than others. Of course, this is less certain, since we don't know the exact nature of reality.

    No. By definition, nothing exists beyond existance.
     
  4. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    I think he's just pursuing that line of thought, taking the theory of evolution and using as an analogy for the universe at large.
     
  5. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    :wave:Hi and welcome

    ah yes - I watched a programme about this a couple of weeks ago on TV - highly complicated stuff for a non-physicist.

    So, when charged particles are blipping into and out of existence within the atom, where are they coming from?
    Existence implies non-existence. Why cannot the non-existence be the reality? Perhaps it just needs a different identity?
    :)
     
  6. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edx [​IMG]
    Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.

    Exploration of concepts and theories - it's the only way we learn, and the only way we end up with more questions and less answers - fun though.
     
  7. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    They are coming from nowhere. By definition, nothing exists but that which exists. The set of things that exists is called 'existance'. Thus, there is nothing beyond existance.

    Because the definition of this hypothetical 'non-existant' realm is self-contradictory. Nothing exists in this realm, and the realm itself does not exist. Consider the set E of all things that exist e. The set E' of both existant and non-existant things is therefore:

    [​IMG]

    I.e., E' = E.
    That is, there is nothing that isn't in existance, or to put it another way, the only things that exist are those things in existance. I don't know how to make this more clear; I would have thought it self-explanitory. How can something non-existant exist?
     
  8. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Perhaps, but asking questions for the sake of asking question (and not for the sake of aquiring knowledge) is a fruitless endeavour; what can be gained?
     
  9. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    oh, but you do gain knowledge - I do especially from you, and that;s why I end up with more questions and less answers, because you never can get all your questions answered.

    Well, by defining it, you just have.
    A simpler analogy is to open the palm of your hand - revealed, nothing ( forget the air and stuff). Nothingness is definable, so is non-existence. Just because physics cannot measure it in any way, does not mean it cannot be.
    Nowhere, as you call it, is non-existence, which has to be by definition, because existence has to be by definition.
    To use your phraseology:
    more correctly written as:
    By defintion, nothing exists BY that which exists.

    No, I can't prove it or measure it, but I can logically produce it - it's as good as singularities I reckon.
    Maybe you're good enough to do the maths for me, because I'm bug*er*d if I know what your equation was talking about. (smile)
     
  10. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Yes, but you ask questions that are pertinant to the overall discussion. I was just making the distinction between asking questions as a means to an end, and asking questions for their sake alone.

    No. I have defined it as that which does not exist. Therefore, whatever it is, it doesn't exist.

    In this case it does: we define it doesn't exist. We can talk about invisible pink unicorns, but that does not mean they necessarily exist. Indeed, an invisible pink unicorn is a logical paradox, and thus cannot exist. Just because we can write down a logical paradox doesn't mean said paradox is possible: by definition, the paradox isn't possible.
    Likewise, it is a logical paradox to have something exist outside of existance.

    You are commiting an equivocation fallacy. The word 'nothing' in this context is a not a proper noun denoting a thing, but rather it is a place holder for the absence of a thing. Consider the null set: ∅ = {}. There is nothing in that set. Does that mean the element called 'Nothing' is a member of that set? No. It is a placeholder that we use in the absence of a normal list.
    E.g., in the statement "the numbers 2, 3, and 67, are in the set of integers", the list is "The numbers 2, 3, and 67". If the set in question is empty, then the list too would be empty, and so, instead of writing "The numbers are in the set", we give that abscence a name: nothing.
    That does not mean nothingness itself exists. It's a rather trivial semantical fallacy, to be honest.

    If you can logically produce it, is that not the same as proving it? Either way, could you 'produce' it now?

    It was simply a symbolic proof to show that the set of all things both in existance and in non-existance is equal to the set of all things in existance. That is, no thing is in non-existance. More generally, non-existance itself doesn't exist (in the same way as a spherically oblong two-dimensional metallic cardboard-cutout cannot exist, no matter how much we talk about it).

    Who'dve thought this thread would go on to be a discourse on the nature of non-existance? ^_^
     
  11. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    +106
    Atheist
    Well no you arent just asking questions, you're just wrong. Do you accept that the word evolution and the theory of evolution are different things?

    Ed
     
  12. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,712
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    into what?
     
  13. atomweaver

    atomweaver Senior Member

    +171
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    How many threads do you intend to toddler-why?
     
  14. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +384
    Agnostic
    Homo sapiens version 2.0
     
  15. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    :wave:Very good explanation Wiccan_Child.:clap:

    Almost pushed to the limit I think.

    However, let's focus upon "nothing".

    This "place" from which something materializes.

    You stated:
    So, for something to come into existence, then it has to from existence itself, and the instructions to do so equally come from existence.
    Furthermore, any instruction to "dematerialize" from existence, is not in fact a removal from existence, but a removal from witnessable existence, in that, to us, it has disappeared.
    Call it what you may, non-existence, another dimension, or de-creation, the fact remains that something that is able to exist, does so from an apparent position of non-existence, and therefore non-existence, exists.

    How does a physicist explain that phenomena?
    ( please, in simple terms so us non-physicists don't suffer the mental gunge! )
     
  16. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,712
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Originally Posted by brinny
    into what?

    i dunno.....haven't given it much thought....does it cause you pain or anguish?
     
  17. atomweaver

    atomweaver Senior Member

    +171
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Yep. The toddler-why doesn't require much thought.

    Nawp, ask away, if its all you've got. We'd just rather engage brinny in discussion and/or debate. I have raised enough toddlers to fully expect that the toddler-why won't typically yield a whole lot of intellectual "meat"...
     
  18. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    'We' as individuals do not evolve, but 'we' as a species are evolving into the next generation of individuals. In the grand scheme of things, I have no idea what the descendants of today's humans will look like in tens of thousands of years time. Probably something like this:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Nitron

    Nitron HIKES CAN TAKE A WALK

    +147
    Agnostic
    Single
    For the Emperor!
     
  20. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Haha, I have a growing suspicion that I'm being tested :p.

    Not necessarily. The rules that govern existance determine what can and cannot exist. And when we say "Things come into existance", we don't mean they come from somwhere. At one time they didn't exist, and at a later time they did exist. And, in all probability, they now cease to exist again.

    Since we are talking about existance proper, not just observable existance, I fail to see your point.

    Again, no. Non-existance is not another dimension or plane of reality. It is not a thing at all. If something does not exist, then it is said to be non-existant. Just because we can describe properties of it does not make it exist: I can show something to be a logical paradox, but that does not mean it exists.

    Simple: they don't. What you have described is not what we mean by 'non-existance'. I think you are getting confused between figures of speech and technical terminology.
     
Loading...