It just doesn't happen

If every thing tends to entropy.
It would seem consciousness arrises at a pretty advanced state of it.
For pure energy, to become a planet, and then a sentient creature capable of in any way appreciating the universe in all it's wonder, seems to be.
Indistinguishable from magic.
Or rather truly miraculous.
Science can only assume it is at the beginning.
Ruling things out prematurely would be un scientific.

I personally know of no science that unseats the majesty of what I term God.
There is a limit to what we can understand of the "information" represented in the universe.
And what of the "information' that comes from within ?

a reply to: carsforkids
Because apart from belief ...there is no evidence to support God. God was applied to the equation when man did not have the answers to certain question. Since the time of Man only man has spoken for God..he has left no evidence of himself/herself/itself...yet..again because we don't have all the answers..rather than try to find out the truth, based on evidence, we cling to the God theory..only because the idea of death frightens us so.

originally posted by: toktaylor
... we cling to the God theory..only because the idea of death frightens us so.

Those who are incapacitated by the fear of death, die for this reason alone.
I fear pain, not death.

a reply to: rom12345

Ever watched someone die?

Don't know if you have or not mate.

Ask them what they want, and its generally more time.

Anyhoo something disappears, call it what we will, spark of life, simple consciousness(nothing simple about it all the same) but it goes away, and what's left is not what was there that was a few minutes previously.

Animals and Humans.

Everyone fears what they do not understand, especially when it comes next.

.. common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” ― Vladimir Nabokov

I don't hold this belief, but the ancient teachings do affirm this to be true for those whow believe it.

Perhaps our individuated life aka: "Me/I" is lost.
But that from which life comes is not.

Those who do not regard life a 'sacred' gift, are fundamentally dangerous.

Believing in God is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

Most religious beliefs, outline the "Me" to the "not me" progression.

For purposelessness to become purposeful, seems beyond a catalytic reaction.

originally posted by: rom12345
.. common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” ― Vladimir Nabokov

I don't hold this belief.

Perhaps our individuated life aka: "Me/I" is lost.
But that from which life comes is not.

The universe in unimaginable vast in both space and in time. Earth is an infinitesimally tiny part of the universe, almost to the pint of being virtually nonexistent in the grand scheme of things.

Furthermore, humanity's time on Earth is also not even the blink of an eye in the history of the universe, and in the projected lifetime of the universe, our time of existence is an infinitesimally small moment of time, almost to the point of being nonexistent.

Those who do not regard life a 'sacred' gift, are fundamentally dangerous.

Believing in God is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

A person can consider life as something that needs to be venerated and revered without needing to believe that God is the one who bestowed that life.

People don't necessarily require God to inform them that life is precious, or to inform them that they should treat people the same way that they themselves wish to be treated.

I mean, if a person needs God to explain those things to you, or the fear of God to live your life that way, then I think those are the dangerous people. A good moral compass that emanates from a secular person seems (IMO) to be more deeply-rooted than a moral compass that a person is told they need to have just because that's what God wants from them.


I know I said above that we humans and the earth we inhabit are infinitesimal nothings with considering the width and breadth of the universe and all existence. But when I'm considering the preciousness of the life of a person I meet, or when I think about treating people the same way I wish to be treated, or when I plan to apply my moral compass to a situation, I don't need to worry about the whole of existence. Rather, I only need to think locally -- Earth and humanity. My moral compass and how I treat others cannot affect the rest of the universe beyond, but it can certainly affect my immediate local universe.

So humanity and human life is a grand and precious thing here in our local part of existence (where it counts for us), and simultaneously it is a virtual nothingness relative to the whole of existence.

originally posted by: rom12345

...

Believing in God is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

...

Maybe it was at some point, now it's what's driving our species towards suicide.

originally posted by: rom12345
If every thing tends to entropy.
It would seem consciousness arrises at a pretty advanced state of it.
For pure energy, to become a planet, and then a sentient creature capable of in any way appreciating the universe in all it's wonder, seems to be.
Indistinguishable from magic.
Or rather truly miraculous.
Science can only assume it is at the beginning.
Ruling things out prematurely would be un scientific.

I personally know of no science that unseats the majesty of what I term God.
There is a limit to what we can understand of the "information" represented in the universe.
And what of the "information' that comes from within ?

Entropy? What? no. Complexity

And since God is the most above and beyond superiour being imaginable it's only logical to put him at the end of the process and not at the beginning.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Creationism, Ken Ham, Hovid and you comprise a sick cult. That's a fact. There isn't a single Judeo/Christian religion that endorses you. That's also a fact.
Sick, corrupt and evil.

Some scathing words from someone who tries to convince people that their great uncle is a mutant ape. We are from a higher intelligence, not a lower intelligence. Not sure why this fries your brain so intensely... It's good news.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
Physical laws HAVE changed.

Which physical laws have changed? Experimentation shows otherwise

"Using our results together with the previous best estimates of β, we impose strict limits on the variation of fundamental constants, resulting in a test of general relativity with an unprecedented level of precision."
source

article explained further

You lost

No phantom, the only one who loses in a conversation is the person who's bigotry and chauvinism prevent them from communicating in a cordial manner. The fact that you are left with nothing but insults shows who is actually the lost one here.

Wrong again. The laws of nature can and do change.

Anything Can Change, It Seems, Even an Immutable Law of Nature
By James Glanz and Dennis Overbye
Aug. 15, 2001

An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos.

The researchers used the world's largest single telescope to study the behavior of metallic atoms in gas clouds as far away from Earth as 12 billion light years. The observations revealed patterns of light absorption that the team could not explain without assuming a change in a basic constant of nature involving the strength of the attraction between electrically charged particles.

If confirmed, the finding could mean that other constants regarded as immutable, like the speed of light, might also have changed over the history of the cosmos.

The work was conducted by scientists in the United States, Australia and Britain and was led by Dr. John K. Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. It is to be published on Aug. 27 in the field's most prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters.

www.nytimes.com...

PS: General relativity is NOT a law of nature.

There is great social utility believing in a higher moral authority that supersedes that of any human and being accountable to it. But it should only guide the self, It should not be used to justify warped notions.

Human intentions are often warped by their selfishness, they often use each others weaknesses for darwinian advantage.
Ruthlessness is not however in the interest of the self.

From a purely logical point of view (for me), there is no reason to discount the 'still small voice' that some interact with.
It is not psychosis.

Human have some words, 'God' being one, to describe an ineffable connection they feel, but can not put into words that do it justice.

Some turn to God, with 1st hand experience of the inverse, which by deduction makes it necessary.

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: rom12345
If every thing tends to entropy.
It would seem consciousness arrises at a pretty advanced state of it.
For pure energy, to become a planet, and then a sentient creature capable of in any way appreciating the universe in all it's wonder, seems to be.
Indistinguishable from magic.
Or rather truly miraculous.
Science can only assume it is at the beginning.
Ruling things out prematurely would be un scientific.

I personally know of no science that unseats the majesty of what I term God.
There is a limit to what we can understand of the "information" represented in the universe.
And what of the "information' that comes from within ?

Entropy? What? no. Complexity

And since God is the most above and beyond superiour being imaginable it's only logical to put him at the end of the process and not at the beginning.

Time is the measure of progress toward entropy, from a more ordered state.
aka. 3rd law of thermodynamics.

God it the infinity ordered cause of it.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Wrong again. The laws of nature can and do change.

lol you'd disagree with me if I said clouds are water. The laws of nature have been perpetuating as we know it for the past known history. Even the stars have maintained their same position in the sky, as indicated by the Mayan calendar and historical references to zodiac configurations.

Anything Can Change, It Seems, Even an Immutable Law of Nature
By James Glanz and Dennis Overbye
Aug. 15, 2001

"If confirmed, the finding could mean that other constants regarded as immutable, like the speed of light, might also have changed over the history of the cosmos."

19 years and still no confirmation. Sounds like they need to be a little more grounded. More recent studies from 2018 say that laws have remained the same

"The physical laws governing Earth were the same in the heavens. When we pointed our telescopes started looking at the most distant stars and galaxies in the visible universe, the laws of physics never changed. They are immutable and constant everywhere and for all time." source

Sorry bud, it appears you're wrong.

a reply to: rom12345

What about the concept of time?

Thats a very human perspective directly linked to memories and they way we perceive existance.

Time in physics is defined by its measurement.

In non relativistic physics, by its scalar quantity.

a reply to: rom12345

I know that. And I bet you feel smart saying it. Alas it doesn't apply to any form of evolution, since organic and non-organic matter isn't gas.

@andy06shake
Yes, and therefore intelligence as we know it exists in an atemporal state

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rom12345

I know that. And I bet you feel smart saying it. Alas it doesn't apply to any form of evolution, since organic and non-organic matter isn't gas.

what is it ?
and it's not just gas, it is everything, except for life for a brief while.

a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like you don't know what the hell you're talking about

a reply to: rom12345

You would need to break down the premise there mate.

If you are implying intelligence exists simply because of space-time, im apt to ponder why?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Creationism, Ken Ham, Hovid and you comprise a sick cult. That's a fact. There isn't a single Judeo/Christian religion that endorses you. That's also a fact.
Sick, corrupt and evil.

Some scathing words from someone who tries to convince people that their great uncle is a mutant ape. We are from a higher intelligence, not a lower intelligence. Not sure why this fries your brain so intensely... It's good news.

Please find a post by me that says my great uncle was a mutant ape. Biological evolution never said that an ape turned into a man. Find a textbook that says that. I've asked that before but you refuse to answer - because you're a liar and a fraud. You deliberately misinterpret the research and the data to make it appealing to your cult. Sorry - no banana.