Scientists discover new clue to the chemical origins of life

With all due respect D.C.:
"Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry."

Sung to the tune from Mary Poppins-
"Just a spoonful of sugar makes EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down- In the most delightful way!"

With all due respect D.C.:
They are adjacent, but not overlapping.

Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.

Assumption = wrong?

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.

Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.

Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.

Non sequitur. You are limiting life to biological life, which presupposes atheism. God is defined as a bodyless Spirit, so He does not rely on biological life to live Himself.

By definition God is uncreated, timeless and immaterial. This is reflected in His Name: I Am (Yahweh). The universe (time, space, energy) was created.

Seeing both your premises fail, this conclusion is false.

Stupid fairy tale for babies

Your mind fails.

If God is alive he was created

have little insight into the science, or even ironically your own scripture.

You aren't going to convince us

by curb-stomping dogma into these threads

Seeing both your premises fail, this conclusion is false.

An argument with false premises or invalid structure says nothing whatsoever about its conclusion

Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.

It's hard to take seriously a person who believes the world is 6000 years old

and was magicked into being

You religion is based upon worshiping a geometric object with 72 vertices

That description applies best to the big bang. This theory assumes that the whole universe popped into being uncaused out of literarlly nothing. I think that could be considered a fine definition of magic.

Big Bang does not claim a created universe (from nothing).

It states that the universe is constantly expanding and changing (evolving).

Henrik, you need to read this book

Do you have any reason for that or is it just a gut feeling? In fact, there is no reason to assume the earth is any amount of years old, because the age of the earth can be measured in many ways that provide equally valid answers. The earth simply does not come with a production date.

I read a lot of such books, and they are quite interesting. But none of them can answer the quintessential question: how can something come from nothing caused by nothing

Causation just means that without the causing event, the caused event cannot logically exist.

Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing

Mods, do your job and ban him already

Causality only works in space-time. space-time had yet to exist before the big bang

into the quantum world, effects CAN come before causes.

Why should causality be limited to our universe? First of all...The cause therefore coincides with the effect, like a ball hanging from a chain.

Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life.

Like the dogma of evolution.

God is the beste explanation for the origin of the universe.

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is what human experience and logic tells us. For, out of nothing, only nothing comes. To say that something for no apparent reason can come out of totally nothing is not science, but magic.

(2) The universe began to exist.

In an event 13,7 billion years ago, the universe came into being from nothing.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.

Assumption = wrong?

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.

Most likely, the creation act by God co-occured with the big bang on t=0, so there is no need for a- or pre-temporal causality.

(4) That cause cannot be the universe.

Something cannot create itself, for then it must already exist.

(5) The only viable cause is therefore outside of the universe, outside of space, time, causality and energy, and must be God.

Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.

That description applies best to the big bang. This theory assumes that the whole universe popped into being uncaused out of literarlly nothing. I think that could be considered a fine definition of magic.

It's possible that the universe is cyclical

No-one claims the universe came from absolutely nothing.

implies time existing independent of the universe

The current inflationary LF-models (Guth, Vilekin, Borde) all assume a universe starting from a point where time, space and energy do not exist.

Alan Guth called the big bang universe "the ultimate free lunch".

Why does it have to be intelligent?

How can intelligence exist without a brain (examples please)?

How can intelligence be non-contingent?

By definition, a god is whatever you want it to be.

It expands from that point, at which dimensions are zero and density is infinite. There is no starting point

Cyclical and multiverse models cannot avoid the absolute beginning either. This is the Guth/Borde/Vilekin theorem: any expanding relativistic universe cannot have an infinite past.

All alternative theories (like Hawkings black hole universe) just avoid the initial beginning question by postulating some pre-existence, which is arbitrary and begs the question.

It's possible that the universe is cyclical

Cyclical and multiverse models cannot avoid the absolute beginning either.

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

In an event 13,7 billion years ago, the universe came into being from nothing.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

Why are you assuming a beginning?

Everything in our universe, yes.

That is the point from which the universe expands, however it is not a beginning

If someone digs a pit, the net amount of extra volume of pit and dug out material is still zero. But if someone falls into the pit, he will still wonder how that pit came about.

You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.

Not necessarily. Not when time itself came into being co-occurring with the popping at t=0.

Invalid analagy

Everything in our universe, yes.

The universe is defined as everything in it: time, space, energy. So your statement is based on a false distinction between everything and everything. Word play.

Infinities - as physical concepts - are plausible and within the grasp of a human means of understanding

Hilarious! Henrik, there is no air in space. You can't speak. It doesn't vibrate. You're illiterate.

Why are you assuming a beginning?

Because the alternative, an eternal universe, implies that there is an infinite series of past events in the universe. That is highly implausible for many reasons. One is the impossibility of an actual infinite (Hilbert etc). If the past were infinite, we would never arrive in the present. The other problem is with entropy. An infinite universe would need a mechanism to create matter from nothing, which negates your own premise.

A universe with a beginning makes physical sense, and is in line with mainstream physics. So it is the more rational belief.

Time exists at t=0, and so only from that point on can change occur

In order for a beginning to occur you need a change

You can do math with infinite quantities

but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be... just because you say so?

So you're saying the universe cannot be eternal, but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be

t=0

So you're saying the universe cannot be eternal, but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be

I never said God was complex. In fact a timeless, uncaused, bodyless Spirit is quite a simple concept. This is the ontological definition of God.

If one accepts the conclusion that the universe cannot be eternal, then by definition it has a beginning.

You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.

You have a link to this research or are just making shit up again?

You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.

You have a link to this research or are just making shit up again?

You have a LINK to this research or are just making shit up again?

I never said God was complex. In fact a timeless, uncaused, bodyless Spirit is quite a simple concept. This is the ontological definition of God.

That is the point from which the universe expands, however it is not a beginning

So it begins to expand, which is a beginning, because before that it did not expand.

The analogy is quite valid. The analogy is not the energy balance but to illustrate that even with net results being zero

I'm not talking about the complexity of the concept, I am talking about the complexity of the physical entity

A conscious, intelligent being is necessarily complex

It is a beginning of spatial expansion, which is a property of an existing universe

There is no logical reason why God could not have caused that expansion to begin at t=0.

There is no logical reason why God could not have caused that expansion to begin at t=0.

All controlled experiments have shown that there is no distinction between the mind and the brain.

Cause/effect relationships REQUIRE a concept of before/after

I'm not talking about the complexity of the concept, I am talking about the complexity of the physical entity

God is not defined as a physical entity, but a spiritual.

A conscious, intelligent being is necessarily complex

Why? You must make a distinction between the thoughts and actions of such a being and his ontology. He may be quite simple, but his actions complex. Even in nature simple causes can have complex consequences.

But AT t=0 there is no such range

Do you understand thermodynamics? Do you understand entropy?

That is easily refuted. A weight that is pressing on a surface is a fine example of concurrency of cause and effect.

Do you understand thermodynamics? Do you understand entropy?

Entropy is a physical attribute of matter and energy.

But the argument just concluded that all these material things have a beginning from nothing.

Entropy is a useless concept in trying to describe a non physical cause.

observe the weight on the table

Provide evidence that anything else exists

there is no logical reason why a form of time cannot independently exist apart from our notion of spacetime.

Provide evidence that anything else exists

That is easy. Even the bb cosmology assumes that before the universe, there was a nothing. Nothing does not have any energy, space or time.

Provide evidence that anything else exists

Well, for instance beauty or love, the law of gravity or the number 7. These things exist but have nothing to do with the amount of motion of elementary particles in space.

By the way, I am not assuming God's existence for the cosmological argument, but His existence becomes plausible from it. Just as He did from the moral argument.

There is no logical reason that pink unicorns cannot exist on the moon of a distant planet.

There is no logical reason that pink unicorns cannot exist on the moon of a distant planet.

You may want to talk to the SETI folks about this. Even Hawking believes that aliens exist.

They exist in your brain

They exist in your brain

Proof?

Most people would say that love and beauty are expressions of immaterial values that have a real existence of their own.

I also think it is more rational to assume that a father feels real love for his son, and not just experiences an uncontrolled chemical reaction in the brain. But that is another topic.

I told you there is no reason to assume that pink unicorns do not exist on some specific moon

And without any evidence to the contrary

the notion that time could exist as a dimension independently of space is rational.

Also, you need to stop asking for proof

Most people are idiots

we can affect individuals perceptions

It is then up to you to prove that a mind cannot exist without a human brain.

all evidence shows that intelligence is a emergent property of the brain.

Ergo, intelligence cannot be a property of any proposed prime mover

research that demonstrates that the mind can exist without a brain

Also, you need to stop asking for proof

Whenever I think you are being presumptious, I will ask you for proof. That is the rational thing to do.

Most people are idiots

Are you included in most? Or can we consider you the special smart one. By what merit? Are you a famous scientist or have you achieved any breakthrough for humanity apart from using up the air?

all evidence shows that intelligence is a emergent property of the brain.

So education and genetics play no role?

What this research cannot prove is that no form of intelligence can exist apart from the human brain.

That is a logical fallacy. You have not provided evidence that intelligence can never exist without a human brain.

There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to have abstract thought or reason and comprehend things. This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.

In fact, do we really believe that Mozarts genious is the result of random chemical patterns? Or that Einsteins theory was produced by chemicals in his braincells?

But let me reverse the argument: if intelligence is just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is a possibility that in the future machines will be able to display true intelligence, once the inner workings of these reactions have been worked out. The machine intelligence would not just be independent of human brains, but also of any form of hardware. That would mean symbolic, immaterial intelligence is possible.

There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to have abstract thought or reason and comprehend things. This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.

But let me reverse the argument: if intelligence is just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is a possibility that in the future machines will be able to display true intelligence, once the inner workings of these reactions have been worked out. The machine intelligence would not just be independent of human brains, but also of any form of hardware.

Your point demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.

Software cannot run independent of hardware

We are getting a bit sidetracked, but consider a form of intelligence: the laws of logic. These laws exist independently of human brains.

Recovery of faculties is not the same thing as existing without a brain. It is more like a reboot.

Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.

Recovery of faculties is not the same thing as existing without a brain. It is more like a reboot.

The fact that we need a brain to discover and manifest intelligence does not mean intelligence as such does not exist independently.

There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.

This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.

In fact, do we really believe that Mozarts genious is the result of random chemical patterns?

Or that Einsteins theory was produced by chemicals in his braincells?

These laws exist independently of human brains. On Mars a contradiction is also false.

No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities

But not in your brain which can believe there is a god who can exist in 3 separate parts - or is it 3 gods in one

The fact that we need a brain to discover and manifest intelligence does not mean intelligence as such does not exist independently.

Stephen Hawkings entire cosmology depens on the existence of the law of gravity independently from matter

But that is self-defeating.

Their assertion is also a chemical reaction, and the atheist has no way in knowing which chemical path is true.

But not in your brain which can believe there is a god who can exist in 3 separate parts - or is it 3 gods in one

The Bible says God is one, not three.

Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.

Secondly, if machines can be intelligent then is becomes more likely that other entitities can be as well.

The type of hardware is not important. The intelligence is in the software, not the hardware...

So the correct statement would be: the existence of intelligence does not depend on hardware, only presentation does.

Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.

No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities

You are in fact saying that the law of non-contradiction did not exist before there was life in the universe. But a galaxy cannot exist and not exist at the same time either.

It is more rational to assume that laws of logic exist distinctly from humans and are discovered by them, then to say they are an invention or gradually developed evolutionary function.

Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.

Again you are casually dropping shit bombs without providing references. NOBODY with any credibility has asserted this. Links or STFU.

And further, there is no function of the brain which cannot be explained completely by physical processes.

-Embrace the perverse ambiguity of your religion. And learn a little more about it.

So for god to express himself on our world, he would need to have a physical form/force/etc, otherwise it's just uninterpreted 'information', as you say.

Most higher functions have not been explained.

For one, there is no clear model of how electrochemical reactions in the brain can cause consciousness.

Not only that, but Henrik is also wrong that information can exist absent of physical reality. Information in your brain is in the arrangement of neurons, information in computers is in electrical charges... it's all physical.

@Henrik You are in fact saying that the law of non-contradiction did not exist before there was life in the universe. But a galaxy cannot exist and not exist at the same time either.

Everything is physical

There is nothing that is not physical. The conceptual (love, beauty, logic, etc) exists physically

Everything is physical

First of all, that assertion is not physical. The letters on the screen are not the same as the thought behind it.

If so, where are they stored? In the brain? Can you locate or touch your thoughts? Do they have color or weight or other material attributes? Charge? Spin? No.

information can exist absent of physical reality

My contention is that it is more plausible that our thoughts and feelings are real - not just chemistry. This is more in line with our human experience as well.

We in fact do experience these things as real. Anyone who has ever experienced profound love or grief for that matter, would say these are very real experiences. At least that would be the more rational conclusion.

Second, intelligence is a highly contentious topic. Scientists have no unified definition, and to measure intelligence is quite difficult. Does it equate to IQ? EQ? Many factors other than brain chemistry could play a role.

First of all, that assertion is not physical.

The letters on the screen are not the same as the thought behind it.

But the markings representing equations for instance are not the same as that information, as the message they convey. That message is immaterial, for it continues to exist once the board is wiped.

thoughts and reproducing images that they imagined

In my brain the idea is stored in the arrangement of neurons and the sequence of their activation

thoughts and reproducing images that they imagined

A brain scan is not the same as the memory it represents. You are now contradicting yourself, because you said your thoughts are located in the brain. That means they are not in a brain scan.

How do you know that? That idea is just a brain path, and you cannot know if that brain path is true by using another brain path.

To say the idea is the same as a sequence of neurons is illogical. The idea existed before it was stored in your brain.

An equation in a book is not the same as the ink and the paper. The folly!

yes... that is also physical.

It is until it is read

Does the law of gravity exist independently of (human) brains? If not, why do two atoms still attract eachother according to it's definition?

Does the number 7 exist before there was life in the universe? If not, how many would seven stars be?

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit."

It is until it is read

Suppose the book on gravity existed after people and all life in the universe were gone, would the information suddenly become invalid? Why?

Gravitational attraction is a property of the universe

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts

Gravitational attraction is a property of the universe

So who or what is responsible for it's existence, and why does it have the form it has?

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts

So how many would 7 stars be in the absence of humans?

Yes it would, because the symbols as expressed by the arrangement of certain atoms that compose the ink ....

Yes it would, because the symbols as expressed by the arrangement of certain atoms that compose the ink ....

Sounds a bit like trying to avoid the question with fuzzy talk..

More likely is to say the message is still valid, because it conveys a simple truth regardless of humans being there.

There would be 1 of each

There would be 1 of each

So now all of a sudden the number 1 is not an invented human concept? You have tricked yourself into a self-contradictory position. Seven stars are just seven stars, humans or no humans. One star is one star, regardless of human brain biology.

Sounds a bit like trying to avoid the question with fuzzy talk...More likely is to say the message is still valid, because it conveys a simple truth regardless of humans being there.

No, the message is MEANINGLESS absent of anyone to receive it.

Seven stars are just seven stars, humans or no humans. One star is one star, regardless of human brain biology.

No, the message is MEANINGLESS absent of anyone to receive it.

You are confusing semantics with the existence of a symbolic representation using a coded system.

The coded system still demands an explanation, because it cannot exist by chance.

Compare to the maya hieroglyphs still not deciphered. We know they contain information but just cannot interpret them.

How the hell

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.

There would be 1 of each

So why is the number 1 not an invented human concept while the number 7 is?

Let me ask you then: how many stars would 1 star be in the absence of all intelligent life?

The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.

We've erased and implated memories into rats,

A star is a star.

We've erased and implated memories into rats,

Storage of memories is not the same as the events on which the memories are based. Tha fact that we can implant false memories does not invalidate the existence of real events, like, "yesterday was my birthday".

A star is a star.

How many stars would 1 star be in the absence of intelligent life?

but those concepts are meaningless in nature

The concept of "star" and the concept of "one" are meaningless absent of conscious life. The universe exists as a sea of energy

Would you say, in the absence of intelligent life, that the universe exists or not?

Why would that be a valid statement seeing no human is there to observe it?

With your definition of reality, even the very existence of anything would be unknown.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.

The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.

Humans invent these concepts, they are meaningless without us

The concept of "star" and the concept of "one" are meaningless absent of conscious life. The universe exists as a sea of energy

I would just have said 1 star.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything...

@Henrik So how many quantum fluctuations would you call 1 fluctuation in the absence of intelligent life?

@Henrik In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.

I believe that reality is real independent of observation

There are only waves

In the absence of an intelligent observer, the concept of "universe" would also be meaningless, just as the concept of "existence" or "truth".

then I want nothing to do with it, and my life will change very little

That is your free choice.

You religion is based upon worshiping a geometric object with 72 vertices

Whatever helps you get through the night buddy. Keep taking the tablets and you will make it.

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit."

That definition cannot be found in the Bible...Not all Christians adhere to it however. The Bible says simply that God is one, without division. God refers to Himself as "I" (Yah).

Your book is full of unresolvable dichotomies and loose ends. Such is the case when concocting a dogma and attempting to please everybody.

Ha you just proved you don't even know the bible. On the first page of bibles it states that it is the book of the Tetragrammaton. In ancient illustrations it is a tetrahedron sitting on the throne, not an old man.

I believe I'm correct in saying any of us are willing to admit the possibility of a god

That is your free choice. Your life will change however when you are dead. You are dead much longer than you are alive you know, unless you do not believe in the human concept of death like your friends here. I would think they are wrong, and death will become a reality for all of us one day.

@Henrik That is your free choice. Your life will change however when you are dead. You are dead much longer than you are alive you know...

A god-like entity may exist, but not the one described by the judeo-christian religions... that specific entity is self-contradicting.

There is no evidence to support a rational belief in such an entity though.

Your life will change however when you are dead.

You are dead much longer than you are alive you know

death will become a reality for all of us one day.

By definition God is uncreated, timeless and immaterial. This is reflected in His Name: I Am (Yahweh). The universe (time, space, energy) was created.

I love how creationists make their god existing and uncreated BY DEFINITION! You can't define something into existence. Okay, let me try: There exists many "energy singularities" which expel unlimited energy needed to form Big Bangs. They are undetectable and have always been existent by definition. And the bible predicted string theory? You're an idiot of the highest caliber. There is no polite way to say it. Moron.

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

Most likely, the creation act by God co-occured with the big bang on t=0, so there is no need for a- or pre-temporal causality.

(4) That cause cannot be the universe.

Something cannot create itself, for then it must already exist.

(5) The only viable cause is therefore outside of the universe, outside of space, time, causality and energy, and must be God.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist

You needn't go any further, your logic is already garbage.

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption. Like I've already told you, we have NEVER witnessed the creation or destruction of matter/energy. All of the evidence points to these being eternal.

@Henrik 2. The universe began to exist...God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

These laws exist independently of human brains.

Atheists would say they are chemical reactions in the brain. But that is self-defeating.

The rational approach is to assume that laws of logic are not random reactions in the brain

but immaterial laws that prove a higher form of intelligence than humans.

No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities.

DC

No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities.

Logic is a set of principles that are independent of consciousness.

Do not make the mistake that everything Henrik says is wrong. NEARLY everything is wrong. This may be the only thing he has right yet.

Ethelred

The laws of nature manifest through the physical world, but that does not mean these ordering principles, like the law of gravity, do not have their own existence.

Stephen Hawkings entire cosmology depens on the existence of the law of gravity independently from matter.

The Bible says God is one, not three.

ather than the physical properties of the universe to which that concept refers.

but concepts like "contradiction" and "logic" do not.

There is nothing that is not physical.

Not only that, but Henrik is also wrong that information can exist absent of physical reality.

Numbers are human invented concepts

Nothing in reality is identical.

This even works with subatomic particles because they each at least have dissimilar positions in space time.

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.

Nothing in reality is identical.

Tell that to an electron. Other than position and momentum they are identical.>>

God refers to Himself as "I" (Yah).

So who or what is responsible for it's existence, and why does it have the form it has?

There would be 1 of each.

This even works with subatomic particles because they each at least have dissimilar positions in space time.

Tell that to a photon. They can occupy the same space and vector.

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.

Only the symbols are. They are based on principles that are independent of any intelligence. Yes Henrik ANY. Jehovah included.

And in principle they could be added together to make seven. Not need for hominids to be involved in the principle.

I don't understand how you can think the way you do.

DK

I don't understand how you can think the way you do.

Brain damage from too much Christian Apologistics. The contradictions and rationalizations require a highly compartmentalized mine where no idea can be allowed to be compared with any contradictory idea. Such as Genesis One and Two.

Ethelred

You are confusing semantics with the existence

The coded system still demands an explanation, because it cannot exist by chance.

. We know they contain information but just cannot interpret them.

Nature is not concerned with classification or categorization,

The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.

No, and stop asserting what is and is not logical, your concept of logic has, repeatedly, been demonstrated to be in serious error.

but those concepts are meaningless in nature.

I said this VERBATIM already.

It has no concerns but it sorts, bonds, un-bonds, fuses, fissions, and many other things according to the properties of those things. Which is why life can evolve without a intelligence being involved.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. From 1 and 2 it flows that the universe has a cause

4. The universe cannot be it's own cause

5. The cause for the universe must be uncaused and exist outside of space, time and energy.

The only viable cause would be an immaterial, timeless, uncaused,

intelligent and ominpotent Mind or Consciousness.

These attributes are consistent with the definition of God.

God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Ethel, you are talking past me and not understanding me..

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption.

I asked for you to wait FOR A REASON.

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption.

It follows from the BB but the BB isn't certain and other ways of getting to the CMBR exist. So while it is an assumption it is a reasonable one well within our present experimental knowledge.

Ethelred

Remember, this is just an anology.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.

Lie. Well I can but I am an Agnostic.

Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.

Lie. Well I can but I am an Agnostic.

That is not a lie according to science. Even thought it is easy to falsify the "words of god". It is not possible to falsify a possibility of a god. Therefore atheim (and theism) is self-defeating

Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.

Deathclock now earned the title most intelligent person on physorg in my book.

How does the presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'? Your statement has earned you the title of far less than most intelligent person on physorg. In my book.

How does the presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'?

Celestial objects do look vastly different based on which wavelengths you observe them with.

Classifications are indeed arbitrary.

Yes but that has nothing to do with this, at least that I can see.

Classifications are indeed arbitrary.

NAMES are arbitrary.

Notice who Henrik was playing with the head of. Notice how DC was getting flustered.

This way the trolls can continue to post all they want but once enough people give it one star it will become collapsed/hidden.

Now that the dust has settled we can see that the cosmological argument still stands. None of the premises have been convincingly refuted:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. From 1 and 2 it flows that the universe has a cause

4. The universe cannot be it's own cause

5. The cause for the universe must be uncaused and exist outside of space, time and energy.

The only viable cause would be an immaterial, timeless, uncaused, intelligent and Omnipotent Mind or Consciousness.

The cause would also be personal and self-willed.

These attributes are consistent with the definition of God.

God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

The point of all this begin with the fact that there isn't two of anything in reality - DC

You keep making statements and assertions that are non-sensical, demonstrably false and based on imaginative speculation with no valid or reliable supporting evidence.

This was about evolution and Henrik got away with avoiding it on all points.

they are a roughly spherical area of higher energy density than the space surrounding them... that is all

Absent of humans to perceive it that energy density differential is no more significant than any other... it is just a part of reality.

"Star" is a concept that refers to those specific energy density gradients. It only has man-made significance.

Ethel, you are talking past me and not understanding me...

You have to understand that the way we perceive reality is not accurate, at all.

At the most fundamental level it is energy, just like the tree, and it exists between your eye and the tree.

At the most fundamental level the ONLY distinction between anything is the density of energy in a given area...

And how is that different from the way are with us around?

As it is with us around. Either way the Universe DOES make a distinction between a vacuum and the center of a star. The self assembly goes on with or without labels and ranting about the labels does nothing in a discussion with a religious crank. Or in a science discussion UNLESS the labels are getting in the way of the facts.

Nonsesne. Stars have significance to all that is affected by them whether men notice or not. You are mistaking labels for reality.

I was talking about reality and your silly insistence of going down a purely label route.

Consider for a moment that the spatial dimensions of the universe are discrete and not infinite in resolution

In that case reality could be represented by a n-dimensional array of binary data.

Remember, this is only an analogy

Who are you to tell me to wait?

You can reply to me at your leisure, don't feel rushed

The big bang makes no statement about what may or may not have existed before it.

Consider for a moment that the spatial dimensions of the universe are discrete and not infinite in resolution

That is an assumption.

In that case reality could be represented by a n-dimensional array of binary data.

Crappy way to look at it. Using a rigid array puts it outside of the reality of the Universe.

The big bang makes no statement about what may or may not have existed before it.

That is an assumption. It may be true. Dr. Penrose thinks he MAY have found some evidence.

The evidence gets us to within a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the event,

and our lack of perception of everything around them.

3. You obviously idnt get the point he was trying to make.

Served.

My point was that what humans consider important is shaped by our perception of reality, what we easily perceive and what we do not easily perceive.

Kaassinee and you have obviously both missed my point. Our labels are based on how the Universe sorts things out. Species are REAL and not just labels.

My point was that what humans consider important is shaped by our perception of reality, what we easily perceive and what we do not easily perceive.

And what we go to a great deal of effort to perceive.>>

The boundaries between these "important" areas of the universe and these "unimportant" areas define what we consider to be "objects"... which are also conceptual.

It has to do with the subjective nature of the classification of "objects".

Beings with other perspectives might not even have a word for "star" because that particular energy density gradient may not be important to them, they may not even naturally sense light or heat...

No, classification is arbitrary

Humans determine which traits are important and which are not important and use those to create systems of classifications.

No, classification is arbitrary

Nonsense. Classification is based on reality.

There is no right or wrong answer about what is important and what is not in order to group similar "important" traits and ignore dissimilar "unimportant" traits.

I become highly annoyed and agitated by ignorance

Also, I understand your criticism about philosophy, but this isn't philosophy, this is reality.

It takes a bit of a mental leap to overcome your human bias and to understand that your perspective is not the only perspective.

and many other things that are not necessarily shared across all life forms.

Other (speculative) life forms may not experience the universe in the same way that we do

their perspective may be so different than our own that communication would be impossible.

The point of all this begin with the fact that there isn't two of anything in reality,

There is nothing arbitrary in species if it is defined in the way that they do or do not interbreed.

There is no right or wrong answer about what is important and what is not in order to group similar "important" traits and ignore dissimilar "unimportant" traits.

Of course there is. We do the trait that is important is the interbreeding and the past events of that interbreeding.

so you cannot count anything without inventing a system of classification

Since mathematics depends on countable values and countable values are impossible

and has no meaning in reality.

So how about you do that. And notice I am trying to use reality as a perspective. Species really exist.

Other (speculative) life forms may not experience the universe in the same way that we do

Thus they and we will be dealing with the same reality. AND the same math no matter how what symbols we use.

Electrons are still in disagreement with that statement. Indeed they pair up fairly often

Which will still be based on the same principle of math that everyone else will have to use no matter what they count on.

Nonsense. You are mistaking the symbols for the principles. All cultures have the same principles behind their math.

and has no meaning in reality.

Tell that to paired electrons. They are paired with or without a human label.>>

without classification none of this is possible because you cannot count things that are each unique,

and all things in reality are unique.

without classification none of this is possible because you cannot count things that are each unique,

Nonsense. Apples and oranges can be added. It is done all the time.

and all things in reality are unique.

And that is both false and irrelevant to the principles of mathematics