Print

[MonroeMonkey]

Thoughts...if energy operates on "instinct" or "programming", doesn't that show thoughtful design?

I showed in the video that complex machines that appear to have purpose and design arise from four randomly selected laws. The behavior of the "Glider Gun Breeders" above has an inherent instinct, by which it breeds gliders. Was it thoughtfully put together? No.

Now, it could be that every universe has the same laws, and life always arises, according to the intrinsic nature of the source, but still that doesn't mean the source that brings forth these universes is "thoughtful."

[marilyn.monroe]

I showed in the video that complex machines that appear to have purpose and design arise from four randomly selected laws. The behavior of the "Glider Gun Breeders" above has an inherent instinct, by which it breeds gliders. Was it thoughtfully put together? No.

Now, it could be that every universe has the same laws, and life always arises, according to the intrinsic nature of the source, but still that doesn't mean the source that brings forth these universes is "thoughtful."

I don't believe in random happenings or coincedences.

[MonroeMonkey]

I don't believe in random happenings or coincedences.

As explained in my first post, "randomness" is used to explain things without thoughtful design. But, yes, everything has a prior cause; therefore, nothing is completely random as some would think of random. But, nevertheless, even if all things have a prior cause all the way back to the source, it doesn't mean things come about by thoughtful construction.

[marilyn.monroe]

As explained in my first post, "randomness" is used to explain things without thoughtful design. But, yes, everything has a prior cause; therefore, nothing is completely random as some would think of random. But, nevertheless, even if all things have a prior cause all the way back to the source, it doesn't mean things come about by thoughtful construction.

Nor does it prove they don't.

[MonroeMonkey]

Nor does it prove they don't.

Right. But...


Humans in primitive times always thought the gods were angry, when they got diseases and famines. They offered up the best of their livestock or children as sacrifices to ease the anger of the gods. They anthropomorphized god being just like them, so they made god into *their* image. Like I said, it may be that we created god in our image, as opposed to us being made in god's image.


If God creates like we do, then let's look at the universe and see if it bears a resemblance to the way we create. It doesn't seem to. You find billions upon billions of planets out of the Goldilocks zone, so they cannot bear life. But you find this lone planet, Earth, in the right place, with a Jupiter to pull of meteorites, so that molecules can arrange in more complex patterns, compared to galaxies, suns, etc...

If you had the ability to create a Universe, would you create billions of planets without life? That wouldn't make sense in relation to the way humans think or design things. To say God is a marble collector seems odd to me.


The more planets you have the more likely it becomes to get a planet with increased complexity, so the probability margin increases as you get certain conditions. Some planets are in the Goldilocks zone, but don't have a Jupiter, which makes it hard for life, others don't have a moon, so you don't have life. But given enough conditions, you begin to reduce the improbability factor, until you get extreme complexity.

As mentioned in my first post, you get extreme complexity in Conway's Life, but those are rare! You have to have A LOT of matter and in very rare cases you get extreme growth of complex systems. Again, this shows given enough planets you will get life, in relation to entropy and the accumulation of complexity.

[marilyn.monroe]

So where did all the stuff come from in the first place?

[MonroeMonkey]

When Science says, "A universe from nothing..." They don't mean nothing as some think. There is something that is everlasting, as we perceive everlasting. This everlasting source, which has always been, according to our perception, would have intrinsic qualities by which it fluctuates and grows into complexity and then breaks down.


In my original post, I said, "The vacuum is an eternal sea of roaring energy, which fluctuates according to its nature. From this arises simple particles, called virtual particles; these particles pop into existence for a fraction of a second before they annihilate. They come into being in two parts, +1 positive energy and -1 negative energy, when these two parts come together they annihilate. They pop in and out of existence so quickly they are called virtual particles, as opposed to real particles.

Fluctuations within the vacuum cause inflations, which are big bangs. An inflation produces gravitational force, which keeps massive amounts of positive and negative energy apart, which keeps it from completely annihilating. Gravity is what causes the virtual to remain in existence long enough to be considered real. This is why you have something rather than nothing in a Universe that equals zero."



This DOESN'T mean there isn't a God. It would only indicate that worlds arise in God spontaneously, according to God's nature, without discriminating thought. You could say Universes are the growth of God, and God grows by nature. If this is the case, you are the eyes and the ears of this vast Being.