(W:#933)God and Science

[watsup]

...how did life form "naturally?" Where did it start?
Lol - it has to start somewhere you know - UNLESS - you're saying they just came out - POOF - from nothing!

Lol - in that case you're talking about.............................MAGIC!

There are different theories of “first life”, but most of them include a large liquid morass which we might call a “sea” and some sort of very basic electrical impulse (there is, of course, “natural” electricity such as lightening). You can easily research these theories yourself if you are indeed interested.

 

[watsup]

If you don't know - then what makes you say that?




If there was nothing before the Big Bang (the one that created the universe), then that Big Bang was the first........if there are others to come.



First of all we have to make some definitions clear. The big bang theory is a model in which all the matter of the Universe was initially concentrated and then got into expansion. It is the moment of creation of the universe. So therefore we cannot speculate on what was there before since by definition there was no before. You can think of it as if time started to exist at the time of the big bang, so there was nothing before that. So the answer to your first question is that we are in the time frame of the first big bang, by definition of the theory itself.

Have there been other Big Bangs before? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Ask an Astronomer is run by volunteers in the Astronomy Department at Cornell University. We answer your astronomy questions. Please browse our archive first.

curious.astro.cornell.edu

That is not necessarily so. The Big Bang that created this universe could be the result of a Big Crunch of a previous universe. For more info: https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-crunch.htm

 

[tosca1]

Now did “God” get to be called “God”?

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of “YHWH,” the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.


After the Babylonian Exile (6th century bce), and especially from the 3rd century bce on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely a local religion, the more common Hebrew noun Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others.

Yahweh | YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of ‘YHWH,’ the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.

www.britannica.com

 

[watsup]

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of “YHWH,” the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.


After the Babylonian Exile (6th century bce), and especially from the 3rd century bce on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely a local religion, the more common Hebrew noun Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others.

Yahweh | YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of ‘YHWH,’ the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.

www.britannica.com

So it was just a different name that the Jews used for their particular myth. Fair enough!

 

[tosca1]

That is not necessarily so. The Big Bang that created this universe could be the result of a Big Crunch of a previous universe. For more info: https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-crunch.htm

That's the mystery. Science doesn't know what was there before the Big Bang.

Lol - they can't even figure out how the first life ON EARTH had started!

 

[Overitall]

If you don’t know the first cause, just say so instead of giving it a name (God) and claiming that it is anything but an infinity of NATURAL causes.

I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The biblical God has no beginning, nor end. He's uncaused. No one can describe or analyze what God is because He doesn't have anything about Him that is part of the Universe. You can't say the same about the universe because you know it has a cause.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

What caused the Big Bang? What caused evolution?

Why - did another Big Bang happen before the Big Bang?
Big Bangs are"natural happenings" like...............................................raining?

I've read a few theories about the Big Bang. One interesting and recently resurrected idea is that our universe will expand and then eventually collapse into another Big Bang, and that it has been doing that forever.

What happened before the Big Bang?

Has our universe cycled through numerous "big crunches" and "big bounces?"

www.space.com

Another theory, supported by Stephen Hawking, is there was no beginning;

Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before.


“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.

www.quantamagazine.org

So, what was the cause for evolution? What exactly started it with humans?
You know that, right?

Well, evolution is easy once there is life. We have that well and figured out. With humans specifically it was our social nature as a species that encouraged the development of larger brains. We see the same phenomenon in other social species, just much further behind than us.

I'm assuming you are both asking about the origin on life on Earth. Here is one current theory.

After things cooled down, simple organic molecules began to form under the blanket of hydrogen. Those molecules, some scientists think, eventually linked up to form RNA, a molecular player long credited as essential for life's dawn. In short, the stage for life's emergence was set almost as soon as our planet was born.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That's the mystery. Science doesn't know what was there before the Big Bang.

There might not have been a "before" the Big Bang. There are several theories that involve no beginning and no end. Some like Hawking say that time was created from the Big Bang, and asking what came before it is like asking what is south of the south pole.

Lol - they can't even figure out how the first life ON EARTH had started!

On that front we actually have some pretty solid ideas.

 

[watsup]

I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The biblical God has no beginning, nor end. He's uncaused. No one can describe or analyze what God is because He doesn't have anything about Him that is part of the Universe. You can't say the same about the universe because you know it has a cause.

I have to tell you that I am really not that interested in discussing the various myths of the Bible. If you think that you can INDEPENDENTLY show evidence for your claim of a “God”, go for it, but the rabbit hole of the “Bible”has received plenty of discussion on this forum and there is nothing more to add as far as I can see.

 

[watsup]

That's the mystery. Science doesn't know what was there before the Big Bang.

Lol - they can't even figure out how the first life ON EARTH had started!

You are repeating yourself. See post #23 and do some research on your ow if you are interested.
Do you know how “God” started?

 

[Overitall]

I have to tell you that I am really not that interested in discussing the various myths of the Bible. If you think that you can INDEPENDENTLY show evidence for your claim of a “God”, go for it, but the rabbit hole of the “Bible”has received plenty of discussion on this forum and there is nothing more to add as far as I can see.

I figured that but then it's curious as to why you're even in the forum.

 

[watsup]

I figured that but then it's curious as to why you're even in the forum.

You do know that it’s the SKEPTICISM forum, right? If you just want to accept the “truth” of the Bible as a starting point, per se, then the Theology forum is the place. Here in the SKEPTICISM forum we don’t have to automatically do that.
And is I am assuming that you can’t independently show evidence for your God entity without resort to a particular book of myths.

 

[Overitall]

You do know that it’s the SKEPTICISM forum, right?

Yes, I'm aware of that. Do you know the definition of skepticism? I'm not sure simply saying something is a myth falls within the scope of the word.

If you just want to accept the “truth” of the Bible as a starting point, per se, then the Theology forum is the place. Here in the SKEPTICISM forum we don’t have to automatically do that.

I wasn't aware that there was a separate forum for either beliefs or skepticism. I thought they were lumped together into one. I do know there's a subforum for theology but we're not in it.

And is I am assuming that you can’t independently show evidence for your God entity without resort to a particular book of myths.

Returning full circle - declaring something to be a myth is not an expression of skepticism. It's a statement of belief.

 

[Daisy]

Not at all. What is so strange about it? What would be strange is to claim that some entity just “created” all of this. What exactly do you claim was “created”, amd st what point on the history of the universe? In other words., did this entity “create” humans, let’s say, in fully developed form and at what point in time? At the same time the “universe” was created, or at some time after that? And how do you know?

What's even stranger is that it all just happened...the universe just happened is no more strange than a sand castle just happens...they both have a creator, a maker...

 

[watsup]

What's even stranger is that it all just happened...the universe just happened is no more strange than a sand castle just happens...they both have a creator, a maker...

You don’t know that. Yes, it is quite clear that a sand castle has a maker, someone who thought up the idea of using sand to build a small temporary structure, but it also becomes clear by studying evolution that humans are indeed the happenstance of literally billion of years of said evolution with no active “thought” required. And yet you propose an entity infinitely more complex than the entire universe that you would have to admit “just happened”. How else did there become a God?

 

[LittleNipper]

So it was just a different name that the Jews used for their particular myth. Fair enough!

You need to consider, that if GOD can be considered a myth because you cannot perceive HIM ---- then any consideration of how life began on this planet from a "naturalist" assumption, must likewise be regarded a myth because you have failed to replicate it in the laboratory.

 

[LittleNipper]

And yet you propose an entity infinitely more complex than the entire universe that you would have to admit “just happened”. How else did there become a God?

Well see, neither you nor I understand the full nature of GOD; however, I do know that GOD created time. GOD therefore transcends time. So obviously, GOD can be eternal without you grasping that reality.

 

[LostinThought]

I don't see a God judging over us, do you? Maybe we're our own worst enemies?

Oh I'm just speaking as if scripture is holds true.

 

[watsup]

You need to consider, that if GOD can be considered a myth because you cannot perceive HIM ---- then any consideration of how life began on this planet from a "naturalist" assumption, must likewise be regarded a myth because you have failed to replicate it in the laboratory.

Science has developed assumptions as to how life started on this planet by understanding the chemistry and physics that could produce it. These are solid theories that show that beginning of life and the following evolution meets serious scientific explanation. That’s not myth, that’s science. On the other hand, there is no objective, reality-based evidence for a “God”.

 

[watsup]

Well see, neither you nor I understand the full nature of GOD; however, I do know that GOD created time. GOD therefore transcends time. So obviously, GOD can be eternal without you grasping that reality.

Do you have any actual evidence for any of that?

 

[tosca1]

I've read a few theories about the Big Bang. One interesting and recently resurrected idea is that our universe will expand and then eventually collapse into another Big Bang, and that it has been doing that forever.

What happened before the Big Bang?

Has our universe cycled through numerous "big crunches" and "big bounces?"

www.space.com

Another theory, supported by Stephen Hawking, is there was no beginning;

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.

www.quantamagazine.org

Those are theories and ideas.
The current consensus comes from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and National Aeronautics and Space Admin (NASA).

• What is the Big Bang theory?
  The Big Bang theory says that the universe was very hot and concentrated in the distant past and, ever since then, space has been stretching and cooling. This is the only theory that successfully explains the observations made by astronomers.
  
  
  Astronomers see galaxies moving apart from one another: space in the universe is stretching. Astronomers see a remarkably uniform microwave glow everywhere in the sky; this is the heat left over from an earlier time, when the universe was very hot. This was predicted by the Big Bang theory BEFORE it was discovered! Astronomers measure how much of each of the lightest chemical elements (like hydrogen, deuterium, and lithium) are in space; their abundances agree with what was calculated to have been in an earlier time when the universe was so hot that it was like a nuclear fusion reactor, building up the lightest elements. The heaviest elements (like carbon, nitrogen, and carbon) were made later in stars. Stars are mostly made of hydrogen. The Big Bang theory explains the most basic observed properties of our universe.

• What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang?
  We don't know. To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This is exciting research now in progress!

• The Big Bang theory is just a theory. Couldn't it be wrong?
  Yes, it could be wrong. In science, no theory is ever absolutely proved true. Some theories, however, are stronger and better supported than others. This depends on many factors, including how well the theory explains observed facts, whether the theory has made successful predictions later borne out by observation, how long the theory has been around, and whether there are alternate theories that do almost as well. The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.
  
  
  New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.
  
  It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[tosca1]

Well, evolution is easy once there is life. We have that well and figured out. With humans specifically it was our social nature as a species that encouraged the development of larger brains. We see the same phenomenon in other social species, just much further behind than us.

I'm assuming you are both asking about the origin on life on Earth. Here is one current theory.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

"....ONCE THERE IS LIFE."
That is the big mystery, isn't it?
How did that life start? What is the origin of life?

An Open Letter to My Colleagues ​

James Tour


Life should not exist. This much we know from chemistry. In contrast to the ubiquity of life on earth, the lifelessness of other planets makes far better chemical sense. Synthetic chemists know what it takes to build just one molecular compound. The compound must be designed, the stereochemistry controlled. Yield optimization, purification, and characterization are needed. An elaborate supply is required to control synthesis from start to finish. None of this is easy. Few researchers from other disciplines understand how molecules are synthesized.

<details of complexities>


Mes frères, mes semblables, with these complexities in mind, how can we build the microsystem of a simple cell?
Would we be able to build even the lipid bilayers? These diminutive cellular microsystems—which are, in turn, composed of thousands
of nanosystems—are beyond our comprehension. Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled themselves into the first cell.


Could time really have worked such magic?


We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem.
The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.


Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations.
The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.17

An Open Letter to My Colleagues | James Tour | Inference

James Tour challenges his fellow chemists to admit that the complexity of a cell, or even of its lipid bilayer, is beyond man’s ability to duplicate, even with all of nature’s building blocks at his disposal.

inference-review.com

 

[tosca1]

Massive impact could have led to formation of simple organic molecules and eventually RNA​

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

​

Take note: that letter given above was a challenge to all his colleagues.
If you read the full letter with all the details - as you see - nothing is "simple" about it.


You might find this interesting:

On Origin of Life, Synthetic Chemist James Tour Delivers Chastisement to Jeremy England​

It’s somehow more satisfying that England isn’t identified in the body of the article, but only in a footnote.
That is a memorable instance of a senior scientist quietly taking a junior colleague out behind the woodshed.

For more on the general subject, see Tour’s slashing 2016 lecture, “The Origin of Life: An Inside Story.”

On Origin of Life, Synthetic Chemist James Tour Delivers Chastisement to Jeremy England

“[U]nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.” Oh, really, does it?

evolutionnews.org

 

[tosca1]

On that front we actually have some pretty solid ideas.

No, we don't.

 

[The Baron]

There are different theories of “first life”, but most of them include a large liquid morass which we might call a “sea” and some sort of very basic electrical impulse (there is, of course, “natural” electricity such as lightening). You can easily research these theories yourself if you are indeed interested.

For the record I am not a scientist nor have I ever made my living as a scientist. I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Science--specifically in Engineering, so I am, at least, comfortable talking about the subject.

While earning my degree, everything centered around the "scientific method" (see below):

What I've attached is simply the first image I found on Google and looks quite similar to what I used in college.

To be fair, depending on who you ask regarding the scientific method, people may state it differently but regardless of who you ask they should all give the same basic steps.

One of the key steps involved in the scientific method is "observation". Observation is key factor in any scientific study. Period. Our hypothesis, experiments and everything that comes after that are all based upon observation. Without observation the whole process falls apart and now we can no longer call our efforts "science".

Now, I say all this to simply say that any "theory" (a scientific term) used to explain "first life" is not a theory, at all, and should be identified by what it actually is--conjecture.

Why?

If there is no one around to observe "first life" then there is no one around to actually perform the science involved in establishing the theory of "first life".

This is precisely why "billions" of years of evolution can never be called a "science" as there was no one around to "observe"--not only how evolution unfolded--but if evolution ever occurred, at all.

We all need to recognize that just because a scientist makes a claim does not make that claim a "scientific" claim if all it actually is is simple conjecture with no supporting science to establish any type of scientific foundation for those claims.