Be sure to hit the 'View Conversation' button, and that takes us into our own dialogue page,...then what u post on that page, goes to my profile page so I can see your response. Yes,...all visitor messages are on your profile page.
Apes can show a sense of awe? Cool.. I'd love to check that out.. Do you have a source?
And I was not trying to suggest that anatomically we are fundamentally different.. but that our ability to reason and think in the abstract is.. if apes are able to do so as well ..then perhaps they too can ponder what (or who) created this magnificent universe that we can see...
Where I was going with this.. is that if the creator (whatever it is) wanted to reveal itself to its creation, it would need to create life and more specifically life that was able to reason and think in the abstract.. life that would be able to grasp by analogy concepts that are beyond what we can see/hear/smell/taste... And that we are created (whatever the process) specifically to come to know not just the universe but that which created it, is the very purpose of life.
well I'll accept your definition as the standard... but it seems to me if all observed life has rna/dna that would seem to be a requirement....
moving on.. it has clearly been observed in the fossil record that there has been some progression of life forms.. plants, animals of various kinds... man
and regardless of how exactly the Dna that codes for man came to be (either by some 'seemingly' random mutation, or by design) again I would suggest that man is fundamentally different from other life on this planet. In many things, but in these in particular, our desire to know and learn about the universe to perceive, our ability to think in the abstract.. 'outside the box; I mean... our ability to reason! Would you agree?
would you agree that the fundamental difference between life and non-life is DNA/RNA? Which is effectively like a program code that when run produces the life that it codes for?
if you have a different way of looking at it please explain..
Where were we... ah yes how does the creator of the universe reveal itself to its creation (or not)..
next I would like to consider life. As a biologist I'm sure you'll correct me here if I have bad info. . It can be shown that there was a time here on Earth that there was no life, and then there was life. And although we have tried to recreate the conditions on Earth about that time, we CANNOT create life from non-life. There is something fundamentally different about living organisms than inanimate matter. Would you agree?
Thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I read up about it...
Ok so we are agreed that the universe had a beginning.
It follows then that either 1. it spontaneously began or 2. that something 'other' than the universe caused it to begin
I think it more rational that something caused that beginning. However by the very fact that this 'cause' must then be outside, or beyond, or 'other' than the universe itself... we cannot know (of ourselves) anything more about it than to rationally conclude it was there (at the beginning). (although we can speculate!)
Would you agree?
Good. From my understanding of that law, the universe, itself, cannot have existed from eternity... for given enough time it would have reached the point of equilibrium, that is, maximum entropy. (that you and I can have this discussion show's it has not). as it hasn't the universe must have had, at some point in the past, a beginning.
In fact our astrophysicists and others have come up with a theory that im sure you know, the big bang, that suggests the universe itself began some 18 billion or so years ago. While I won't pretend to understand the quantum physics and mathematics involved, I accept the credentials of those who do and think the evidence is very suggestive that the theory is correct.
So, given the above, would you agree that it is rational to believe that:
1. the universe indeed had a beginning (say some 18 billion years ago relative to our position)
And while I wont claim to be a trained phd in physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of entropy.
Also to be up front, I am sharing my own reasons (which I think are rational) for accepting a 'first cause' or something other than universe to be responsible for bringing about the beginning of that universe... if it sounds familiar to things you've heard before, that doesn't surprise me.
Should I decide to draw on the apologetics of someone who is better versed in a particular area than myself, I will list the source and/or post links.
So that said, I'll ask again 'are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics' ?
First, if I take some time responding, its because of other things, not that my conversation with you is not important to me
I appreciate your honesty about being 'apathetic/agnostic'. However |I think that belief that there is something greater than the universe, is in fact rational. (note this is not saying that it therefore must be 'a god')
Are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics?
(just a note, when you respond if you click on view conversation first, I think it will post your replies directly to my wall)
Where to start? At the beginning of course.
So I know you've lost your faith in the Judeo-Christian 'myth'.. But do you still believe that something greater than the universe itself caused it to come into existence... or do you think the universe itself has existed from eternity...??
Now by universe, I mean that which we have explored, seen, measured etc... by way of our senses, intelligence, tools, curiosity etc... that which we have (easily)demonstrable knowledge of (not that we know everything about it of course )
A universe that is both beautiful and majestic (yes these are subjective terms) but also one that follows knowable and orderly laws... ( the conservation of energy for example)..