Your IP address is 188.8.131.52
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Heusdens%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #7
|Date: 2007/02/23 20:08:34, Link|
Seems you are pondering the inponderable.
Please note your question is not a scientific question (although science can partly answer it) but more a philosophical question.
It can be stated in different forms, but the question drops down to "where does everything come from"?
Does the world (all things that exist in total) somehow have a cause (outside of itself?) and/or begin?
Philosophically speaking, the answer is of course, you can't introduce a cause or begin to the universe, since such would be baseless. You can not introduce a cause (say cause X) that supposedly caused everything to come into existence, because you need to include your postulated cause X also (since that would be part of "everything").
If the world (universe) would have supposed to have begun it would need to have begin in or from nothing.
Yet at the same time such a begin is already made impossible, since nothing is only nothing, and not a begin of any something.
Which means: the world / universe does not have an (outside) cause and does not have a begin.
Scientifically speaking, and on the field of cosmology, the issue then perhaps arrises: what about the Big Bang?
Well, there is this persistent popular misunderstanding that the Big Bang explains that the universe began some 14 billion years ago in a singularity.
This is however wrong for two reasons:
1.) The Big bang theory does not state anything about the origin of the universe, but only that it since some 14 bilion years ago expanded and cooled down.
2.) The very theory that comes up with this singularity - general relativity - is known to break down at the singularity.
This means that general relativity is incomplete. And that is because quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account.
The most accurate theory we have of the universe currently is a theory in which the Big Bang was the result of a process called cosmological inflation (very rapid expansion of spacetime due to some field potential rolling down to it's minimum), which is conjectured to have happened in a an eternal/infinite background spacetime.
And for some more background, your question is basically the question as to what adequately explains the world, and is the issue of the (philosophical) ground.
Materialism will explain this at the basis of matter in motion which itself is indestructable and uncreatable and infinite. This concept of matter in eternal motion brings forth the concepts of space and time.
Matter does not have nor need a ground or reason for it's existence outside if itself (after all, matter is the ground for all being and all phenomena which we observe). All things are based on matter and material interactions and transformations of matter in one form to another form (like for example: E=Mc2 which is energy turned into mass and vice versa).
This holds also true for consciousness, which is according to materialism a material phenomena. Thought/consciousness is a product of the brain as a material organ of a human being.
Materialism is not a scientific theory, but a philosophy (one that is opposed to idealism, which takes as it ground the existence of consciousness/mind, and in which the material world is a secondary feature).
What matter is, and how it behaves is not explained by materialism but by scientific theories and disciplines like physics, chemics, biology, etc. Materialism does not abide to any specific such scientific theories, but acknowledges their approximate correctness.
In physical terms, matter can be thought of as energy, fields, particles, quantum mechanical effects, etc.
Please note that the current state of theory development in the scientific fields are in good accordance with materialism, in that the indestructability and uncreatability of matter and also the infinity of matter can be hold correct.
In the context of general relativity for instance the intimate connection between mass and spacetime (in Newtonian physics an absolute spacetime was postulated apart and independent of matter) in which mass "causes" spacetime (geometry) and spacetime "causes" the motion of matter (gravity).
Note also that due to quantum mechanics & Heizenberg uncertainty principle, matter is everywhere and in motion always. An absolute empty space without matter is not a viable concept in physics. Motionless matter is an impossibility.
Another philosophical point of view worth mentioning in this respect is dialectics. It stands apart from materialism (matter is primary) and idealism (mind is primary), since it does not deal with the philosophical question of what the primary ground is for the world, but how to reason about the world.
Perhaps worth reading on this issue is the works of Hegel in the Science of Logic, the Doctrine of Being, which deals with the Incomprehensibility of the Beginning.
|Date: 2007/02/23 21:18:28, Link|
How to proof an impossible fact -- a universe (space time & matter) emerging from nothing by itself?
I thought such phenomena are the works of Gods, not acts of nature.
Mr. Hovind is just joking, since the proof he wants is a proo f for an act of God, but then one that created the universe 13,7 billion years ago instead of 6000 years ago.
Materialism acknowledges to the indestructability of matter and the uncreatability of matter (but one can transform one form of matter into another, like energy into mass and vice versa), which is in accordance with science, and therefore the universe did not begin.
This is not in contradiction with the Big Bang or physics, which just claims the universe was in the past denser, hotter and smaller, but does not state it began in a singularity.
|Date: 2007/02/24 09:20:11, Link|
The ID and creationism movement often use the analogy of the watch and claim that such an artefact could not have assembled itself,and therefore there must be a creator.
Let us use this argument and see what far we got with it, but now we analyze an automobile.
The ID-er would have no problem claiming that - mostdefinately - the automobile did not assemble itself, but was an artefact of creation/intelligent design.
Let us look at it. So how did the automobile got here?
Did some creative mind create the automobile from nothing? When in fact was the automobile created?
Appearently this whole issue is far less obvious as we initially thought.
We have to recognize that the current day automobile comes from seperate inventions, namely the charot and the engine, which have seperate histories, and were at some time combined. The original first automobile, which was the blueprint for all modern automobiles has significantly changed since then. Which already shows us that an instantanious creation of the automobile has not occured, but in fact show signs of development, stepwise improvement, diversifaction, etc. Almost identical to what we see in evolution!!!!
So the first automobile was a combination of the charot and the engine. Both can be dated back to previous forms, which also show signs of development.
We can trace back the charot to thousands of years back, and where an animal replaced the engine.
The charot itself is just the combination of a wheel and a chassis. The wheel itself can be traced back to early tools for moving heavy objects (stones) with the use of rolling trunks of trees or something.
So ultimately the invention of the wheel was derived from nature: natural round objects that can roll.
Same for the engine, before the benzine motor there was the steam engine, and the steam engine was already invented by the Greeks, but as a toy. Heat water in a pot and use the outcoming steam for mechanical motion.
So the invention of the engine can be traced back to the utilization of fire, and fire itself comes from nature.
What does this all mean: even in human society, the term "creation" in fact has no real application, but can be understood as development processes having the same signs of evolutionay processes as we see in nature: stepwise refinement, variation, etc.
The only difference is that humans play a role in it, because they use some intellect to make such refinements, and who utilize these inventions.