How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[thedoc]

Life could have evolved in other universes [ assuming they exist ] but here on Earth it only began about four billion years ago which means this universe had none for the first nine billion years of its existence [ assuming it did not / does not exist any where else ] so it is very rare indeed

We don't know that, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" There could be many civilizations in the past that we have not detected, science has only been looking for 57 years. It is quite possible that we have simply missed the signal, of just not recognized it for what it is, or we have not received it yet. Also intelligent life does not necessarily have to take the form that we are familiar with, it could be anything, and could be broadcasting in a form that we do not recognize.

[thedoc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ro9aebFZhM

[seeds]

_______

Hi guys,

I'm not a rapid-fire poster, so I'm going to need some time to think about all of your good replies on the previous page.
_______

[Dubious]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ro9aebFZhM

I've seen this before! Tyson is getting far too excited about the one percent difference between humans and chimps when he theorizes that applying another such increment will or must cause the same shift in intelligence as exists between us and them. What about all the other one percent differences most of which may have caused very few changes in respect to brain power. Also, can any such seemingly minute difference be qualified the same way or can there be vast variations within the one percent or even within a fraction of that. There are many questions, another one being can DNA reach a critical mass beyond which the slightest change causes a major shift in magnitude with future changes continuing at a far more moderate pace until the next sudden advancement.

Merely positing a one percent change in our DNA, inferring it's likely to cause the same divergence, seems to me a very flawed argument. If Tyson's thesis is correct we should, not far off, be able to fine tune ourselves in expectation of a similar degree of variance.

These are all just questions without question marks, rhetorical musings only.

[ken]

...how in the world did fields of random and chaotically dispersed energy and information somehow “know” how to self-adjust its attributes in such a way that would cause the three-dimensional phenomena appearing up in what physicists call “local reality” to be so “wondrously vital and appealing” to the five senses of consciousness?

In other words, how did unguided and unconscious (mindless) algorithmic processes...

(without any way of determining what the universe’s three-dimensional phenomena would actually look like, feel like, sound like, smell like, and taste like to consciousness)

...again, how did the primordial quantum processes “blindly predetermine” that in the presence of some future (heretofore nonexistent) consciousness, that fragrant vines of blooming honeysuckle, or beautiful mountain streams, or a vast cornucopia of delicious foods would suddenly emerge from the “noumenal-like” patterns of information that......logically......had absolutely no way of “knowing” what they (the patterns) had actually created until consciousness came along (again, billions of years later) to transform the quantum noumena into 3-D phenomena via the collapse of the wave function?

Now of course none of that “proves” anything about whether or not the universe has a guiding intelligence.

It is merely offered up as another puzzle piece to ponder (like the Kalam argument) that points to the idea that the universe seems to be founded upon an unignorable “teleological impetus” that – right from the start - had a highly specific “purpose” in mind.

And that purpose was to meet the needs and preferences of life and consciousness.

First of all, since no-one can determine what happened before the Big Bang, it is reasonable to assume that there were universe's that existed before this one and there is no reason to think that if many previous universes existed, those universes might have each had slightly different conditions, and this one just happened to be right for life to develop.

Why is it reasonable to assume that there were universe's? If you are not sure of some thing, then I would suggest it is unreasonable to assume some thing. I would suggest, though, what is reasonable is to think about some things and imagine what could have been, or could be. But to assume some thing is true without evidence nor proof does not seem very reasonable at all, well it does to Me anyway.

How are you defining 'universe' here?

If 'Universe' means 'All there is', then I do not see how there could be any thing more. It would be impossible to be more than one 'ALL there is'.

Also, how are you defining 'life' here?

When observed closely every thing is evolving/changing and thus living and alive in some form. Every thing is life of some sort, in that all things come into existence (born or created), exist for a while, while evolving, changing, forming, and/or decaying in one way or another, until they exist no more.

Your sentence here could be written in a far more accurate, true, right, and correct way. For example, Hitherto, when this is written, it has not yet been determined exactly what was prior to that point that is sometimes known as the big bang, so if we think about and/or imagine that if there were things existing previously, then they would be a part of the Universe*, which would obviously have been in a different shape and form, creatively evolving along, just like It most probably always has been, always will, and always is NOW, with this, obviously, being 'just right' for life* to come into existence and being.
*'Universe', being ALL there is.
*Life, being an intelligent enough species evolving into a more self-aware conscious being, or consciousness.

Of course if the definitions and meanings of words are changed, then the accuracy would change also.

Also there is no reason to assume that life of some sort did not develop in some of those, (if not all) previous universes. Science knows of only one form of life and is somewhat prejudiced toward that form of life, hence the phrase, "life as we know it".

What is that 'only one form of life' exactly?

[attofishpi]

Also there is no reason to assume that life of some sort did not develop in some of those, (if not all) previous universes. Science knows of only one form of life and is somewhat prejudiced toward that form of life, hence the phrase, "life as we know it".

What is that 'only one form of life' exactly?

DNA double helix. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).

[ken]

Also there is no reason to assume that life of some sort did not develop in some of those, (if not all) previous universes. Science knows of only one form of life and is somewhat prejudiced toward that form of life, hence the phrase, "life as we know it".

What is that 'only one form of life' exactly?

DNA double helix. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).

So the 'only one form of life' has much more to do with than just the human body and plant life, right?

In fact, DNA on all accounts will be found in what I have proposed already. But this will just have to be waited upon and seen. If I am correct, then there is really only One form of Life, which was seen and understood when Life, Itself, came into full Consciousness.

[attofishpi]

What is that 'only one form of life' exactly?

DNA double helix. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).

So the 'only one form of life' has much more to do with than just the human body and plant life, right?

Incoherent - grammatically.

In fact, DNA on all accounts will be found in what I have proposed already. But this will just have to be waited upon and seen. If I am correct, then there is really only One form of Life, which was seen and understood when Life, Itself, came into full Consciousness.

OK. So what is your point?

[seeds]

First of all, since no-one can determine what happened before the Big Bang, it is reasonable to assume that there were universe's that existed before this one and there is no reason to think that if many previous universes existed, those universes might have each had slightly different conditions, and this one just happened to be right for life to develop.

Name one purpose that a universe would have for existing, without the presence of life and consciousness to confer meaning on its contents.

Go ahead, doc, name just one reason for the existence of “anything” whatsoever, if there was absolutely nothing to see, feel, hear, taste, or smell the “thing” in question.

Again, according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the presence of consciousness, no “thing” (i.e., a positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomenon - suspended in a spatial dimension) would even exist.

According to theory, and for lack of a better visual metaphor, the only thing that would exist would be something akin to this...



So again, doc, try to name just one “material thing” that would have a “purpose and reason” for existing if life, mind, and consciousness did not exist.
_______

[seeds]

First of all, since no-one can determine what happened before the Big Bang, it is reasonable to assume that there were universe's that existed before this one and there is no reason to think that if many previous universes existed, those universes might have each had slightly different conditions, and this one just happened to be right for life to develop.

Why is it reasonable to assume that there were universe's? If you are not sure of some thing, then I would suggest it is unreasonable to assume some thing. I would suggest, though, what is reasonable is to think about some things and imagine what could have been, or could be. But to assume some thing is true without evidence nor proof does not seem very reasonable at all...

Those are all good points, ken.

How are you defining 'universe' here?

If 'Universe' means 'All there is', then I do not see how there could be any thing more. It would be impossible to be more than one 'ALL there is'.

The word “universe” does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and should (IMO) be viewed more as a bubble-like entity, like one of these...



...of which there could be a near infinite number.

Now that (to me) seems more plausible as representing the “ALL-THAT-IS,” beyond which there is only nothingness.

To quote something I posted in an alternate thread:

“...astrophysicists John Gribbin and Martin Rees stated from a materialistic perspective in their book COSMIC COINCIDENCES - Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology...

Quantum cosmology allows the possibility of creating not just one universe but an infinite number of universes out of nothing at all. The universes may be inter-connected in some complex way, as new universes are born within, but then pinch off from, the vacuum of old universes, producing a complex multidimensional foam. Our universe may simply be a region of space-time that has pinched off from another bubble.

(Bolding/underlining mine)...”

To see my own perspective on what the “complex multidimensional foam” entails (and why I highlighted “born within” in the above quote), then take a look at a series of drawings I created to demonstrate, not only how all of the universes are literally alive, but also what our ultimate purpose may possibly be – click here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

_______

[thedoc]

Name one purpose that a universe would have for existing, without the presence of life and consciousness to confer meaning on its contents.

Go ahead, doc, name just one reason for the existence of “anything” whatsoever, if there was absolutely nothing to see, feel, hear, taste, or smell the “thing” in question.

The universe including all the stars and planets, with or without life needs no other reason than to just exist. The presence of consciousness and awareness is irrelevant to the existence of everything else.

[attofishpi]

To see my own perspective on what the “complex multidimensional foam” entails (and why I highlighted “born within” in the above quote), then take a look at a series of drawings I created to demonstrate, not only how all of the universes are literally alive, but also what our ultimate purpose may possibly be – click here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

_______

Mr seeds.. why are you so keen to suggest there is any benefit to a consciousness beyond the human frame? What is this benefit?

[thedoc]

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If you are very narrow-minded you would say that without a conscious being to hear, there is no sound. But if you are more open-minded you would agree that sound is just vibrations in the air and to be a sound doesn't need a conscious being to hear it.

[Harbal]

also what our ultimate purpose may possibly be – click here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm_______

Mr. Seeds.. what an impressive exhibition of clap trap.

[Dontaskme]

If 'Universe' means 'All there is', then I do not see how there could be any thing more. It would be impossible to be more than one 'ALL there is'

The word “universe” does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and should (IMO) be viewed more as a bubble-like entity, like one of these...


...of which there could be a near infinite number.

Dear seeds...the last time we engaged in discussion, I do recall it ended rather abruptly due to a lack of comprehension on my part to fathom your great vision. Which I admire immensely by the way. But, I particularly struggled to understand the part where you talked about how each individual offshoot of God (human beings) can also graduate to Godlike status. I could not comprehend that notion, so I dismissed the idea totally.

Then you were absent from the forum for awhile, and it was during that time that I realised how much I missed your posts, even though I was having some difficulty with comprehending them.. however, and this happens to me a lot, I've had a change of mind and heart, a kind of shift in perspective, in fact I find myself being drawn more and more toward your ideas than ever before. When you were absent for awhile I was tempted to PM you to ask you to return, but then you decided to return anyway, and I'm so pleased you have. I want to support your ideas because I find them fascinating and stimulating and very much worth delving into.

I've been in a rut lately where all my ideas seem to have run their course and had met a wall...so reading your stuff helps to push through the wall. I understand that where you go with your ideas seeds, is where most people fear to tread for fear of ridicule, but I strongly believe that if you can imagine something, then it can exist somewhere somehow, and is why I like your ideas, they push through the limited boundaries of the human mind.

For a long time I personally believed that Life had no purpose other than to just be for no reason whatsoever. But I always keep having a change of mind, rather than close my mind, I am compelled to keep it open, and then I figured that what if the whole purpose of life was to have real absolute purpose, and that to me is an amazing and beautiful idea.

Lets discover together.

Also, I agree with your idea that to assume a universe as ALL-THAT-IS ..does not mean ''all there is''...

To make a claim that there is only ''ALL THAT IS'' does in fact imply completion. And yet I don't think that is possible, can infinity ever complete? the plain answer is No.

.

Thanks for being here seeds.

And don't ever give up your dreams/vision...for fear of what other people think. It doesn't matter, just have the courage to dream your own dream, and leave others to dream theirs what ever theirs maybe.



.