So what does Chemistry have anything to do with astrophysics, specifically the beginning of the universe as proposed in that Big Bang of a theory. PLENTY it turns out. As proposed by chemists at the Free University of Brussels, the first molecule that formed the universe, even before molecular hydrogen was Helium Hydride, a pairing of Helium atom and a proton from a hydrogen atom. From then on the chemical composition started to become more complex and as the stars formed, and disintegrated, new chemicals were born out of that cauldron, that then led to life being created, at least as far as we know, on earth. Sentience and intelligence soon followed in accordance to the rhyme( mandated natural laws) that governed time on earth.
Chemical interactions that if left on their own devices (un-mandated by natural laws), would and could never lead to the formation of sentient and intelligent beings. Life with rhyme and reason.
Helium hydride is an interesting compound if indeed it does exist (and signs are positive there). But I'm not sure what it has to do with intelligence, unless you're merely saying it was among the first compounds, compounds that all form according to natural "laws".
I'm also completely lost in how sentience "governs" time on earth. Can you explain further?
Chemical interactions that are not mandated by natural laws never exist at all - is that what you're trying to say at the end? You completely lost me there.
Natural Laws did not create themselves, anymore than the universe created itself. One could thus surmise that these laws were promulgated by an intelligent entity... laws that are necessary to keep the rhythmic passage of time on earth, from the sub-atomic to the cosmic moving to a pre-determined conclusion.
"Natural Laws did not create themselves, anymore than the universe created itself"
Nice statement, great opinion, wonderful philosophy, but all without any evidence whatsoever to support it. The natural reaction, then, to the statement that follows (because laws did not create themselves, there has to be an intelligent entity that DID create them is automatically logically flawed: with an false premise to build upon we cannot know if the conclusion is true or false.
None of which, as far as I can see, has anything to do with the HHe molecule any more than anything else that has ever happened. Without the ability of hydrogen to fuse we wouldn't be here, but that doesn't prove a god, either. Nor does the affinity of carbon to form 4 chemical bonds, the gravitational constant or anything else science as found.
So from your argument you are saying that Natural Laws created themselves? Really?
If natural laws created themselves why on heaven's name did they create themselves?
If natural laws created themselves, then they should not have anything to apply themselves to.
Laws by their nature are purposeful.... otherwise they could not and should not be labeled Laws.
Um, can we address your first point before wandering off after another?
What are you actually saying about Helium Hydride?
Helium Hydride as per the astrophysicists-chemists that I referred to in my OP suggested that Helium hydride is the precursor of Hydrogen, which if I'm not misinterpreting their research, existed first as a proton before it became a fully interactive Hydrogen atom. Interesting to say the least. When hydrogen became an atom, it was then free to interact with Helium in some other mechanism, that is not related to the Helium Hydride. This then initiated the cascading events that led to stars forming --->exploding into stardusts , that over billions of years came to settle into a planet, we now call earth (home) situated in the Goldilock zone of a solar system situated in the far fringes of a galaxy called milky way.
As the noted astrophysicist Carl Sagan would say, we are all made of stardust. That long journey could not have happened the way it happened without being directed by intelligence. The probability of that journey being undirected and unmitigated (by the Laws of Nature) is non-existent.
I don't pretend to know or understand it - ask the pre-eminent physicists and cosmologists for an answer. It shouldn't take more than a decade or so of hard study to understand the answer, but it's better than making one up simply because it agrees with an unfounded belief.
"Why" implies an intelligence in the formation; something we already know was not necessary. The statement, then, is much like the (unsupported) statement that a god did it all. A logical fallacy.
"Purpose" also implies an intelligence in the formation; something we already know was not necessary. The statement, then, is much like the (unsupported) statement that a god did it all. Also a logical fallacy, then.
Perhaps you misunderstand the use of the word "law" as used in the legal system and in the natural sciences? They are not the same or we would see cops arresting photons for violating the speed limit of C.
Certainly news to me that intelligence, as you are stating flatly, was not necessary in the creation of the universe and all the laws that governs its existence. So why would a non-intelligent process produce laws and in the process of those laws being applied to the material components of that universe, produce a material entity such as yourself who nonetheless is sentient and intelligent that now boldly and baldly claims that intelligence could come from non-intelligence.
Somehow I missed the process, be they physiologic or pathologic, of your translation and transformation from non-intelligence to intelligence.
Why? Why does a falling rock make a landslide that dams a river and forever changes the river bed? You are again assuming an intelligence behind the "why" when there is no indication there ever was one.
As far as it being news to you, that can only be because you made up a story (or accepted a pre-made one as true) that gave an explanation without ever investigating whether or not it was true. Look within yourself if you want to know why that happened.
Intelligence always comes from non-intelligence. Or are you now claiming that the bundle of chemicals in a zygote is intelligent?
The cellular components of a zygote when fully differentiated and integrated into a complex systems of tissues and organs functioning as a unified entity then becomes fully functional, sentient, and intelligent. Thus the potential is there, and having that potential for intelligence is the essential ingredient... it is what separates it from any other i.e. falling rock, a flowing river, a grain of salt.
But the grain of salt has the same capability; when combined with trillions upon trillions of other atoms, in the right configuration, it becomes a part of an intelligent being. It, too, has a complex structure prior to the combination. It, too, is composed of many atoms. Plus, of course, at the end of it all, every animal with a brain has intelligence, whether it is up to our level or not.
"The probability of that journey being undirected and unmitigated (by the Laws of Nature) is non-existent."
Such a bold statement would certainly be the better for a rigorous mathematical analysis of the probabilities - can you provide that? Can anyone in the world provide it? No? Why then would you make such a statement, KNOWING that there is zero supporting evidence? The same reason you make the statement there is a god with the exact same evidence - because you want so badly to believe it?
Come on, Villarasa; debates are so MUCH more interesting when you don't make such statements that there isn't a chance in the world of ever supporting them. It's as if every time I post, I include a bald statement that the pink unicorn under your bed is real and is responsible for creating you, and you should believe that because I say so.
Ill take the above comments with a lot of grains of salt. NaCl, (salt to you) is of course a necessary component of the metabolic process of cellular physiology ... but to to say that it is part and parcel of the anatomic cellular structure, is stretching it to the point of incomprehensibility.
Is it? Remove the sodium and chlorine ions from a person and see just how long that intelligence is around. But if you don't like that one, take the Carbon (pencil lead to you) out and check what's left for intelligence.
But I don't see that rigorous mathematical proof of the statement that the probability of our existence is zero...or, come to think of it, the statement itself is gone now. How odd - did you change your mind there?
As chemicals go Na and Cl are transients. so to speak in cellular metabolism, but are not in any way permanent members of the cellular community, whether it be in the cell membare, cytoplasm/mitochondria or nucleus. You could have had a better argument if you mentioned carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen instead of Na and Cl.
Existence and all that it entails does not exist in a vacuum. Foremost in that space, aside from the material and physical, are the "Laws" that govern the disposition, fluctuation, interaction, production of the physical and material. Now if you tell me that these Laws did not have in any way regulatory imposition on the way life evolved on earth, the final product of which is YOU, the youn must call yourself, supernatural.
You seem to know a lot about what you term as the "natural sciences", which in that purview you seem to say that Laws do not have any regulatory impositions, as the Laws that are existing in the legal sciences have.
So now are you proposing that Laws of Nature NOT be termed as such and should be called something totally different..... and from your naturalistic perspective, what TERM should be used to aptly described those regulatory conditions that nature impose on all of us.
I'm quite satisfied with the term "law", and find no reason to change it. Most words in the English language have multiple meanings when there are multiple topics/circumstances involved - that there is one more doesn't upset me.
Webster succinctly and aptly defined Law as "a rule of conduct or action established, laid down, and enforced by a governing entity/authority; additionally, laws are rules or principles stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions.
Definition that fits the Laws of Nature to a "T"
Now I would be very interested on how you interpret Laws of Nature in its essence and functionality.
What you term "unfounded belief" is nothing more than the collective impressions of thinking and intuiting, and percepting humans who over the lifespan of their specie came to the conclusion RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY that everything has a cause, every rhyme has a reason, and every beginning has an ending. CAUSE>>>REASON>>>CONCLUSION. So rational, so logical.
Unfortunately the sequence goes WANT>>>IMAGINE>>>CAUSE>>>CONSLUSION, skipping the reason and declaring cause without reason or even observation at all. That never seems particularly "rational", but it is what has produced the whole religion thing from day one. That and a desire to control the masses, anyway.
Certainly the "LOGICAL" part is left out: there is absolutely nothing logical about declaring the existence of another universe populated by a specific entity with specific attributes and actions, all founded on the desire for such a being. Yes, it has a foundation, I suppose, in the desires and wants of the believer but it's a foundation made of sand rather that fact and reason.
Religion is used to control the masses?
Now who do you think is delusional?
If you think the Catholic church isn't controlling the lives of countless people, YOU are.
Controlling in what way? The Catholic Church may have reached its zenith of "controlling" the masses in the dark and middle age, but in this day of instant gratification/instantaneous communication , the catholic church can never be a player in that arena.
And yet millions of people pay them money to tell them how to live their lives. And at least profess to try and follow those guidelines. The Catholic church is a major political player as well, affecting and at least partially controlling the actions and destinies of whole countries.
HHmmm...a political player? you might want to remind Pope Francis of that one.
Oh, I'm quite sure he knows. Not only does he rule Vatican city but he spends enough time in the political arena around the world to understand what he is doing. He's actually quite good at it.
But then many churches are (good at it). Even though they ultimately lost their case in the court of human opinion, the Mormon church organized and provided a huge effort to defeat gay marriage in California. Pastors throughout the country commonly exhort their vassals to vote this way or that and it certainly isn't unusual to find political entities from schools to the supreme court pushing/forcing their religious feelings (that they got from a church) onto everyone they can.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/18/pa … latestnews
@wilderness: BTW your sequence, ie Want>>>Imagine>>>>Cause>>>Conclusion defied gravity because it went up the ether the moment you formulated it.
Can you explain that? Using OBSERVATION>>>REASON>>>CONCLUSION?
But it's the only sequence that makes any sense to me - the only sequence that will convince me to believe you. I recognize it is not the sequence you choose to use, but that does not change that I do not accept yours as producing valid conclusions.
The ability of Hydrogen to "fuse" or the affinity of carbon to "form 4 bonds" are all non-directed predisposition. If you are telling me that Hydrogen and Carbon have those inate predisposition, who put those inate predisposition. Certainly not the Hydrogen or Carbon atoms themselves. Because if you say that they did it on their own, then halleluiah, Hydrogen and Carbon could be considered life forms on their own capable of deciding/choosing their own path and destiny.
I meant to say :... all directed predisposition..."
"...who put those inate predisposition"
No one. Unless you have evidence someone or something did? Beyond, that is, merely putting forth the unsupported claim that they HAD to? It is true that you seem to have the predisposition that your unsupported opinion that an god created everything, but there is to date no reason to think it is true. After all, you cannot support it with anything but your observation that in YOUR comprehension of the (macro) world everything has a cause.
Only if you insist that someone or something did it. If, on the other hand, you accept the notion (given by all the pre-eminent physicists of the world) that there was no god necessary there is no problem. Not, of course, that that opinion denies a god; merely that it denies the necessity of one.
Na and Cl 's predisposition to fuse or to bond was mandated by nature giving them different atomic weights and charges (either + or -) So what we might term inate were not self-imposed or self-directed by these atoms... they were given by the nature and its laws , so it could regulate them in ways that are appropriate to prevailing conditions.
Helium Hydride? Was there a point there at all?
because if you just want another dull creationism fracas, well, that's not very interesting because we have all done it a million times and there is nothing new to be said about it.
I have no delusions about where you are coming from...."dull creationism fracas" and all.
There is or are always something new to say about anything that might come to your mind, but I suppose, you having been involved in all that fracas, your debating points have become so dull and so eroded.
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 months ago
The Pantheists among us believe that Nature and "GOD" are the same thing, thus the natural world that we are now discerning and discovering was created by Nature itself ... a self creating entity so to speak....
by christiananrkist2 years ago
i asked this question in the Q&A section a while back and only got 1 response. given any worldview wouldnt a supernatural event had to have taken place at some point? most theist would obviously say a god/gods...
by mischeviousme4 years ago
If you are a member of a religious group, you'll find that they frown upon thinking for yourself. If you ask any questions, that would appear to go against the doctrine, you might as well have insulted the entire...
by paarsurrey4 years ago
Only an Intelligent Being could endow intelligence to others; universe or nature or evolution are deaf and dumb; they cannot bestow intelligence on others of their own; it is the Creator God- the Most-Intelligent the...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by kirstenblog3 years ago
I have often wondered about this. I personally have no education beyond that of High School. I do not hold any special qualifications and think of myself as being average in intelligence. I do read a lot and pay...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.