Can some atheist please tell me what is wrong with the following statement?

------------------------------------
"
-God has always been
-Then why can't we say the universe has always been?"

A:
From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator. Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?
---------------------------------------


Enjoy.

We know the universe exists.

We don't know that gods do or could exist so any statement about them always existing has far less credibility than a universe always existing since we do not know there was a time when the universe didn't exist.

The statements about a universe are describing only what is assumed from a single big bang. In the same way that early peoples assumed the world was the center of the universe. If one considers the statements assuming an infinite number of big bangs then there is no issue.

Originally posted by Prisme
From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature.Energy and the fundamental forces, however, do seem to be eternal in nature.

If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe.Unless of course there is a mechanism whereby new matter and energy can be introduced, which is exactly what the Ekpyrotic Model suggests (see below). You’re also working under an incorrect supposition (see next paragraph).

The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” Absolutely wrong, energy cannot be lost from a closed system. Unless you provide for somewhere else for the energy to go, in which case it is no longer a closed system. No, ‘heat-death’ is the result of entropy and infinite expansion of S/T; if the Universe continues to expand to infinity energy will essentially ‘spread-out’ to the lowest possible level. If, however, the Universe contracts, all the energy it ever contained will coalesce again.

All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe.Actually, you have only give one and it is quite wrong. Please prove the others.

The Ekpyrotic Model
“After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.”
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

~Raithere

Prisme,

Just out of curiosity - is the statement you posted from this website (http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html)?

First things first:

I never claimed to have written anything!! :eek:

In the first seperated phrase of the thread I said: "tell me what is wrong with the following statement"... this does not even remotely entail that I have made the statement. Instead of giving a hyperlink that most people would not bother to go and visit, I cut and pasted it.

----------------------------------------

Since raithere is the only one that bothered to reply to the aspects discussed in the statement:


Energy and the fundamental forces, however, do seem to be eternal in nature

Ok. Matter is energy. We all knew that.
We also know that matter is only energy that is more dense and in a less accelerated state.
Still, matter decays. So basic energy, as the second law of thermo-dynamics specify, decay.
If some forms of energy are eternal, matter isn't one of them.
There is no problem with the fact that some forms of energy are eternal, however, how can we explain that an eternal energy transform itself into a decaying form of energy? (matter)

So the question stands: how does the anonymous eternal forms of energy (sorry, raithere didn't give out names) manage to reduce themselves to matter and play a role in our physical world?

Why would these eternal forms of energy 'matter'? :) if the laws of thermo-dynamics don't even bother to take them into account?


Unless of course there is a mechanism whereby new matter and energy can be introduced, which is exactly what the Ekpyrotic Model suggests

Thats a big 'If' disguised as an 'unless' raithere. I mean, we all know that most cosmological theories remain just that: theories.
So to prefer an imperfect theoritical model over another isn't a crime against humanity, much less rationality.

Absolutely wrong, energy cannot be lost from a closed system. Unless you provide for somewhere else for the energy to go, in which case it is no longer a closed system. No, ‘heat-death’ is the result of entropy and infinite expansion of S/T; if the Universe continues to expand to infinity energy will essentially ‘spread-out’ to the lowest possible level. If, however, the Universe contracts, all the energy it ever contained will coalesce again.

1- Again, IF we are in a closed system.

2- Energy conservation is another assumption from physiscists that leaves us with no guarantees.

There is nobody that can "predict" that either in an infinite or closed system, energy "must" dissipate or be eternal.

In either systems,
the hypothesis that energy has a source is problematic at best
(if there is one we.. ain't found it yet)
the hypothesis that energy is eternal is a 50\50 wager
(it is or it is not depending on the theory)
the hypothesis that basic energy does not decay is utopic
(physics education insist on decay rather than infinity)


Actually, you have only give one and it is quite wrong

No, it is not 'quite wrong' as you put it. It merely represents the opposite of certain other physical theories that you have flashed us with.

As always raithere, you seem to feel free enough to juggle from one physical theory to another in order to defeat your opponant(s) with out-of-context controversies.
However, when it would come to you to validate what you believe to be true concerning the physical universe, most of us would be unpleasently 'let down' by your own incapacity to hold and defend one single theory (since you need them all to trample others)... but this is not due to lack of intellect.. it is much rather the presence of your intellect that makes you unwilling to adopt a single physical theory above any other... because deep down you know that they are all, in their respects, imprefect and have their own unforgiving faults, if not fallacies.


Prisme

P.S.
Why does physics matter? :confused:

Originally posted by Prisme

So to prefer an imperfect theoritical model over another isn't a crime against humanity, much less rationality.

It's certainly not a crime against humanity. Whether it's a crime against rationality depends on the evidential basis for the two theories.

For example Both Newtonian and Einstenian theories are imperfect. That doesn't mean that choosing between them is merely a matter of preference. Given the available evidence, it would be irrational to prefer Newtonian physics as an accurate description of the Universe. Other examples are also easy to come by. For example consider the difference between caloric and phlogistic theories of heat.

The point of the atheist response, however, has more to do with methodological and logical aspects rather than evidential ones. The response is specific to the cosmological and related arguments. Those arguments proceed by contending that retrospective chains of one kind or another must have a beginning. They then posit God as the beginning of such a chain. The problem is that they fail to account for how God's existence can have the very property that they claim nothing else can have. As a result they are merely proofs by fiat.

Having noted that cosmological proofs fail to reach their conclusion, the atheist appeals to Occam's razor to prefer a similar resolution without God. Granted, this is a methodological argument rather than a logical or empirical one. But the only conclusion reached is that belief in god is not only not proven, but that standard norms of rationality count against it.

There has been some relatively recent work on cosmological arguments, but nothing that really solves the original problem with them.

Originally posted by Prisme
First things first:

I never claimed to have written anything!! :eek:

In the first seperated phrase of the thread I said: "tell
me what is wrong with the following statement"... this
does not even remotely entail that I have made the
statement.
I never said you did. I was just curious if the website I posted
was the original source for the statement you posted. I take it
from your reply the answer is yes (feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong). Thanks for answering my question, much appreciated.

I forgot to say what was wrong with the argument.



A:
From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe.

The main problem is that the argument has nothing to do with the conclusion. The point about not having run out of Hydrogen yet only shows that stars and similar reactions cannot have existed forever. But nobody claims they have, so this doesn't count against Sagan.

The claim that Hydrogen powers all other energy sources in the universe is simply false. Hydrogen does not power gravity, nor the weak or strong molecular forces, etc. Nor is hydrogen supposed to have powered events close to the Big Bang, in fact there wasn't any hydrogen at all then.

Finally (for this post), even if you grant the arguments about hydrogen and entropy, it doesn't follow that matter is not eternal. All that follows is that this specific arrangement of matter is not eternal. All of the arguments are directed against the eternity of certain process, not the eternity of matter per se. So even if the physics were impeccable, the argument is irrelevant to the supposed conclusion.

Having noted that cosmological proofs fail to reach their conclusion, the atheist appeals to Occam's razor to prefer a similar resolution without God. Granted, this is a methodological argument rather than a logical or empirical one

Cosmological theories that speak of a 'Prime starter', such as Aristotle's, do not fail to reach its own conclusions.
It is only when people start to confound the Prime starter with a specific religious meanning and intent of a God that things get illegitemate.


As for 'empirical arguments' as you say, we could still ask the atheist to produce some that proves the inexistence of God... and would most likely die before that time arrives. Maybe atheists can survive Occam's razor... but such a standard is only subjective. On my part, I would prescribe Descartes standard to the atheists: "radical doubt towards things that are not indubitable".

Then theists and atheists would be on the same threshold... as they should damn well be. :D


---------------
Reply to dhrili that replied to 1st post:

The start of the text does not address the end, in the exact same way that atheists that discredit the bible do not address the existence or non-existence of God.

The whole argument is to show that science does not hold the entire knowledge of the universe as it often claims to.
Thus, by discrediting man made science, there is more place for the possibility of force mature and the divine in general, which represent the eternally unexplainable, what is beyound our mortal reach.
Althought discussing of empirical AND theoretical componants of the universe, this alone does not prove God per se. However, showing that the world does not suffice to itself helps to infer divine intervention... be it a religious God or not.

Prisme
P.S.
Evil poet: hope you are proud to trace texts that don't matter to its original site. Bravo... don't let go of what you found to be enternaining. :rolleyes:

As for 'empirical arguments' as you say, we could still ask the atheist to produce some that proves the inexistence of God... and would most likely die before that time arrives. Maybe atheists can survive Occam's razor... but such a standard is only subjective. On my part, I would prescribe Descartes standard to the atheists: "radical doubt towards things that are not indubitable".
For the 14,732th time...the burden of proof lies on the maker of the claim. Otherwise, one would be required to place 'radical doubt' on the non-existence of people that live on sun, flying pigs, etc. So, who is the maker of the claim? The ones who say 'there is a god'. Cavemen did not claim there is no god before religion and infants do not claim there is no god before being indoctrinated. Atheism is always and has always been a reaction to the theist's claim.

So...we do not ask an atheist to prove the inexistence of god. It is not necessary. What is necessary is a proof of the claim. At least some legitimate evidence would be nice also.

For the 14,733th time, the burden of proof lies onto any man who seriously entertains a question in his own subjectivity... and unfortunately for you, that includes everyone of us.
-as well as theist than atheists.. even Socrates knew that.-

You can Occam razor me to death, but that doesn't give you a free ride on the fact that your own belief in the inexistence of God is in itself more readily acceptable and obvious than the claim for his existence.
As I already stated, Occam's standards are subjective and not even as severe as Descarte's.

Your trying to have your cake and eat it to Captain. Fascism was a reactionnary political group towards democracy... does this mean that Fascism is a stand alone political party? No, it has to make its own way and show to the world its worth consideration by itself. Even if we discover that democracy is a fallacy in the next millenia, the ideals of Facism are independant in the facts, although linked historically.

So...we do not ask an atheist to prove the inexistence of god. It is not necessary
This is your biased criteria that allows you to dodge the justification of your own beliefs... not the one of objective knowledge.

Thought that dogma was a thing of the past.

Prisme

the burden of proof lies onto any man who seriously entertains a question in his own subjectivity
No it doesn't. I don't 'prove' to myself that god doesn't exist. You are thinking in absolutes. I think in probabilities. Here is the scenario:

Theist: There is a god.
Me: Really? Give me a reason to think this so.
Theist: Here are some books and stuff.
Me: Nope doesn't do it for me.

Me: I think you are wrong about that god thing.
Theist: Really? Give me a reason to think this so.
Me: Um, didn't we cover that above?

Now, do you see the problem here? I do not need to give him a reason why I do not believe in god. I do not need to prove god's inexistance.

You can Occam razor me to death, but that doesn't give you a free ride to claim that your own proposition that God is inexistent is fool-proof.
Its not fool-proof. I may be wrong. I simply claim that I have come to the conclusion that it is improbable.

No, it has to make its own way and show to the world its worth consideration.
Yes I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is only logical for the burden of proof to be on the maker of the claim.

Originally posted by Prisme
Cosmological theories that speak of a 'Prime starter', such as Aristotle's, do not fail to reach its own conclusions.
It is only when people start to confound the Prime starter with a specific religious meanning and intent of a God that things get illegitemate.

No, their failure has nothing to do with any conception of God. They contain logical errors. There is a broad literature on this topic, and it's pretty much in agreement on this point. THere have been some attempts to resurrect the argument from time to time, but none that have been successful. Th flaw is with the basic logic of the argument, not the specificity of it's conclusion.


As for 'empirical arguments' as you say, we could still ask the atheist to produce some that proves the inexistence of God... and would most likely die before that time arrives. Maybe atheists can survive Occam's razor... but such a standard is only subjective. On my part, I would prescribe Descartes standard to the atheists: "radical doubt towards things that are not indubitable".

Then theists and atheists would be on the same threshold... as they should damn well be. :D


Form a logical and empirical standpoint, the cosmological argument provides no support for atheism. One could try to wrest a victory via Occam's razor, but methodological arguments aren't persuasive enough to decide between radically opposing camps unless those camps agree upon common norms. Th subjectivity of application of Occam's razor does not, however, come in to play. The question is merely whether one ought or ought not to believe in a prime mover based on the argument at hand and all other things being equal. Unless you want to reject simplicity as a desiderata in explanations, the atheistic response is simpler.

Now it may be that some further argument could establish that any atheist response would entail greater complexity than a possible theist response. Such an argument would very likely rest on subjective notions of simpolicity (as would the converse atheistic argument). So Occam's razor could not be applied unproblematically in those cases. But in the case of the Cosmological argument it can.

This thread isn't about atheism vs theism though. You asked what was wrong with the given reply to the typical atheist response to cosmological arguments.



The start of the text does not address the end, in the exact same way that atheists that discredit the bible do not address the existence or non-existence of God.


I haven't a clue what you are trying to say here. Care to try again?

The whole argument is to show that science does not hold the entire knowledge of the universe as it often claims to.

Well, the argument certainly doesn't do that. But then I don't know anyone who claims that science holds the entire knowledge of the Universe. So I'm not sure what the fuss is about here.

Thus, by discrediting man made science, there is more place for the possibility of force mature and the divine in general, which represent the eternally unexplainable, what is beyound our mortal reach.

This borders on nonsense, but in any case doesn't follow from what you wrote above.

However, showing that the world does not suffice to itself helps to infer divine intervention... be it a religious God or not.

Yes, if you could prove that the world was not sufficient to itself, you could then infer that there was something beyond, and you would be free to call that God. That's what the cosmological argument attempts to do. Unfortunately, no one has succeeded in proving, or even making a strong case for, that thesis. Certainly the argument at the beginning of this thread doesn't come close, as has been demonstrated.

Here is the scenario

Nope, your scenorio doesn't do it for me.
(Now who's claiming what?)

Just in case you didn't figure that one out, your scenario is no the Absolute scenario and still does not prevent the serious atheist to find himslef incapable of justifying his belief that God doesn't exist.

I think in probabilities

Oh really?Show me your equasion.

Of course, you have none. Because we are talking about concepts not numbers. And even if their were 99 good reasons not to believe in God and only 1 in favor... you would have good odds, but never certainty.

When it comes to God, I don't feel like taking chances... I mean many americans don't mind the slim to none chance of WMDz in Iraq... but who am I to deny a miracle?

In any case, I prefer reason over odds, and the only thing that has anything remotetly to do with probabilities and God is Pascal's wager.. which you should be taking if you are a true gambling man.

Yes I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is only logical for the burden of proof to be on the maker of the claim. (in response to fascism)

I said that Fascism was independant of democracy, eventhought a reaction to it, in order to respond to your claim that atheism is a reaction to theism and thus doesn't need to justify itself... but I think you knew that.


If we can agree that your atheist inclination is solely based on probability and that theists are also running the same odds in favor of God... then this discussion is most likely resolved for we both agree.

Originally posted by Prisme
Evil poet: hope you are proud to trace texts that don't
matter to its original site. Bravo... don't let go of what
you found to be enternaining. :rolleyes:
Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but I think it's
important to give credit where credit is due.

No, their failure has nothing to do with any conception of God. They contain logical errors. There is a broad literature on this topic, and it's pretty much in agreement on this point. THere have been some attempts to resurrect the argument from time to time, but none that have been successful. Th flaw is with the basic logic of the argument, not the specificity of it's conclusion

Actually bother to name me at least one of these 'logical flaws' ?
Or are we playing 'Simon says' again?


This thread isn't about atheism vs theism though. You asked what was wrong with the given reply to the typical atheist response to cosmological arguments

Well, actually I started this thread and it kinda worked itself up to there. But hey, if you have nothing to object to my argument, that's fine with me.

The start of the text does not address the end, in the exact same way that atheists that discredit the bible do not address the existence or non-existence of God.

Further explanation:

To the claim that the way that Cosmology works does not necessarily entail a God:

I answered:
It is true that the original statement at the beginning of this thread ends with God when it started to talk about the cosmos.

Why did the author does this? Because it is embede in an attempt to reduce science.
Why would it do that? Because atheist scientists do the same when laughing at the Bible.
Both groups attack the foundation of the other... but both never get to the real question:

Does God exist and if so how can we know?

How do they dodge the question?
By deflecting their arguments on holy scriptures and the cosmos, which both do not hold the true answers.



But then I don't know anyone who claims that science holds the entire knowledge of the Universe

Its been awhile since you have chatted with some of your more radical atheist friends has it? But I am glad you don't hold that view.

This borders on nonsense, but in any case doesn't follow from what you wrote above

Your bordering fallacy (personnal attack), but hey, I don't mind. I accept you as you are dhrili.
For I know what I said can withstand your petty, unelaborated insults.


and you would be free to call that God. That's what the cosmological argument attempts to do. Unfortunately, no one has succeeded in proving, or even making a strong case for, that thesis. Certainly the argument at the beginning of this thread doesn't come close, as has been demonstrated

Actually, Aristotle made a pretty good case out of it. And considering the 'abundance' of examples from start to finish about the weakness's of the cosmological argument that professes a non-religious God... I still believe it's a good case.



Prisme

but I think it's important to give credit where it is due

You giving credit to a theist?

Coming from anybody else than a guy which his signature is a negated cross.. I could of believed that statement.

Your just trying to accuse me of infringement from the start, stop being hypocrite about it. I simply did not do that for the simple fact that I never claimed to be the author of the quote I used.

This is a FORUM not a Doctorate thesis.

14,732th... 14,733thHow embarrassing...:o

1) I am female.

2) I think you ought to check out this link (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16604).

3) IMO - freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

4) I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Originally posted by Prisme
I never claimed to have written anything!!
…
this does not even remotely entail that I have made the statement. Instead of giving a hyperlink that most people would not bother to go and visit, I cut and pasted it.Actually, unreferenced, the assumption would be that you wrote it. You should site your sources.

Ok. Matter is energy. We all knew that.
We also know that matter is only energy that is more dense and in a less accelerated state.
Still, matter decays. So basic energy, as the second law of thermo-dynamics specify, decay.Absolutely not. Please see the first law of Thermodynamics, paraphrased as “Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.” - http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html

Nor can matter be destroyed ‘decay’. The closest you can come to the destruction of matter is converting it to energy… but it never goes ‘away’.

If some forms of energy are eternal, matter isn't one of them. Wrong again.

There is no problem with the fact that some forms of energy are eternal, however, how can we explain that an eternal energy transform itself into a decaying form of energy?No, all of the energy within the Universe that has ever been (including all that which appears as matter) is still here and will always be here unless you can discover somewhere else for it to go.

So the question stands: how does the anonymous eternal forms of energy (sorry, raithere didn't give out names) manage to reduce themselves to matter and play a role in our physical world?Matter essentially condensed from the hyper-energetic state in the first few seconds after the big bang.

Why would these eternal forms of energy 'matter'? :) if the laws of thermo-dynamics don't even bother to take them into account?I don’t know what you mean here… all energy is taken into account by the laws of thermodynamics.

Thats a big 'If' disguised as an 'unless' raithere. I mean, we all know that most cosmological theories remain just that: theories.
So to prefer an imperfect theoritical model over another isn't a crime against humanity, much less rationality.Not quite. The Ekpyrotic model fits all known facts. Now, that does not mean it has been proven… we’ll have to wait around for a few more trillion years or figure out some other method of discovering proof.

This, however, does not mean that all unproven theories are equal. Some, like the notion of a supernatural cause, are simply un-testable and meaningless. Even if we assume a supernatural cause, it tells us nothing. No further hypotheses can arise from such a supposition. There is no way, for instance, to jump from ‘a supernatural creator’ to ‘Yahweh.

1- Again, IF we are in a closed system.If the Universe is everything in ‘physical’ existence what is outside and how do you transfer energy there?

2- Energy conservation is another assumption from physiscists that leaves us with no guarantees.The conservation of energy is no more an assumption than the law of gravity. Every experiment ever done has confirmed the laws of thermodynamics without exception.

There is nobody that can "predict" that either in an infinite or closed system, energy "must" dissipate or be eternal.Sure can. Look, you cannot just make shit up and pretend its science. If your hypothesis is that energy can leave the Universe or somehow go away then you must provide a mechanism for that and some way to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke out your ass.

In either systems,
the hypothesis that energy has a source is problematic at best
(if there is one we.. ain't found it yet)Again, this is wrong. We know that energy can come from nothing (virtual particles from a quantum fluctuation). Mathematically there is nothing that prevents all the energy in the Universe coming from nothing as long as it eventually returns to nothing.

the hypothesis that energy is eternal is a 50\50 wagerNo, it most certainly is not.

the hypothesis that basic energy does not decay is utopicWrong again. It is fact.


No, it is not 'quite wrong' as you put it. It merely represents the opposite of certain other physical theories that you have flashed us with.No, it is wrong. As I stated above the first Law of Thermodynamics is as sure a thing as gravity. Every experiment ever done has confirmed the laws of thermodynamics without exception.

As always raithere, you seem to feel free enough to juggle from one physical theory to another in order to defeat your opponant(s) with out-of-context controversies.What the hell is out of context about the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Ekpyrotic Model when we’re discussing energy and the Universe? Please show me anything that I’ve written in this thread that is out of context. I’m not simply tossing one theory after another at you in the hopes of tripping you up, I have provided the relevant scientific laws and theories. If you want to play make believe then I suggest you not use a quotation that claims to be ‘scientific’ as your proposition.

However, when it would come to you to validate what you believe to be true concerning the physical universe, most of us would be unpleasently 'let down' by your own incapacity to hold and defend one single theoryI don’t hold to a single theory regarding the beginning of the Universe because there isn’t one that stands out far and away above some of the others. However, your initial proposition is invalid because it violates the known Laws of Physics, not because there is are alternatives to the ‘God’ hypothesis.

I suggested the Ekpyrotic Model because it seems to be the most complete theory we have currently, various ‘Big Bang’ theories are also good but have some difficulty explaining the recently discovered accelerating inflation of the Universe.

Truth is a hard thing to come by; in fact it is nearly impossible. It is this, more than anything else that I try to convey to people here. Certainty is the hobgoblin of the mind. The moment you are absolutely certain of something, the moment you hold faith in your mind, reality beings to slip away from you. The Universe is not static, it is always changing, and if we could really understand the immensity of that which we do not know and how much of what we thing we know is wrong… well most people probably could not handle it… they are so certain.

Why does physics matter?When your car doesn’t start do you check the gas and the battery or do you perform an exorcism to drive the demon out of your engine block? Physics matters because it works.

~Raithere

Prisme, why don't you provide a link to the version of the cosmological argument you prefer. I'll then tell you what I see as the logical flaws in it. That way we don't have to do a dance about wether we're talking about the same argument.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but frankly your response made less sense to me than the original. Maybe we can get somewhere with a text.

Q:"Why does physics matter?" A:When your car doesn’t start do you check the gas and the battery or do you perform an exorcism to drive the demon out of your engine block? Physics matters because it works

This is about as convincing as the argument of design with the 'watch found in the forest' as example.

Cars and cosmology don't mix my friend. Just like theories don't actually 'work' as you put it. As you should know, Quine and Duhem have shown that theories are not as certain as people like you proclaim them to be. In fact, theories and their hypothesis can actually be used in a way that they will never be shown to be false.
I would of hoped that your knowledge of the science of science (or philosophy of science) would have evolved at the same rate as your knowledge of certain sciences such as physics.
If you would of bothered, you would know that theories don't prove much and that physics is a far cry from more actualized sciences such as biology.
You talk of 'theoretical potentiality' all the time and yet you portray an image of certainty.

---------

Now lets dissect what you bothered to say about the universe that wasn't purely rhetorical:

Truth is a hard thing to come by; in fact it is nearly impossible.

Value judgement. Prove it. Maybe you are making this 'complicated world' theory up.

It is this, more than anything else that I try to convey to people here. Certainty is the hobgoblin of the mind.

Anything else that you can tell us about the mind with certainty? I could find hundreds of psychologists that would differ. Many actually say that what we perceive is more real than reality itself. Bother to comment?


The moment you are absolutely certain of something, the moment you hold faith in your mind, reality beings to slip away from you.

But if you have nothing that is certain... then what is your reality raithere? Nothingness?
If reality can 'slip away', then you are saying that there actually IS A REALITY. One that is more real than others, one that we should all have fiath in and which you, yourself, proclaim to have faith in finding.


The Universe is not static, it is always changing, and if we could really understand the immensity of that which we do not know and how much of what we thing we know is wrong… well most people probably could not handle it… they are so certain.

You didn't finish that thought... but who cares right? Probably wasn't going really far.


Man I'm having fun :D We've just changed from physics to philosophy and you're post-modernist ass is taking a whoopin'

---------------------

-If some forms of energy are eternal, matter isn't one of them. -Wrong again

Oh look! we are playing 'raithere says'!
Who was I to be thinking that certain physical theories which prone the end of the universe by energy depletion of by having the universe implode on itself?

Not quite. The Ekpyrotic model fits all known facts. Now, that does not mean it has been proven…

Then come back and talk about it when it is proven... you seem to demand such an unrealistic standard from others when it comes to physics.

Matter essentially condensed from the hyper-energetic state in the first few seconds after the big bang.

Nice theory. You forgot to replace 'essentially' with 'most likely according with the theory'.

Here is a nice Big bang counter-claim from Havard:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html

--------

As for the laws of thermo-dynamics, I will say this:

Eventhought everyone believes in them (as they do with gravity), these laws do not necessarily represent or explain by themselves the entirety of the higher laws of physics that make thermo-dynamics possible.

I could talk to you about how everybody knows that interstate 01 is a 50 mph zone and that it is certain. But I would be short changing you by not mentionning all the municipal, state and federal laws that went into interstate 01's 50mph policy.

This said, energy that you and me utilize by throwing a rock is not quite comparable to the energy contained in spliting atoms and the continuous expansion of the universe.
Thus, I am not the madman you make me out to be when I hypothise that the cosmos is not necessarily acting under the cruda and basic laws of thermo-dynamics alone.



Prisme

Sorry to have offended you fragile hart Poet.

Who would of guessed that people with such a radical pic would have feelings?

But then again, I'm glad you changed it. :)

Peace woman.

Prisme

Maybe we can get somewhere with a text.

Maybe you could get somewhere with hooked-on-phonics.

Read Aristotles 'Physics' concerning the ,necessity of a prime mover' in order for science to be possible and we'll talk.

And if you find your arguments form websites, please cite them even if it changes nothing or you don't imply in any way that you are their author... raithere could make himself believe that you have plagerized. :rolleyes:

Been there done that. Aristotle's doesn't work any better than most of the others.

I mentioned a link because many classical arguments are available on the web. Which translation do you want to deal with?

<i>...theories don't prove much and that physics is a far cry from more actualized sciences such as biology.</i>

What do you mean by "more actualized"?

D:
Actually, aristotle is much more coherant than any cosmological argument that attempts to prove God, for aristotle only speaks of a prime motor, not of a God.
Again you offer no concrete proof of your claims.


James R.:

raithere was saying that 'physics work'. Of course, some basic physical laws can be observed and applied (such as gravity), but abstract cosmology can't be as concretely experimented on the same level as biology.

Biology has more to observe than to theorize with\about. Contrarely to most of abstract physics (such as theories concerning the creation of the universe or the undeniable behavior of quarks or energy), -cells, pathogenes, antibiotics, chemicals, vegetation and moisture- are all concrete observable phenomenons that leave no doubt towards the correct interpretation.
Certain pathogenes always form when the X moisture level is obtained and only a type Y antibiotic can restore the cells... for we have observed it from its origin to its completion.

On the other hand, in abstract physics, one does not start with the true origin of the universe... one must theorize it. And since the end hasn't arrive either, one must again theorize if the universe has one in store or not.
So this is why it is possible for two theorists to see the same physical concept or event and interpret it differently, according to ones own physical theory.
Again, as Quine and Duhem have shown, theories CAN survive any criticism, for there is no way to absolutely rule out what we have already taken for granted in our respectful theories.
Proof?
Just go and see all the actual theories concerning the origin of the universe... there is not one, but a couple that are taken seriously and are fighting each other (3-5). Thus a debate is persisting, for nobody has the same foundation and nobody has managed to completly anihilate the other theories fondation.

So each theory remains a good theory as long as it can contain itself. It doesn't have to be an indubitable theory, just coherant enought to sustain its own logic.

In addition, Popper and the neo-pepperians claim that a scientific theory that is absolute cannot under any circumstances be considered scientific. For science does not deal with absolutes and can never gurantee absolutes. Rather, science is a process of falsification.

However, as we all know, logical thought is not a gurantee for truth.
For example: It would only be logical that stiffer prison sentences would dissuade crime, but criminology has shown that it is not the severity of the punishement that matters, only the chances of getting caught.


All in all, raithere's attitude is more noble than his claims:

He admits to not fully adhere to a particular scientific theory, but on the other hand, he seems to attribute too much certainty to some particular physical concepts that remain theoritical at best.

Catch 22:
-Science is the only thing that speaks correctly of this world
-I admit that science has no absolutes and most likely never will
-------------
At the same time that science offers an incomplete understanding answer of this world, I must only consider this one.

So by being absolutly certain, he is only being absolutly subjective.



Prisme

see you in a couple of days.

Originally posted by Prisme
Cars and cosmology don't mix my friend. Just like theories don't actually 'work' as you put it. As you should know, Quine and Duhem have shown that theories are not as certain as people like you proclaim them to be. In fact, theories and their hypothesis can actually be used in a way that they will never be shown to be false.In a sense, I agree. Theories are merely models, the semantic interpretations of those models is further confused by an almost infinite (or perhaps truly infinite, if one considers recursion within linguistics) number of presuppositions and assumptions.

Your question, however, was ‘Why does physics matter?’ and the answer depends upon what we are trying to accomplish. As far as a general answer goes however; physics matters because it ‘works’. Physics theories are hypotheses backed up by empirical observation, if not they remain hypotheses, or if they fail empirical observation they are rejected. You know this. Tossing epistemological arguments into the mix however does not invalidate my rejection of you initial argument as your argument set the paradigm within which we are working; that being science. Now if you want to go off into other arenas we can but mixing the two doesn’t work well. We might as well toss in nihilism and screw the whole thing.

If you would of bothered, you would know that theories don't prove much and that physics is a far cry from more actualized sciences such as biology.What areas of physics are you referring to? Cosmology is largely hypothetical, mechanics is not, nor are the laws of thermodynamics.

You talk of 'theoretical potentiality' all the time and yet you portray an image of certainty.Are you more concerned with what I say or how I say it? You’re tossing Quine at me which suggest that you’re more than intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Value judgement. Prove it. Maybe you are making this 'complicated world' theory up. Prove it? I can only point out that no one so far seems to have achieved it. But if it’s not difficult why don’t you disprove my ‘value judgment’ by showing how easy it is to discern what is absolutely, irrefutably true.
But if you have nothing that is certain... then what is your reality raithere? Nothingness? If reality can 'slip away', then you are saying that there actually IS A REALITY. One that is more real than others, one that we should all have fiath in and which you, yourself, proclaim to have faith in finding.My subjective reality is based in congruency rather than assumptions of truth. As for any absolute reality, I remain unsure, although I find it quite likely that it is beyond our ken. I have no faith that we'll find anything of the sort but I applaud the effort.
Who was I to be thinking that certain physical theories which prone the end of the universe by energy depletion of by having the universe implode on itself?The energy would return to the ground state from which it came or be compressed into a singularity in this case… it wouldn’t ‘go away’.
Then come back and talk about it when it is proven... you seem to demand such an unrealistic standard from others when it comes to physics. There is a difference between an unproven hypothesis and a disproved hypothesis. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what the difference is.
Nice theory. You forgot to replace 'essentially' with 'most likely according with the theory'.Yes, I can accept that.

Here is a nice Big bang counter-claim from HavardThanks for the interesting link but apparently you missed this; "Matter, energy and space-time are conserved. They're interchangeable," which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Eventhought everyone believes in them (as they do with gravity), these laws do not necessarily represent or explain by themselves the entirety of the higher laws of physics that make thermo-dynamics possible.
…
Thus, I am not the madman you make me out to be when I hypothise that the cosmos is not necessarily acting under the cruda and basic laws of thermo-dynamics alone.That does not mean that they’re invalid. Relativity did not invalidate classical physics, it supplemented it. Now perhaps there is some ‘out’, I’m willing to entertain the possibility but the arguments you have given do not support your initial position.

Basically, what you’re trying to do here is support your position by hypothesizing that perhaps maybe someday we’ll find out that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply in all conditions or to the Universe as a whole. Perhaps we will but that does not equate with “From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature”. You have not been able to demonstrate that assertion.

~Raithere

Physics theories are hypotheses backed up by empirical observation,

Not as a general rule. Go read my post above yours.


Cosmology is largely hypothetical
Glad you admit that cosmology (a form of science) isn't a guarantee. We are making progress.

You’re tossing Quine

I feel sorry that you feel overwhelmed by my 'tossing' of him.
But then again, maybe you feel that way because you simply can't reply to him.
And be assured, I understand Quine.

can only point out that no one so far seems to have achieved it. But if it’s not difficult why don’t you disprove my ‘value judgment’ by showing how easy it is to discern what is absolutely, irrefutably true.

If I were to live in the renaissance, I would say:
"I cannot doubt that I doubt"

But if I try something new, I could say that:

Is it good to 'beat some sense' into someone? (example of certain cultures of just foolish people that our just like us who believe that violence has a purpose, such as hitting one's wife to 'correct' her)
To that I say:
"the benefits of receiving a punch is relative, but the pain is universal"

1-The results of having given a blow may or may not yield the desired results.
2-But the one thing that is absolute is that the pain inflicted applies to every case.

And since it is counter-survival to sustain trauma, (physically as well as psychologically), then we should never hit people in the objective of 'correcting' them.

Easy enough?

My subjective reality is based in congruency rather than assumptions of truth. As for any absolute reality, I remain unsure, although I find it quite likely that it is beyond our ken. I have no faith that we'll find anything of the sort but I applaud the effort.

1-You start off with an assumption... but I'll let it slide.
2-'Maybe' it is beyond us.
3-You applaud the effort? Can you actually find any segment of the 942 posts you have written and show me where you 'applauded the effort'? I think what you meant is ridicule the effort and made sure no further attempts would be made...

The energy would return to the ground state from which it came or be compressed into a singularity in this case… it wouldn’t ‘go away’.

But it would reduce\modify itself? Thats decaying enough for me.

All in all, raithere's attitude is more noble than his claims:

He admits to not fully adhere to a particular scientific theory, but on the other hand, he seems to attribute too much certainty to some particular physical concepts that remain theoritical at best.My certainty is a response to your initial position. I am quite certain that “All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal” is false. (emphasis mine) As to what is true… well, I’ve already given you my opinion on that.

Catch 22:
-Science is the only thing that speaks correctly of this world
-I admit that science has no absolutes and most likely never will
-------------
At the same time that science offers an incomplete understanding answer of this world, I must only consider this one.

So by being absolutly certain, he is only being absolutly subjective.When did I ever suggest that ‘science is the only thing that speak correctly of this world’ or that I must only consider this one?

~Raithere

Originally posted by Prisme
Glad you admit that cosmology (a form of science) isn't a guarantee. We are making progress. I never stated that it was, that was your assumption, I am glad we were able to correct it.
I feel sorry that you feel overwhelmed by my 'tossing' of him.
But then again, maybe you feel that way because you simply can't reply to him. I’m not overwhelmed or unable to reply to Quine, in fact I rather agree with him from an epistemological standpoint. We were, however, discussing what is scientifically demonstrable not epistemology.
You applaud the effort? Can you actually find any segment of the 942 posts you have written and show me where you 'applauded the effort'? I think what you meant is ridicule the effort and made sure no further attempts would be made.Participating in ”the effort” is what I am doing here so aside from my occasional attempts at humor pretty much all of my posts are part of it. As far as ‘applauding’ individual contributions, I have done so quite a few times. Look them up yourself or ask around.

I’ve explained the reasoning behind the stringency of my posts on numerous occasions but since you seem to be taking offense I will do so again. I tend to take a rather firm position and an abrupt tone when posting for a few reasons: One, clearly positioning my stand makes it easier for others to A) understand the point I am trying to make and B) refute or correct it. Two, it tends to evoke a response from others, which is why I am here in the first place. If you look through the variety of threads here you will notice an interesting trend; the more reasonably the post is written the less likely it is that anyone will respond to it. In fact I once responded with that very point to someone who was wondering why no one was replying to his topics.

As far as ridiculing, well, I apologize for that. Sarcasm seems to come off very strongly when written and I should be more careful with it.

But it would reduce\modify itself? Thats decaying enough for me.It doesn’t matter, the total energy would not diminish and the theoretical ‘rebounding Universe’ could do so indefinitely. If instead the Universe is infinite the term ‘closed system’ becomes meaningless in this context and entropy is only a localized (relatively speaking) phenomena. Another possibility would be that some factor causes a periodic ‘injection’ of energy into the system, sustaining it indefinitely. Or perhaps the Universe is a one time shot; it began, will expand forever, and matter/energy will eventually become so diffuse that nothing happens. All of these possibilities fit our observations to greater or lesser extents.

The disappearance of matter/energy from the Universe has not been observed, however, and the argument provided is quite simply invalid. While you might invent some hypothesis that would explain how matter/energy would disappear from the Universe such was not given in the argument, nor have you provided one. You have failed to provide a logical or evidential argument as to why the ‘atheistic’ response is invalid.

Getting back to your question, since your answer is not ‘demonstrable from a purely scientific standpoint’, and even disregarding hypothetical scientific explanations; there is no logical difference between attributing eternal existence to the Universe or to God. The assumed property of eternal existence is just that; assumed. We can equally apply the attribute to God’s Mom, if you like.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
[quote]Energy and the fundamental forces, however, do seem to be eternal in nature.
That is because they constitute nature, wouldn't you say? The question is; Is nature eternal?
Some, like the notion of a supernatural cause, are simply un-testable and meaningless.
That depends on what you term as "super-natural."
Even if we assume a supernatural cause, it tells us nothing. No further hypotheses can arise from such a supposition.
What is the use of hypothesis in direct knowledge?
There is no way, for instance, to jump from ‘a supernatural creator’ to ‘Yahweh.
What do you mean?
If the Universe is everything in ‘physical’ existence what is outside and how do you transfer energy there?
Where did the energy come from in the first place?
Is it safe to assume that wherever there is energy, there must be an energetic principle? If you don't think so, please state why?
If your hypothesis is that energy can leave the Universe or somehow go away then you must provide a mechanism for that and some way to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Maybe energy goes back to its original source.
If we were able to provide "a mechanism," to measure where the energy goes, that mechanism would also be part of the said energy and is in no position to go outside of itself, therefore all calculations would be, in part, speculation. So in effect physical science has no jurisdiction.
We know that energy can come from nothing (virtual particles from a quantum fluctuation).
Where do these various particles/quantum fluctuation come from?
Mathematically there is nothing that prevents all the energy in the Universe coming from nothing as long as it eventually returns to nothing.
Then what you mean is "something" as opposed to "nothing," because surely "nothing" means "nothing" including energy.
Truth is a hard thing to come by; in fact it is nearly impossible.
Is this a general, across-the-board claim, or is it a personal claim?
If the former, then please explain to me how you can speak for everybody (all species) living, or have lived, on this planet?
The moment you are absolutely certain of something, the moment you hold faith in your mind, reality beings to slip away from you.
Having faith doesn't mean your certain, it means you believe something based on some kind of authority, in the hope that you will become certain in due course of time. When certainty is reached, there is no need of faith. The reality is dependant on the authority.
The Universe is not static, it is always changing, and if we could really understand the immensity of that which we do not know and how much of what we thing we know is wrong… well most people probably could not handle it… they are so certain.
Nothing (including ourselves), is static, everything is changing, which is one of the basic laws of the matter.
1) comes into being
2) develops/grows
3) produces by-product
4) dwindles
5) vanishes
When your car doesn’t start do you check the gas and the battery or do you perform an exorcism to drive the demon out of your engine block?
When someone is possessed by a demon, do you check the gas or battery in your car, or do you go to someone who knows the art of exorcism.
Physics matters because it works.

But not with everything.

Love

Jan Ardena.

That is because they constitute nature, wouldn't you say? The question is; Is nature eternal?

Define nature...


Where did the energy come from in the first place?

The first law of thermodynamics quite clearly states that energy is never created or destroyed. It is just transferred. There is rock solid evidence and successful results in controlled experiments to support this law.

Therefore, energy is eternal.


Is it safe to assume that wherever there is energy, there must be an energetic principle? If you don't think so, please state why?

Please explain. What do you mean by an energetic principle?


Maybe energy goes back to its original source.
If we were able to provide "a mechanism," to measure where the energy goes, that mechanism would also be part of the said energy and is in no position to go outside of itself, therefore all calculations would be, in part, speculation. So in effect physical science has no jurisdiction.

HUH?


Then what you mean is "something" as opposed to "nothing," because surely "nothing" means "nothing" including energy.

Nothing means 'nothing'.


When someone is possessed by a demon, do you check the gas or battery in your car, or do you go to someone who knows the art of exorcism.

I would laugh, because I lack belief in demons.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics matters because it works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But not with everything.

You do have an example to support that claim, don't you?

Originally posted by mountainhare
[quote]Define nature...

What is generally perceived via the senses.

It is just transferred.
Therefore, energy is eternal.

OK, so where was it transferred from.

Please explain. What do you mean by an energetic principle?

If something moves from A to B, then what is the mover, or in other words for there to be energy, there must be the energetic.

Nothing means 'nothing'.

Then how can energy come out of "nothing."


I would laugh, because I lack belief in demons.

Because you lack belief, doesn't mean demons don't exist.


You do have an example to support that claim, don't you?

Lets begin with intuition.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Well,

I'm glad that the participants of this thread are all enjoying themselves.

When did I ever suggest that ‘science is the only thing that speak correctly of this world’ or that I must only consider this one?

I'll admit that this was an assumption on my part raithere. But if my assumption is predjudice... please do correct me by informing me of the others methods that you consider usable.


we were disscussing what is scientifically demonstrable not epistemology

Epistomology:
Knowledge of knowlwdge.. or more commonly said to be the science of knowledge.

If we are unable to define how we know, then we cannot speak of what is 'scientifiaclly demonstrable'.

I maintain that Quine's epirtemology can be used to criticize applicable\theoretical science.


As far as ridiculing, well, I apologize for that. Sarcasm seems to come off very strongly when written and I should be more careful with it.

I apologize too raithere, for I sometimes have spills also. I can take this whole debating business too seriously sometimes.

While you might invent some hypothesis that would explain how matter/energy would disappear from the Universe such was not given in the argument, nor have you provided one

If it would please you for me to find such a theory, I will try to find one and post it here.
I'll type: proton decay.

Jan,

Most of your statements seem to reflect a need to revise basic physics.

Because you lack belief, doesn't mean demons don't exist. But lack of proof does mean they are fictional.

Physics matters because it works.

*** But not with everything.

You do have an example to support that claim, don't you?

*** Lets begin with intuition.It is not intuitive that combining certain gasses produces a liquid, it is not intuitive that combining certain toxic substances results in something edible. It is because most things in reality are not intuitive that we developed the scientific method.

What do you find intuitive that leads you to believe that in some cases physics does not work?

Originally posted by Cris
What do you find intuitive that leads you to believe that in some cases physics does not work?

Try this one Cris,

"If free will produces physical effects which cannot be accounted for by physical forces, then its action does not conserve energy. And it has been long held that if ‘free will’ does not conserve energy, it cannot occur."

Please show us how can Physics explain such a simple for granted action like free will.

Originally posted by Flores
Try this one Cris,

"If free will produces physical effects which cannot be accounted for by physical forces, then its action does not conserve energy. And it has been long held that if ‘free will’ does not conserve energy, it cannot occur."

Please show us how can Physics explain such a simple for granted action like free will.

You might try first showing that free will exists. Physics cannot explain how a Pegasus flies either. But this hardly counts against physics.

Originally posted by drnihili
You might try first showing that free will exists. Physics cannot explain how a Pegasus flies either. But this hardly counts against physics.

I have a free will to call you an idiot and type my words or pay attention to my work. I choose to call you an idiot. Is this enough of a free will demonstration, or would you like me to show you more.

Plus, is this physics of yours so damn stupid that it can't begin to understand the human brain and how it functions.

Originally posted by Flores
I have a free will to call you an idiot and type my words or pay attention to my work. I choose to call you an idiot. Is this enough of a free will demonstration, or would you like me to show you more.

Plus, is this physics of yours so damn stupid that it can't begin to understand the human brain and how it functions.

No, that's not a demonstration.

If you just want physics to explain the bare hypothesis of free will, then it is trivial to do so. Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.

There, see how easy that is? It's even compatible with certain theories of free will.

Now I don't pretend you will accept that explanation, and you shouldn't. But neither need physics accept a challenge to explain a process that is defined solely by how it's not obeying physics. Your challenge is a sham until you can spell out enough about free will, from plausible premises, so that it can be studied. You haven't done that. You've merely asserted that there is free will and that whatever it is, it doesn't ovey physics. THen you challenge physics to prove you wrong. It can't of course, because your challenge is bogus.

You can call me names and curse all you want. Perhaps that's what your religion teaches you to do. But it doesn't change the logic of the situation nor bolster your position. It just makes you look petulant.

Originally posted by drnihili
No, that's not a demonstration.
If you just want physics to explain the bare hypothesis of free will, then it is trivial to do so. Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.


How easy is it to change your standards, if you have any. You went from there is no free will to free will is electrical impulses of the brain....You're pretty fast with your bull shit, but when it comes to understanding religion, you're quite slow and stupid. Anyways, so what are these impulses, aren't they energy, what moves the impulses across my body, and is this energy lost since I chose not to excute my impluses. Physics wouldn't agree that energy could be lost or destroyed, but I simply can loose an idea whether your physics agrees or not, it's not going to tell me how to behave.


Originally posted by drnihili
There, see how easy that is? It's even compatible with certain theories of free will.

Easy??? As easy as brain surgeries, but I don't recommend that career of study for you, you're a bit rash with your conclusions.

Originally posted by drnihili
Now I don't pretend you will accept that explanation, and you shouldn't. But neither need physics accept a challenge to explain a process that is defined solely by how it's not obeying physics. Your challenge is a sham until you can spell out enough about free will, from plausible premises, so that it can be studied. You haven't done that. You've merely asserted that there is free will and that whatever it is, it doesn't ovey physics. THen you challenge physics to prove you wrong. It can't of course, because your challenge is bogus.

Bogus idiots take bogus challenges. So why do you, is your free will weak minded or somthing. Plus, I'm not about to give you an idea for a PHD, you wouldn't know what to do with an idea if it hit you upside the head.

Originally posted by drnihili
You can call me names and curse all you want. Perhaps that's what your religion teaches you to do. But it doesn't change the logic of the situation nor bolster your position. It just makes you look petulant.

Lalalalallalala, your Atheist tune is way off, go and tune your song little boy, before you serinade us with your nonesense....

Originally posted by Cris
[quote]Most of your statements seem to reflect a need to revise basic physics.

Such as?

But lack of proof does mean they are fictional.

No it doesn't, it means "lack of proof."

It is not intuitive that combining certain gasses produces a liquid, it is not intuitive that combining certain toxic substances results in something edible.

Not from our perspective, but it is not unreasonable to assume that these combinations weren't originally made and combined by an intelligent being, and if so, maybe intuitevly.

It is because most things in reality are not intuitive that we developed the scientific method.

What do you regard as reality, and is your reality standard??
You say "most things," so i assume "some things" in your reality are intuitive, what are they?
Scientific method is being developed, it is by no means perfect.

What do you find intuitive that leads you to believe that in some cases physics does not work?

What i mean by "it doesn't work," is that the laws of physics do not apply to certain things.
Intuition itself cannot be understood by the laws of physics.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Flores
How easy is it to change your standards, if you have any. You went from there is no free will to free will is electrical impulses of the brain....You're pretty fast with your bull shit, but when it comes to understanding religion, you're quite slow and stupid.

Actually, if you would learn to read, you would see that I didn't deny the existence of free will. I merely asked for evidence of it. However, you seem to prefer name calling to discussion. I hope you're happy when your children learn that from you. As for my understanding of religion, it's certainly not something you would have any idea about. If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.

Anyways, so what are these impulses, aren't they energy, what moves the impulses across my body, and is this energy lost since I chose not to excute my impluses. Physics wouldn't agree that energy could be lost or destroyed, but I simply can loose an idea whether your physics agrees or not, it's not going to tell me how to behave.

As stated, energy is neither lost nor destroyed. The impluses constitute both your action and your will. But the point again is that your challenge is bogus. I notice you have yet to address anything of substance.


Easy??? As easy as brain surgeries, but I don't recommend that career of study for you, you're a bit rash with your conclusions

Bogus idiots take bogus challenges. So why do you, is your free will weak minded or somthing. Plus, I'm not about to give you an idea for a PHD, you wouldn't know what to do with an idea if it hit you upside the head.


Again, try reading. And when you've learned that art, try thinking about what you read. As for a PhD, I have no plans to get any more of them, thank you.

Originally posted by drnihili
However, you seem to prefer name calling to discussion.Then...Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite. Jesus once said you should make sure you don't have a fault before you go accusing others of it... in seeming disgust... maybe we should have a read of what He reportedly said... obviously, as illustrated, some of it makes sense.:)

I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.
I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.


Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.

This is false. Hard sciences study what is constant. Soft sciences study what is hypothetical and not so constant.

Although biology is a hard science, psychology is a social science (<-- polite word for soft science)
So sure, you could reduce free will to brain electrodes. But you would be then missing the whole picture of humans: they are fundementally irrational and more complex than electric laws.
If it were true that only electricity within neurones would dictate our behavior, then our behavior would be perfect... for the balance of the brain would respect the laws of energy flawlessly.

Of course, we all know this is false. We interveen in our thought process. We ask ourselves questions, we hesitate, we feel, we record events and sometimes we don't even know why we do what we do.

When a bad psychiatrist meets a depressive patient, he gives him dope to reajust his brain biology. When a good psychologist meets a depressed patient, he will dig up what caused the depressive state, thus inbalance, and try to resolve it cognitively.
Ex: Father dies, become depressed.

-One will only see brain cells which need drugs
-The other see's a psyche that needs to be cognitively\behaviorily 'reajusted'

I think it is sad that people really reduce themselves to being somekind of complicated Atari ping-pong game... a sort of automotic response device that reacts to a moving ball.

Of course, most of us appreciate the complexity of our existence and do not wish to over-simplify in order to get fast and easy answers.

Prisme

Originally posted by Prisme
Cheap shot... merely dodging the real question at hand .:rolleyes:

I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.
I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.

Feel no shame to be replied this way with an insult, it means you have won.


Prisme

Not physically impossible to say that the electrical impulse in my brain is one of many,scientists cannot debunk the idea of a multiverse where more than one action is taken,theres a version of me not writing this,theres versions of me with worse and/or better grammer and spelling,hell theres even a version of me where im telling you theres a god and you are an atheist.

In this case free will is seemingly existent from our point of view,but the electical impulse in the brain that makes the decision is just one of many at the same time,but if you were standing from the outside looking into this multiverse it would look like there were no free will,just everybody doing everything,the world trade center is still standing from an outside point of view but not from ours,that kind of thing.

No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.

It's like when you're walking in a dark alley and then you asshole friend jumps out of the dark and gives you the fright of your life.

You have a scare and then realize everything is o.k.
But then you notice your heart is racing, your pupils are dialated, your muscles are contracted, your mouth is dry and you are sweating... these are all survival instincts made by the brain.

However! What made the brain react????
Your false sense that danger was present. Your psychological interpretation of the event! Not a bunch of brain cells that cannot know the difference between night and day.

As Leibniz once said:

"If it were true that the body was nothing more than cells, then one could enter it like they enter a cathedral."

His point is that we are not cathedrals, we are not built as objects. We are fundementally different from other objects, for we have an invisible conscience: something that lives in us and shows that we are not only our bodies.


Prisme

Originally posted by Prisme
No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.

It's like when you're walking in a dark alley and then you asshole friend jumps out of the dark and gives you the fright of your life.

You have a scare and then realize everything is o.k.
But then you notice your heart is racing, your pupils are dialated, your muscles are contracted, your mouth is dry and you are sweating... these are all survival instincts made by the brain.

However! What made the brain react????
Your false sense that danger was present. Your psychological interpretation of the event! Not a bunch of brain cells that cannot know the difference between night and day.

As Leibniz once said:

"If it were true that the body was nothing more than cells, then one could enter it like they enter a cathedral."

His point is that we are not cathedrals, we are not built as objects. We are fundementally different from other objects, for we have an invisible conscience: something that lives in us and shows that we are not only our bodies.


Prisme

I think youll find the electrical impulses do change reactions,your brain is a chemical machine,the electrical impulses come from chemical reactions,in fact thats where the electricity comes from,the chemicals,changing the chemistry technically changes free will,theres areas of the brain that can be manipulated so that your personality changes.

This means the YOU isnt you its a quantum decisive event according to the brain chemistry and condition at the current time.

The brain is in two sections,what happens when i cut the contact between the two?
you become two people but the same brain,one side of your body does one thing,while the other side might do another,you would still be you not actually two people,however drugs can change you.

Conciousness is just the self awareness that exists from complexity,animals have varying degrees of conciousness also and intelligence,our brain is an evolution over them and hence more complex.

We could probably make a computer aware of itself eventually a quantum computer would make this more likely,and if you made a system a cross between electronic/chemical mechanical you might get it complex enough to act human and possibly even aware of itself.

Originally posted by MarcAC
Then... Jesus once said you should make sure you don't have a fault before you go accusing others of it... in seeming disgust... maybe we should have a read of what He reportedly said... obviously, as illustrated, some of it makes sense.:)

Too bad Jesus didn't say anything about not taking quotes out of context. You'll notice I did not say she was a hypocrite. I said:


If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.


My favorite out of context quote, comes from the bible. It is


Judas went out and hanged himself [...] go ye therefore and do likewise.


This is not intended, btw, and an admonition that you or anyone else hang themselves, it is merely a demonstration of how far afield out of context quotes can take you. This is why careful reading is such an important skill. Lack of that skill is what makes most of this thread pretty close to gibberish.

Originally posted by Prisme
I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.


Then once again you have failed to read.


I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.


No, begging the question is problematic. Free will has logical problems not physical problems. You spell out what you mean by free will in a way that is relatively cogent, and I'll tell you how physics can deal with it in as much detail as you define it. Providing of course that you don't beg the question against physics by presupposing supernatural entities. Clearly that wouldn't be legitimate debate.

The rest of your post bears so little resemblance to reality as to not warrant a detailed response. I recommend studying the sciences, both soft and hard, a bit more. You clearly don't have the distinctions down. Also, you should take a look at the free will literature from both the psychological and brain science perspectives. A basic overview of philosophical positions with respect to it would also be in order, as would a review of the wide variety of religious perspectives on the subject. WHat you claim to be obvious and well known is anything but. It may indded be apparent to you that that is how the world is, but it's not apparent to the people who make their life's work studying the issue.

Originally posted by Prisme
No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.



This is indeed how it appears from the inside. However, if you'll take the time to read the research on the subject, you'll find it somewhat less cut and dried.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
That is because they constitute nature, wouldn't you say? The question is; Is nature eternal?It’s hard to say, there are various arguments either way but none of them are decisive.

That depends on what you term as "super-natural."In this case, “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material”. While I realize this introduces certain circular references, the concept of the supernatural (magical or miraculous if you prefer) is not very well defined.

What is the use of hypothesis in direct knowledge?Wow, that’s a big question. I hope you don’t mind if I try to synthesize a brief answer rather than go into a full justification. A hypothesis, conceptually, is a method for deriving meaning from the raw datum of experience. While specifically I am referring to the rather formal method of explanation and testing used in science generally it is a method that we all use.

What do you mean? If we could prove, scientifically, that nature/the Universe is not sufficient cause for its own existence and thereby demonstrate the necessity of a preceding cause it reveals nothing aside from that fact. Nothing further can be attributed to it besides the principle of primary cause. One cannot make a leap to Yahweh, Gaia, or whomever. At best you have Aristotle’s ‘Unmoved Mover’ a principle of perfection that creates without action or volition.

Where did the energy come from in the first place?
Is it safe to assume that wherever there is energy, there must be an energetic principle? If you don't think so, please state why?I’m not sure what you mean by ‘energetic principle’ but observation seems to indicate that what we tend to think of as nothing is actually roiling with activity. The ground state of the Universe contains an intrinsic potential for existence.

Maybe energy goes back to its original source.
If we were able to provide "a mechanism," to measure where the energy goes, that mechanism would also be part of the said energy and is in no position to go outside of itself, therefore all calculations would be, in part, speculation. So in effect physical science has no jurisdiction.No, that wouldn’t be the case, ideally. If energy were leaving the Universe we could quite easily measure its loss as long as we were in a position to do so. One might, for instance, posit that energy ‘boils off’ of the ‘surface’ of the Universe. We could measure that, provided we could reach the ‘surface’ of the Universe. Of course, until we could get there and measure the loss the hypothesis would remain only a hypothesis. Meanwhile every experiment thus far has only shown that energy is always conserved.

Prisme’s adopted argument is that the Universe is ‘winding down’, that it contains less energy than it once did which necessitates that he provide someplace for this energy to go. I’ve already mentioned the prime possibilities… I’m willing to consider others but they must be posited. In any case, his assertion has most definitely not been ‘demonstrated’.

Where do these various particles/quantum fluctuation come from?The background potential sometimes called ‘vacuum energy’ which is somewhat misleading. In an attempt to explain what I should probably leave to the professionals; Quantum physics seems to show us that, quite contrary to our classical perspective, nothing smaller than an atom (and even maybe including atoms) is really static, there is a level of indeterminacy that cannot be reduced. This even includes what we conventionally thing of as nothing or a vacuum. This indeterminate state allows for the spontaneous occurrence of particles from nothing as long as those particles eventually return to ‘nothing’. That this occurs has been demonstrated by experiment.

Then what you mean is "something" as opposed to "nothing," because surely "nothing" means "nothing" including energy. Nope, I mean nothing, see above paragraph. I realize it is a difficult concept. I certainly do not understand it fully.

Is this a general, across-the-board claim, or is it a personal claim?
If the former, then please explain to me how you can speak for everybody (all species) living, or have lived, on this planet? I’m speaking of, as I believe I indicated, absolute truth. There are all sorts of truths but most of them are relative, dependant upon definition and various frames of reference. For instance: 1+1=2 is only true if we agree upon what 1, 2, and = mean as well as the function of +.

Having faith doesn't mean your certain, it means you believe something based on some kind of authority, in the hope that you will become certain in due course of time. When certainty is reached, there is no need of faith. The reality is dependant on the authority. Faith means many things, not excluding my use of it, which is why I tend to use it less and less. But even using your definition I find it a poor replacement for independent rational thought and even personal experience (as you mention).

Nothing (including ourselves), is static, everything is changingThat is what I said.

which is one of the basic laws of the matter.
1) comes into being
2) develops/grows
3) produces by-product
4) dwindles
5) vanishesWhile this seems apparent on a macroscopic level, we have found that this is not actually what happens. Matter changes form but (aside from the temporary virtual particles I mentioned before, which is why they’re called virtual) never seems to come into being or vanish. There are some hypothetical situations whereby the Universe as a whole may do this and whereby virtual particles may be able to do this on an individual basis but neither has been demonstrated.

When someone is possessed by a demon, do you check the gas or battery in your car, or do you go to someone who knows the art of exorcism.The first person I would have them see is a doctor, failing that a psychiatrist, then maybe if all else fails I would take them to an exorcist in the hopes that the psychology of the delusional person might respond to a ‘remedy’ that fit the theme of their experience.

But not with everything. Agreed. I would not take the above person to see a physicist. ;)

~Raithere

Originally posted by Prisme
If we are unable to define how we know, then we cannot speak of what is 'scientifiaclly demonstrable'. In which case we might as well throw all of the arguments out the window until the question of epistemology is answered.
Just remember, I’m not the one who started this argument by stating my position was scientifically demonstrable.

I maintain that Quine's epirtemology can be used to criticize applicable\theoretical science.To a degree, yes. Although, if I recall correctly ‘any fact’ may regarded as true or false by adjusting the overall background of assumptions. This is not something you see science doing everyday. Paradigmatic shifts come about somewhat rarely and even then the total background does not shift. In part, this is related to my evaluation of how successful a particular paradigm is. For instance, one will note historically how often the Christian paradigm has had to shift radically due to rather simple scientific facts. Science on the other hand not only seems to shift less often (although I will grant that it has a much shorter history) in its fundamental principles and beliefs but is methodologically ‘aware’ of this.

I apologize too raithere, for I sometimes have spills also. I can take this whole debating business too seriously sometimes. It wouldn’t be so much fun if it weren’t so emotionally evocative. But earnestly, I feel a kinship with most of the people here. After all, we’re all in the same boat (although maybe not on the same deck) and many of us are on the same quest as well.
If it would please you for me to find such a theory, I will try to find one and post it here. I'll type: proton decay.I’m only vaguely familiar with it but I’ll look it up.

~Raithere

yeah the proton will decay,not for trillions of years though,not worth worrying about,we just know the universe is in the order of decay and its doomed and christians dont like it.

I wouldnt be surprised if they all lobbied together to ban the second law of thermodynamics.

Ahhh no entropy,we dont want it!

Conciousness is just the self awareness that exists from complexity,animals have varying degrees of conciousness also and intelligence,our brain is an evolution over them and hence more complex.

Your use (and sciences) use of the word complex, is just another word for "we don't know what the hell we are talking about."

You call 'complex' what is evident: the subjective consciousness that has yet to be physically explained.

I think youll find the electrical impulses do change reactions,your brain is a chemical machine,the electrical impulses come from chemical reactions,in fact thats where the electricity comes from,the chemicals,changing the chemistry technically changes free will,theres areas of the brain that can be manipulated so that your personality changes

Again you look at the phenomenon backwards.
Of course a brain surgeon that lobotomize a brain will alter its personality\brain activity.

But the fact of the matter ism this is not how the world and our brains interact. Our brains are carefully out of reach of outside interference.. it is operating independantly and most likely, the way it should operate.
The brain surgeon is not 'changing me', he is sabotaging circuits. He is merely preventing the natural order and circulation of energy that my personality\inttelect has formed over the years that I have observed and manipulated the world.

Ever heard that every brain has its own circuitry? Kind of like a fingerprint or DNA?
Now if our brains were made all the same like hearts or livers, maybe I could believe that the brain is only a piece of mechanical machinery. But this is not the case. The brain is unique, its neurones, synapses and patterns are all made involuntarily (like breathing) while on the other hand our volition is clearly voluntary.

We could probably make a computer aware of itself eventually a quantum computer would make this more likely,and if you made a system a cross between electronic/chemical mechanical you might get it complex enough to act human and possibly even aware of itself.

This is besides the point. We are talking of how the human (organic) brain functions... not Mhz, RAM or pentium processors.
In the advent of an intelligent computer, you can claim everything you have claimed to be true about electrodes... but only on the machine that was created, not concerning humans, for we are clearly not assembled and made like your hypothetical machine.

The machine would have never built itself, programers will have given it what it required to become what it would be. On the other hand, humans do seem to come from nothing(or at least the first amebea that eventually started to think comes from nowhere). You could claim evolution of the computers. But I hardly think that sentient computers would have the sudden urge to upgrade their offsprings... but then again, the fact that we built the first one would account for any such behavior.

If you would ever claim that your machine is a direct replica of sentient humans, then you would have to explain to the world who 'programed' us (our brains).
Either way, you are trapped: either the machine is not truly a replica of us and we are other than purely a machine... or we are machines and we have a necessary Creator\Programer.

I will never understand why so many scientists think they will explain the human mind or eliminate God by making a sentient machine... it just doesn't make any sense. If they bothered to think of the logical consequences, maybe they would give it a rest.

I believe my example of the starttled man in the alley withstands your critique... Iit wasn't at all addressed.

Prisme

Originally posted by Prisme
Your use (and sciences) use of the word complex, is just another word for "we don't know what the hell we are talking about."You keep asserting this and it simply isn’t true. Complex in science means, well, complex: “A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts.” (AHD)

But the fact of the matter ism this is not how the world and our brains interact. Our brains are carefully out of reach of outside interference.. it is operating independantly and most likely, the way it should operate.That the mind can be altered by physical affects indicates the exact opposite. Drugs, trauma, surgery, magnetic fields, all can affect the functioning on the mind and the fact that they can affect the brain is simply obvious. Perhaps you are trying to say something else here?

I will never understand why so many scientists think they will explain the human mind or eliminate God by making a sentient machine... it just doesn't make any sense. If they bothered to think of the logical consequences, maybe they would give it a rest. Creating a conscious entity would not eliminate God, it would prove that conscious can be caused through physical processes and that a supernatural explanation is therefore unnecessary. It would eliminate the need for God to explain consciousness.

~Raithere

Sorry for the delay but I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaking this for something else. Proton Decay, once again, provides for no loss of matter/energy from the Universe. The hypothesis under various GUTs is that protons might decay into a positron and photon. Matter is not lost but converted into energy, both sides of the equation balance out.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Prisme
Can some atheist please tell me what is wrong with the following statement?

If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe.

....All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal,

Enjoy.
______

I don't know where you got it from, but the guy seems to have skipped some of the science classes in high school.

If the hydrogen in stars is consumed - and by the way, our sun is possibly a THIRD generation star, built from the garbage thrown out when other stars exploded - does that mean the hydrogen stops existing? No, of course not.

The matter is eternal. Existing in the form of hydrogen is not.



http://www.dreamworksfansite.com/spirit/presskit/Storyboard_Room.jpg

You keep asserting this and it simply isn’t true. Complex in science means, well, complex: “A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts.” (AHD)

To use a word for its meanning is fine with me. It is when people say that 'man is a complex machine' in order to excuse the lack of evidence to support their claims that I perceive the word complex as being maliciously used.

That the mind can be altered by physical affects indicates the exact opposite. Drugs, trauma, surgery, magnetic fields, all can affect the functioning on the mind and the fact that they can affect the brain is simply obvious. Perhaps you are trying to say something else here?

I don't know what I said to make you believe that I was contesting the claims that some outside entities could alter the brain. I was just pointing out that the brain usually functions pretty well on its own.
I was saying this in order to elaborate on the topic at hand which was: that all of these external 'interferences' do not necessarily prove that the brain dictate the individual in his volition.


Creating a conscious entity would not eliminate God, it would prove that conscious can be caused through physical processes and that a supernatural explanation is therefore unnecessary. It would eliminate the need for God to explain consciousness.

I am not ready to conceide anything yet on that idea. Creating a conscious machine would only add probability to the argument of design for no such sentient machine could have ever been possibly created on its own (by natural processes of evolution.)

Even if the machine ever truly becomes conscious (not programmed to act consciously) then their would be another problem: how would consciousness be possible without a programmer?
(programmer: individual that places all the parts together and organized their harmonious interdependance and capability of recognition between each part)

Thus the two problems still remain:

1- How was OUR consciousness 'made\originated'?

2- Is outside interference necessary to create such consciousness?

In the event of a conscious machine, we would not be able to answer any of these two questions in the favor in which you proclaim... it would certainly go in the opposite direction.

You see!?!

Riley said:
"I don't know where you got this statement..."

I knew that I was clear enough.

Originally posted by drnihili
Too bad Jesus didn't say anything about not taking quotes out of context. You'll notice I did not say she was a hypocrite. I said:I don't know everything He said, nor do you, who knows... maybe he did?If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.'If' connotes uncertainty, therefore your statement has a double meaning, in essence, because no one knows anything personal about Flores except... God himself? Therefore if it goes one way you were doing the thing that disgusts you so much, if the other way you weren't. However, you sure covered for both possibilities in which case you still did it. Do better next time please.:)

Prisme,

Creating a conscious machine would only add probability to the argument of design for no such sentient machine could have ever been possibly created on its own (by natural processes of evolution.)You appear to be erroneously excluding man and man’s intelligence from nature. Man is part of nature and has evolved to have intelligence; hence intelligence is part of evolution. The use of that intelligence to build complex machines is still a function of nature and evolution.

The evolutionary arrival of a conscious machine will be the result of natural evolution where the role of man was that of a catalyst and not a creator.

But let’s not deceive ourselves that man will tomorrow design a conscious machine. I suspect such a machine is inevitable but it will take man many attempts to make it work. The whole process will yet again be an evolutionary process, with many rejects and errors, in a very similar way that the electronic computer has evolved over the past 60 years and is still evolving.

There is a temptation to consider man as something special, but he is not. In terms of the evolutionary history of life man is a very recent arrival and the evolution of intelligence probably means that he will not stay as he is for very long since he is already starting to take control of the next stages in his own evolution, e.g. genetic engineering.

Even if the machine ever truly becomes conscious (not programmed to act consciously) then their would be another problem: how would consciousness be possible without a programmer?
(programmer: individual that places all the parts together and organized their harmonious interdependance and capability of recognition between each part)If you teach a child to ride a bike are you then always responsible for ensuring the child maintains correct balance and control. No of course not. All you have done is initiated a sequence and the child has adapted and learnt and becomes independent.

The key components of the human brain are its ability to learn and adapt. The key components of an AI machine will have similar capabilities. The human brain comprises essentially a very simple mechanism, the neuron. But when 200 billion of them interact with each other and form patterns then what you see is “consciousness”. Note that all your brain patterns weren’t programmed; they were formed gradually over time from the time your brain first formed inside the womb. A new born baby has very few capabilities since those complex neural networks haven’t formed.

An AI machine only needs the essential learning seed for it to grow just like a human brain. It is the development of such seeds that are the focus of much development in the field of AI.

Thus the two problems still remain:

1- How was OUR consciousness 'made\originated'?The basic mechanism (the neurons) evolved and sensory input allowed them to learn.

2- Is outside interference necessary to create such consciousness?No, only sensory input.

In the event of a conscious machine, we would not be able to answer any of these two questions in the favor in which you proclaim... it would certainly go in the opposite direction.I hope I have convinced you otherwise.