quote:Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:quote:Originally posted by midacts:quote:Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
In the beginning, there was the Big Bang. A quantum flux necessity triggered the existence of the Universe from nothing. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle explains it all. From where the Big Bang came is a mystery, if indeed it is a valid question, but smart individuals of our species are contemplating it. What is certain is that all of time, space, and energy emerged at this time. Nobody and nothing existed before.
In the first second after the BB, there was only one force. Soon thereafter, the four known forces of the Universe emerged. Darkness was the state of all existence for thousands of years, because fusion is a function of stars and stars did not emerge for a very long time.
According to Einstein, force and matter are algebraic expressions of each other. In the hot, early stages of the Universe, some energy transformed into matter. And Einstein said “it is good”.
Thus, matter and energy exist.
Well within one second after the BB, quarks congealed. Protons and neutrons emerge, at about one second after the BB. And we consider it good, because we depend on them. This was 13.7 Billion years ago.
About 7 billion years ago, the Sun formed from material that was created from the previous quark compilation into matter and from matter that came from earlier stars’ violent lifecycles. And we consider this good, as well, because we are made of starstuff. Thank the stars for your existence. They gave their lives so that we live.
Soon thereafter, say, 1.5 Billion years, from the matter left over in the gravity well of the Sun, planets were formed. And we consider them good, because we cannot conceive of life anywhere else. Our own planet was a hellish place, with a molten surface and constantly subjected to severe meteor strikes. Comets struck as well, contributing water to the primitive system of the Earth. The early water was immediately evaporated, but as the Earth cooled, rained down enough to form the seas and rivers. And we find this is good, as we are made of water.
Surprisingly soon, life began. Earth was not like it is now. It had an atmosphere of methane, sulfur dioxide, and other corrosive compounds. But we are made of the same things. Chemicals, affected by heat and electricity, combined in countless forms. Some of them combined in forms that could replicate themselves. We have demonstrated this possibility in laboratories.
For about 2 billion years, these self-replicating chemicals became, very slowly, more complicated, as required to replicate more successfully. Eventually, they formed cellular life. And it was good, as we are cellular beings. Much trial and error was involved.
Cellular life flourished, as it was a successful evolutionary experiment. Due to natural mutation and Natural Selection, cellular life evolved into many forms. About half of those forms still exist today. And it was good, as we exist in one of those forms. All of these forms were in the water. This is understandable, since we are essentially made of water to this day. Water is good. And along the way, because of Natural Selection, life became dependent on the also corrosive oxygen that was emitted by plant life.
Inevitably, life emerged onto the land. First came the plants, then the insects, mutations of sea creatures. Perhaps the first more advanced animal was Tiktaalik. And it was wonderful and amazing that creatures made of water emerged into the harsh sunshine. Imagine how many species tried and failed.
Tiktaalik would be recognizable today. A vertebrate, symmetrical along his spine, with four limbs, perhaps a head, a neck, and internal organs similar to ours. And the evening and the morning was the sixth day. No need for further divine intervention, although none is required for any of this.
Species evolved. Cold-blooded reptiles became warm blooded. Mammals, such as us, evolved from them. Birds are the only remaining examples of dinosaurs; they are massively similar in structure.
Ecce Homo. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, humans evolved into our current form. We still have more in common with Tiktaalik than not. Bilaterally symmetrical, four limbs, a head with sensory organs, five phalanges on each limb, etc. This design dates to the Cambrian Explosion, hundreds of millions of years ago.
About 150,000 years ago, we emerged as humans. Other more-or-less human species emerged as well, but we survived. Luck had something to do with it.
About 40,000 years ago, we invented the gods. Our brains seek systems and patterns. These things serve us well, but we got carried away. We wanted to know why the sun rises and sets. We invented gods that explained it. We wanted to know why the seasons happened, and the tides ebbed and flowed, and the gods explained it.
And it was sufficient, until recently, and it was not good, but it was all we had.
And we invented worship. And we invented warfare for those barbarians who did not understand the proper gods. And we became incurious about the real nature of reality.
10,000 years or so ago, we invented agriculture. We began to domesticate animals. This was not so long ago, all things considered. These are important technologies we still enjoy. About 6000 years ago, we invented writing. This was yesterday.
And that is Genesis. From there, it becomes history.
For at least 100,000 years, humans have pondered the stars. Do orangutans ponder them now?
And man made god in his image, and in his ignorance.
But, didn't I see the naturalistic fallacy in there somewhere, Billy Joe BG? It seems a naturalism was assumed from the beginning.
Edited to add: I know it was not an argument, but an exposition or opinion, therefore, not subject to the naturalistic fallacy--strictly.
Mid,
Excellent post.
You seem to presume that scientific naturalism is a fallacy. Why is that?
Without scientific naturalism, we would be at the mercy of religious superstition to explain the cosmos, diversity of species, geology, genetics, and comparative anatomy, to name just a few.
The success of scientific naturalism has been so profound and clear, I can be forgiven for accepting it as a provisional outlook on life.
I presume you accuse me of evidence-based reason for the physical things in life. I plead Guilty. For the emotional things, there is no accounting. The question of God is physical, however. That is, if he is the Creator of the Universe.
Your implication is that naturalism is a fallacy is a weak attempt to try to put me on the defensive. To say that scientific naturalism is a fallacy is to misunderstand science and reason in general. I am not on the defensive; science, philosophy, and reason have prevailed every time in the minds of intelligent people.
Please defend your implication. Why is the study of the natural universe fallacious?
You might even go me one farther and tell me why supernaturalism, or unnaturalism is more valid than demonstrable scientific naturalism.
I'll be right here, waiting.
Good reading, Billy Joe.
I guess I'm just kinda skeptical about the limits of empirical knowledge; applying
the narrow science of naturalism to the macro-questions of origins seems like asking too much from a naturalistic theory.
The discussion you all were having about cause and effect was interesting. I do have a hard time invisaging an uncaused effect, as I think Billy Joe holds, i.e., that there was no first cause. I cannot imagine a series of cause and effect to go back infinitely. I do note that it has been said that cause and effect is merely a construct of the mind, anyways. I can see that...I'm somewhat Kantian in my philosophical heart...