Potentially Big News On The Human Evolution Front

[GrandizerII]

To get our terms correct, what you have said is true of the universe we live in. It might not be true (probably wouldn't be true) of what's outside it. It is a mistake to think of something outside the universe (assuming it exists) as not part of nature though. It is simply a part we may never be able to access but there would be nothing magical about it.

Further complicating things is that the idea of multiple universes (once a fringe idea) has gone mainstream. Each of those other universes could have its own laws of physics. I don't know what you would call the realm in which all these universes exist but it certainly wouldn't be bound by the physical laws we are used to. This is still speculative stuff but following on the things we do know about the cosmos is leading some physicists there. Like I said, still speculative but much further grounded than the idea of a timeless, supreme being. There is absolutely nothing bolstering that idea.

There is 0 proof that there's anything outside this universe in the first place. Much less that there is another universe where the physical laws would be different, and that this universe spawned from it.     

Don't you see what I'm saying? 

Maybe there's a different universe not bound by physical laws, and that's where this one somehow spawned from... maybe there's an actual entity not bound by physical laws that set this all into motion. There's no proof for either, and whichever way you go, you're taking your best guess.

And 0 proof of God. But we know the cosmos exists, so for now, it's more reasonable to believe the cosmos has always been. No need for God.

[Catholic_Lady]

There is 0 proof that there's anything outside this universe in the first place. Much less that there is another universe where the physical laws would be different, and that this universe spawned from it.     

Don't you see what I'm saying? 

Maybe there's a different universe not bound by physical laws, and that's where this one somehow spawned from... maybe there's an actual entity not bound by physical laws that set this all into motion. There's no proof for either, and whichever way you go, you're taking your best guess.

And 0 proof of God. 

Yes, I mentioned there is no proof of God. There is no proof of either route you take, that was my point. 

But we know the cosmos exists, so for now, it's more reasonable to believe the cosmos has always been. No need for God.

By "cosmos", you mean the universe, right? 

If so, then I disagree completely and think it's actually quite the opposite of what you've bolded. Because as I said earlier, there's been 0 evidence that anything in this universe could always have existed. Only evidence to the contrary - that the physical laws of our universe calls for things to have an origin.

We already know the big bang caused the cosmos, so we know they haven't always been here.

[Amarok]

Just some quick counters to some of CL's points 

1. No cosmos and universe are two different things 

2. We also don't see  supernatural things produce natural effects all we see and say we understand is natural producing nature . 

3. You can't compare two states of nature to a whole other metaphysical realm 

4 You can 't compare a set within the cosmos to the cosmos itself .You can't compare a set to it's components 

5. If we go by Carriers notion of nothing we get an sound notion of the likelihood of said even 

6. Science does not prove things 

7. A great deal of your arguments are incredulity . Not a statistical framework .

8. We know the cosmos exists their is zero evidence for a supernatural realm .

[Brian37]

Just some quick counters to some of CL's points 

1. No cosmos and universe are two different things 

2. We also don't see  supernatural things produce natural effects all we see and say we understand is natural producing nature . 

3. You can't compare two states of nature to a whole other metaphysical realm 

4 You can 't compare a set within the cosmos to the cosmos itself .You can't compare a set to it's components 

5. If we go by Carriers notion of nothing we get an sound notion of the likelihood of said even 

6. Science does not prove things 

7. A great deal of your arguments are incredulity . Not a statistical framework .

8. We know the cosmos exists their is zero evidence for a supernatural realm .

I don't care if someone wants to claim the cosmos and universe are separate things. I'd say they are different words for the same thing, but regardless, neither the "cosmos" or "universe" need a magic factory boss making them or anything in it like Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.

It amounts to for me, that history has been consistent in that the more we get answers, the more the super natural gets it's ass kicked.

[Amarok]

Just some quick counters to some of CL's points 

1. No cosmos and universe are two different things 

2. We also don't see  supernatural things produce natural effects all we see and say we understand is natural producing nature . 

3. You can't compare two states of nature to a whole other metaphysical realm 

4 You can 't compare a set within the cosmos to the cosmos itself .You can't compare a set to it's components 

5. If we go by Carriers notion of nothing we get an sound notion of the likelihood of said even 

6. Science does not prove things 

7. A great deal of your arguments are incredulity . Not a statistical framework .

8. We know the cosmos exists their is zero evidence for a supernatural realm .

I don't care if someone wants to claim the cosmos and universe are separate things. I'd say they are different words for the same thing, but regardless, neither the "cosmos" or "universe" need a magic factory boss making them or anything in it like Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.

It amounts to for me, that history has been consistent in that the more we get answers, the more the super natural gets it's ass kicked.

But they are different. You have read Carl Sagans work on subject ?

[Clueless Morgan]

An interesting tid bit I learned in biology class back in the day....

Caucasians evolved to have a higher bridge of the nose with the tip pointed more downward because we were living around a lot of water.

Not gonna lie: Read this and genuinely thought the end of the sentence was going to be "so raindrops wouldn't fall into our noses and drown us."



I don't know what's wrong with me.  That doesn't even make sense!  I think I heard something stupid like that once and my brain filled in the gap as I was reading...

[GrandizerII]

And 0 proof of God. 

Yes, I mentioned there is no proof of God. There is no proof of either route you take, that was my point. 

But we know the cosmos exists, so for now, it's more reasonable to believe the cosmos has always been. No need for God.

By "cosmos", you mean the universe, right? 

If so, then I disagree completely and think it's actually quite the opposite of what you've bolded. Because as I said earlier, there's been 0 evidence that anything in this universe could always have existed. Only evidence to the contrary - that the physical laws of our universe calls for things to have an origin.

We already know the big bang caused the cosmos, so we know they haven't always been here.

By cosmos, I mean everything in existence aside from the supernatural. This includes the universe that we observe but also other stuff that may be in existence.

Anyway, extend your reasoning to the idea of God. If we have no evidence that anything has always been, and that we have evidence for things regularly having an origin, then you cant argue that some grand like God can be exempt from the rule while not granting the same to the whole of the cosmos, which is also a grand entity.

Furthermore, if there is no cosmos, then what would logically be in its place? It makes more sense that the cosmos has always been than that some entity that is totally "nothing" existed at one point despite being nothing at all.

[AFTT47]

To get our terms correct, what you have said is true of the universe we live in. It might not be true (probably wouldn't be true) of what's outside it. It is a mistake to think of something outside the universe (assuming it exists) as not part of nature though. It is simply a part we may never be able to access but there would be nothing magical about it.

Further complicating things is that the idea of multiple universes (once a fringe idea) has gone mainstream. Each of those other universes could have its own laws of physics. I don't know what you would call the realm in which all these universes exist but it certainly wouldn't be bound by the physical laws we are used to. This is still speculative stuff but following on the things we do know about the cosmos is leading some physicists there. Like I said, still speculative but much further grounded than the idea of a timeless, supreme being. There is absolutely nothing bolstering that idea.

There is 0 proof that there's anything outside this universe in the first place. Much less that there is another universe where the physical laws would be different, and that this universe spawned from it.     

Don't you see what I'm saying? 

Maybe there's a different universe not bound by physical laws, and that's where this one somehow spawned from... maybe there's an actual entity not bound by physical laws that set this all into motion. There's no proof for either, and whichever way you go, you're taking your best guess.

Not exactly. Both are speculative but God is purely speculative. The multiverse thing used to be regarded in the same category - pretty much in the realm of science fiction and on the extreme edge of real science. But many things now point in the direction of a multiverse. Perhaps one of the most compelling is that inflation (the very rapid expansion immediately after the Big Bang) seems to require it. So while it must still be regarded as speculative, it's better than a best guess. Established science is pointing us (at least generally) in that direction. Other unproven (but highly regarded) stuff like string theory point to it also. So I don't see that God and a multiverse are equally valid propositions.

To weigh in on comsos/universe, I use cosmos as the term to include everything because of the fact that we now routinely discuss a multiverse which of course has multiple universes. I'll be happy to go back to universe if the multiverse thing falls back to fringe status.

[Amarok]

Multiverses are a idea in theoretical physics . God isn't even that .So the comparison fails

[Ravenshire]

Why in the world do you think that yet another change to the human evolution story is a bad thing for creationists?

True. The creationist will blindly deny no matter how much evidence piles up.