Christian Pike I would like to have an open discussion on the possibilities of the origin of th e universe.

I invite you to state your opinion, as well as the reason that you b elieve it that way. Yan Leduc-Chun The universe came into existence for the simple reason that the o dds of that happening for no reason at all are not of 0%. Yesterday at 12:59am Like Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran So Yan Leduc-Chun, do you subscribe to the multivers e theory ? Yesterday at 3:20am Like Yan Leduc-Chun Of course I do. Yesterday at 3:20am Like 1 Yan Leduc-Chun I don't say it's fact, because I can't prove it. But I do believe that it makes immense sense. Yesterday at 3:22am Like Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran Interesting. Yesterday at 3:22am Like Christian Pike I appreciate the input. I disagree. To me, the concept of existen ce spontaneously creating itself is science fiction. We have never observed anyt hing that came from nothing, nor have we had an experiment that reproduced this. Look at the theory of evolution. If that took place by chance in horrible condi tions, why can't we reproduce it in perfect conditions? Answer: Because it never took place. Yesterday at 9:34am Like 2 Yan Leduc-Chun Are you kidding me? We have created life out of inert molecules h undreds of times. You believe in certainty. I'm sorry, but you would make a horr ible philosopher. Because we never observed it, it's impossible??? Do you know h ow little of the universe we ever observed??? You could not be more wrong! Is it because you never saw me taking a shower that I never took one? Powerful logic dude. Wow. Yesterday at 10:22am Like Christian Pike Your bias against religious people is clouding your judgment. We have never created life, that is a false statement. The closest we've gotten to producing living things is technology, which is a poor excuse for life. My philo sophy is not based on only believing in obvious things, it's based on only belie ving in things that make sense. Yesterday at 10:24am Like Yan Leduc-Chun And the universe came into existence in a "world" where there are no laws of physics. Therefore, literally anything can happen. You can't apply y our little human understanding of things to everything. You're only human. Pleas e remember that. Yesterday at 10:25am Like Yan Leduc-Chun What? Clouding my judgement? I don't even know if you're religiou s or not. Yesterday at 10:25am Like Yan Leduc-Chun http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/ Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science

www.wired.com A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been ...See More Yesterday at 10:27am Like Yan Leduc-Chun Do your research. Yesterday at 10:27am Like Christian Pike I have done my research, and I stand by my statement. Stop taking the term 'life' for granted. We will have to agree to disagree. This has become a contest of throwing stones, not a conversation of exchanging facts. Yesterday at 10:28am Like Yan Leduc-Chun I gave you a link, you refuse to acknowledge it. This last commen t of yours is in no way an argument, rather a beautiful demonstration of how clo sed minded you are. Do you seriously think humans, right now, can have the actua l accurate reason as to why the universe came into existence? I put my human min d aside, and decided that the conclusion should be somewhat radical. Because you don't understand it, you refuse it. Genius. Yesterday at 10:30am Like Christian Pike You're still doing the bias thing. Everything in this comment is a pure assumption, yet you're telling me not to assume. Yesterday at 10:31am Like Yan Leduc-Chun Hm no, I'm giving arguments to which you obviously don't know how to reply. You know you have a mistake in your thinking but you're too proud to admit defeat. I have no more to say to you as you are not even close from my lev el of intellect. Good luck in life. Yesterday at 10:33am Like Christian Pike For your limited information, I've been in the process of reading your article, only to be interrupted by more random insults. Yesterday at 10:34am Like Yan Leduc-Chun It would have been intelligent to read it before saying "I stand by my statement". Yesterday at 10:36am Like Christian Pike I agree with that, and now I've read it. The reason I said that i s because this isn't the first article I've read on this subject. I still disagr ee with you. What they created isn't life. The created something that is found w ithin life, kinda like water. Yesterday at 10:38am Like Yan Leduc-Chun They created something capable of reproduction. That is how we st arted. Little cells, splitting. Yesterday at 10:39am Like Christian Pike They did not! The word 'capable' is being exaggerated here. Go ba ck and read the article. Yesterday at 10:40am Like Christian Pike Do you understand the complexity of a cell? A cell requires an en ergy source in order to live, thus reproduce. They created a dead building block of a cell. Yesterday at 10:41am Like Christian Pike You're a dreamer my friend. Yesterday at 10:41am Like

Yan Leduc-Chun Hey, the point is that they created RNA, the building blocks of p rotein creation, thus complex life. These strands of life created themselves. If you argue this, and that the universe came into existence for no reason, and yo u say I am biased against religion, I will assume you are a creationist. Am I ri ght? Yesterday at 10:43am Like Christian Pike You are assuming that the dead RNA has the ability to both reprod uce and evolve. Those are assumptions, assumptions with no observed evidence. Ca n you at least see where I'm coming from? Real communication is being able to re cognize the other person's thought. Yesterday at 10:44am Like Akshat Mahajan While I won't attempt to contribute to the original discussion mainly because I don't believe this is turning out to be productive at all - I w ould like to point out, Christian Pike, that there is one aspect of your argumen t you've gotten wrong. Evolution has, in fact, been observed, and is perfectly reproducible under exper imental conditions. The main difficulty people cite when defending this misconce ption is the vast time scales associated with evolution on the scales of animal reproduction. This difficulty, however, vanishes at the microbiological scale, w here bacteria, protozoa, amoeba and the like all reproduce over a matter of days , if not hours. By temporarily placing these bacteria in a (mild, then progressi vely more concentrated) solution not usually conducive to their existence, it ha s been observed that the vast majority of bacteria die - however, small pockets, those with mutations that allow them to resist the toxicity of the solution (of ten by altering aspects of their biochemistry), do survive, and succcessive gene rations of these bacteria have been studied to determine that their genetic prof ile matches (or at least is similar to) the original mutant survivors. If you don't believe me, I need hardly point out that this is in fact the reason why attacking the HIV retrovirus is difficult - the virus mutates quickly and r eproduces quickly, almost virulently, haha, in response to medicines we throw at it. Thus, we eliminate only strains of the virus, allowing other strains to flo urish - until we can find a medicine that acts quickly enough, HIV will flourish . Yesterday at 10:44am Unlike 4 Christian Pike I agree with you, and I find this interesting. But this only prov es that living things have the ability to adapt (microevolution). This does not vindicate macroevolution unless assumption is an added ingredient. Yesterday at 10:46am Like Akshat Mahajan An important caveat: because no laboratory can perfectly control the actual genetic makeup of its subjects nor the subsequent mutations, this doe sn't always happen - it is possible that the bacteria never develop the required mutation in the first place, and all thus perish. However, by carefully studyin g the population in the first place, one can alter the nature of the solution into one it seems some of the original bacteria could resist. Yesterday at 10:47am Like Yan Leduc-Chun Not answering my question about being creationist. This mean you strongly desire to prove you are right to me, and you believe that it would thro w me off, so you didn't answer. Well you're right. Creationists have nothing val uable to add to any science discussion. Ever heard of natural selection? You can 't deny that one. See ya. Yesterday at 10:48am Like

Christian Pike I am a creationist, and I never denied that. I simply foccussed o n subjects that were non-religious, which you can't seem to do. 'see ya' is your way of escape, seriously? Yesterday at 10:49am Like Christian Pike The main point I'm trying to make is this: It is unreasonable to be a person who bases their beliefs on assumptions, and then criticize someone e lse for doing the same thing. Macro-Evolution is not a fact, it is not even a co nvincing theory, otherwise I'd be convinced. Now I can't look at you and say tha t you are absolutely factually wrong. But I certainly have no inclination to loo k at you and pretend you're right. The theory of evolution was popularized on li es in museums, articles, and textbooks. Once many of those lies were exposed the theory had already caught on. You choose to believe it because it is what makes most sense to you, and that's your right. But you can't look at a creationist l ike he is ignorant because he doesn't subscribe to it. That is unreasonable. Yesterday at 11:04am Like Akshat Mahajan Alright. Then let me show that the same principles that apply to microorganisms apply to macroorganisms. Point of fact: aging (senescence in the medical literature) is a consequence of cellular evolution. Your skin calls are consistently reproducing, dying and fall ing off in flakes - every single second, your body sports an incredible several billion new cells, all virtually indistinguishable from the oldest ones. I say v irtually because it's an illusion - over several decades, enough genetic flaws a ccrue to alter your appearance significantly. We call it getting older. While this is not an indication of evolution, it is at least an indication that the cells of your own body are capable of suffering under the yoke of the first axiom of evolution - genetic reproduction need not be perfect. Macrocellular org anisms are affected by this. I hope this is argument enough to satisfy that macr ocellular organisms can be affected by the actions of their own individual cells . Secondly, macroorganisms reproduce through cellular exchange. The introduction o f sperm into the egg kickstarts a flurry of cellular activity - a lot of which i s directed towards the production of new cells, which the example of aging demon strates are prone to imperfect production. Thus, errors crop up even in an embry o - fortunately, they tend not be significant enough. In the rare instances sign ificant flaws are produced, we can call them genetic defects. Except for Michael Phelps, whose strange physiology enables him to be a competen t swimmer. This is one direct example of where flaws at birth (his feet), when e xposed to certain situations, actually enable him to excel. If it's a dominant m utation, and all of the Earth were to slowly be lost under a deluge of water, hi s children would more likely be able to survive - their physique would enable fa ster swimming, which means they're more likely to survive being chased by sharks , or when hunting for food. What I am trying to demonstrate through this roundabout series of examples is th at microcellular evolution implies macrocellular evolution - when exposed to con ditions adverse to the rest of the population, these beneficial mutations enable them to thrive. Proof of evolution at the microscopic level implies it's true a t bigger scales, because the former causes the latter. Yesterday at 11:08am Edited Like 1 Christian Pike It's not evolution, it's adaptation. I agree with your analogy, m icro certainly implies macro, but it's not evolution. The skin cell is a skin ce ll is a skin cell. Yesterday at 11:09am Like

Akshat Mahajan Please, give me your definition of evolution then. I'm curious. Yesterday at 11:10am Like 1 Christian Pike I believe that a proper definition of evolution would go as follo ws: Evolution is the process in which a species undergoes a series of adaptation s that eventually result in a different species. I do not believe that one kind of living thing has ever become another kind of living thing, and there is no re ason for me to believe that. I don't believe that adaptations lead to a new spec ies, only a species better suited for the current environment. Yesterday at 11:15am Like Christian Pike I want to ask you guys a serious question. Do you really believe that this universe happened simply by chance? Are you honestly convinced that wi th it's beauty, complexity, and improbability, that there was no higher intellig ence? I just want you to really consider that. We both know that given 10,000,00 0,000,000 years the couch in my living room would never come into existence with out a designer. Yesterday at 11:27am Like Akshat Mahajan I apologise, Mr. Pike, but that's a definition that nobody except critics of evolution have ever used. That is because not even Darwin claimed th at one kind of living thing becomes another - one kind of species does not 'tran sform' into another, two mutant strains become so changed as to no longer feasib ly reproduce. It's an important distinction - evolution does not create a new sp ecies from an older one, it prevents one kind of the same animal from reproducin g successfully with the other, which is when we say that the animals are now a d ifferent species. In more realistic terms, it's like saying that I did not come from a jellyfish, it's that the jellyfish and I are different species because I cannot reasonably impregnate it with my offspring (those stings hurt!). I hope you will permit me, at least, to expand on my views? I notice you have ta ken the time and effort to read through my compatriots' posts and respond to the m. If you could give me the same honour, I would be gratified. Because I try to be a physicist, and on my better days I want to be a mathematic ian, I want to begin by pointing out an important term that has been slighted. T hat term is 'species'. It's a human concept, and we say that two animals belong to a species only and only when those two animals cannot together produce a fert ile offspring. Tigers are a species because two tigers can give birth a new tige r, who in turn is fertile i.e. is capable of producing another tiger. Lions and tigers are different species, however, not because they can't copulate (they can - the result is the liger or the tion), but because their offspring (the liger) cannot reproduce with its own kind. A female liger and a male liger can produce no babies. Because of this, lions and tigers are different species - and only t hen. They are not different quantitatively or even qualitatively (they belong to the same family, after all); they are considered different species only and onl y because their children cannot have further children. This is the only test for speciation known to man. Nothing else. What the theory of evolution says is not that one species becomes another specie s, but that, over time, enough genetic differences accrue between two strains of the same animal (owing to adaptation for example, or simply accident - a chance mutation that happened to thrive because the only ones also carrying it were th e the ones that thrived. If your father had blue eyes and unusually hard bones i n a world where you had to fight for survival, and if these could be passed on, you are likely to get blue eyes and unusually hard bones, even though blue eyes does not help at all) to make reproducing between the two impossible. It's like saying: suppose I took a walrus, and placed one in a region with a lot of predat

ors and another where there was only food. Over time, the first lot grew sleek, slim, maybe even lost those awful teeth in a bid to improve speed against their predators. The second lot grew fatter, more adept at catching prey. They're stil l the same walrus, mind. Nothing's changed. But suppose suddenly a minor mutatio n occured that changed one small thing - say, the number of chromosomes in the s econd lot increased by one. Then suddenly the first lot and second lot can no longer reproduce. Chromosomes are vital to binary reproduction - if they aren't equal in the males and females , you will never get an offspring. Without their knowing it, if they ever met an d tried to mate, those two walruses could not have a child. And it is only then, at that point, that human biologists would come along and say the first lot is a different species than the other. They might even look completely identical but the instant reproduction can no longer happen between them, they are at once a different species. Evolution does not dictate the rise of species; species don't even have to happe n. But if something prevents two animals of the same species from producing fert ile offspring, then and only then are they classed as a different species. You might scoff at this juncture and ask: what kind of mutation could prevent re production between two animals originally derived from the same ancestor? There are several - we've documented enough to last a lifetime. Hermaphroditism - the phenomenon whereby a human manifests both the secondary sexual characteristics o f a male and a female - sometimes results in impotency - these people couldn't f ertilise an egg or give birth if they wanted to, even though their sperm 'works' or the egg 'works'. Technically, these people are now a different species - we don't go around calling them that because it's rude, but technically it is true. (Important note, because I don't want to be misinterpreted: species arise only w hen the the second animal cannot, even by force, reproduce - it has no bearing o n whether or not the the second animal wants to. Homosexuals are not a different species - if forced to mate heterosexually, they could conceive and give birth. ) To reiterate: evolution does not change any species into another - adaptability and natural selection do not have to produce a species. But chance mutation can - if mutations occur, only then do species follow. Evolution is simply a term gi ven to the process of mutation and natural selection happening to produce differ ent strains of animals - but speciation can occur independent of evolution, beca use evolution does not govern what kind of mutations you get. In conclusion: evolution does not produce species, it is the term given to the p rocess of adaptation. Species occur outside of evolution - they happen because o f imperfect reproduction, and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with evolut ion. Yesterday at 12:03pm Like Akshat Mahajan In some instance, evolution and speciation overlap - the two anim als are physically so different (say humans and jellyfish) because they've evolv ed in such different environments that any attempt to grow an offspring of both is bound to fail - I mean, you try infusing human blood into jellyfish, see how catastrophically the jellyfish will die. In an embryo, the jellyfish baby will f ind itself producing human blood cells, and will die. But speciation can happen outside evolution, simply because of the phenomenon of genetic mutation. Mutation is not governed by evolution. All evolution says is that natural selection happens because creatures tend to e

volve to thrive in an environment. It doesn't care if vastly dissimilar environm ents force two descendants of the same animals to no longer be able to reproduce , and in fact speciation doesn't have to occur even then. So please do mind that your definition of evolution is not in keeping with the actual theory. I hope I was able to change your conceptions about evolution. If not, please let me know what you thought was wrong with it. Thanks! Yesterday at 12:12pm Like Akshat Mahajan Incidentally, to answer your 'serious' question, yes, I believe t he universe can have originated by chance. Underestimating what chance can do is , really, misunderstanding what a stochastic system is. The Universe is a stocha stic system - a game of billiards seven billion trillion times magnified. Alter the trajectory of even one ball, and you have no idea what the board will look l ike an year later. The Universe is not beholden to our own human notion of what constitutes beauty or complexity or improbability - to argue that it is any of the above is to impl icitly assume that it came about because of something that thought like a human. In which case, sir, intelligent design is as likely a hypothesis as solipsism the belief that the universe is a figment of your own imagination. 23 hours ago Edited Like Christian Pike I really enjoyed reading this, and I find it to be very helpful. I will return to a point I started to make earlier, which was, the concept of co mmunication. To me, communication, in its most successful form, is two or more i ndividuals that have become able to fully understand one another's thoughts and intentions. This goes beyond verbal or symbolic language, but into a sort of bio logical intuition, developed through intelligence learning to understand the ori gin of thoughts and 'read' people accordingly. We really are saying the same thi ng, I feel that way because based on the illustration I just gave we are underst anding one another beyond an educational barrier. The word 'species' is a term t hat describes exactly what you've said, agreed. The Bible uses the word 'kind,' which I perceive to describe animals (or organisms in general) originating from the same ancestor. Now to analyze the difference between species and kind is to understand my argument. Adaptation (as governed by natural selection) can occur while agreeing with biblical creation. 23 hours ago Like Akshat Mahajan No, Mr. Pike, there are differences. Your interpretation - or mor e accurately the Biblical interpretation - of 'kind' requires that genetic mutat ion cannot occur - that all subsequent creatures are deliberately created, that mutations exist only when willed by 'a higher authority', as ridiculous as that phrase is. A species only arises when two animals can no longer produce fertile offspring it is indeed a 'kind' of a common ancestor (a tenet that has been well-establis hed in the scientific community for several centuries), but this does not imply anybody or anything actually wanted the descendant to arise. The descendants cam e about simply because things happened - they became species only after genetic mutation occured. They were not put through (or more accurately, meed not have b een put through) a grueling process of adaptation; a simple error happened when one creature copulated with another, which rendered the offspring incapable of m ating with anybody except other creatures produced by the same way. It is only t hen that the species arose. To tackle a different interpretation of your last statement, I believe you are t rying to say that animals were first created, then subjected to the laws of natu re - something Newton would have applauded, but then he always was an annoyingly ridiculous man. The problem then is that there is no reason to believe intellig

ent design was invoked at all - like I said, intelligent design is just as likel y as solipsism, because it offers the same amount of evidence, offers no disting uishing characteristics that can be definitively ascribed to itself, and is fina lly backed by the same research that would hold cold fusion to exist. 23 hours ago Like Christian Pike I disagree entirely. The universe is the best credible evidence f or design, especially as we delve more and more into it. 150 words that would wi n a spelling bee are failing to relay your point my friend, which is why I menti oned what I did about communication. Your point should be to properly show me ex actly why you believe the way you do. Flooding theoretical information in the fo rm of scientific theories is illogical, seeing that it only deludes my attention on several different subjects. Before your inner man laughs at my stupidity, I ask that you try and decipher exactly what I'm trying to say. What you are sayin g is only credible in an environment where all alternatives have been deemed pri mitive. Alternatives can only be deemed primitive if you have a successful theor y. A successful theory can only exist if it makes sense to a person through expe riment and common sense. And it can only do that if someone agrees on what commo n sense is, and accepts the experiments as being in something other than a contr olled environment. The sum being this: I challenge you to construct a theory of grand design style creation. Only once you have considered this as something wor th pursuing without bias can you understand my stance. 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike I don't believe that anything positive (additionally speaking) wi ll come out of this conversation. I don't want to argue or debate, because I do that enough on things that are factual, let alone theoretical. I only wanted to present the idea that creation is the only realistic view of the universe, which idea I hold true above all others I have ever read. Most people educationally ' grow up' out of religion as they become more involved with today's society, name ly, the scientific community. However, I was an atheist all my life until a few years ago. My current perception accepts without challenge the idea of grand des ign. Now, how can you and I see the same information and perceive it differently ? Either one of us is craze, or one of us is enlightened beyond the norm. Think outside of research, seeing that it's so limited. Return to the ancient art of p hilosophy, and allow your mind to risk its social status and 'go there.' God ble ss 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Please, Pike, do not say we are illogical. You believe in grand d esign. It is not impossible. You might be right. But then the question we all kn ow: Then how did God come into existence? Then most creationists say he alway ha s been there. Then I can use your very same logic and say: We never observed som ething that has existed for an infinite amount of time. So why is your reasionin g better than mine if I can use your own argument against my argument, against y our very point as efficiently as you? I don't claim to hold the truth, I don't e ven believe in knowledge. Knowing is impossible. But some thing are more likely than others, and no matter if there was a grand design or not, the initial start ing point of this universe came from something popping out of nothing. Why? For the simple reason that it was not impossible, and thinking with time outside the universe is incorrect. You could be correct about God, but your beliefs are so incredibly specific that mathematically, you are practically definitely wrong. A nything could have happened ''before'' the universe, and something obviously did happen, God or no God, evolution or no evolution (denying evolution is making y ou once more unlikely to be correct), everything started for no reason. 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun What make me closer to truth than you, Mr.Pike, is that my belief is that anything could have happened. I only want to point out to you that beca use you are so specific and without observational support, the mathematics that

support you are rather silly. 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike I agree with the point that you're getting across for the first t ime in this whole debate. I can respect a person who will humble himself and adm it that we're all guessing, some better than others. However, probability does n ot constitute what did or didn't happen, it only gives in comfort in trusting on e over the other. 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike For all you know, The Bible is a perfect historical account of cr eation, lineage, man, today and the future. For all I know, the Big Bang occurre d from nothing, the universe randomly became wonderful, organized and complex, a nd living things evolved from things that were not living. You say that mathemat ics supports your's over mine, I say that there is no way for me to agree (factu ally speaking) that one is more probable than the other. What then? We choose fa ith. We select our 'cup of tea' and spend our life trying to prove it right. Doe s this kind of honesty make you uncomfortable? 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun You would rather belive in a book than in mathematics? Don't take this as an insult, but to me, a physicist born without religion, the bible is a s legitimate as a chair, or a door knob, or any other book. Are you able to give me mathematical arguments as to why your beliefs are closer to truth? 22 hours ago Edited Like Christian Pike I never claimed they were closer to truth, nor did I claim they w ere any farther away. I say that it is an act of faith on both sides. 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Then where does your denyal of evolution come from? 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike I believe in God, and I also believe that God has a special conne ction to humanity. In believing this, why is it illogical to believe that He ins pired men to record His thoughts in order to teach us about Him? 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike I don't have a 'denial' of evolution. There is nothing to deny. I t's just a theory with no backbone. Even if it's true, you don't know. 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Well, because no observation ever made supports that. I can't bel ieve in anything. For me, believing in your beliefs are as intellectually strang e as believing the earth has 5 moons. Ok, you claim things, but where is your su pport? Show me, if you're so confident in your beliefs, just throw the evidence at me, please. 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Of course it has backbone, where do you think the theory came fro m? Observation of the uncountable different types of animals which, using carbon dating (thank you quantum mechanics) corresponded to a very precise chronology of life on earth. It's not even a theory, it's just a fact. And how the hell doe s God and lack of evolution have more backbone? 22 hours ago Edited Like Christian Pike Fair enough. Allow me to give a demonstration of why I believe th is. Does humanity have a general perception of positive and negative morality? Y es. Why? I believe the answer is because our understanding (we call it intellige nce, or consciousness) separates us from the rest of creation, in that we reflec

t the mind of God. God made man in His image according to The Bible. Now, what i s the image of God? Is is flesh, bone, hair, fingernails, etc? No, it is love, c oncern, interest, opinion, desire, etc. His image is the invisible person that d rives this biological vessel. It is what separates us from pure instinct, and al lows us to reach outside of our needs into our wants. 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun How do you know humans are the only living thing with a conscious ness? You observed that? 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike Evolution, for one, is not a fact. That's a fact. 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike Can you tell me that you believe they're not? 22 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun No, I don't have an opinion about that, which is what sepeartes m e from you. You base your beliefs on assumptions (humans are the only ones with intelligence, consciousness, etc). I say you can't know that, therefore the stru cture to your argument makes no sense at all because you just assume things like you know them without putting them into question. 22 hours ago Like Christian Pike You just assumed that I haven't put these things into question. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike All that can question anything is the human mind. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Maybe you have, not properly of course since you claim humans are the only ones with a consciousness like if you experienced the life of evry sin gle other living thing that is not human 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike What experience? What is an experience without perception and con sciousness. Think about it. That's not living like you and I understand living. That's a biological robot. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun You are a biological robot. If you understand quantum mechanics a nd the uncertainty principle (proven elements of physics) You clearly understand that consciousness is a flawed concept. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike Sir, in my robotic state of accidental programming I completely d isagree haha. I'm not trying to make fun of you, I'm only saying, Listen to this garbage that you are peddling. You can't really accept this stuff, you're too s mart. There is a box, and you're in it. I've got faith in you that you'll do mor e with your life than contribute to the cause to reasoning away what it means to be human. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Where is your argument in this paragraph? You don't have any ther efore you talk about me with insults. Classic creationist. You have a boring clo sed mind. Even if I consider you to be profoundly stupid, I wish you joy and suc cess in life. Because no matter who or what you have done, I love you. You are a part of reality, and reality is beautiful. I just find it disappointing that we cannot share it's true beauty together. I'm sorry for you about that, truly sor ry.

21 hours ago Like Christian Pike Your condolences are much appreciated. Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when one such as I refuses to acknowledge that everything sprang from no thing. This beautifully logical expression of human progress, putting all refere nces of Gods into the category of fiction. I marvel at your brilliance 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Not of fiction. For me, the odds of any form of God to exist are of 50%. I simply find your opinion about what God is way too precise for it to b e anything close to likely. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike Any one possible truth is far from likely because of the theoreti cal alternatives, but something definitely happened. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike You know, I really enjoy talking to you. I find it challenging, a nd I think that challenges help us mature faster than anything else. 21 hours ago Like 1 Yan Leduc-Chun Why 50%? Because God is a concept which cannot be proved or dispr oved. Nothing proves either side, therfore, to me, religious people (believing i n God) are equally unlikely to be correct as atheists. But then to add precision to God drops the odds dramatically from the 50%. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun I agree with that last comment you made. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike But consider my statement: "Any one possible truth is far from li kely because of the theoretical alternatives, but something definitely happened. " If you analyze this you'll see that it's true. No matter what actually happene d, it's going to appear unlikely because of the competition in our minds. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun I definitely agree, which is why I don't take a precise stance. W hat happened is a question which cannot be answered by any type of philosophy or observation (saying it was a collision between universes, a God, etc). But then philosophy can answer how one of these infinite possibilities happened: For no reason. No trigger. No cause for the effect. Whether you are right about God or not is not my point, but you version of God fits in the ''what happened'' catego ry, and not the ''How what happened, happened'' category. I don't even try to ta ckle the possibility of a God because doing so, to me, is a waste of time. But h ow it happened, whether it's about how God happened or simply how the universe h appened (if there is no god), can be answered by mathematical philosophy and a p roper understanding of the concept of infinity. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun I still could be wrong. My limited intellect and knowledge is not enough for me to make such statements with certainty. I make statements because I find them likely, nothing else. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike I pretty much agree with everything you said. I said earlier, it all boils down to an act of faith. I have genuine faith in my heart that The Bib le introduces us to the idea of the existing God. The reason I believe this is b ecause there is an overwhelming inspiration that overtakes me when considering t he teaching of Jesus, Paul, James, etc. There is something (which I describe as supernatural) that occurs in my understanding, allowing my to make sense of thin

gs that normally would be considered illogical, improbable, etc. You would say, "What's that to me?" I understand your point. My point is this: Now that you hav e spoken to me, probed me, asked me questions, heard me respond, do you think th at I'm some ignorant hick? If you have come to the conclusion that an intelligen t free thinker can consider God, doesn't that make Him logical? 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun No, if you want me to consider you as an intelligent holder of yo ur beliefs, I need to hear you say that you are likely wrong. Then I will have f ull respect of your beliefs. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike I can say that, but I don't believe it, so it won't be true. 'Lik ely' is a term when discussing things within existence as we know it. I'm not ta lking about something that exists within existence as we know it. I'm talking ab out something that is outside the box called reality. Something that exists wher e thoughts become expressions, and expressions become existence, and existence b ecomes life. I'm talking about the source of energy. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Ok, but there is no evidence for all that. That is my point, tell me that all of your beliefs have never been proven. 21 hours ago Like Christian Pike I can't do that my friend. If I am completely persuaded through p ersonal experience, then maybe your definition of 'proven' is incomplete. You ca n ask me a question, I'll respond. You can punch me, I'll bleed. You can present me with evidence, I'll consider. I'm human, just like you. I have a mind that w onders and desires, just like your's. In this consciously aware state, I am full y convinced through personal experiences. How can I tell you that I have any sha dows of doubt? I would have to erase my memory. Just because you can't reproduce it at will doesn't mean it never happened. 21 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun Then why are you arguing about your beliefs if there's no way to prove them? If it's personal, how do you expect me to share your opinion? 20 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun You don't have philosophy, math, physics, or anything on your sid e. All these fields which have been succesful to the point that we are communica ting using quantum mechanics, obviouly, it is an accurate theory, or none of thi s would be happening. What makes your personal experience morelegitimate than al ready proven concepts? You're giving me the opportunity to choose between object ive fact and human subjectiveness. 20 hours ago Like Christian Pike I am saying that what I've presented doesn't disagree with facts, only some popular theories. And to answer your question, I don't expect you to just agree with me. It's my personal belief that people are better off when they acknowledge God and consider The Bible in their daily decisions. I'm only distr ibuting this belief to others in an attempt to do God a service, because I can't think of a better way to spend my life than doing something to reconnect humani ty to their creator. 20 hours ago Like Yan Leduc-Chun I find the spreading of joy far more important than anything else . Because life has no value until it is enjoyed. 20 hours ago Like Christian Pike Then you do understand me. There is no greater joy that I have kn

own than to have a connection to God through faith. There is no other satisfying purpose to life than to have confidence in your heart that your creator has acc epted you. These are things that can only come through personal experience. I wa ke up in the morning with full assurance that the creator of all things has a sp ecific plan and program for my life, which is to touch others and lead them to j oy, peace, meaning and happiness. Now many would argue that I'm delusional or in a self-induced trance. This, of course, comes from people who have no joy or ha ppiness. People who have to chase down satisfaction wherever they can find it. W ho is really delusional? 20 hours ago Like 1 Yan Leduc-Chun If it brings you as much joy as you claim, I fully encourage you to continue in your beliefs. But please, for the sake of human advancement, do n ot put them in the way of productivity and scientific advancement. As science, t hrough technology and medecine, brings incredible quantities of joy. 20 hours ago Like 1 Christian Pike I would never hope to halt any improvements in the lives of human ity. I will, however, argue that material progress ain't all it's cracked up to be. Progress is great, and I myself enjoy the conveniences of it. But if there i s a creator, one with the ability and desire to intervene, don't you suppose tha t would be an attractive route? What if God saw Stephen Hawking's spirit, and fo r one second saw that Mr. Hawking was crying out for help in any way shape or fo rm from his condition. He had humbled himself to the point that even divinity wo uld be appreciated. Let's say that God healed Mr. Hawking's body completely, res tored it like new. Hawking, in this state of desperation, would acknowledge God and glorify him. Probably spend the rest of his life preaching the gospel. Now, which Ipad would you trade for that? Which medicine would you give in exchange f or that? To me, to see Mr. Hawking be healed and delivered from his affliction w ould be worth all the money in the world. 20 hours ago Like Christian Pike I think it would be a good thing to record conversations like thi s and make them public information. There is a whole world of people who discuss these same things, and each time a conversation reaches this level of intimacy I feel like that gap is filled a little more. 20 hours ago Like Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran If I may politely interrupt, I, as well as the rest of the admins of this group, would greatly appreciate if this thread of discussi on can clearly find its way back to the physics involved in this post (if you re member what this post was initially about). Not that we want to restrict exchang e of thoughts, we just feel that there are other better means available (like th e personal chat message) for you to discuss things like evolutionary biology, in dividual faith and beliefs etc. 19 hours ago Like Christian Pike Of course. I think we pretty well squared our conversation away, but I'll keep in mind for the future that when we get off topic we can take it t o a personal line of communication. 19 hours ago Like 1 Yan Leduc-Chun For those interested, I am admin of this page: https://www.facebo ok.com/groups/590467227688548/ Feel free to click the join button, everyone is accepted. And any intellectual e xchange on whatever topic is welcomed! But! If an individual shows to have too m uch of a closed mind, he will be kicked out. You are all welcomed to it Natural Philosophy This group promotes creative thinking about the universe. Post your ideas, comme

nt about what others say, debate. This is open to all who wish to join. But if y ou're not open minded, I kick you out! P... 86 members Join Group 12 hours ago Like Ng Zhan Ming My only questions are: 1. If the religious community continually tries to use science and 'observable p redictions' to prove the credibility of their beliefs, doesn't that mean that sc ience and scientific methods is the preferred proof and hence a more likely Trut h? 2. If Truth lies with Religion, which is the real God? Which is the correct Path ? If Christianity is correct, 5 billion people will be eternally damned. If Isla m is correct, 6 billion will be eternally damned. about an hour ago Like Christian Pike We are supposed to discuss this kind of topic on a more personal line of communication. Feel free to message me directly. about an hour ago Like 1 Ng Zhan Ming 3. If God works in mysterious ways and is invisible and intangible and beyond human comprehension, and can only be communicated/adhered/experienced through belief and faith which seems to be contradicted by observation and expe rimental evidence, wont science as an alternative theory be the intelligent man' s preferred Truth? 4. If there was a God, would he want his followers to only believe and worship d espite overwhelming odds for no apparent reason, or would He want his Creations to use their gifts of perception and intelligence to not believe in any written rule, but to understand the world as it is? about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, okay, sure. Previous thread was too long, didn't re ad. But just my two cents, I wasn't expecting any reply, and do not wish to be d rawn into a long discussion, for it is difficult for two parties of deeply-roote d beliefs to understand the depth of each other's beliefs. Me, for one, cannot a nd will not understand why religious people can believe the way they do, I trust my gifts of (perhaps God given) perception and thought more than I trust any ho ly scripture written by ancient men who make improbable but not necessarily impo ssible claims, so, seems like science is not the ultimate, but the best alternat ive i have so far to put myself at ease. about an hour ago Edited Like Christian Pike I would be happy to answer all your questions on a private messag e. I enjoy the opportunity to share my faith with others, be it through science, experience, philosophy, etc. I encourage these questions. Feel free anytime, I won't be dogmatic and bite your head off, I'm kind of a nice guy about an hour ago Like 1 Ng Zhan Ming I'm quite sure Brian Khor Jia Jiunn the creator of this group will be interested in following up on this topic. I don't think he has read or replie d. about an hour ago Like 1 Christian Pike Well I didn't join this group to break the rules and fulfill the classic role of a religious zealot. I didn't come strapped with digital dynamite to interrupt intellect with dogma. I came because I'm interested in physics, an d also for the opportunity, if it arises, to discuss my faith in Christ. If appr oved by admin I'll discuss this until the world comes to an end, but I don't wan t to be a pest. about an hour ago Like 1

Ng Zhan Ming Also, Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran, although I respect your suggesti on given the fact that this is indeed a Theoretical Physics group and hence shou ld be about Physics and Physics only, I believe that such open discussion about religion and science is healthy and should be encouraged as long as it is interp reted in the intellectual context, because be it theoretical physicists or relig ious scholars, everyone's ultimate aim is to know the Truth. about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, I'm one of the admins actually, and to me, I don't think anyone has broken any rules, no offensive remarks have been tossed around, everyone has remained calm and put forth intellectually stimulating comments, I would in fact thank you for bringing up such topic for discussion in the first place. Not many have the courage to even speak openly about this subject, and co nsidering the fact that this is a Theoretical Physics group and many here are ag nostics and atheists, I find it especially courageous of you to put forth your a rgumets. about an hour ago Like Christian Pike Sri was very respectful and kind, he even sent me a personal frie nd request. I can certainly understand his position, not wanting to create a deb ate club out of what was a group of civilized scholars. The fact is that no amou nt of discussion is going to change a person's perception of reality. It takes w hat I call revelation (science refers to as epiphany) to really make you or I se e it exactly as the other is seeing it. about an hour ago Like Brian Khor Jia Jiunn Ng Zhan Ming I'm not really the creator of the group. about an hour ago Like 1 Christian Pike I made a statement earlier in this post that the only way for a p erson to truly understand another person is to choose, even for a day, to actual ly agree with them. For example: If I was debating someone of evolutionary biolo gy, I feel that would have to go against my belief, and try to prove evolution r ight as someone believing it, in order to ever see what the other person is seei ng. The same goes for faith in God. This is my stance, which stance complicates the exchange of ideas haha about an hour ago Like 1 Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, yup, I agree, it's not going to change anything, bu t hey, it's for the fun and excitement. At least for me. I have nothing to gain after all if anyone was influenced by my comments, and nothing to lose either, I would not even know. Hehe. Brian Khor Jia Jiunn, you're one of the Founding Mem bers. about an hour ago Unlike 1 Brian Khor Jia Jiunn Well, I will take my time to read all 100+ comments first b efore making my stand (to understand more about context in which the hot debate circulates). about an hour ago Like Christian Pike Best of luck to you Brian haha about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, yup, that's what i did. Some of us were religious b efore too. In the meantime, some scientists became religious after personal expe riences. Also, I think Brian Khor Jia Jiunn is now tempted by the excitement of this (rare) debate. about an hour ago Like Brian Khor Jia Jiunn LOL I know, especially when some comments are long haha.

about an hour ago Like Brian Khor Jia Jiunn And yes Ng Zhan Ming, it looks exciting about an hour ago Like Christian Pike I told Yan that we should totally record this and make it public information. When a discussion reaches this level of intimacy, somebody should k now about it. about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming I have to agree with Yan Leduc-Chun over one very important point: Religion should not get in the way of progress. What progress, you might ask? Do we even know what's best for us? Can we 'control' science if it were not for re ligion? Many good questions indeed, but in my opinion we should make do with the best we have, i.e, the path that we think is the best for mankind. There might be a God, maybe we as a race aren't there yet, not advanced enough to experience God (as opposed to merely believing in Him) or to tell for sure which God is th e real God, and until then, we are where we are, acting as monkeys dabbling in S cience. about an hour ago Like Christian Pike I also agreed with Yan on this, I would not willingly throw a kin k in the wheel of advancement. All I said was I feel there are other kinds of pr ogress which also help humanity that are being called old fashioned. Things such as respect, general morality, faith in a creator, discipline, etc. about an hour ago Like 1 Ng Zhan Ming I hope we do realize that science and religion don't form a dichoto my either, since none can prove or disprove each other, and there are great cont radictions and conflicts within and between both schools of thought, it is healt hy for the world to have people adhering to both, since it seems to be unrealist ic and impossible to wipe out any one school of thought, even in a purely scient ific world, some might actually 'observe and study God' in their own ways, in a purely religious world, 'science' might still exist as a 'belief in the human me thods of observation and experimentation', the world needs both to function stab ly. about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming And I believe that just as unfair and unjustifiable it is when reli gion uses science to attempt to prove itself by selective evidence, it is unfair and unjustifiable to generalize that religion gets in the way of progress, afte r all, spirituality gives the human race a reason to survive and thrive, and to progress, perhaps without religion, less people will be motivated to participate in progress, but of course, atheists and agnostics frequently see religion as m ore like a hindrance than a motivator. about an hour ago Like Christian Pike I look at it in a simplistic way. To me, it's totally bogus to lo ok at this universe, with it's organization, beauty, complexity, and grace towar ds the outcome of humanity, and deny a higher form of intelligence. Now I unders tand that many don't see it this way, so I'm not trying to twist their arm. I ca n't, however, submit and fall into a category of people who shut up because of m athematical statistics, seeing that I genuinely believe what I believe with my w hole heart. The Bible says that we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which exist were not made of things which are, but that it came from nothing. Word, as translated, is Logos, which in a nut shell m eans materialized thought. The Bible also teaches that we are in the image of Go d. A computer is evidence of Logos, or, a materialized thought. It only exists b ecause higher understanding first created it in their mind, then brought it into existence. Now, the computer is made from things which already existed, but the

great Apostle Paul said that God made all things from nothing. I believe that t hrough faith and spiritually submitting to the teachings of The Bible, we can re ach the higher level of Logos. about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Fine, I know that I'm speaking as if religion is a necessary evil, but can't help it because 'progress' is understood in my sphere of perception in the scientific sense, not the 'spiritual sense', so.... about an hour ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Hmm, here's a bash to both science proponents and religious propone nts - how is it possible to attack the other party by using evidence from one's own sphere, i.e, using some scientific theory to debunk religion or use some rel igious text to override science. It's like a cat trying to tell the dog that it' s wrong by meowing. LOL /isbashed. 58 minutes ago Like Christian Pike Well see I don't feel like science is wrong. Science is the study of facts, and facts are facts. I do, however, feel that many things are commonl y accepted theories, because of lack of alternative. 57 minutes ago Like 1 Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, I guess so, science can't explain spirituality, so in that sphere, religion is the best alternative available. But when it comes to material progress, the conflict comes because science proponents see science as the obviously superior alternative an cannot understand why religion proponents still choose to believe in religion, and this wouldnt be so if religion were li ke science, which can be broken up such that different theories can govern diffe rent spheres...but religion is absolute and all-encompassing, so, it's either we believe entirely or we reject entirely. Such is the dilemma of the modern man. 53 minutes ago Like Christian Pike If you read my second to previous post (the one concerning Paul) you'll see that I have played the hypocrite. You see, one of mine and Yan's bigg est disagreements was that everything came from nothing, but in that post I said everything came from nothing. I'm not actually a hypocrite, our 'nothings' are different. Nothing can mean, nothing. Or, nothing can mean, a higher reality tha t this one can't comprehend. 53 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming i.e, the same omnipotent God that created Good must also be the sam e God that created evil, so.... 51 minutes ago Like Christian Pike Well you're right about that. This, I think, is where many people get confused or upset. The Bible teaches that God has His way in the good and i n the evil. Therefore it establishes that good is good, and evil is evil. God, a ccording to The Bible, has two aces in the hole for this argument. 1. He sees th e bigger picture. He looks at time like a timeline that He is outside of, theref ore knowing on a larger scale what good and evil mean. 2. He chose to give man f ree will, thus opening Pandora's box of possible outcomes. Why did God give man this free will, seeing that He has to clean up their mess? Because in order for Him to successfully recreate His image, He must put man through the only filter that can enlighten in the end, which filter is experience. 48 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming I would say argument 1 might hold some water if I were to assume Go d exists and give him some benefit of doubt. But argument 2, the free will argum ent kinda breaks down when free wills of individuals conflict in various scenari os.

46 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Also, another interesting and unrelated topic: Who plays God more? Religious reps or atheist scientists? Atheist scientists mig ht be labelled as the ones who frequently play God but this is when judged by th e yardsticks of the religious reps who seem to also 'play God' when they are usi ng the Eye of God to judge those whom they deem play God, and it seems that beca use God is all-encompassing by definition, God-adherents also try to understand and make unavoidable judgements and comparisons of morality and logic....and isn 't that also part of playing a God? 39 minutes ago Edited Like Brian Khor Jia Jiunn Well, I'm not sure if my opinion will add any new context t o this discussion, but here are my two cents: First, I believe that this post should be more directed towards Physics, though it's good to look at the other sides sometimes. But from the discussion I've rea d, it had wandered off from the original question. So, I would address my opinio n directly towards the main post instead. I do not believe that one-theory-rule-everything belief. That said, I think the Big Bang shouldn't be the only focus that scientists look into. There might be a lternative explanation on the origin of the universe, and those scientific evide nces might just be a proof for another explanation to alternative theories. And on religion, I believe that physics and religion exist for its purpose, and neither are bad for mankind. Religion, for instance, helps in explaining behavio rs and spirituality. Physics explains the physical realm in which everything beh ave. But here's the thing, I think that both are not united harmoniously, at lea st not now (I'm not rejecting the possibility that both can complement each othe r to explain origin of universe). These are my personal opinions only. Feel free to rebuke any points that were di rected prematurely. 41 minutes ago Unlike 3 Christian Pike I think you make an excellent point Brian. 38 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Brian Khor Jia Jiunn, so excellent it made the whole discussion com e to a complete standstill. Hahaha. 26 minutes ago Unlike 2 Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran My friends, I myself have personally participated in vigorous debates on whether or not a Creator exists. Trust me, 99.9% of the tim e, there will be people who'll end up heavily criticizing and even insulting the intellectual capabilities of other people. I am sure no admin of dignity would want a similar situation to take place in our beloved group. I had to speak up a nd voice out my suggestion (i.e. to get back to the physics of this post) becaus e there were signs of mockery and excessive sarcasm popping up along the convers ation. Personally, I expected a heavy discussion on string theory, quantum loop gravity, multiverse theory, entropy of a singularity etc but I was disappointed. And Ng Zhan Ming, for your information, I am both the creator and founder of thi s group, but don't let that intimidate you. My purpose of creating this group an d being together with all of you is a humble one; it's for sharing and mutual le arning. And I have to speak up whenever I see signs of deviations from that purp ose. If at all you guys still want to engage in a philosophical discussion about whet her or not God exists, please keep the conversation free from mockery, sarcasm a nd insults. Thank you and Cheers !

22 minutes ago Unlike 3 Christian Pike I would like to leave all this with one final statement (and plea se delete it if it's out of line): I believe that there is one God, a higher exi stence and understanding, that is comprised of a substance called faith. This su bstance exists in a reality higher than this one, in the world of spirits. I bel ieve that God is a spirit, which is an invisible source of inspiration and life to this reality. I hope that my life will do more good to the benefit of humanit y than it will do harm. And I also hope that someone somewhere has understood th e points made in this conversation, and has considered the thoughts expressed. M ay The Lord, whom I understand as Jesus Christ, bless each person on this topic, opening our understanding and prosperity to a degree that we never imagined. 20 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran, yup, saw what you meant, didn't read t he earlier comments, assumed that only the most recent comments were relevant. 20 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming And hereby, I vote for the best debator....Brian Khor Jia Jiunn. LO L. 19 minutes ago Like 2 Sri Vignaraajah Viknesvaran Mr Christian Pike, don't worry. I'm one of those guy s who believe that everyone is entitled to their own faiths and beliefs. 18 minutes ago Unlike 2 Christian Pike Like I said earlier, I would never want to twist anyone's arm. Be yond discussing physics, I would only hope to present my point of view to anothe r and allow them to consider it, all while myself considering their's. 17 minutes ago Like 1 Brian Khor Jia Jiunn LOL I'm flattered by Ng Zhan Ming, haha 16 minutes ago Like 2 Christian Pike Would it be ok with everyone here if I copy this post and make it available on my personal page? 13 minutes ago Like Ng Zhan Ming Christian Pike, I'm okay with being quoted in original form, no edi ts, not sure about the others. 12 minutes ago Like Christian Pike I'll go ahead and copy and paste all this. If anyone has an issue with that, be it identity or otherwise, let me know and I'll remove it immediat ely. It's been a genuine pleasure gentlemen.