Something From Nothing?

Life may have originated in hydrosulfuric vents at the bottom of the ocean where tiny creatures could evolve to feed on the highly consentrated nutrients spewing out of the vents.
Both A&B, I believe, are assumptions on your part?
I suppose that you are right in that both A and B originated from MY intellect, thus, A is really B.
Hypothetically, what do we as individuals believe the source of stuff to be? Is it based on a belief...(A) or on a theory (B)

I don't really understand the point of this sentenece. I don't know why "hypothetically" is at the beginning for one thing.But to keep the discussion moving I will translate it and answer it. You can then correct me if I get it wrong."What do we each choose to believe the source of "stuff" to be? Do we believe in a specific supernatural source or do we believe in a theory."In this I translate "stuff" to be: 1) the origin of the universe and 2) the origin of life. It is a bit tricky since these are two rather different kinds of "stuff" and mixing them up doesn't help the discussion.However, the real problem is "believe" used in both places. I take "believe", in this case, to mean "accept based on faith". In the case of A)( a supernatural explanation) there is by definition no other choice be to accept based on faith. Supernatural means, to me, having no testable connection to the natural world. In the case of B) (a theoretical idea of what the source might be) I don't ever choose based on faith. I wait until there is some evidence to help me determine the degree of likelyhood of the theory.The occurance of the big bang has a lot of interesting evidence for it so it is reasonably acceptable as a likely suggestion. What caused the big bang has less evidence and is less solidly founded so I might leave it in the "I don't know" category.The orgin of life is not at the level of theory yet. Any specific, detailed descriptioin of it is definitly in the "I don't know" category.That both have a natural explanation is the other aspect of your question that needs to be discussed too. The reason for accepting this may press a little closer to being called "faith" but I don't think it is the same as the A) choice. Historically, taking the position that there are natural explanations for things presently unexplanable has proven to be a both useful and successful position. This is enough evidence for me to tentatively accept it this time too. It may not be enough for others who are more inclinded to bet on long shots. It seems to be not very useful to take a supernatural explanation for things until the possibility of natural explanations have been pretty throughly ruled out. We will always have, I hope, things we don't know. That is not a very useful excuse to stick "God did it" in as an answer. It is worse than not useful it is dangerous in that it precludes every having a 'real' answer since we would then stop looking.

---

Common sense isn't

A) Beliefs are usually accepted on authority. B)Theories are accepted on evidence. C)Unlike religion, science requires that a
theory be tested to the point of ruination, and if the theory still holds up under the onslaught of critical scrutiny, then it is tentatively accepted. This has obviously been true of the Big-Bang theory for many years, even though scientists will always come along and test it.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-31-2004]

science cannot dispel the theory God so i would say religion has so far held up to the most critical scrutiny that being time...of course time will tell if it continues to hold up but you can't deny the fundamental truths of all religions concerning healthy living...the truth of your life is in the way you live it which leads to a higher power, so it's all good

quote:

---

science cannot dispel the theory God so i would say religion has so far held up to the most critical scrutiny that being time...

---

Since the God hypothesis makes claims that can never be tested, it has never been vulernable or subjected to scrutiny at all.

God is not a testable hypothesis, and that's why scientists generally prefer to leave the question up to religion.

so what would make the god theory into a testable hypothesis, ie...what sort proof would you need ???

The test would depend on the hypothesized nature of God. Most Christians describe God as being purely supernatural. That is, there is no way to test the existance or nature of God at all. This leaves that God outside of the perview of science.If someone wants to know what sort of proof would be needed they need to describe the nature of God in such a way that it would be possible to hypothesize about what effects He would be expected to have. For the God in question to be explored by science He would have to have some characteristics that are not purely supernatural. He would have to have some qualities or behaviors that are independently observable by different researchers and those qualities and behaviors would have to be replicable by those who think that God exists and those who don't.What God do you want to test?

---

Common sense isn't

I don't buy into supernature or metaphysics and have moved somewhat on from the limited "christian" view of God......the God i'm talking aboout is "creative consciousness" ie... the first cause, surely that can be testedOn a side note I been trying to get my head around "varela's neurophenomenology" but beyond the big words there doesn't seem to be a whole lot there just more of the same type of stuff most of you go on about pre big bang and singularities needing more advanced terms of reference and closer study.anyone got any other recommendations ???the other thing is I'm sure most of you are capable of forming a hypothesis on God that you can test you just don't want to, the hypothesized nature of God is nature itself being the will of God.We're all looking in the same places but speculating differently on what we find...

It's your God, I can't think of any God hypothosis that hasn't already been thought up and either been untestable, failed the test or is waiting for more information. What good would it be for me to duplicate someone else's ideas?You describe your hypothosis and maybe someone can help you figure out a test for it. It's your idea not mine.

---

Common sense isn't

you basically just proved my point, you don't want to......and I already described the hypothesis, god as a creative consciousness is the first cause not some random fluctuation in a void.It's your God too whether you choose to believe or not so just be grateful that God believes in you or you wouldn't exist...<<(BTW aren't you just duplicating someone elses ideas anyway let's call it "regurgitationism")>><<(edit)>> sorry Ned that was uncalled for we're all guilty of coughing up tidbit's of disinformation, please don't take it personally or stop trying to enlighten me...thanx[This message has been edited by RingoKid, 02-04-2004]

I don't know about that. It just seems a silly exercise to me.For example: I see no way at all to distinguish between these two hypothoses. So why bother stringing words together that have no particularly useful outcome. If you describe where your hypothosis goes and what I would do to distinguish between it and any others it would become worth considering. Probably. I don't think I'm likely to come up with any startling new philosophical insights all my myself any more than you are. At least not any that stand up to some in depth analysis.

---

Common sense isn't

...you're rightI suppose it just emphasizes the silliness of the whole evolution v creation argument until...but i'm just getting started on the whole philosophical insights thing so...who knows ?

The argument isn't between any of the sciences and the idea of a creator (of the right sort). It is between the idea of creationism and, in particular, "creation science" where specific, well-supported, scienfic ideas are in conflict with some individuals unsupported interpretations of the Bible.This argument has been extended into the political arena and can do significant damage to the education system. That is not "silly".

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

This argument has been extended into the political arena and can do significant damage to the education system

---

...in what way ???