Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution (UIDE)©

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by IMAMONKEY!

ALso... Zythryn. Philosophy is not an exact science. It cannot be tested. By what you stated, then there are no theory's in philosophy other than those that bend into other sciences. This bends into another science, but a science that we know so little about that we can merely speculate.

Hello Imamonkey.

Personally, I agree with you completely. However, MM seems to argue in a style to indicate that his beliefs should replace scientific theories. And he is the one that used the term theory to describe his stance.

As for being 15, that certainly doesn't mean anyone should discount your opinion. I have met 15 year olds that are wiser than many older people

Mark

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

FRIPRO, may I apologise for crediting you with a greater grasp of your subject matter than you actually have. That led me to post a very truncated version of a simple, yet elegant hypothesis, which seemed to have parallels with your own. I am sorry I was unable to convey this possibly important concept to you.

The notion is that God is an emergent property. Just as order and structure and complexity, in the form of galaxies and planetary systems, emerged from chaos and simple physical laws; just as prebiotic chemistry, then life, emerged from random chemical reactions and simple combinatory principles; just as more complex life forms and life systems emerged from this cornucopia of a biosphere; just as self awareness - consciousness - emerged from the complexity of the 'higher' life forms;so, in the far future, God may emerge from the complexity and the as yet unheralded emergent properties to come. Then God, recursively, with the emergent power (omnipotent) motivated by knowledge (ominscient) creates our Universe in the past.

Still, your right. It's just an idea. Silly really.

My friend-- I keep running into your threads! It seems we are at loggerheads about the Universe and its existant etc. I have come to accept some of your thoughts about UIDE But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

Here is my final thought on this (which I might add was tempered by your thoughts and so published ( In the EPOLOG) at the end of the manuscript: on http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html check it out!

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution (constant change)!

To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth is how Earth improves itself (a living organism) -- but in Space the Universe is in constant change eternally, the Universe is now, always was and will always be -- changing form only.

(UIDE)* Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution is the mechanics we all live by. Yes it is a theory, and it written to provoke thought and questioning the current theorys-- that may be wrong.

Man does not want to accept that the Universe is eternal -- because he has only 100 year (more or less) to understand it. So he looks to a god to do it for him![/i] FRIPRO

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

No it doesn't. Read my frigging posts. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. Let me lay it out for you one more time:
1. I have no frigging idea whether or not there is a God, or a god, or lots of gods.
2. If there is a God (etc) I have nor frigging idea of his (or her, or its) characteristics.
3. I offered you a concept, not of my making, and not one that I subscribe to, that the Universe may evolve into a God.
4. I offered this concept, because it seemed to have similarities with your own ideas.
5. I do not hold with either of these two frigging viewpoints.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution (constant change)!

This is not a complete sentence. For the love of God (subject to the earlier caveats as to its existence) what are you trying to say here? Try answering this question for once, not declaring that you see my point and have incorporated it in your writings. I don't have a frigging point, I'm just trying to understand yours.
Did you mean to write through evolution constantly changing? If not, what?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Man does not want to accept that the Universe is eternal -- because he has only 100 year (more or less) to understand it. So he looks to a god to do it for him!

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

No it doesn't. Read my frigging posts. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. Let me lay it out for you one more time:
1. I have no frigging idea whether or not there is a God, or a god, or lots of gods.
2. If there is a God (etc) I have nor frigging idea of his (or her, or its) characteristics.
3. I offered you a concept, not of my making, and not one that I subscribe to, that the Universe may evolve into a God.
4. I offered this concept, because it seemed to have similarities with your own ideas.
5. I do not hold with either of these two frigging viewpoints.

This is not a complete sentence. For the love of God (subject to the earlier caveats as to its existence) what are you trying to say here? Try answering this question for once, not declaring that you see my point and have incorporated it in your writings. I don't have a frigging point, I'm just trying to understand yoursthrough evolution constantly changi.through evolution constantly changi
Did you mean to write ng? If not, what?

Yes, I did mean:"through evolution constantly changing." Every time I read these strings it seem that some one, or a computer is changing the text and spliting it into seperate thoughts, and we loose the question, and the answer!

I looked up "frigging" could not find it in the dictionary!

Regards Thank for the enlightenment.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

I looked up "frigging" could not find it in the dictionary!

Considering a Google search for dictionary: friggingreturns over 80,000 hits, I suggest you need a new dictionary.

Thank you for finally answering a direct question with an almost direct answer.

Here is another one. Since you are defining evolution as nothing more or less than change, what is the point of the redundancy in your sentence:

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution, constantly changing!

which becomes, using your definitions,

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through change, constantly changing!

[IMAMONKEY!]

i htink what he meant to say was evolution constantly changes us.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by IMAMONKEY!

i htink what he meant to say was evolution constantly changes us.

But he has defined evolution as change. Therefore your interpretation (which I agree seems the most likely) comes out as change is constantly changing us.
Well, yes, and so.......

FRIPRO may have an interesting idea here (or he may not). I am trying to get him to express that idea with some clarity and precision, so that the rest of us have some chance of understanding it. It is likely that English is not FRIPRO's native language, which complicates matters, but encourages me to persistence (if not patience) in trying to get to the roots of his thesis.

[arkain101]

My friend-- I keep running into your threads! It seems we are at loggerheads about the Universe and its existant etc. I have come to accept some of your thoughts about UIDE But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

Well, Considering how finely tuned the universe is. The Evolution sure did start out at a very very advanced state that is so perfectly and finely tuned it is well beyond our own accuracy.
Whether you call this design a universe in state of evolution or a god, either way looking at the details of its characteristics, it is of godlike perportions..

The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants
Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

Electromagnetism

There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

Strong Nuclear Force

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.

Electrons

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

Gravity

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible.

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power). That number is so large that it's difficult for laymen to get a handle on it. So I compare that number with another very large number - the national debt.

[Eclogite]

Weak Anthropic Principle.

[ughaibu]

What do these ideas propose as the intelligence behind the design?