The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

[Into the Night]

Ah ok. My own theory as to why physics' constants' and indeed everything exists is because it wants to. I know that's not much of a theory, but it's the best I've got on that :-p.

There is no 'want to'.

[Saint Guinefort]

So why not just admit you didn't understand biochemistry or the nature of early life on earth?

Cyanobacteria have existed for billions of years. You don't need to have protozoa be the first cells. The first cells could use sunlight through photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolic functions.

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

[BidenPresident]

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

Cypress is an expert on everything.

[Into the Night]

I personally have never found the "well, that's just the way it is" explanation to be either scientifically or philosophically satisfying.

As to the origin of physics, it seems our options are to say that physical laws randomly appeared out of nowhere for no conceiveable reason, or that there is some higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos we cannot fathom. The Neoconfucians called it Li. The Hindus call it Brahman.

It would be nice if a theory of everything can be discovered in our lifetimes, unifying the fundamental forces of nature. But even then, it doesn't explain where the unified force came from, and the answer to that may forever be beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Science is not a 'method' or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. YOU are quoting the philosophies of Roger Bacon, who tried to use them to declare that science WAS religion. Science, of course, cannot be defined that way.
There is no 'unified force'. There is no theory of science concerning a 'unified force'.
Theories of science are created by men. They are tested by men. They are falsified by men. There is no 'unified' ultimate of science. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

[Into the Night]

Much to the annoyance of Einstein, some of the early pioneering quantum physicists like Pauli dabbled in Hinduism and Eastern religions and seemed to try to fuse science and religion Into a type of quantum mysticism.

That kind of speculation isn't much different than religion or metaphysics, and certainly never gained traction in the mainstream scientific community. But I still think that kind of speculation is perfectly reasonable to engage in.

Religion is not science. There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. Science is not a community.

[Into the Night]

The first cells, like cyanobacteria, used photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolism.

Can't. Photosynthesis requires complex structures to function, even for cyanobacteria. There isn't any! There is no 'chemical energy' that just comes by itself. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

[Into the Night]

What do cyanobacteria eat today? They photosynthesize.

(Do you think trees run around hunting down small prey to eat?)

A tree is a complex structure as well. You are ignoring the conversation.

[Saint Guinefort]

A tree is a complex structure as well. You are ignoring the conversation.

You asked what a photosynthesizing creature "ate". I answered your question AND I gave you a counterexample of how you must think about photosynthesizing things if you are mystifie by what they "eat".

[Into the Night]

Incorrect. "Theory" as it is used in science is a very specific thing.

Yes. It must be falsifiable.

It is one of the highest degrees of certainty of anything in science.

Circular definition.

Now, COMMON LANUGAGE use of "theory" means more of a "guess".

Semantics fallacy. The word 'theory' always means the same thing.

"It is my theory that....". But in science it all starts with HYPOTHESIS

No. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

and then repeated observation and testing until the proper hypothesis is found and with even more testing and confirmation it graduates up to a "Theory".

You just defined something that can 'prove' a religion True.

No. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no one to 'graduate' anything 'up to a theory'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Again, this is very different from how we commonly use the word "theory" in regular conversation.

Semantics fallacy. The meaning of 'theory' doesn't change. A theory is an explanatory argument.

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes. It must be falsifiable.

Circular definition.

Semantics fallacy. The word 'theory' always means the same thing.

No. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

You just defined something that can 'prove' a religion True.

No. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no one to 'graduate' anything 'up to a theory'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Semantics fallacy. The meaning of 'theory' doesn't change. A theory is an explanatory argument.

You are wrong my friend. And if you were right you could find a reference that supports it. But you can't. So I'll give you a reference that supports my explanation:

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dar...at-is-a-theory

Also this:

[Cypress]

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

Oh sorry I thought I was responding to that Into night nutjob

[Saint Guinefort]

Oh sorry I thought I was responding to that Into night nutjob

No prob.

[Cypress]

Can't. Photosynthesis requires complex structures to function, even for cyanobacteria. There isn't any! There is no 'chemical energy' that just comes by itself. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

The first bacteria were probably archea, some of which used the chemical energy derived from redox reactions with sulfur or iron to support their metabolic functions. Cyanobacteria have been around at least two billion years, so they were using sunlight to support metabolism.


When you asked what the first cells were "eating" it makes you sound like a child.

[Into the Night]

So why not just admit you didn't understand biochemistry or the nature of early life on earth?

Neither do you.

Cyanobacteria have existed for billions of years.

How do you know? Were you there to observe them?

You don't need to have protozoa be the first cells.
The first cells could use sunlight through photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolic functions.

Cyanobacteria form colonies with cells set aside for specialized functions.
Photosynthesis requires complex structures. It also only provides sugar for the plant (or cells). It doesn't provide for it's other needs.

[Into the Night]

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

Oh...so you call yourself a chemist now? Making up stories about yourself won't work, dude.