Could all life be alien to this planet?

[danot]

That's down to basic logic - which I've pointed out at least four times already.

 

 

If you insist that things can only exist because something has caused them, you are caught in an infinite regressive loop.

 

If you do not so insist, then the Universe doesn't need a cause.

 

Or- By scientists insisting that the universe can exist without having a cause, their theories become theoretically plausible. If they insisted that the universe must have a cause because nothing can exist without having a cause (including a creator), their theory falls into the same infinite regressive loop as the creation theory.

 

Question- If the universal laws of physics no longer apply to these "no cause" theories, why should basic logic apply?

[danot]

Sooner or later you have no choice but to except that something can exist without cause or creator.

 

This sounds like a sermon.

[MrSmith]

This sounds like a sermon.

 

Why?

[danot]

If an implausible theory checks out by following a process of thorough scientific vigour, and this is also thoroughly reviewed by a group of respected peers, the implausible theory becomes a lot less implausible.

 

The creation argument, cannot be proved or disproved, as it is a faith. You don't have to know that God exists, and you don't have to try to disprove scientific theories, it is enough to believe that God created the Universe. That should be enough for true believers.

Likewise- we can only believe that the universe exists without cause.

[JFKvsNixon]

Or- By scientists insisting that the universe can exist without having a cause, their theories become theoretically plausible. If they insisted that the universe must have a cause because nothing can exist without having a cause (including a creator), their theory falls into the same infinite regressive loop as the creation theory.

 

Question- If the universal laws of physics no longer apply to these "no cause" theories, why should basic logic apply?

 

Maybe it's the case that we have got a way to go until we fully understand the universal laws of physics.

[JFKvsNixon]

Likewise- we can only believe that the universe exists without cause.

 

Science isn't a belief. Scientific laws aren't based upon faith, they are testable over and over again.

[danot]

Then you are caught in an infinite regressive loop, or you must contradict yourself.

 

By thinking logically I would always be caught in the regressive loop. Which leads me to believe the cause and reason must defy the rules of logic, just as it defies the universal laws of physics.

[HeadingNorth]

By thinking logically I would always be caught in the regressive loop.

 

Not true. You only get caught in it with the assumption that nothing can exist without needing a cause.

 

If you accept that things can exist without cause, there is no problem. The Universe exists. You don't need to invent a cause.

[danot]

So again your opinion must be that the universe cannot exist, because if it needs a cause or reason it exist then the reason or cause must also need a reason or cause to exist.

 

Only human arrogance would cause someone to think that. The mystery of creation clearly isn't governed by the known laws of universal physics, so why would it governed by the rules of logical reasoning? It's way beyond our comprehension. That's the only answer there is.

[MrSmith]

By thinking logically I would always be caught in the regressive loop. Which leads me to believe the cause and reason must defy the rules of logic, just as it defies the universal laws of physics.

 

So we are looking for something that defies the rules of logic the universal laws of physics that can create a universe. This something would have to have a cause or reason to exist or must always have existed.