How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

Science doen't make claims of fact that which cannot be. Shown to be fact. No operational definition, no hypothesis test. No test, no fact

Stop plagiarizing me! The highlighted text is MY quote, yet you posted this as if YOU said it. I don't want people reading this forum to think this is YOUR argument. It is MY argument, and you are supposed to be addressing it.

Science does not make claims of FACT. Science can't do that. It defies everything science is or will ever be. Tests do not conclude FACTS. The BEST science can ever do is determine a probability. When it determines one thing is probable/not probable, it does NOT mean that something else is not probable/probable.

A very good example is the study of light. Scientific testing showed it was highly probable light was a particle. Newton's testing confirmed this. Now... if we approached science from YOUR perspective, this means light IS a particle, it's a FACT, can't be disputed or questioned.... it's impossible for light to be a wave. BUT... Other scientists disagreed and said light behaves as a wave, has wave-like properties, and is NOT a particle! Due largely to testing around 1850 by Léon Foucault, the particle theory was abandoned in favor of the wave theory. Again... By YOUR criteria, the testing shows Foucault's theory PROVES light is a wave and not a particle. BUT... Max Planck and Einstein come along in the early 1900s and propose that light is BOTH a particle and wave. That is the current prevailing thought.

As we can see in this example, science simply did not determine something was a FACT. And when it determined one probability, it didn't mean the opposite was false or impossible. When the opposite turned out to be confirmed in testing, it did not mean the original determinations were false. In the end, BOTH were possible! BOTH were true!

 

[Boss]

You're unable to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you really don't believe in the spiritual, although you will claim you do in order to "prove me wrong" in discussion.

I'll respond to the rest later, but as to the part I put in bold, . First, I never claimed to believe in the spiritual, far from it. So you're arguing a strawman. Second, if what you meant to say was I don't believe in the possibility of the spiritual, this is yet another example of exactly what I mentioned earlier : you have a bad habit of not saying what you actually mean (and then getting upset when people respond to what you say). Third, you are again deciding that you know what someone else believes, apparently in contradiction to what you think I've said (although, as previously stated, you are completely incorrect in what I've said). Fourth, you're back to your circular logic : you have to believe in the spiritual before you can objectively evaluate evidence for it. But why would I believe in something before I've seen objective evidence for its existence? When did belief in a thing equate to objectivity about that thing?

It's as though when I point out some problems in you arguments, you feel the need to go do those very things.

I'm done arguing semantics with you, I thought I made that clear yesterday. When you decide you want to get back to an actual debate on the topic, we can do that. Until then, you can post whatever nonsense you like. I'm not responding to this anymore.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

You can measure imagination, you can also measure spirituality. Spirituality has been experienced by humans for all of human existence. What you can't provide is the material composition of imagination. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am trained im scieñce, engineering, matamatics, and statistics and can guarantee that I know accurately and precisely how sciemce works. I am absolutely correct. Sorry, you have created a wealth of bs based in nothing.

And yes failure to prove something is often used to deter!mine the existance of something else. Just as is the failure to prove something prove that it doesnt exist. Indeed, that is a standard in scientific hypothesis testing. In fact, it is the most common technique.

LMFAO... I serious doubt your claimed qualifications. I think you barely graduated high school. You have ZERO understanding of how science works or the standards of scientific hypothesis testing. Failure to prove anything is just failure to prove that thing, it has nothing to do with proving or disproving something else.

For 2,000 years, we failed to disprove Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. It was taught to every student of every university in the world. Had you been alive back then, no doubt you would have considered it an absolute fact that could never be disputed. But this fella named Newton came along and said... not so fast, Aristotle... I don't think you are right. The result was Principia. Arguably one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time.

Now, Newton's Laws of Motion became what was taught in every university for the next several hundered years. No doubt, had you been around then, you would have considered this unassailable proven fact of science that could not be questioned or challenged. BUT... fella named Einstein came along... said, not so fast Newton! I don't think you are right! The result was the Theory of General and Special Relativity. Again, one of the greatest of all scientific achievements.

NONE of this can happen in a world where science determines things not proven mean something else is proven. In fact, none of this happens with a science that PROVES things. It only happens with a science that continues to explore possibility and doesn't draw assumption and conclusions of fact.

Congratulations, boss!

You just proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that you don't have a clue about science.

Einstein built on what Newton discovered who in turn built on what Aristotle discovered. Every genuine scientist today acknowledges that science is a process of discovery and that the knowledge and discoveries of their forebears are an essential basis for their own work.

Furthermore it was religions like Christianity that perpetuated ignorance and falsehoods about how the universe worked. The notable exception being the early Muslim enlightenment in the Sciences that is also recognized as being part of the discoveries and knowledge base of today's scientists.

So your cartoon depiction of how Science "evolved" says volumes about your ignorance. You are like a child running from one shiny object to another and pretending that you know what they are. But to anyone with actual knowledge of the sciences you are just a buffoon, a snake oil salesman trying to hide your religious agenda behind a cloak of smoke and mirrors pretending that they are "science".

You have not been able to establish a single fact to back up your drivel and you throw temper tantrums and accuse others of lying when they expose you as the charlatan that you really are. Your antics never change from thread to thread. It is always the same.
__________________

 

[Boss]

LMFAO... If by "built on" you mean "completely re-wrote" then yeah... but nahh.

 

[Boss]

You have not been able to establish a single fact....

And neither have YOU, assmunch!

Where the hell do you get the idea that we can "establish fact" when it comes to THIS question?
Did you get dropped on your head when you were a baby or something?

 

[Boss]

You just proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that you don't have a clue about science.

If you support itfitzme's interpretation of science... that science determines facts and the failure to determine a fact on one thing means something else must be a fact.... then YOU have demonstrated scientific illiteracy.

Now... silly boob needs you to go stick your head back up his ass and look for unicorns!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Great episode of Through The Wormhole:What Is Nothing? last night that dealt with the universe, and more interestingly, the pre-universe. Lastest research is seeming to indicate that there in fact was a universe here already when the big bang occured. So the question of 'how'd te universe get here' might be redundant if it was here all along.

Of course, an eternal and infinitely old universe is just as hard to wrap your head around.

 

[sealybobo]

Great episode of Through The Wormhole:What Is Nothing? last night that dealt with the universe, and more interestingly, the pre-universe. Lastest research is seeming to indicate that there in fact was a universe here already when the big bang occured. So the question of 'how'd te universe get here' might be redundant if it was here all along.

Of course, an eternal and infinitely old universe is just as hard to wrap your head around.

Makes more sense than the theory that nothing was here so no time or space even existed. My friend and boss try to explain this theory to me and something doesn't set right. I still think that if you go back before the universe, the spot I am standing right now is still the same spot. There is no earth or gravity where I am back then, but the spot is still here. If I were standing in the spot I'd be floating in deep space just like Clooney did in that movie with Sandra Bullock. Just floating around. But it is amazing to think that there was nothing, and all the stuff floating around maybe condensed into the tiny ball and the big bang happened because the ball was so condensed and the ripple effect caused all the stars and planets and moons we see around us.

Or, planets and stars maybe from other universes get sucked into black holes and maybe that's where everything came from. Don't things from our universe get sucked into black holes? Don't we know of multiple black holes? What the hell???

But to imagine a god did it? “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins Or Universe Richard.

 

[sealybobo]

You have not been able to establish a single fact....

And neither have YOU, assmunch!

Where the hell do you get the idea that we can "establish fact" when it comes to THIS question?
Did you get dropped on your head when you were a baby or something?

Your only argument is we can't 100% prove god doesn't exist. But we're getting closer. And what we do see is there is no good evidence there is a god. The religions are lying, you're guessing/hoping. We understand. Can't teach an old dog new tricks and some people are too far gone to turn it around. But people are evolving and that goes for their brains. Oh yea, I thought of you when I saw the preview for that woman who taps into 60% of her brain and she can control people and kill you with just a look. Morgan Freeman says "he's not sure the world is ready for that." We are still a pretty primitive species and I believe religion is proof of that. That and war, greed, evil, not caring about your kids.

Oh hey, that reminds me. So if god is that spiritual thing you feel, what is it when you feel rage, jealousy, lust, sad, confused, lost, like committing suicide? What are those "feelings"? Are they SATAN? Come on boss, wake the fuck up. Between this and your politics I'm beginning to think you are a major douce.

 

[Missourian]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

 

[Montrovant]

You're unable to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you really don't believe in the spiritual, although you will claim you do in order to "prove me wrong" in discussion.

I'll respond to the rest later, but as to the part I put in bold, . First, I never claimed to believe in the spiritual, far from it. So you're arguing a strawman. Second, if what you meant to say was I don't believe in the possibility of the spiritual, this is yet another example of exactly what I mentioned earlier : you have a bad habit of not saying what you actually mean (and then getting upset when people respond to what you say). Third, you are again deciding that you know what someone else believes, apparently in contradiction to what you think I've said (although, as previously stated, you are completely incorrect in what I've said). Fourth, you're back to your circular logic : you have to believe in the spiritual before you can objectively evaluate evidence for it. But why would I believe in something before I've seen objective evidence for its existence? When did belief in a thing equate to objectivity about that thing?

It's as though when I point out some problems in you arguments, you feel the need to go do those very things.

I'm done arguing semantics with you, I thought I made that clear yesterday. When you decide you want to get back to an actual debate on the topic, we can do that. Until then, you can post whatever nonsense you like. I'm not responding to this anymore.

Hah! "Waaaah, I'm doing exactly what you said I did and I told you I didn't, I don't wanna talk about this anymore, waaaah!"

It's funny how when you are shown to be wrong, or do the things you complain others do, it's suddenly just semantics and you don't want to respond.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

Who made god then? How come the universe MUST have a creator but the creator doesn't have to have a creator? Can't have it both ways.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

 

[PostmodernProph]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

Who made god then? How come the universe MUST have a creator but the creator doesn't have to have a creator? Can't have it both ways.

???.....can you prove we can't have it six ways?......what do creating gods have to look like?......do you have a deityfractometer that you measure them by?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.

complexity isn't intended to prove the existence of a god.....it is intended to prove the stupidity of "random shit just happens randomly" as the solution.......because complex things don't happen randomly......

 

[Youwerecreated]

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.

complexity isn't intended to prove the existence of a god.....it is intended to prove the stupidity of "random shit just happens randomly" as the solution.......because complex things don't happen randomly......

I have to disagree a little, complexity is proof of the designer. That is the reason God said the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Because we are constantly reminded of God by the evidence around us.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

Who made god then? How come the universe MUST have a creator but the creator doesn't have to have a creator? Can't have it both ways.

He who creates is greater then the creation. The Universe made you who made the Universe ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You just proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that you don't have a clue about science.

If you support itfitzme's interpretation of science... that science determines facts and the failure to determine a fact on one thing means something else must be a fact.... then YOU have demonstrated scientific illiteracy.

Now... silly boob needs you to go stick your head back up his ass and look for unicorns!

at Boss's all too predictable meltdown when he exposed as an ignoramus!

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

The Universe is filled with random variables that run a muck all the time. That you cannot see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

The Universe is filled with random variables that run a muck all the time. That you cannot see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Everything suffers from entropy over time.