Science isn’t always the answer.

[ding]

Maybe because if we weren't we would be in a position to make these kinds of contemplations on account of us not existing?

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[Flopper]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Very true. Many people criticize scientists because science does not deal in absolute truths in the way religion does. People will often say, "It's just theory". What they don't understand that in science there is no higher level of scientific certainty than a theory. Even the most accepted theories are always subject to change as we learn more.

 

[ding]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[forkup]

Who created your God?

Ah... the infinite regression.

There is only one solution to this conundrum. An uncaused first cause. Something (or in this case no thing) which has existed forever and is unchanging. Because for it to exist forever it must be unchanging. Matter and energy are not unchanging. So the solution to the first cause is spirit or no thing.

Again says you. Scientists have envisioned a constantly expanding and retracting universe, universes that adhere to different natural laws. The point is we don't know. You claim you do. A claim is not proof.

 

[ding]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

 

[ding]

Who created your God?

Ah... the infinite regression.

There is only one solution to this conundrum. An uncaused first cause. Something (or in this case no thing) which has existed forever and is unchanging. Because for it to exist forever it must be unchanging. Matter and energy are not unchanging. So the solution to the first cause is spirit or no thing.

Again says you. Scientists have envisioned a constantly expanding and retracting universe, universes that adhere to different natural laws. The point is we don't know. You claim you do. A claim is not proof.

You were the one who asked for proof. I am giving you the proof.

So maybe you really didn't want to see the proof, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am giving you the proof.

*turns to camera and whispers

"Arguments aren't proof of anything, kids. And proof is for mathematics anyway..."

 

[ding]

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

 

[ding]

I am giving you the proof.

*turns to camera and whispers

"Arguments aren't proof of anything, kids. And proof is for mathematics anyway..."

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs. It's obvious.

 

[forkup]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

They call something like this a hypothesis. Wich is the first step. Maybe he can prove it mathematically possible.

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen. There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe yet you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

See why someone could have a problem with that?

 

[ding]

It boggles my mind how anyone who claims to believe in science will argue against science the moment it doesn't suit their purpose.

The universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago from nothing and then began to expand and cool until it produced beings that know and create. These are the facts.

Argue against it. I double dog dare you.

 

[ding]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

They call something like this a hypothesis. Wich is the first step. Maybe he can prove it mathematically possible.

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen. There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe yet you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

See why someone could have a problem with that?

So you believe the universe existed forever then? Not possible. Do you understand what happens thermodynamically to objects. They equillibrate. So as time approaches infinity all objects will equillibrate. That is the consequence of the SLoT. You cannot avoid this fate.

Which is why there had to be a beginning. And lo and behold, red shift and CMB confirm there was a beginning?

So then the question becomes where did it come from? Well it couldn't have existed forever because it would have equillibrated. So then the question becomes how can it be created without violating the FLoT. And that's where the explanation that the sum of the energy of the universe is a net zero. That the matter and energy of the universe is balanced by the gravity of the universe which does not violate the law of conservation.

 

[ding]

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe

Actually there aren't. And for you to make this statement without actually checking proves your bias. There is literally no evidence you will accept because you don't believe you can be wrong. It certainly isn't because you actually have any evidence for your beliefs. That's for sure.

 

[ding]

you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Did you forget that YOU were the one who asked for evidence for God's existence.

I have literally given you what YOU asked for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs.

Says the guy hat snapfits everything to his beliefs. No, sorry, evidence based thinkers are the open minded ones, while magical dogmatists like you are the most closed minded of all. You have it exactly, 100% backwards.

 

[ding]

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs.

Says the guy hat snapfits everything to his beliefs. No, sorry, evidence based thinkers are the open minded ones, while magical dogmatists like you are the most closed minded of all. You have it exactly, 100% backwards.

No. I had an open mind. I didn't form any conclusions for 15 years. You only think I always believed in God. That wasn't the case.

 

[ding]

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs.

Says the guy hat snapfits everything to his beliefs. No, sorry, evidence based thinkers are the open minded ones, while magical dogmatists like you are the most closed minded of all. You have it exactly, 100% backwards.

You will continue to have your lessons returned to you. Count on it.

 

[Crepitus]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Very true. Many people criticize scientists because science does not deal in absolute truths in the way religion does. People will often say, "It's just theory". What they don't understand that in science there is no higher level of scientific certainty than a theory. Even the most accepted theories are always subject to change as we learn more.

They think a theory is something they come up with while passing the bong.

 

[forkup]

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

 

[forkup]

I am giving you the proof.

*turns to camera and whispers

"Arguments aren't proof of anything, kids. And proof is for mathematics anyway..."

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs. It's obvious.

I'm very interested in learning and accepting the truth. Just type in my name and the words ("I stand corrected"). What you'll find is that I routinely admit when I'm wrong. I very much doubt you can show the same.