The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:13 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it."

There is no "prior" to the origin of space/time because there is no "time" before time came into existence.

So when you say a cause is required, you're making an unfounded assumption since one can't have a "cause" in the absence of time for the cause to occur.

We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang. The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning. We have no way to know. (Which is the basic argument of this thread.)

It depends on your perspective. If you are within this universe looking back, then time started when the universe did. However to an agent outside the universe that predates it, time is a function purely of our universe. It would not apply to or constrain that external agent. The clock on an iPhone doesn't start until it is created. That doesn't affect the kid in China assembling it.

"We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang."

There is no "prior" because that presumes time existed before time came into existence.

"The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning."

The origin of space and time are one and the same. The information only goes back as far as when information first started to arise.

"We have no way to know. "

We do have ways of knowing about our universe and the origin of space and time, it's called science. We can't know about "prior" to space/time because it is a nonsensical question. It would be akin to asking what ultraviolet radiation tastes like. That questions misunderstands both the chemistry of taste and the physics of the EM spectrum.

"It depends on your perspective. If you are within this universe looking back, then time started when the universe did."

Seeing as how the only perspective which has ever been shown to exist is from within the universe, it is the only perspective from which one can make valid observations.

"However to an agent outside the universe that predates it, time is a function purely of our universe."

Demonstrate that there exists an "outside the universe" and that an "agent" occupies some portion of it. Until you demonstrate that these are both plausible and probable, it is illogical to assume they are. Drinking Beverage We will wait while you prove supernature and god.

"It would not apply to or constrain that external agent. "

Unfounded assumption based on your presupposition.

"The clock on an iPhone doesn't start until it is created. That doesn't affect the kid in China assembling it."

And we have direct evidence to link an iPhone to a human creator. But your example makes no sense anyways. Time doesn't seem to work the way you assume it does.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And given that you don't understand that science isn't still debating evolution and that there aren't any scientific reasons to doubt it, I assume the former possibility in my prior question. Drinking Beverage

Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists. Horizontal gene transfer is causing a major upheaval. The Tree of Life is being completely redrawn. New theories that explain the gaps in the fossil record are being presented. I don't deny evolution, but if you think it is a done deal, you are clueless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:26 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your simplistic analogy doesn't satisfactorily explain the the singularity that was the origin of space/time.

Physicists have studied this for their careers and wouldn't agree with your assertions. Think about it. Which is more likely, an engineer (I'll assume you've your "advanced degrees") misunderstands theoretical physics by applying simple engineering concepts to the universe, OR an engineer figured out god and the universe before the theoretical physicists who study it detail for entire careers? Drinking Beverage

Since you can't argue yourself you fall back to an appeal to authority. Physicists devote their lives to reducing everything in the universe to math. Their beliefs are based on a PHILOSOPHY of reductionism. If you have peer reviewed data to support your claims, you are using science. If you don't you are in the realm of philosophy. btw-There are theoretical physicists who are theists too.

"Since you can't argue yourself you fall back to an appeal to authority. "

You appeal to an argument from ignorance. My presumption that physicists who study the origin of space/time understand it better than you or I, is an appeal to authority. It is recognition of experts. Experts do exist and do have more valid opinions on the subjects on which they are experts than amateurs do. That is why they are experts.

And it's ironic for you to dismiss an appeal to authority since you do it too: "I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet." hypocrisy Drinking Beverage

"I presented a very simple explanation that a high school kid would understand."

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." -Albert Einstein.

You oversimplify to the point of creating an example that is not analogous.

"If you can't understand that you are too ignorant to have this discussion."

Presuming you know more than me when you profess such simplistic and illogical assumptions, is hilarious. I don't presume that my degrees in geology make me an expert in physics (especially theoretical physics), but you do make that assumption that your engineering degrees make you an expert or make your opinion equatable with those of experts. You're quite the arrogant fuck aren't you?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And given that you don't understand that science isn't still debating evolution and that there aren't any scientific reasons to doubt it, I assume the former possibility in my prior question. Drinking Beverage

Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists. Horizontal gene transfer is causing a major upheaval. The Tree of Life is being completely redrawn. New theories that explain the gaps in the fossil record are being presented. I don't deny evolution, but if you think it is a done deal, you are clueless.

Please continue to tell me what scientists studying evolution and the fossil record are debating. As a paleontologist/geologist, I have no idea /sarcasmfont

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists. Horizontal gene transfer is causing a major upheaval. The Tree of Life is being completely redrawn. New theories that explain the gaps in the fossil record are being presented. I don't deny evolution, but if you think it is a done deal, you are clueless.

Name these scientists.
Show us this new tree.
Reference us to these new theories.
No one said it was a "done deal". It will always undergo adjustments. But the general paradigm stands, and no one is doubting that mutations drive change, subject to natural selection. The CORE of the theory is not being questioned.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists.

I don't think you understand what "being debated" means to biologists and scientists in general. When they say they are "debating" evolution they are asking for a better explanation for what they observe than the one they find most plausible.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-07-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Hello u196533! Big Grin

(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists.

I son;t think 'debated' is quite the right word. New ideas, hypothesis and observations are always being made. Thumbsup

(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Horizontal gene transfer is causing a major upheaval.

(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The Tree of Life is being completely redrawn.

Um.. I don't think 'Completely redrawn' is right. Possibly the very bottom level is getting a tad more scrutiny is all. With maybe some of the things there being adjusted. I am not aware of horizontal gene transfer happening at say, the mammal level of the tree (More like a huge shaggy bush.)

(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  New theories that explain the gaps in the fossil record are being presented.

Really? Other than not having found anything preserved? Please tell me more.

(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I don't deny evolution, but if you think it is a done deal, you are clueless.

Oh? What else might there be?
Are you positing there are alternate hypothesis/theories to that of the current evolution?
Or are you suggesting that the theory will continued to be modified and adjusted based on new discoveries?

Much cheers to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
01-07-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang. The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning. We have no way to know. (Which is the basic argument of this thread.)

It depends on your perspective. If you are within this universe looking back, then time started when the universe did. However to an agent outside the universe that predates it, time is a function purely of our universe. It would not apply to or constrain that external agent. The clock on an iPhone doesn't start until it is created. That doesn't affect the kid in China assembling it.

"We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang."

There is no "prior" because that presumes time existed before time came into existence.

"The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning."

The origin of space and time are one and the same. The information only goes back as far as when information first started to arise.

"We have no way to know. "

We do have ways of knowing about our universe and the origin of space and time, it's called science. We can't know about "prior" to space/time because it is a nonsensical question. It would be akin to asking what ultraviolet radiation tastes like. That questions misunderstands both the chemistry of taste and the physics of the EM spectrum.

"It depends on your perspective. If you are within this universe looking back, then time started when the universe did."

Seeing as how the only perspective which has ever been shown to exist is from within the universe, it is the only perspective from which one can make valid observations.

"However to an agent outside the universe that predates it, time is a function purely of our universe."

Demonstrate that there exists an "outside the universe" and that an "agent" occupies some portion of it. Until you demonstrate that these are both plausible and probable, it is illogical to assume they are. Drinking Beverage We will wait while you prove supernature and god.

"It would not apply to or constrain that external agent. "

Unfounded assumption based on your presupposition.

"The clock on an iPhone doesn't start until it is created. That doesn't affect the kid in China assembling it."

And we have direct evidence to link an iPhone to a human creator. But your example makes no sense anyways. Time doesn't seem to work the way you assume it does.

"Seeing as how the only perspective which has ever been shown to exist is from within the universe, it is the only perspective from which one can make valid observations."
You kinda admitted my original argument. We cannot ever know the origin of the universe unequivocally.

The energy in the universe had to originate somewhere. Science cannot explain how it was concentrated into one point, so a supernatural agent is logical. It is not unreasonable to consider an external agent. It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

"There is no "prior" because that presumes time existed before time came into existence."
The whole premise is that an agent outside the universe unaffected by the constraints of the physics in our universe. Also we do not know that time was created at the Big Bang. We have no idea what/if anything existed prior to the Big Bang.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang. The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning. We have no way to know.

(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The energy in the universe had to originate somewhere. Science cannot explain how it was concentrated into one point, so a supernatural agent is logical. It is not unreasonable to consider an external agent.

These two statements are directly contradictory.

Do you understand why?

(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

You seem to refuse to understand what "nothing" means.

Let's hear your definition - and how it excludes net-zero-energy fluctuations, which we have theoretical and empirical proof of?

(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  We have no idea what/if anything existed prior to the Big Bang.

THEREFOER GAAAAAAWD CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!!11!!

Please try harder.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
01-07-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:26 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Since you can't argue yourself you fall back to an appeal to authority. Physicists devote their lives to reducing everything in the universe to math. Their beliefs are based on a PHILOSOPHY of reductionism. If you have peer reviewed data to support your claims, you are using science. If you don't you are in the realm of philosophy. btw-There are theoretical physicists who are theists too.

"Since you can't argue yourself you fall back to an appeal to authority. "

You appeal to an argument from ignorance. My presumption that physicists who study the origin of space/time understand it better than you or I, is an appeal to authority. It is recognition of experts. Experts do exist and do have more valid opinions on the subjects on which they are experts than amateurs do. That is why they are experts.

And it's ironic for you to dismiss an appeal to authority since you do it too: "I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet." hypocrisy Drinking Beverage

"I presented a very simple explanation that a high school kid would understand."

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." -Albert Einstein.

You oversimplify to the point of creating an example that is not analogous.

"If you can't understand that you are too ignorant to have this discussion."

Presuming you know more than me when you profess such simplistic and illogical assumptions, is hilarious. I don't presume that my degrees in geology make me an expert in physics (especially theoretical physics), but you do make that assumption that your engineering degrees make you an expert or make your opinion equatable with those of experts. You're quite the arrogant fuck aren't you?

When a theoretical physicist has data and makes a statement in their field, I defer to their expertise. When they do not have data or make a statement in what is really the realm of philosophy, they are just another asshole with an opinion.
I was making a statement about Thermodynamics, not theoretical physics.

My car example is not an analogy. It is a simple example of how the 2nd Law applies to Open systems. The Krebs cycle is another.
I studied Thermodynamics and have degrees in Mechanical Eng. This is a very basic concept that you simply do not understand. I don't mean to appear arrogant, but you are plain and simply wrong if you think it only applies to isolated systems.

I acknowledge that i also appealed to authority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: