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, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 01:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(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. It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

Totally false. If, as Roger Penrose thinks, it always existed, your presumption is wrong. Bangs and re-bangs. You should read some science sometime.
The fundamental nature of Reality is non-intuitive. What appears to be "reasonable" to the human brain, is not how it works. Is Relativity logical ? Is Uncertainty logical ? You jump to your gap god, as you lack creativity, and any other explanation. You do this as you suffer from Low Ambiguity Tolerance, and a need for Cognitive Closure. How many times do you have to be told, an "external agent" requires Space-time a priori. It's a meaningless set of words, in the absence of space.

Quote:"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.


Great. Then stop making up shit about what you don't know.

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, 01:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:13 PM)cjlr 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.

(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.

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

Null- The empty set. Net zero energy fluctuations require an energy density field in which to exist. An energy density field is not nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 01:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let's hear your definition - and how it excludes net-zero-energy fluctuations, which we have theoretical and empirical proof of?

Null- The empty set. Net zero energy fluctuations require an energy density field in which to exist. An energy density field is not nothing.

Do you have any theoretical or empirical proof that such a null state can even exist, let alone that it did?

I am not familiar with any.

One is free to to invoke whatever baseless hypotheticals one wishes, but their applicability wanes rapidly.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
01-07-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(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. It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

You're equivocating here. Logically speaking there is a difference between
  • Not having enough information to rule something out and
  • Assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven wrong.
That first one is basically intellectual honesty in admitting the limits of one's knowledge. The second is an informal logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).


(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

It would seem that the less we know about what happened "before" the Big Bang (if that's even a coherent term), the less we can infer about what "caused" it. Basically, the more we throw our hands up in the air and say "I dunno", the less we can say it was any one specific thing (like God).

The problem with shrouding things in doubt to remove it from scrutiny is that it cuts both ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
01-07-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

Argument from ignorance X2

Assuming you know an answer because a sufficient explanation with evidence to back it up hasn't been presented by science is a baseless faith position.

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, 02:26 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:18 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

And now a straw man.

You don't paper arrogant, you are arrogant. This isn't helped by the constant stream of baseless assertions being paraded about as if they are scientifically or evidentially supported.

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, 02:35 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 09:17 AM)u196533 Wrote:  That is the primary concept of the 2nd Law. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible. (When it disperses some of it is lost (heat, friction, noise), and cannot be recaptured to do work. That lost energy is defined as entropy.) Energy will never spontaneously concentrate; that requires an outside influence.

So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

Are you saying that the second law is being violated because entropy would somehow have to be reversed prior to the big bang?

If so, I have several objections to that.... if not, could you please clarify why you think the second law has anything at all to do with the big bang?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Null- The empty set. Net zero energy fluctuations require an energy density field in which to exist. An energy density field is not nothing.

Do you have any theoretical or empirical proof that such a null state can even exist, let alone that it did?

I am not familiar with any.

One is free to to invoke whatever baseless hypotheticals one wishes, but their applicability wanes rapidly.

I have none. I am stating that I think it is more reasonable to believe in a first cause that created the energy in the universe than to state that it popped into existence from nothingness. Quantum Fluctuations require a pre-existing energy field. So it begs the question where the energy for the energy field came from. The 1st Law of Thermo states that energy can't be created from nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 02:23 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(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. It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

You're equivocating here. Logically speaking there is a difference between
  • Not having enough information to rule something out and
  • Assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven wrong.
That first one is basically intellectual honesty in admitting the limits of one's knowledge. The second is an informal logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).


(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

It would seem that the less we know about what happened "before" the Big Bang (if that's even a coherent term), the less we can infer about what "caused" it. Basically, the more we throw our hands up in the air and say "I dunno", the less we can say it was any one specific thing (like God).

The problem with shrouding things in doubt to remove it from scrutiny is that it cuts both ways.

I am not proving anything and I admit that. I am stating that when I look at the evidence, and argument for first cause is stronger than any alternative.

You basically admit to the original premise of the thread. We can't ever know what caused the Big Bang cuz we'll never had data from prior to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:18 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

And now a straw man.

You don't paper arrogant, you are arrogant. This isn't helped by the constant stream of baseless assertions being paraded about as if they are scientifically or evidentially supported.

These are not baseless assertions. I was trying to correct whoever it was that thought the 2nd law of Thermo only applied to isolated systems. I provided a simple example of how it operated in an open system and provided another example of the Krebs cycle. It is a well established scientific fact that it applies to ALL systems. You would die if it didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: