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, 07:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 06:43 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 05:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Drinking Beverage still a straw man

No it was a tangent that I forced to pursue when someone claimed the 2nd Law only applies to isolated systems.

And yet, you're arguing against some point I've never made or tried to make. Straw man.

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, 08:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 07:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 06:43 PM)u196533 Wrote:  No it was a tangent that I forced to pursue when someone claimed the 2nd Law only applies to isolated systems.

And yet, you're arguing against some point I've never made or tried to make. Straw man.

The 2nd Law applies to all systems. However, if energy is added to a system, it can do certain things that temporarily and locally reverse entropy, while a net gain of entropy occurs. That is what is meant by "closed" versus "open" systems.

When you state that something had to provide the energy for the Singularity/BB, you are presuming for the sake of this argument that our universe is a closed system. There is no evidence that this is the case, and indeed many have proposed a Multiverse scenario in which we are not a closed system. Even if we are a closed system, there is no way of knowing if it's an eternal cycle of expansion and collapse, or if the materialization of systems/energy in the form of superstrings is something that was inevitable to happen, in tiny variations among some greater extra-cosmic whole of which we are but a part. These are far beyond our knowledge, at this point in history. And these are just a few of the possibilities-- to speculate on any of that without concrete data is human imagination at most, and not a basis for a model of the omni/universe.

And NONE of that requires a Prime Mover, in the sense that theists use it. I don't grasp why this is so difficult for theists to see, even if they choose to keep believing in a Prime Mover.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
01-07-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 06:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 05:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  What's the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only transformed.

Oh good. How about the third?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am stating that science will never be able to explain .....

I would list a few things that people have claimed "science would never do" but it's really not worth the effort.

Placing limits like that on our capabilities as a species does two things. If practiced widely it leads to stagnation. If promoted individually it showcases ignorance. Drinking Beverage

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
01-07-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Science takes longer than filling in the gaps of knowledge with imagination for a reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Foxen's post
02-07-2016, 10:25 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 05:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  We only have data from the Big Bang onward. All of the energy in the universe concentrated into on point just exploded. (Eventually the universe will die a heat death when all of the energy is dispersed as much as possible per the 2nd Law.)
I am stating that science will never be able to explain the source of that energy or how it became concentrated. Concentrating all of the energy into a single point would violate the 2nd Law and would be supernatural.

To say that it became concentrated implies that it was dispersed and was collected which implies time. We do not know the state of the energy before the big bang, nor do we know that time has any meaning in that context.

Also, the second law applies to the universe after the big bang. At the point of the big bang we do not know what happens to the laws. You are extrapolating the laws into and beyond the big bang and I don't see how that is valid.

As many have pointed out, saying that we will never be able to understand something is not a historically good bet. We are just beginning to probe the quantum world, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They are not yet well defined, let alone well understood, so where they will lead is an open question.

What you have is an elaborate argument from ignorance. To jump from "we do not understand X" to "X was caused by an intelligent, supernatural agent" makes no sense. Why do you rule out a multiverse of some kind? Why do you rule out a universe from nothing as Lawrence Krauss proposes? I don't claim either is the case but I see no reason to discount a potential natural explanation in favor of something that we have no evidence for or experience with. We know that natural processes explain a great deal and that everything we have figured out so far has turned out to be natural. Nothing supernatural has ever been identified.

I rule out multiverses and the universe from nothing because they are extreme speculation with no supporting data. They do not answer the ultimate question of the source of the energy for the universe; they just kick that can down the road. (Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from empty space with and energy density field. Even he admits in his book "Well almost nothing". It begs the question where the original energy came from.)

The 1st law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so it is reasonable to conclude an external agent put it there. It cannot pop into existence on it's own. The Laws of Physics impose order, and that IMHO implies intelligence.

I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry. The basic drives of chemistry are to lower energy and increase entropy. The spontaneity and speed of chemical reactions can be determined by analyzing these components. (Please spend 5 min Googling Gibbs Free Energy Equation. It is a basic concept of chemistry.)

If a reaction lowers energy and increases entropy it will occur spontaneously and vigorously. Think of a bomb exploding.
Most reactions are a compromise.
Lower energy BUT lower entropy. The loss in energy has to offset the loss in entropy to proceed spontaneously. Think crystal formation.
Increase Entropy BUT increase energy. The gain in entropy has to offset the gain in energy to proceed spontaneously. Think of heating a balloon to expand the gas inside.

Increase energy AND lower entropy. WILL NOT OCCUR spontaneously without an external agent performing work on the system to force it to occur. When these reactions occur, they resulting system is in a state of disequilibrium and will revert ASAP. (Think of a bomb again before it explodes.)

Living things spontaneously increase energy to lower our entropy in violation of the basic drives of chemistry. I consider that supernatural since this has never been observed in an inanimate object.
This can kinda sorta be explained in sentient being as as self preservation. (Science will never be able to explain that emergent property. Reductionism CANNOT explain emergent properties.) However, it cannot be explained in simple life forms. If an amoeba is just a bunch of atoms, it should just stop eating and decompose. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy if they were decomposed.

I've said a lot. Please consider it and respond thoughtfully. I'd welcome an interesting discussion but don't want to deal with a flood of knee jerk reactions. (no pun intended.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "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.

I agree with the highlight. For a different and stronger reason. Because of the nature of scientific knowledge, the description of how the universe starts is dependent on one or other prevailing scientific model. The model itself not impervious to challenge.

Before relativity, Isaac Newton's model prevailed. Prior to that, there were others. What does this tell me? Scientific models and attendant conclusions are subject to challenge and modification.

That is why, we can never say we know the origin of the universe, or if it needs one at all, unequivocally. The scientific method embraces the equivocal; in principle, you are free to come up with any number of models to challenge the existing ones, as long as they have superior predictive power.

You cannot say with certainty that all the scientific models past, present, and future will conclude the same thing about the origin of the universe.

(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.

Even if one were to consider an external agent. It would be a fallacy to suggest that such an agent is supernatural. The special pleading fallacy. Because every other agent you have used in your examples, e.g adding gas to a car, is demonstrably physical.

It is more logical that such a putative agent would also be physical.

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

While there is a lot that remains unknown. It is not evidence for a supernatural being.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(02-07-2016 10:25 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I rule out multiverses and the universe from nothing because they are extreme speculation with no supporting data. They do not answer the ultimate question of the source of the energy for the universe; they just kick that can down the road. (Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from empty space with and energy density field. Even he admits in his book "Well almost nothing". It begs the question where the original energy came from.)

There are proposed ways to find evidence for other universes. You just don't know what they are.

Quote:The 1st law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so it is reasonable to conclude an external agent put it there. It cannot pop into existence on it's own. The Laws of Physics impose order, and that IMHO implies intelligence.

Typical street level fail. Those laws apply ONLY to this universe, until proven otherwise. You're slapping assumptions on a system to which they have not been proven to apply. It's an argument from ignorance.

Quote:I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry. The basic drives of chemistry are to lower energy and increase entropy. The spontaneity and speed of chemical reactions can be determined by analyzing these components.

Totally false, AND outside your area of expertise. You're just ignorant about cell biology. It is known how life could have arisen naturally ... you just don't know what they are. Your false assumptions have been refuted by a Nobel laureate, and you have NOTHING to refute his biochemistry.




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
02-07-2016, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 01:13 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(02-07-2016 10:25 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 05:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  To say that it became concentrated implies that it was dispersed and was collected which implies time. We do not know the state of the energy before the big bang, nor do we know that time has any meaning in that context.

Also, the second law applies to the universe after the big bang. At the point of the big bang we do not know what happens to the laws. You are extrapolating the laws into and beyond the big bang and I don't see how that is valid.

As many have pointed out, saying that we will never be able to understand something is not a historically good bet. We are just beginning to probe the quantum world, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They are not yet well defined, let alone well understood, so where they will lead is an open question.

What you have is an elaborate argument from ignorance. To jump from "we do not understand X" to "X was caused by an intelligent, supernatural agent" makes no sense. Why do you rule out a multiverse of some kind? Why do you rule out a universe from nothing as Lawrence Krauss proposes? I don't claim either is the case but I see no reason to discount a potential natural explanation in favor of something that we have no evidence for or experience with. We know that natural processes explain a great deal and that everything we have figured out so far has turned out to be natural. Nothing supernatural has ever been identified.

I rule out multiverses and the universe from nothing because they are extreme speculation with no supporting data. They do not answer the ultimate question of the source of the energy for the universe; they just kick that can down the road. (Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from empty space with and energy density field. Even he admits in his book "Well almost nothing". It begs the question where the original energy came from.)

The 1st law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so it is reasonable to conclude an external agent put it there. It cannot pop into existence on it's own. The Laws of Physics impose order, and that IMHO implies intelligence.

I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry. The basic drives of chemistry are to lower energy and increase entropy. The spontaneity and speed of chemical reactions can be determined by analyzing these components. (Please spend 5 min Googling Gibbs Free Energy Equation. It is a basic concept of chemistry.)

If a reaction lowers energy and increases entropy it will occur spontaneously and vigorously. Think of a bomb exploding.
Most reactions are a compromise.
Lower energy BUT lower entropy. The loss in energy has to offset the loss in entropy to proceed spontaneously. Think crystal formation.
Increase Entropy BUT increase energy. The gain in entropy has to offset the gain in energy to proceed spontaneously. Think of heating a balloon to expand the gas inside.

Increase energy AND lower entropy. WILL NOT OCCUR spontaneously without an external agent performing work on the system to force it to occur. When these reactions occur, they resulting system is in a state of disequilibrium and will revert ASAP. (Think of a bomb again before it explodes.)

Living things spontaneously increase energy to lower our entropy in violation of the basic drives of chemistry. I consider that supernatural since this has never been observed in an inanimate object.
This can kinda sorta be explained in sentient being as as self preservation. (Science will never be able to explain that emergent property. Reductionism CANNOT explain emergent properties.) However, it cannot be explained in simple life forms. If an amoeba is just a bunch of atoms, it should just stop eating and decompose. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy if they were decomposed.

I've said a lot. Please consider it and respond thoughtfully. I'd welcome an interesting discussion but don't want to deal with a flood of knee jerk reactions. (no pun intended.)

"
I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry."


No, you presuppose it is supernatural by misunderstanding chemistry and physics.

If you make the claim that life is supernatural, you need to demonstrate a couple of things:
1) that it is in fact not explainable in natural terms (it is and we call the hypotheses of life's origins "abiogenesis" and none of these hypotheses violate the basics of physics or chemistry)
2) supernature exists from which a supernatural cause can emanate
3) the supernatural cause occurred and is plausible


You "considering" it because you can't conceive of life being natural is meaningless presuppositionalist faith-based bullshit.



To everyone else:
The fuck is going on with all of the presuppositionalists? Tomato invite a bunch of Liberty flunkies? Tomato puppets? Consider

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
02-07-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(02-07-2016 10:25 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 05:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  To say that it became concentrated implies that it was dispersed and was collected which implies time. We do not know the state of the energy before the big bang, nor do we know that time has any meaning in that context.

Also, the second law applies to the universe after the big bang. At the point of the big bang we do not know what happens to the laws. You are extrapolating the laws into and beyond the big bang and I don't see how that is valid.

As many have pointed out, saying that we will never be able to understand something is not a historically good bet. We are just beginning to probe the quantum world, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They are not yet well defined, let alone well understood, so where they will lead is an open question.

What you have is an elaborate argument from ignorance. To jump from "we do not understand X" to "X was caused by an intelligent, supernatural agent" makes no sense. Why do you rule out a multiverse of some kind? Why do you rule out a universe from nothing as Lawrence Krauss proposes? I don't claim either is the case but I see no reason to discount a potential natural explanation in favor of something that we have no evidence for or experience with. We know that natural processes explain a great deal and that everything we have figured out so far has turned out to be natural. Nothing supernatural has ever been identified.

I rule out multiverses and the universe from nothing because they are extreme speculation with no supporting data. They do not answer the ultimate question of the source of the energy for the universe; they just kick that can down the road. (Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from empty space with and energy density field. Even he admits in his book "Well almost nothing". It begs the question where the original energy came from.)

The 1st law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so it is reasonable to conclude an external agent put it there. It cannot pop into existence on it's own. The Laws of Physics impose order, and that IMHO implies intelligence.

I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry. The basic drives of chemistry are to lower energy and increase entropy. The spontaneity and speed of chemical reactions can be determined by analyzing these components. (Please spend 5 min Googling Gibbs Free Energy Equation. It is a basic concept of chemistry.)

If a reaction lowers energy and increases entropy it will occur spontaneously and vigorously. Think of a bomb exploding.
Most reactions are a compromise.
Lower energy BUT lower entropy. The loss in energy has to offset the loss in entropy to proceed spontaneously. Think crystal formation.
Increase Entropy BUT increase energy. The gain in entropy has to offset the gain in energy to proceed spontaneously. Think of heating a balloon to expand the gas inside.

Increase energy AND lower entropy. WILL NOT OCCUR spontaneously without an external agent performing work on the system to force it to occur. When these reactions occur, they resulting system is in a state of disequilibrium and will revert ASAP. (Think of a bomb again before it explodes.)

Living things spontaneously increase energy to lower our entropy in violation of the basic drives of chemistry. I consider that supernatural since this has never been observed in an inanimate object.
This can kinda sorta be explained in sentient being as as self preservation. (Science will never be able to explain that emergent property. Reductionism CANNOT explain emergent properties.) However, it cannot be explained in simple life forms. If an amoeba is just a bunch of atoms, it should just stop eating and decompose. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy if they were decomposed.

I've said a lot. Please consider it and respond thoughtfully. I'd welcome an interesting discussion but don't want to deal with a flood of knee jerk reactions. (no pun intended.)

"
I rule out multiverses and the universe from nothing because they are extreme speculation with no supporting data."


The irony! It burns!

"I've said a lot. Please consider it and respond thoughtfully. I'd welcome an interesting discussion but don't want to deal with a flood of knee jerk reactions."

You've certainly said a bunch of bullshit. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: