The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2016, 02:43 PM
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.

The same thing can be said of the god claim. It is extreme speculation with no supporting data. It does not answer the question of the source of energy that the god used, it just kicks the can down the road.

Quote:(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.)

I just finished re-reading his "A Universe From Nothing". He does discuss starting with space but also discusses starting with "Nothing" at all, not even space.

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.

You are presenting a textbox argument from ignorance. You have no idea how the energy came to be, if that even makes sense. I always find it amazing when somebody denies that energy could just exist because it requires an explanation but an incredibly complex intelligence can just exist without an explanation. The special pleading is deafening.

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. (Please spend 5 min Googling Gibbs Free Energy Equation. It is a basic concept of chemistry.)

"In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy (...) is a thermodynamic potential that can be used to calculate the maximum or reversible work that may be performed by a thermodynamic system at a constant temperature and pressure"

Given that the systems needed are not taking place at a constant temperature and pressure you are looking at too small a picture. Nothing about life violates the laws of physics or chemistry as there is an abundant supply of energy being fed into the system to drive the changes required.

Quote:Living things spontaneously increase energy to lower our entropy in violation of the basic drives of chemistry.

I do not believe that you could supply an example of that. Living things do not create energy spontaneously.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
03-07-2016, 09:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. The first, you state the God arument is stronger, and then you admit that there's no way to know for sure. Which is it?

Why do you feel that needing God as a first cause is a stronger argument? I mean, I get some of your unanswered questions that get you there, but how is filling in those gaps with God more compelling than saying "We can't ever know what caused the Big Bang cuz we'll never had data from prior to it."? (Your words)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-07-2016, 10:03 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(03-07-2016 09:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. The first, you state the God arument is stronger, and then you admit that there's no way to know for sure. Which is it?

Why do you feel that needing God as a first cause is a stronger argument? I mean, I get some of your unanswered questions that get you there, but how is filling in those gaps with God more compelling than saying "We can't ever know what caused the Big Bang cuz we'll never had data from prior to it."? (Your words)

It seems to make a theist's skin crawl to not have an answer, even a made-up one. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-07-2016, 03:17 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

As the OP I would say that if you'd actually read the original premise of the thread you'd see that I was arguing with a creationist who had stated (entirely erroneously) that the creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".

The implication was that science has no role in helping us understand the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the entire Universe.

Well it clearly has a role, indeed there is a branch of science which is devoted to this study. It's called cosmology. But just because it may never provide us with a definitive answer is never a valid reason for claiming that ANYTHING is beyond the remit of scientific investigation. Likewise using arguments from ignorance, special pleading etc. or fallacious analogies is never going to cut it.

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect before making any further responses.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 06:22 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(03-07-2016 09:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.
(01-07-2016 04:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. The first, you state the God arument is stronger, and then you admit that there's no way to know for sure. Which is it?

Why do you feel that needing God as a first cause is a stronger argument? I mean, I get some of your unanswered questions that get you there, but how is filling in those gaps with God more compelling than saying "We can't ever know what caused the Big Bang cuz we'll never had data from prior to it."? (Your words)

As far as I can tell, the argument is
P1: We don't know
P2: We can never know
P3: Thermodynamics and shit
C: It must be god

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
[+] 9 users Like unfogged's post
04-07-2016, 08:16 PM
RE: The origin of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
If the origin of the universe is "beyond the remit of science" it is only by virtue of the fact that it has been defined by the OP as outside the realm of reason. The argument is self-defeating since anybody blithering on about God in this gap has self-identified as irrational.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
04-07-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-07-2016 06:22 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 09:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  These two statements seem to be contradictory. The first, you state the God arument is stronger, and then you admit that there's no way to know for sure. Which is it?

Why do you feel that needing God as a first cause is a stronger argument? I mean, I get some of your unanswered questions that get you there, but how is filling in those gaps with God more compelling than saying "We can't ever know what caused the Big Bang cuz we'll never had data from prior to it."? (Your words)

As far as I can tell, the argument is
P1: We don't know
P2: We can never know
P3: Thermodynamics and shit
C: It must be god

More succinctly:
Step 1: Science can't work here
Step 2: Science
Step 3: God (or at least Prophet)

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
04-07-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-07-2016 03:17 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  The implication was that science has no role in helping us understand the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the entire Universe.

Science has no role in helping us understand. That's quite the bold statement there, quite obviously an erroneous one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 10:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Whether science, creationism or whatever, is it not an assumption from all parties that the universe was created? Or even had a beginning?

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 02:53 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-07-2016 10:33 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  Whether science, creationism or whatever, is it not an assumption from all parties that the universe was created? Or even had a beginning?

Hello! Big Grin

The bit that's generally accepted within the science side of things is that everything was, at one time in the past, a LOT hotter and closer together. ( Infinitely so Tongue )

So.... there was a 'point' way back when from which things went/became.

What hapened 'before' that?

Consider

*Shrug*

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: