The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:49 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(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

In my layman's understanding, I always assume that is the view from general relativity side of things; infinitely small things. Isn't there a limit to how small things can get in quantum mechanics? Does quantum mechanics have anything to say on the big bang?

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
05-07-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 07:21 AM)tomilay Wrote:  Does quantum mechanics have anything to say on the big bang?

It breaks down at the beginning due to a lack of unification with gravity.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TechnoMonkey's post
05-07-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(02-07-2016 02:43 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(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.

No Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from an energy density field.
The Gibbs Free energy is defined at a constant temp and pressure in order to simply the measurements.
Living things seek energy in order to lower entropy. That violates the basic drive of chemistry. Non-living things do not do that.
They do not create energy, they seek it out. Chemical reactions which increase energy and lower entropy do not occur spontaneously.
If you were to analyze an amoeba (or any living thing) as a chemical system, you would conclude that it would just decompose into a puddle of chemicals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-07-2016 03:17 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(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.

I understand that science will help us understand the universe. I don't think we will ever have an unequivocal final answer in cosmology. That requires direct evidence, and the ability to reproduce the experiment.
Science is a great tool, but it is not a panacea. It is reductionist in nature, and cannot explain emergent properties. Something that by it nature takes a top down analytical approach (system, sub system, component), simply cannot explain a bottoms up phenomena. It just cant.
Noone without prior knowledge can analyze sodium and chlorine, and predict that combining them would test good on a pretzel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

I have also read ( I make no claims about understanding Tongue ) Mr Kraus' book and the previous poster is right in that he mentions both things coming into existance from noothing both in 'From space/time' as well as 'From [Nothing]'.

Am sure others with acces to more time and keyboard will he along to adress points.

My comment is I see naught more than 'Comments from credulity' from u196533.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  No Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from an energy density field.

I think you may be out of date on that.

Quote:The Gibbs Free energy is defined at a constant temp and pressure in order to simply the measurements.

and limits the applicability

Quote:Living things seek energy in order to lower entropy. That violates the basic drive of chemistry. Non-living things do not do that. They do not create energy, they seek it out. Chemical reactions which increase energy and lower entropy do not occur spontaneously.

You are confusing levels there and it sounds like you are engaged in a kind if pathetic fallacy. If energy is available then reactions take place. Nothing supernatural is required.

Quote:If you were to analyze an amoeba (or any living thing) as a chemical system, you would conclude that it would just decompose into a puddle of chemicals.

You might conclude that but only because you continue to not take the entire system into account. Reactions proceed differently when energy is being added and you simply ignore that.

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
05-07-2016, 08:21 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(02-07-2016 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(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.)

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

Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation. Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 08:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation.

No, it requires chemicals and a source of energy.

[quote[Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves.[/quote]

Then it's good that they normally aren't just left to themselves.

Quote:Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

You have yet to demonstrate any violation. It is like you are saying that ice, left to itself, won't melt so the existence of water makes it supernatural.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
05-07-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "
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

Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation. Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

You don't know what you're talking about.
This Nobel laureate needs none of your woo to work on the origins of life, and YOU have no way to refute his chemistry and biochemistry.
No matter if we have all the answers now or not, slapping on the explanation "oh the gods must have done it" is never justified.




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
05-07-2016, 09:46 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 08:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  No Kraus does not start from nothing. He starts from an energy density field.

I think you may be out of date on that.

Quote:The Gibbs Free energy is defined at a constant temp and pressure in order to simply the measurements.

and limits the applicability

Quote:Living things seek energy in order to lower entropy. That violates the basic drive of chemistry. Non-living things do not do that. They do not create energy, they seek it out. Chemical reactions which increase energy and lower entropy do not occur spontaneously.

You are confusing levels there and it sounds like you are engaged in a kind if pathetic fallacy. If energy is available then reactions take place. Nothing supernatural is required.

Quote:If you were to analyze an amoeba (or any living thing) as a chemical system, you would conclude that it would just decompose into a puddle of chemicals.

You might conclude that but only because you continue to not take the entire system into account. Reactions proceed differently when energy is being added and you simply ignore that.

The gibbs equation was used as an example. It is a basic fact that chemical reaction drive to lower energy and increase entropy.

"If energy is available then reactions take place." That simply is not true. Chemical reactions that increase energy and lower entropy will not occur spontaneously.

If you place an amoeba into a sterile environment, that is the entire system. It will decompose into a puddle. There is no explanation for its ability to organize itself in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: