The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 04:12 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 03:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 03:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  You can see so far into the future that you can tell for sure that no one will ever think of a way to figure it out?

To figure it out you need data. Anything that might have existed prior to the Big Bang is toast. The only data we will ever have is radiation that resulted from the Big Bang.

That's what we know *now*. According to the research *now*. You're absolutely 100% dead certain that someone won't find a way to e.g. use the dark matter which we *know* has been detected, or something else to figure stuff out further back?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-06-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum. He's previously claimed the “Law of Cause and Effect” is the same as the scientific method. Major fail! In our latest crossing of swords where he's claiming that the current prevailing cosmological theory is an atheist myth I asked him if he recalled what the scientific method was and how he thought it supported his claims. His response was this.

Quote:Science is ‘knowledge’ which is obtained through seeking and finding adequate causes of all natural occurrences.
The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws. Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.

A natural, first cause of the universe is definitely not subject to the scientific method and, even more importantly, is in direct violation of established, natural laws. This disqualifies ALL proposed natural, origins scenarios from the scientific arena. They are based only on an unjustifiable and preconceived belief in naturalism, which is a religious/metaphysical/ideological position, not a scientific one.
So atheism has no legitimate claim to be anything to do with science, empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Even worse, atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded.
Theism acknowledges that scientific principles and natural laws definitlvely rule out a natural origin of the universe, and therefore the 'cause' of the universe cannot possibly be a natural one. A respect of science and natural law demands that we all acknowledge that as a fact. Anyone who doesn't cannot claim to respect science.

So according to him. Science has no remit to explain the origin of the universe. Methodological naturalism is atheistic and therefore religious and therefore not science.

But of course his take on science is the right one............despite his having a problem understanding the scientific method.

Facepalm

How about nobody knows for sure how it all happened and science is only guessing. Science changes it's mind all the time. I'm not ruling out science but I think that there are places it hasn't been yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 04:29 PM)Doddia Wrote:  How about nobody knows for sure how it all happened and science is only guessing.

To claim that science is only guessing is to fundamentally misunderstand what science is and how it operates.

Quote:Science changes it's mind all the time.

Scientific theories are constantly refined as new and better evidence is brought to light. It provides the best available understanding given what evidence is available at any given time. That's much more useful than an unchanging view based on ancient literature written by people with little understanding of the world.

Quote: I'm not ruling out science but I think that there are places it hasn't been yet.

That is not in question. Scientists, unlike theologians, do not pretend to have all the answers.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
28-06-2016, 06:44 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 04:12 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 03:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  To figure it out you need data. Anything that might have existed prior to the Big Bang is toast. The only data we will ever have is radiation that resulted from the Big Bang.

That's what we know *now*. According to the research *now*. You're absolutely 100% dead certain that someone won't find a way to e.g. use the dark matter which we *know* has been detected, or something else to figure stuff out further back?

Yes. The only data we will ever have is radiation that resulted from the Big Bang.
We will only be able to infer things, and won't be able to ever prove it unequivocally.
Dark Matter has not been detected, only theorized. The equations don't balance so physicists cooked up the concept of Dark Matter. I think it is a placeholder for ignorance until we really understand Gravity. (It is invisible and is responsible for most things in the universe. Sound familiar. Clearly science of the gaps.)
Since we do have data is it possible that we might some day understand THAT phenomena.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 08:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 06:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 04:12 PM)morondog Wrote:  That's what we know *now*. According to the research *now*. You're absolutely 100% dead certain that someone won't find a way to e.g. use the dark matter which we *know* has been detected, or something else to figure stuff out further back?

Yes. The only data we will ever have is radiation that resulted from the Big Bang.
We will only be able to infer things, and won't be able to ever prove it unequivocally.
Dark Matter has not been detected, only theorized. The equations don't balance so physicists cooked up the concept of Dark Matter. I think it is a placeholder for ignorance until we really understand Gravity. (It is invisible and is responsible for most things in the universe. Sound familiar. Clearly science of the gaps.)
Since we do have data is it possible that we might some day understand THAT phenomena.

The gravitational effects of Dark Energy and Dark Matter have been observed. There is "something" more we don't see. It's affects are observed. We don't know at this point what we will be able to see and study. Who knows ? maybe in the future we will watch baby universes form and grow. Never say never. THAT's one of the lessons of history.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 10:06 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 08:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gravitational effects of Dark Energy and Dark Matter have been observed. There is "something" more we don't see. It's affects are observed. We don't know at this point what we will be able to see and study. Who knows ? maybe in the future we will watch baby universes form and grow. Never say never. THAT's one of the lessons of history.

We don't know that. The equations do not balance. So it either the theory is incomplete and needs revision, or there must be more matter in the universe so that the equations balance.
If there is more matter it could be that some part of our universe accelerated away before our portion did. Maybe there have been other Bangs before the one we call the Big Bang. So it is possible that Dark Energy/Matter is really just normal matter, but is too far away and moved faster than the speed of light at the initial formation, so we will never ever be able to detect radiation from it. That is certainly possible.
I tend to think the theory is incomplete and needs revision since we do not really understand gravity. At this point it is pure speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 12:25 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 10:06 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I tend to think the theory is incomplete and needs revision since we do not really understand gravity. At this point it is pure speculation.

So... you think this yet you have absolute confidence purely because you can't imagine it, that no one could ever prove anything concerning the Big Bang earlier than the cosmic microwave background radiation?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
29-06-2016, 03:03 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Hello! Big Grin

(28-06-2016 10:06 PM)u196533 Wrote:  We don't know that. The equations do not balance. So it either the theory is incomplete and needs revision, or there must be more matter in the universe so that the equations balance.
If there is more matter it could be that some part of our universe accelerated away before our portion did. Maybe there have been other Bangs before the one we call the Big Bang. So it is possible that Dark Energy/Matter is really just normal matter, but is too far away and moved faster than the speed of light at the initial formation, so we will never ever be able to detect radiation from it. That is certainly possible.
I tend to think the theory is incomplete and needs revision since we do not really understand gravity. At this point it is pure speculation.

Okay... my particular back ground is a Tradesman. That's it for qualifications. Everything after that is reading and YouTube.

HOWEVER, that being said I am pretty sure if you find the right Neil DeGrassy Tyson YouTube clip and one from Lawrence Krauss you'll get the right idea about what both Dark Matter and Dark Energy do and hence why folks such as Mr Tyson and Mr Krauss hypothesis that 'Something' is out there fiddling with the cosmos.

Your above post? Yah.. it just reads so wrong compared to what has been said by my humble reading of layman's journals and such.

Much cheers to yourself. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
29-06-2016, 04:48 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote:The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws.
Theists generally emphasize experimentation as though that were the entire scientific method, but experimentation is only one tool available to us.

If you are going to demand that experimentation justify every scientific body of knowledge then Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica has to go and the theory of gravity is highly questionable. I'm unaware of any experiment performed by Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler or Newton to test his theory. (Galileo did roll some balls down a ramp and that's part of it.) The primary ingredient of Newton's recipe was observation. Other people's observation but observation nonetheless.

And Newton's theory has been tested. Henry Cavendish was able to weigh the Earth. Halley's comet returns every 75 years as predicted. We landed on the moon. And there's another test coming up. There will be a total eclipse of the sun on 21 August of next year. Maximum totality will be at Hopkinsville, KY. Anyone want to bet it won't happen?

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 10:17 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Or are you suggesting that time itself didn't exist before the Big Bang?
Time could not have existed before the Big Bang.
  • Relativity predicts that time passes more slowly in stronger gravitational fields. This has been confirmed with atomic clocks.
  • At the instant of the Big Bang all the matter and energy in the universe would have been contained in a small singularity causing the strongest gravitational field ever.
  • The boundary of the singularity would have been contained (for lack of a better word) inside an "event horizon," so called because time stops at the event horizon.
  • Ergo, there was no time "before the Big Bang." The phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless.
  • Since cause must precede effect, and there was no time before the Big Bang, the concept of cause and effect breaks down.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like f stop's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: