The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2016, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 08:07 AM by unfogged.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 07:52 AM)u196533 Wrote:  So concentrating all of the energy into one point would be the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law.

You are assuming that the energy was dispersed before the big bang. You are also assuming that "before the big bang" is a coherent concept. You are also assuming that the laws of physics as we understand them are the same at the big bang. I don't see any of those as supported.

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
29-07-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Just a question...

But how might the 2nd law relate to gravity and its effects? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:18 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 10:25 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 09:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  No Energy is released.

Wrong! Try again?

Uh Yea. When liquid water freezes, there is a loss in energy. Liquid water obviously has more energy than ice or a snowflake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 08:01 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Just a question...

But how might the 2nd law relate to gravity and its effects? Consider

Nobody really knows what gravity is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 05:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 03:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Reductionism is not a tool. It is a methodology/philosophy.

Tomato/tomahto

Quote: The scientific method is reductionistic by nature.
I absolutely understand that a purely reductionist approach can't always answer all questions. Science has it's limitations. Then you state science is the only path to knowledge. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

I did not state that. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said that it is the best method we have for determining what is real. Even if I accepted that it was the only tool that doesn't conflict with it not being able to answer all questions. You fail at basic logic and it shows in all your arguments.

Quote:Yes I understand panspermia just kicks the abiogenesis question down the road. (actual to outer space)

Then why do you claim that people are turning to it because of the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis?

Quote:Do you not understand that just highlights the desperation and hypocrisy? Most have largely come to the conclusion that it could not have happened on earth.

Citation required for "most" coming to that conclusion.

Quote: But rather than acting like scientists and allowing the data to drive the conclusion, they clinging to an a priori conclusion and start looking in outer space. That enables them to keep the illusion alive knowing that it can't be dis-proven in their lifetimes. (Kinda sad actually)

You mean like looking for a god when you run into something you don't understand?

Quote:Since the laws of our universe state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to conclude that something outside our universe created it and put it here.

or that it always existed...
or that the 'something from nothing' arguments have merit...
or that we don't yet understand all the laws of physics...
Before you misrepresent my words again, I am not claiming any of those. I am simply stating that when we get to something we don't understand it is irrational to assume an answer, especially when that answer is a god that we have no actual evidence for. Maybe there is something "outside" and it is part of some kind of multiverse... whatever the answer is you have zero justification for just assuming anything that falls into the god category.

Quote:My argument is not incredulity. I have presented an argument that according to the narrative of abiogenesis, simple pre-biotic chemical systems would have had to exhibit self-preservation. I do not accept that could have happened naturally.

Which is a textbook argument from incredulity. No self-preservation is necessary; chemicals combine and those combinations can persist if nothing tears them apart. Your view that things spontaneously decompose but never combine is just wrong.

Yes self preservation must have arose. It is just overlooked because it cannot be explained naturally. In any given solution chemicals are combining and decomposing. When the rate of one equals the rate of the other, they have reached equilibrium.

When something is out of equilibrium there is a drive toward it. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the drive.
The transition from initial replicating molecule to life was a huge climb up a thermodynamic mountain. Those chemicals would become unstable and break down when they can. They do not keep absorbing energy and lowering entropy. Chemicals don't do that.
Living things exists FAR from equilibrium. If you look at any life form as a collection of chemicals, you would conclude we would just die and decompose. We maintain our low entropy due to our instinct for self preservation (the emergence of which has never been explained).
That could not happen naturally n simple pre-biotic chemical systems. Chemicals do not seek energy to lower entropy. That points to something that only acts on living things.

None of those other alternatives you presented are feasible to me. All of them hit a wall at some point. I see a creator as the most reasonable alternative.

(People are tuning to panspermia as a last ditched effort to cling to their beliefs. When I saw abiogenesis research being so harsh on it, I changed my views.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:39 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 07:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 07:52 AM)u196533 Wrote:  So concentrating all of the energy into one point would be the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law.

You are assuming that the energy was dispersed before the big bang. You are also assuming that "before the big bang" is a coherent concept. You are also assuming that the laws of physics as we understand them are the same at the big bang. I don't see any of those as supported.

You are correct. I was responding to TechnoMonkey stating that the energy in the universe had always been there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:44 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 03:17 PM)u196533 Wrote:  According to the narrative of abiogenesis, simple, pre-biotic chemical systems would have had to exhibit self -preservation. I reject the idea that could happen naturally as most reasonable folks would.

No, they don't. It's just chemistry. That is all that is required for self-replicating molecules.

The research in abiogenesis that has been occurring for about 100 years indicates replicating molecules do not exist outside the cell. There has never been one observed naturally. The tiny ones that have been synthesized peter out after a few cycles, even under ideal lab condition.
Most significantly, when they are modified to simulate mutation, they can't replicate.

A century of research, and they aren't even out of the staring blocks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 08:37 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If you look at any life form as a collection of chemicals, you would conclude we would just die and decompose.

Good thing we don't look at life forms as just collections of chemicals. Your insistence on reductionism appears to be at the core of your error.

Quote:That points to something that only acts on living things.

No, it points to the need to look at the whole, not the parts.

Quote:None of those other alternatives you presented are feasible to me. All of them hit a wall at some point. I see a creator as the most reasonable alternative.

Again, your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:(People are tuning to panspermia as a last ditched effort to cling to their beliefs. When I saw abiogenesis research being so harsh on it, I changed my views.)

Still waiting for any citations that panspermia is being investigated as an alternative to abiogenesis by any significant number of people who are actual scientists in the field.

(29-07-2016 08:39 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 07:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You are assuming that the energy was dispersed before the big bang. You are also assuming that "before the big bang" is a coherent concept. You are also assuming that the laws of physics as we understand them are the same at the big bang. I don't see any of those as supported.

You are correct. I was responding to TechnoMonkey stating that the energy in the universe had always been there.

The energy may have always existed if (a) time began at the big bang, (b) there is a multiverse of some sort, © the laws of physics were different before the big bang, (d) we don't understand something about the laws of physics, or (e) some other notion that hasn't been conceived. You jump from "we do not know" to "it must have been a god" and that is simply unwarranted.

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
29-07-2016, 09:20 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 08:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 08:37 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If you look at any life form as a collection of chemicals, you would conclude we would just die and decompose.

Good thing we don't look at life forms as just collections of chemicals. Your insistence on reductionism appears to be at the core of your error.

Quote:That points to something that only acts on living things.

No, it points to the need to look at the whole, not the parts.

Quote:None of those other alternatives you presented are feasible to me. All of them hit a wall at some point. I see a creator as the most reasonable alternative.

Again, your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:(People are tuning to panspermia as a last ditched effort to cling to their beliefs. When I saw abiogenesis research being so harsh on it, I changed my views.)

Still waiting for any citations that panspermia is being investigated as an alternative to abiogenesis by any significant number of people who are actual scientists in the field.

(29-07-2016 08:39 AM)u196533 Wrote:  You are correct. I was responding to TechnoMonkey stating that the energy in the universe had always been there.

The energy may have always existed if (a) time began at the big bang, (b) there is a multiverse of some sort, © the laws of physics were different before the big bang, (d) we don't understand something about the laws of physics, or (e) some other notion that hasn't been conceived. You jump from "we do not know" to "it must have been a god" and that is simply unwarranted.

Science is inherently reductionistic. It cannot explain emergent properties.
Do you really think it is reasonable to believe that a collection of chemicals could seek energy to lower entropy during abiogenesis when that behavior has NEVER been observed in an inanimate object.

On the other topic:
All of your alternatives require a trigger (first cause) for the Big bang. There is no getting around that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:39 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:00 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  So, your assumption is that "goddidit" and my assumption is that it was always there. My assumption follows the 'Law of the Conservation of Energy'.
When that energy that was always there was concentrated into a single point prior to the Big Bang, that was the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. That would be supernatural.

Wrong.
You have in NO WAY proven there is anything to even call "supernatural". You don't know what happened. If spacetime began with the Big Bang, to say "before" time, is meaningless. (It is astounding that someone who claims to have your background doesn't even get that). 95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter. What goes on with, and are the properties of that, is unknown. You have no way to generalize about the entire universe, when all we know is 5 % of it.

You argument is an argument from ignorance ... a common street level fallacy, made by idiots.

The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive at it's most fundamental level. You have no evidence for any of your claims. They are all basically presumptions based on insufficient or no evidence, or complete ignorance.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: