The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 01:50 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 03:24 PM by Stevil.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote:Science is ‘knowledge’ which is obtained through seeking and finding adequate causes of all natural occurrences.
Science is a method of discovery based on empirical evidence including measures to reduce bias and subjectivity. It seek natural causes to natural events, because only natural causes can be empirically tested.

Quote:The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws.
...carried out within the framework of previously empirically proven physical laws. (standing on the shoulders of giants)

Quote:Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.
Science requires the ability to verify a claim.
A claims which is not verifiable cannot be assessed via the scientific method.
There is no alternative method to assess unverifiable claims.

Claims that violate the known physical laws are proven by science to be false claims.

Quote: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.
"first cause of the universe" is overly simplistic and certainly non scientific.
All science knows is that there was a big bang, they don't know if a universe existed before that or not. They don't know if a "universe" has a beginning or not.

Quote: This disqualifies ALL proposed natural, origins scenarios from the scientific arena.
No it does not. The answer is that as of yet we don't know what was present prior to the start of the big bang. It is a stretch to say that existence itself was not present.
Quote:So atheism has no legitimate claim to be anything to do with science, empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Atheism makes no such claim.
An "atheist" is merely a label we give to a person who lacks a belief in gods.

Quote: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.
Theism isn't science, theism is made up of presuppositions which are unverifiable claims. Unverifiable claims are the bedrock, the foundations of theism.
Specific theisms (such as Christianity, Islam, etc) presuppose their own god and injects that to the unknowns (god of the gaps). It does not look for evidence, it just presupposes and accepts explanations of myth and fancy as long as it includes their god's name.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
29-06-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
"First Cause" of the universe is presumption. Even within the paradigm of causality, it's only "proximate" (nearest) cause. An omnipotent god could have made universe makers. It doesn't have to be a god, even under the theist paradigm.

Causality, with respect to the universe is meaningless. It requires activity "before" the event, and that is meaningless without time already in place. "Coming into" existence is also meaningless without space-time already extant. "First Cause" is a meaningless set of words.

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
29-06-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-06-2016 11:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yeah, I know you tried, ..... how about you tell us what the Theory of Relativity has to do with the observed gravitational affects.

Consider Consider Consider Consider

There are all kinds of articles. Here's one. Plenty more. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physi...elativity/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-06-2016 08:14 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 10:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  People have said that about all kinds of things that have now been explained.
They were all wrong. Drinking Beverage

That is true, but in those situations data was available. We will never have data prior to the Big Bang, so it will always remain an educated guess at best.

People have said that about all kinds of things for which we now have data.
They were all wrong. 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
29-06-2016, 09:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
A godly First Cause is imagination at work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:38 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.

You not only don't know that, you can't know that.

Quote:We will only be able to infer things, and won't be able to ever prove it unequivocally.

You not only don't know that, you can't know that.

Quote:Dark Matter has not been detected, only theorized. The equations don't balance so physicists cooked up the concept of Dark Matter.

It is not "cooked up". It is deduced from the available data.

Quote: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.)

It is a placeholder name for something that is not yet understood.

Quote:Since we do have data is it possible that we might some day understand THAT phenomena.

Which phenomenon are you referring to?

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
30-06-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-06-2016 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 06:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Yes. The only data we will ever have is radiation that resulted from the Big Bang.

You not only don't know that, you can't know that.

Quote:We will only be able to infer things, and won't be able to ever prove it unequivocally.

You not only don't know that, you can't know that.

Quote:Dark Matter has not been detected, only theorized. The equations don't balance so physicists cooked up the concept of Dark Matter.

It is not "cooked up". It is deduced from the available data.

Quote: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.)

It is a placeholder name for something that is not yet understood.

Quote:Since we do have data is it possible that we might some day understand THAT phenomena.

Which phenomenon are you referring to?

To prove something unequivocally you need direct evidence and the ability to reproduce it. Ain't gonna happen. We especially won't be able to scientifically explain how all of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point.

Dark Matter MAY exist. May not. It was cooked up to explain observations that relativity can't. Maybe it is right, Maybe the theory is wrong. Maybe there is another explanation. That is the phenomenon that I was referring to. We can likely get data to prove or disprove one of the theories.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 07:03 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  You not only don't know that, you can't know that.


You not only don't know that, you can't know that.


It is not "cooked up". It is deduced from the available data.


It is a placeholder name for something that is not yet understood.


Which phenomenon are you referring to?

To prove something unequivocally you need direct evidence and the ability to reproduce it.

No, you don't. One can deduce from know facts; not inference, deduction.

Quote:Ain't gonna happen.

Many have said that about many things. They were all wrong. Drinking Beverage

Quote:We especially won't be able to scientifically explain how all of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point.

You don't know that. You can't know that. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:Dark Matter MAY exist. May not. It was cooked up to explain observations that relativity can't. Maybe it is right, Maybe the theory is wrong. Maybe there is another explanation. That is the phenomenon that I was referring to. We can likely get data to prove or disprove one of the theories.

Sure.

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
30-06-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 07:03 PM)u196533 Wrote:  To prove something unequivocally you need direct evidence and the ability to reproduce it.

No, you don't. One can deduce from know facts; not inference, deduction.

Quote:Ain't gonna happen.

Many have said that about many things. They were all wrong. Drinking Beverage

Quote:We especially won't be able to scientifically explain how all of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point.

You don't know that. You can't know that. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:Dark Matter MAY exist. May not. It was cooked up to explain observations that relativity can't. Maybe it is right, Maybe the theory is wrong. Maybe there is another explanation. That is the phenomenon that I was referring to. We can likely get data to prove or disprove one of the theories.

Sure.

You can't prove something unequivocally by deduction without the ability to reproduce it. Else someone will always be able to provide some wild ass alternative.

All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: