The Big Bang And The First Atom

[Miles]

.


I stumbled across the following video (≈ 17 min), which in animated form shows some of what science knows and doesn't know about the beginning of our universe and the formation of its elementary particles. As familiar with it as I am, I still found it pretty cool.


.............................


How do you find it?

Think the singularity sitting there before Planck time at t=0s could be God?


.

[Jose Fly]

If I did say that anywhere it's a mistake on my part, so to make it clear I'll retract it here and now, God is not a scientific explanation for the universe.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Miles]

1b. singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

Really! Care to cite a few such declarations?

Of course:

Frank Tipler, the author of Omega Point which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead, and known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine, who also insists that it wasn't the singularity at the genesis of the universe, but god? Whose theories have been argued to be largely pseudoscience."?* And who not once declared that "singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory" in your video? That Frank Tipler?

Nice pick. But what really put him in perspective was his remark at 9:27 that "What the atheist physicists then decided to do was . . . ." Reminds me of creationists and their arch enemy, those "atheist scientists" and their dratted facts.

C'mon man, get real here.


* source

Yes I may not share Tipler's view of what a singularity represents but there is no "right" view, he is quite justified from an epistemological standpoint to regard a singularity as representing the supernatural (at least he and I agree it does not by any means represent the natural).

Of course Tipler can do whatever he likes, but if he wants to get off first base and make it to home plate he's going to have to put the supernatural aside and stick to the physical world when doing science.

Not if the supernatural world plays a role in the natural world, he reasons that it does and his reasoning is rational, reasonable.

In as much as the supernatural world has never been proven to exist,* I don't believe his reasoning gets anywhere close to being rational or reasonable.

For you and many others here it seems the definition of "scientist" includes the requirement "must not believe in God" but oddly it does not, no definition I've ever seen in any science books has anything like that, which is entirely sensible too because all of these scientists did believe in God, even Galileo believed in God and revered the Bible:

Doesn't matter if a scientist believes in god or not. What does matter is keeping god and all other supernatural phenomena out of science.

You want to claim they are unrelated? on what grounds?

On the grounds that science is not prepared to examine that which has never been shown to exist. Science ONLY concerns itself with the physical world because that's all it's equipped to do. Prove the supernatural exists and I'm quite certain science would be on that proof in a flash, digging into all the crazy claims for it.

why keep the creator the universe out of a discussion about the origin of the universe?

Hey, discuss it all you want, just don't pretend science can substantiate his existence or any other supernatural phenomena. Don't be a Frank Tipler.

which is why Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, etc scientists can, and do, work together. The supernatural and all its artifacts are beyond the purview of science, which is where they belong.

That might be true if there was not relationship between the supernatural and the natural, but if evidence implies there is some kind of relationship then its entirely natural and fitting.

In order to be meaningful this relationship would have to be a working one. So, exactly what are the working mechanics between the natural and supernatural worlds? I mean, first you're going to have to prove the supernatural actually exists, and then prove this relationship actually exists. So, what ya got? I know the Nobel Prize Committee would be interested in such proof, as would I and millions of others.

Obviously, Tipler thinks otherwise, and why others likely consider his work largely pseudoscience. He's either forgotten or doesn't care about the boundaries of scientific investigation.

What are those "boundaries"? you sound just like the Catholic authorities of Galileo's time, they claimed (enforced even) authority of what was and was not true, what one could and could not say when pursuing questions about the natural world.

Unlike Catholicism, which feels it has to maintain its beliefs and teachings at all costs, science does not. But it does stop at exceeding the physical world. Scientific investigation simply can't go beyond its abilities. Tipler t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶s̶ pretends it can.

Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179): also known as Saint Hildegard and Sibyl of the Rhine, was a German Benedictine abbess. She is considered to be the founder of scientific natural history in Germany[2]
.
.
.
.
Paul Farmer (born 1959): American medical anthropologist, physician and proponent of liberation theology. He is co-founder of Partners In Health, the Kolokotrones University Professor at Harvard University and Chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.[246][247]

Nice list I guess, but wholly irrelevant.

As you wish.

As it's a practicality.



* "To date, it almost goes without saying, no one, including Leigh and his intrepid team, has found conclusive evidence of the existence of the paranormal." (source)



.

[Sherlock Holmes]

1b. singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

Really! Care to cite a few such declarations?

Of course:

Frank Tipler, the author of Omega Point which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead, and known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine, who also insists that it wasn't the singularity at the genesis of the universe, but god? Whose theories have been argued to be largely pseudoscience."?* And who not once declared that "singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory" in your video? That Frank Tipler?

Nice pick. But what really put him in perspective was his remark at 9:27 that "What the atheist physicists then decided to do was . . . ." Reminds me of creationists and their arch enemy, those "atheist scientists" and their dratted facts.

C'mon man, get real here.


* source

Yes I may not share Tipler's view of what a singularity represents but there is no "right" view, he is quite justified from an epistemological standpoint to regard a singularity as representing the supernatural (at least he and I agree it does not by any means represent the natural).

Of course Tipler can do whatever he likes, but if he wants to get off first base and make it to home plate he's going to have to put the supernatural aside and stick to the physical world when doing science.

Not if the supernatural world plays a role in the natural world, he reasons that it does and his reasoning is rational, reasonable.

In as much as the supernatural world has never been proven to exist,* I don't believe his reasoning gets anywhere close to being rational or reasonable.

For you and many others here it seems the definition of "scientist" includes the requirement "must not believe in God" but oddly it does not, no definition I've ever seen in any science books has anything like that, which is entirely sensible too because all of these scientists did believe in God, even Galileo believed in God and revered the Bible:

Doesn't matter if a scientist believes in god or not. What does matter is keeping god and all other supernatural phenomena out of science.

You want to claim they are unrelated? on what grounds?

On the grounds that science is not prepared to examine that which has never been shown to exist. Science ONLY concerns itself with the physical world because that's all it's equipped to do. Prove the supernatural exists and I'm quite certain science would be on that proof in a flash, digging into all the crazy claims for it.

why keep the creator the universe out of a discussion about the origin of the universe?

Hey, discuss it all you want, just don't pretend science can substantiate his existence or any other supernatural phenomena. Don't be a Frank Tipler.

which is why Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, etc scientists can, and do, work together. The supernatural and all its artifacts are beyond the purview of science, which is where they belong.

That might be true if there was not relationship between the supernatural and the natural, but if evidence implies there is some kind of relationship then its entirely natural and fitting.

In order to be meaningful this relationship would have to be a working one. So, exactly what are the working mechanics between the natural and supernatural worlds? I mean, first you're going to have to prove the supernatural actually exists, and then prove this relationship actually exists. So, what ya got? I know the Nobel Prize Committee would be interested in such proof, as would I and millions of others.

Obviously, Tipler thinks otherwise, and why others likely consider his work largely pseudoscience. He's either forgotten or doesn't care about the boundaries of scientific investigation.

What are those "boundaries"? you sound just like the Catholic authorities of Galileo's time, they claimed (enforced even) authority of what was and was not true, what one could and could not say when pursuing questions about the natural world.

Unlike Catholicism, which feels it has to maintain its beliefs and teachings at all costs, science does not. But it does stop at exceeding the physical world. Scientific investigation simply can't go beyond its abilities. Tipler t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶s̶ pretends it can.

Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179): also known as Saint Hildegard and Sibyl of the Rhine, was a German Benedictine abbess. She is considered to be the founder of scientific natural history in Germany[2]
.
.
.
.
Paul Farmer (born 1959): American medical anthropologist, physician and proponent of liberation theology. He is co-founder of Partners In Health, the Kolokotrones University Professor at Harvard University and Chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.[246][247]

Nice list I guess, but wholly irrelevant.

As you wish.

As it's a practicality.



* "To date, it almost goes without saying, no one, including Leigh and his intrepid team, has found conclusive evidence of the existence of the paranormal." (source)



.

This entire response is unhinged. Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

I can't spend time trying to seriously reply to such nonsense, sorry but if I seem to ignore posts here and there, Don't be surprised.

[JoeyKnothead]

This entire response is unhinged.

We should expect responses to at least seem unhinged, when folks promote "unhinged" ideas like the supernatural, gods, and all such as that.

Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

Stub your toe.

I can't spend time trying to seriously reply to such nonsense,

"I can't rightly refute the argument, so I'll just call it 'nonsense', no matter that such a charge exposes me as being incapable of understanding the argument".

sorry but if I seem to ignore posts here and there, Don't be surprised.

Sorry, but if folks think you prefer to ignore anything that harshes your beliefs, well that's just a consequence of entering debate and refusing to do you any of it.

Your sig line is apt though... You 'eliminate' (read ignore) arguments that don't go your way, and are left safely in the arms of your sacred beliefs.

The god concept wouldn't have it any other way.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This entire response is unhinged.

We should expect responses to at least seem unhinged, when folks promote "unhinged" ideas like the supernatural, gods, and all such as that.

Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

Stub your toe.

I can't spend time trying to seriously reply to such nonsense,

"I can't rightly refute the argument, so I'll just call it 'nonsense', no matter that such a charge exposes me as being incapable of understanding the argument".

sorry but if I seem to ignore posts here and there, Don't be surprised.

Sorry, but if folks think you prefer to ignore anything that harshes your beliefs, well that's just a consequence of entering debate and refusing to do you any of it.

Your sig line is apt though... You 'eliminate' (read ignore) arguments that don't go your way, and are left safely in the arms of your sacred beliefs.

The god concept wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm happy to consider your explanation of how the sentence "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" is a rational scientific statement?

If that were true then undiscovered things would remain undiscovered because one can't discover something if they can't examine it.

That deserves the description "unhinged" it is pseudo-science, bogus, vacuous claptrap.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm happy to consider your explanation of how the sentence "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" is a rational scientific statement?

How can we ever study something that ain't there to study?

Oh, I know, we just say, "God did it", and go about our day.

If that were true then undiscovered things would remain undiscovered because one can't discover something if they can't examine it.

Indicating that something there that got discovered actually exists.

That deserves the description "unhinged" it is pseudo-science, bogus, vacuous claptrap.

It never fails to amuse me when an IDer calls stuff "pseudo-science".

To then go on and call stuff "bogus, vacuous claptrap" is clearly from the Trump school of insulting and denying anything that goes against one's pet notions.

For those interested in this whole "ID's real science, y'all" argument, check out Kitzmiller vs Dover for the skullduggery and shenanigans employed by the ID 'movement' and its cdesign proponentsists.

"Claptrap" indeed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm happy to consider your explanation of how the sentence "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" is a rational scientific statement?

How can we ever study something that ain't there to study?

Oh, I know, we just say, "God did it", and go about our day.

If that were true then undiscovered things would remain undiscovered because one can't discover something if they can't examine it.

Indicating that something there that got discovered actually exists.

Everything we've discovered was once undiscovered, saying something doesn't exist and shouldn't be sought simply because one has not discovered it yet is a fallacy, unhinged, claptrap, pseudo-science.

[JoeyKnothead]

Everything we've discovered was once undiscovered, saying something doesn't exist simply because one has not discovered it yet is a fallacy, unhinged, claptrap, pseudo-science.

I do seem to have misunderstand, so let me clear it up...

That which exists does so whether we've spotted it or not.

And your Trumpian efforts to malign and belittle any who disagrees is, I contend, firmly entrenched in the god concept's ever vigilant effort to disregard any contrary notions.

Even when, come to find out, I happen to agree with the main point.


We risk folks thinking we're ignorant, to downright stupid when all we can do is insult and slander. But hey, if that's what comforts you in times of contrary notions, I reckon insults and slanders might seem a comfort of some small measure

[Sherlock Holmes]

Everything we've discovered was once undiscovered, saying something doesn't exist simply because one has not discovered it yet is a fallacy, unhinged, claptrap, pseudo-science.

I do seem to have misunderstand, so let me clear it up...

That which exists does so whether we've spotted it or not.

I see, do continue...

And your Trumpian efforts to malign and belittle any who disagrees is, I contend, firmly entrenched in the god concept's ever vigilant effort to disregard any contrary notions.

And this belief is relevant to the subject under discussion?

Even when, come to find out, I happen to agree with the main point.

We risk folks thinking we're ignorant, to downright stupid when all we can do is insult and slander. But hey, if that's what comforts you in times of contrary notions, I reckon insults and slanders might seem a comfort of some small measure

Very well, how shall we proceed?

[Miles]

This entire response is unhinged. Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

I can't spend time trying to seriously reply to such nonsense, sorry but if I seem to ignore posts here and there, Don't be surprised.

That's quite alright. Brunumb, Difflugia, JoeyKnothead didn't think it was nonsense and even thanked me for it, which is far more meaningful. So we're good, Sherlock.


.