Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views


Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:41 pm
Reply
Wonderful wonder

Like this post
Accepting that a non living singularity can explode and create all kinds of living creatures, an extremely interactive and interconnect environment and the ice capades is it reasonable to make any assumptions on what is possible and why?
If so what assumptions, and if you'd like a brief explanation of your thoughts.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:12 pm
Reply
Re: Wonderful wonder

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

Accepting that a non living singularity can explode and create all kinds of living creatures, an extremely interactive and interconnect environment and the ice capades is it reasonable to make any assumptions on what is possible and why?
If so what assumptions, and if you'd like a brief explanation of your thoughts.


I think there are reasons that some assumptions still make sense.

For example, I think it's still fair to rule out ideas that some supposedly all-perfect, all-wise, and omnipotent being would behave in far-from-perfect, unwise, and impotent ways.

In other words, even allowing that all things may be possible, it's still not likely that self-contradictory things would exist. So there are things that can and should be ruled out as being extremely unlikely if not impossible.

So a world that appears to us to be unexplained still wouldn't warrant self-contradictory irrational conclusions.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:27 pm
Reply
Re: Wonderful wonder

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

Why squander a chance to ponder.....


By the way, I should point out that scientists have indeed pondered the idea of infinitely many different kinds of universes. So they are allowing for basically anything and everything goes.

The only assumption they retain is that once a universe begins with a given set of properties, then it's most likely going to retain those properties throughout its existence.

And this is certainly what we have experienced in our universe. Our universe not only appears to be behaving in a consistent fashion today, but since we can look into the past behavior of the universe directly, we can observe that it has apparently always behaved in a consistent fashion.

So our scientific conclusions are based on what we observe, which is the heart of the scientific method of investigation. If we observed that our universe had behaved radically different in the past than it does now we would then have reason to conclude that this must be the situation. But observations and experience simply don't support that conclusion so there's no rational reason to jump to a conclusion that isn't supported by observational evidence.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:13 pm
Reply
For me...

Like this post
I tend to agree with both posts but probably not in the strictest sense. (Outside of believing in God)
Things do seem predictable and we do have some indirect evidence of that. Im not really sold on that being iron clad, say in a black hole or perhaps in a singularity. Seems like a stretch, and perhaps unwise. Things that we can messure act strangely when exposed to extremes.
Additionally I guess i am a bit more cautious because when i try and wrap my mind around what has happened here as a result of the first predictable act in this reality I do get the heebee jeebezz.

I think science kinda suffers from a P.R. issue, much do to language and the lack of the ability to give commentary along with the facts.
An example of this need can be detailed in one of the firt ideas that you run into with the big bang theory, one that at first rub seems counter intuitive to basic common sense.
Can an explosion create life? (Not directly of course but indirectly, getting the process going.)
I think most peoples experience with explosions are one in which a step down in order takes place not an increase in complexity.
For example If you put a stick of dynamite in a mail box and it explodes, you would never expect to get a bigger better mailbox.
Additionally explosions have a cause, a series of conditions, that need to be met to occur.
Right off the bat the big bang theory at least sounds dubious its missing the legs of information that we have yet to unwrap.
An unexplained point of stuff, that for some unknown reason, moves from that state, to an explosive state and kinda like a magic hat, a stream of stuff starts spewing out, and will eventually congeal into a soup of planets, stars and other stuff. One day this stuff will bring rise to a special flavor of soup on a far away planet called earth.
Human Bean Soup.

Now when i dumb it down like that as most non scientific minded folks do i can get why many folks dont convert and toss their rosaries in the trash. In a way, God did it anseers more questions. Especially if you are of the ilk that no holy scripture is accurate or error free. (The fact that they are often very simular is potentially a sign that the same idea is trying to be described by different views but ultimately that isnt my concern.

Let me make it clear that any assumptions i start out with are pretty much do to the fact that whether you are
a believer or not you need to take multiple bites of tthe assumption apple to put yourself in a position to have any meaningful discussion about anything. I also think that perhaps since we know that people dont see reality, think or process information in a real sense we cant get too stuck on being right all the time.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:14 pm
Reply
Re: For me...

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

I think science kinda suffers from a P.R. issue, much do to language and the lack of the ability to give commentary along with the facts.


I agree, the scientific community in general tends to shoot itself in its own foot in terms of P.R. issues. Your next comment places this in high relief.

kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

An example of this need can be detailed in one of the first ideas that you run into with the big bang theory, one that at first rub seems counter intuitive to basic common sense.
Can an explosion create life? (Not directly of course but indirectly, getting the process going.)
I think most peoples experience with explosions are one in which a step down in order takes place not an increase in complexity.


I totally agree, but this is the fault of the scientific community for not setting the record straight on this, and unfortunately, even contributing to this gross misconception.

The current most prominent theory of the Big Bang does not say that it was an "explosion". Instead it was an inflation of a quantum state. That's far different from an explosion.

Another terribly flawed idea that even the scientific community sometimes wrongfully supports, is the idea that before this inflation the original mass was infinite. Or at least equal to the total mass of the current universe. This is again, untrue. In fact, the idea of an infinitely dense "singularity" is a wrong idea.

The original quantum state did not even exhibit mass. Nor did it obey the Pauli Exclusion principle. In fact, those characteristic of the matter in the universe most likely occurred after inflation had taken place. Those transformations may have even been what caused inflation to stop.

So you are drawing conclusions from incorrect "assumptions". You seem to be assuming that the current scientific view of the Big Bang is that there was an infinitely dense singularity than then "exploded" in a conventional sense like dynamite (the example you used as an analogy), and that this physical explosion was the birth of the universe.

Sadly there are so many documentaries that begin with this picture. But this is not the scientific picture at all. Not even close.

So you are rejecting the scientific picture simply because you have an incorrect idea of what the scientific picture is even saying.

The bottom line is that even science can't say for certain precisely what gave rise to the original inflationary period of the universe. None the less, if it was a quantum state that inflated (which is currently the most popular theory) then it would not have been an explosion in the normal sense of that concept. Instead it would have been an extremely well organized inflation that became "massive" only when the inflationary period ended. An easy way to think of this is that in the early going all that existed were bosons, it wasn't until inflation ended that fermions (objects that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle) came into existence. Therefore there wouldn't have even been any "pressure" during inflation. Bosons don't push each other away, and they can all occupy the same space at the same time. In other words, there would have been no need for an infinitely dense singularity at the very beginning of the Big Bang.

Properties of mass (due to the Higgs Field), and the behavior of fermions (the Pauli Exclusion Principle) wouldn't have needed to exist in the early stages of the Big Bang.

Even gravity itself may not have existed until the Higgs Field created "mass". The existence of mass creates gravity.

So your rejection of the "scientific picture" of the universe being the result of a conventional explosion is simple wrong.

We cannot blame you for holding that view, because as I say, you can point to countless documentaries that actually describe the Big Bang starting out as a huge explosion. But unfortunately for those documentaries misrepresent what science actually has to say about the matter in detail.

So you're basically addressing a grave misconception of how scientists actually view the so-called "Big Bang". It was really a very quiet "Inflation" not a "Bang" at all.

In wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense like dynamite, etc. That's an extremely unfortunate description that so many documentaries continue to repeat, as incorrect as it actually is.

Like I say. This is not your fault at all. It's just terribly bad misinformation that is continually supported by documentaries that either themselves do not understand, or would rather just start off the documentary with a huge explosion just for the visual effect. It's just all wrong.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:27 pm
Reply
Re: For me...

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:


In a way, God did it anseers more questions.




God did it answers all the questions. Providing verifiable evidence that any of the answers are correct is a different story. We could all get 4.0 GPAs if the only goal was to answer all the questions. Every school I went to maintained that pesky requirement that the answers be correct.



Tcg

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:17 pm
Reply
Re: For me...

Like this post
Tcg wrote:

kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:


In a way, God did it anseers more questions.




God did it answers all the questions. Providing verifiable evidence that any of the answers are correct is a different story. We could all get 4.0 GPAs if the only goal was to answer all the questions. Every school I went to maintained that pesky requirement that the answers be correct.



Tcg


Not only that but how can an unexplained God be an answer for anything?

People seem to forget that the answer "The Magician Did It" only works for human magicians. It serves as an explanation because the actual answer is that the magician didn't actually do any real magic. All he or she did was create an illusion of doing something that only appears to be impossible.

So saying that a human magician "did it" works because that's telling us that what we thought we just saw didn't actually occur in the manner we thought we saw it.

But that type of explanation fails when it comes to a God supposedly being the "magician". Saying that a magician did it using actual supernatural magic is no explanation at all.

If we cannot explain how the universe came to be, then we most certainly can't explain how a magical God could exist.

So claiming that saying "God did it" serves as an explanation for anything is a seriously misguided notion. An unexplained magician who supposedly does real magic is no explanation for anything.

May as well save a step and just say that the universe itself is magical. Period. No need for any magician to explain how real magic could exist. In fact, to claim that ral magic requires a magician to perform it already violates the very concept of magic. Now it's the magician that has become the "magic".

But now we've entered into an circular explanation. The magical magician explains magic, but magic explains the magical magician.

It's a totally circular claim that serves as no explanation at all.

Which came first? The magic, or the magical magician who supposedly performs the magic?

It's not an explanation for anything.

All that has happened here is that we have traded off something we don't understand for something we don't understand.

How does that help anything? Think

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:29 am
Reply
Perfect..

Like this post
I love when i learn new things!!
Part of the frustrating of being old is often you dont get an email when theories change or become more refined. Sounds like im behind the times on the big bang situation.
I personally have no issue with science as I believe God and science do not need to be at odds. That doesn't extend to blind faith in either direction, nor do i not speak up when something doesn't make sense to me.
It can be embarrassing but i would rather catch up to the rest of the class (as illustrated with this newer view of the big bang) then walk around in ignorance.

I really dont have a response to the "God did it" replies, as i personally dont and didnt use it in a special pleading sense. Been there, seen that, bought the t shirt.

Overall very pleased and i got some homework to do

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version