Can it not exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Very true. Neither is mountain climbing. Nor coin collecting.

Nor what you subjectively think of the problem first presented by Rene Descartes. Or that you love math. You are a human like the rest of us. Now live up to that.

 

[Heyo]

Science is known to be a real and true approach to understand how things are.

Science is known to be a real and true approach to understand how things in the real world are. To study science you need an interest in the real world. That is a value judgement. @Conscious thoughts has stated that he has little interest in the real world. I didn't ever catch him making false claims about the real world (unlike many other theists - and some atheists).

 

[DNB]

Perception is detecting something with the senses. Insight is a type of intuition leading to new ways of thinking about something. And wisdom is being able to to make good choices.

None of those have anything to do with deities.

Wisdom perceives things that are hidden to those who lack it.

 

[Heyo]

Can I ask in honesty, because I do not understand.

How can something spontaneous appear from absolutely nothing? Does science say that is possible?

We don't even know if such a thing as "absolutely nothing" is even possible. Nobody has ever seen it and most people have difficulties to even imagine "nothing".
We do know that particles can spontaneously create in a vacuum (absence of matter and radiation) but that requires the presence of space, time or a quantum field.

What force did "create" the big bang as an example? If big bang just accidentally happen from nothing, how would that be possible if you need something to create something new?

All current models of the Big Bang rest on the assumption that the universe existed as a singularity. I.e. all the matter and energy was compressed in a dimensionless point. So, no creatio ex nihilo.
But those are all models. What we can currently see is the CMB which is thought to be about 380,000 years younger than the Big Bang. Anything older than the CMB is inferred and there are many competing hypothesis about the before. Some get along without a singularity or a "beginning" of our universe.

I now think this is where I don't understand science or even non-believers. How can you prove ( since you guys always/often ask for proof) that something suddenly exist?

We can't. And most cosmogonists don't think of the universe having come into existence ex nihilo.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We don't even know if such a thing as "absolutely nothing" is even possible. Nobody has ever seen it and most people have difficulties to even imagine "nothing".
We do know that particles can spontaneously create in a vacuum (absence of matter and radiation) but that requires the presence of space, time or a quantum field.

All current models of the Big Bang rest on the assumption that the universe existed as a singularity. I.e. all the matter and energy was compressed in a dimensionless point. So, no creatio ex nihilo.
But those are all models. What we can currently see is the CMB which is thought to be about 380,000 years younger than the Big Bang. Anything older than the CMB is inferred and there are many competing hypothesis about the before. Some get along without a singularity or a "beginning" of our universe.

We can't. And most cosmogonists don't think of the universe having come into existence ex nihilo.

So if I understand you correctly in these cases science has "only" theories whereas religion has beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

Wisdom perceives things that are hidden to those who lack it.

Or at least imagines that it does.

 

[Heyo]

So if I understand you correctly in these cases science has "only" theories whereas religion has beliefs.

Yep. No hypothesis about the Big Bang has direct evidence. The maths is solid and they usually explain the known phenomena but direct observation or multiple confirmed predictions - nope.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yep. No hypothesis about the Big Bang has direct evidence. The maths is solid and they usually explain the known phenomena but direct observation or multiple confirmed predictions - nope.

Isn't it a tiny bit strange that some few people reject any tiny bit of a thought there could be a God who actually created that big bang? And some very few people make fun of those people who are believers in a God?

I don't see a problem with being an atheist, only some few who hold a very call it arrogant attitude toward God believers. When them selvs only have a theory that may or may not being wrong?

Technically you can't of course turn that question upside down and ask God believers, isn't there a chance God does not exist? The answer to that for me is, the chance is there of course.

 

[Polymath257]

We don't even know if such a thing as "absolutely nothing" is even possible. Nobody has ever seen it and most people have difficulties to even imagine "nothing".
We do know that particles can spontaneously create in a vacuum (absence of matter and radiation) but that requires the presence of space, time or a quantum field.

More to the point, cosmology tends to consider ALL of space and ALL of time together as a single geometry. it doesn't consider anything outside of that geometry (even when talking about multiverses).

All current models of the Big Bang rest on the assumption that the universe existed as a singularity. I.e. all the matter and energy was compressed in a dimensionless point.

Not quite true. The 'singularity' is more a description of what happens to the math to prevent physical laws from being extended. It is NOT a dimensionless point. it is closer to being a description of the geometry having a 'break' in it.

Also, with quantum gravity, often that singularity is 'smoothed over' and we do get an extension of that geometry.

So, no creatio ex nihilo.

That is correct, but mostly because time is considered part of the universe. There literally was no 'before' the universe.

But those are all models. What we can currently see is the CMB which is thought to be about 380,000 years younger than the Big Bang. Anything older than the CMB is inferred and there are many competing hypothesis about the before. Some get along without a singularity or a "beginning" of our universe.

Again, not completely true. Many things we can detect give us information about events back to *seconds* after the start of the expansion. The age of nucleosynthesis is pretty nailed down by the evidence.

We can't. And most cosmogonists don't think of the universe having come into existence ex nihilo.

It's closer to either it is the result of being part of a multiverse or it 'simply exists'.

 

[Polymath257]

Yep. No hypothesis about the Big Bang has direct evidence. The maths is solid and they usually explain the known phenomena but direct observation or multiple confirmed predictions - nope.

That depends on exactly what you mean by the big bang. For example, we have very direct evidence that the universe is expanding and was much hotter and denser in the past. We have fairly direct evidence that the smaller nuclei were formed when the whole universe was hot and dense enough to support nuclear fusion and that it cooled in a way that 'cut off' some of those nuclear reactions.

The evidence from the CMBR is very extensive and is strong evidence for what happened even before that period when it formed (because the variations in density at that time were originally formed much earlier), sometimes back to the time of nucleosynthesis.

And yes, many of these things have multiple independent lines of evidence supporting them.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't it a tiny bit strange that some few people reject any tiny bit of a thought there could be a God who actually created that big bang? And some very few people make fun of those people who are believers in a God?

There are many theist who are scientists and study cosmology.

But what, precisely, does the hypothesis of a God give to the science? Does it help to model the symmetry breaking leading to matter over anti-matter? or to resolve issues related to the physics of neutrinos? How about say something about baryonic acoustic oscillations?

other than being a placeholder for our ignorance, what *testable* does the God hypothesis provide?

I don't see a problem with being an atheist, only some few who hold a very call it arrogant attitude toward God believers. When them selvs only have a theory that may or may not being wrong?

Technically you can't of course turn that question upside down and ask God believers, isn't there a chance God does not exist? The answer to that for me is, the chance is there of course.

The problem is that in the study of cosmology (for example), the God hypothesis doesn't give anything testable that helps to resolve any questions. So it is irrelevant to actually doing the science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There are many theist who are scientists and study cosmology.

But what, precisely, does the hypothesis of a God give to the science? Does it help to model the symmetry breaking leading to matter over anti-matter? or to resolve issues related to the physics of neutrinos? How about say something about baryonic acoustic oscillations?

other than being a placeholder for our ignorance, what *testable* does the God hypothesis provide?



The problem is that in the study of cosmology (for example), the God hypothesis doesn't give anything testable that helps to resolve any questions. So it is irrelevant to actually doing the science.

Technically speaking spiritual practice is a philosophical science of the mind and of the consciousness( some Buddhist monks even took part in science to see reaction in the brain during meditation) in that case probably both science and the spiritual monks could understand something, but not necessary the same things

 

[We Never Know]

There are many theist who are scientists and study cosmology.

But what, precisely, does the hypothesis of a God give to the science? Does it help to model the symmetry breaking leading to matter over anti-matter? or to resolve issues related to the physics of neutrinos? How about say something about baryonic acoustic oscillations?

other than being a placeholder for our ignorance, what *testable* does the God hypothesis provide?



The problem is that in the study of cosmology (for example), the God hypothesis doesn't give anything testable that helps to resolve any questions. So it is irrelevant to actually doing the science.

There may or may not be a god. I don't know.
However while looking for something particular, you have to know what you're looking for to find it. Once its been found only then can it be tested.

 

[Polymath257]

There may or may not be a god. I don't know.
However while looking for something particular, you have to know what you're looking for to find it. Once its been found only then can it be tested.

OK, if someone knows what they are looking for in this subject, they should propose a test and we can see what happens.

If you need to *believe* before testing, however, there is a BIG problem: confirmation bias. The tests have to be enough to convince skeptics. Just like what happens in every other subject.

 

[We Never Know]

OK, if someone knows what they are looking for in this subject, they should propose a test and we can see what happens.

If you need to *believe* before testing, however, there is a BIG problem: confirmation bias. The tests have to be enough to convince skeptics. Just like what happens in every other subject.

One can test belief.
What is the belief in? A god.
What is a god? Supernatural, spiritual, all mighty, everything, etc. So in my opinion no one knows what a god is.
One can't test what isn't known.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, if someone knows what they are looking for in this subject, they should propose a test and we can see what happens.

If you need to *believe* before testing, however, there is a BIG problem: confirmation bias. The tests have to be enough to convince skeptics. Just like what happens in every other subject.

Just stick to methodological naturalism and math. Stay out of philosophical naturalism. You don't believe in gods. Okay, neither do I, but stop using science on something science can't do, unless you can show philosophical naturalism to be correct.

But if you can't help it, then come on, no humans so far has been able to do that, but you can, right? Remember you would be greater than all previous big names in science and philosophy combined. Don't be shy. Show that philosophical naturalism is correct.

 

[Polymath257]

Just stick to methodological naturalism and math. Stay out of philosophical naturalism. You don't believe in gods. Okay, neither do I, but stop using science on something science can't do, unless you can show philosophical naturalism to be correct.

But if you can't help it, then come on, no humans so far has been able to do that, but you can, right? Remember you would be greater than all previous big names in science and philosophy combined. Don't be shy. Show that philosophical naturalism is correct.

What does 'naturalism' mean?

Naturalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is testability of ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does 'naturalism' mean?

Naturalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is testability of ideas.

So how do you know that naturalism is irrelevant? How do you test that?

 

[F1fan]

So you know what objective reality as independent of the mind is? You would be the first person in recorded history able to do that.

Do you mean how a red Gala apple can be on my dining room table, and it is a fact that it is there, and not my imagination?

 

[F1fan]

Science is known to be a real and true approach to understand how things in the real world are. To study science you need an interest in the real world.

Isn't it fair to say that since humans are real beings that have real interests in the real things of their real sensory experiences? Many theists claim their gods are real, thus part of the "real world". I understand theists try to get around this by cling a spiritual world or realm, but they can't explain how they, as material beings, engage with this and can be certain it isn't just imaginary. Plus if their gods are real, they are part of the real world. That means our inquiry includes these gods, assuming they exist outside of human imagine.

Thus far we cannot distinguish any god exists outside of human imagination, so these claims are largely irrelevant.

That is a value judgement. @Conscious thoughts has stated that he has little interest in the real world. I didn't ever catch him making false claims about the real world (unlike many other theists - and some atheists).

Theists want to make their claims in the real world, but also be exempt from criticism by rational minds. To my mind once theists opt to engage in debate with rational thinkers all bets are off. They can remain in quiet contemplation if they prefer to believe their gods operate in some special realm that is divorced from doubt and reason.

We don't owe theists any some touches when then reneges deliberately, and show indifference for science and contempt for reason. The real world is for big boys and they need to learn it isn't nice out there.