Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Skwim]

What are the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe? Science can only explain processes, it cannot explain the beginning of time, which is the big bang.
I have not proposed a scientific explanation or theory for the universe. I have consistently claim God did it, but, of course, there is no material proof for supernatural beings. Read the Old Testament, there you find encounters with God with explanations. I am certain God created the universe. If not, what caused it?

I am certain God created the universe.

And shouldn't this pretty much settle the argument? Repox and fellow OT believers rely on the assertions of a 3,500 year old book for their facts. While most others rely on the conclusions of science.

Now why the OT and not science? Because to deny the truth of any part of the OT calls into question the truth of all its other parts, and that's unacceptable.

And why science and not the OT? Because the OT is unfalsifiable; falsifiability being one of the cornerstones of science in establishing the nature of the universe and ts workings.

 

[Curious George]

And shouldn't this pretty much settle the argument? Repox and fellow OT believers rely on the assertions of a 3,500 year old book for their facts. While most others rely on the conclusions of science.

Now why the OT and not science? Because to deny the truth of any part of the OT calls into question the truth of all its other parts, and that's unacceptable.

And why science and not the OT? Because the OT is unfalsifiable; falsifiability being one of the cornerstones of science in establishing the nature of the universe and ts workings.

You say that like there is scientific evidence to conclude against free will.

 

[Curious George]

Balls don't jump through hoops on their own. Simply saying "nah uh!" to my arguments doesn't make for a good debate.

I never said such was the case. I simply said that throwing a ball does not mean it will go through a hoop, therefore throwing a ball, alone, can not be the cause of it going through a hoop.

Can you give real world examples of each of the above?

Still working on it.

Perhaps, but we don't see that in our universe, which was my point. Our universe has rules.

Nor do we see the mechanical nature and predictability in humans that we see in a pinball machine. If our observations are what you want to use, then be consistent.

 

[Skwim]

You say that like there is scientific evidence to conclude against free will.

Talking about the origins of the universe.

What are the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe? Science can only explain processes, it cannot explain the beginning of time, which is the big bang. I have not proposed a scientific explanation or theory for the universe. I have consistently claim God did it,

.​

 

[Curious George]

How would you describe freewill and how could computers have it?

The ability to choose not fixed by prior effects. Intention. How could computers have it...first we would have to understand it in ourselves otherwise computers could have it only by accident.

 

[Curious George]

Talking about the origins of the universe.

.​

I thought you were relating it to free will. My mistake.

 

[Repox]

And shouldn't this pretty much settle the argument? Repox and fellow OT believers rely on the assertions of a 3,500 year old book for their facts. While most others rely on the conclusions of science.

Now why the OT and not science? Because to deny the truth of any part of the OT calls into question the truth of all its other parts, and that's unacceptable.

And why science and not the OT? Because the OT is unfalsifiable; falsifiability being one of the cornerstones of science in establishing the nature of the universe and ts workings.

I am wiling to consider science as the total explanation when it produces convincing evidence for matter and energy, or the universe, creating itself.

 

[Repox]

Same problem with using God as a causal beginning. What caused God or what came before God one can always ask. Maybe you can claim that God has always existed but how is that any different from claiming the universe has always existed?

And we know the universe exists at least. God on the other hand remains speculation.

There is undisputable evidence for the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

How could there be a cause for God when He is eternal? There is no evidence for the universe always existing. It always goes back to the time line, it is irrefutable evidence for the finite nature of the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

There is undisputable evidence for the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

How could there be a cause for God when He is eternal? There is no evidence for the universe always existing. It always goes back to the time line, it is irrefutable evidence for the finite nature of the universe.

The beginning of something is an arbitrary abstract demarcation. It exists only as a mental convenience. It doesn't actually imply nothing existed prior.

We have to carefully avoid confusing our abstract thoughts about the universe with the actual reality of the universe.

 

[Repox]

The beginning of something is an arbitrary abstract demarcation. It exists only as a mental convenience. It doesn't actually imply nothing existed prior.

We have to carefully avoid confusing our abstract thoughts about the universe with the actual reality of the universe.

If you believe in science, you must acceptable the implications of theories with evidence. It is not a philosophical question, it is a scientific question. Can you prove the universe based on a scientific theory with evidence? If not, you have no answer, which means you have to explain the shortcoming. Otherwise, you are not true to your belief in the "scientific method."

 

[JustWondering]

I agree. I claim no knowledge. I only see this as opening up new possibilities.

Not knowing something can be frustrating or troubling but the intellectually honest thing is to admit when you don't know something instead of making stuff up. That's how I think religion started, back in the day people made stuff up to fill in the gaps of their knowledge and make themselves feel better. Religion continues to exist because of tradition and ignorance, not reason.

 

[JustWondering]

If you believe in science, you must acceptable the implications of theories with evidence. It is not a philosophical question, it is a scientific question. Can you prove the universe based on a scientific theory with evidence? If not, you have no answer, which means you have to explain the shortcoming. Otherwise, you are not true to your belief in the "scientific method."

Can you prove your god exists based on a scientific theory with evidence? If not, why should I care about your imaginary god?

 

[Nakosis]

If you believe in science, you must acceptable the implications of theories with evidence. It is not a philosophical question, it is a scientific question. Can you prove the universe based on a scientific theory with evidence? If not, you have no answer, which means you have to explain the shortcoming. Otherwise, you are not true to your belief in the "scientific method."

The scientific method is really just a philosophical position. It's a useful tool for validation. That doesn't make it beyond reproach nor exempt from questioning.

Generally proving the universe is unnecessary as you can validate it's existence for yourself without having to have someone else prove it to you.

Basically you'd need to come up with a way to disprove the universe. Then show this as evidence for it's non-existence. I suspect that would entail disproving all the laws of nature. Otherwise it's reasonable to accept the evidence which does exist for it's existence.

 

[Curious George]

Can you prove your god exists based on a scientific theory with evidence? If not, why should I care about your imaginary god?

More to the point, can you prove that determinism exists (not that some events are determined) based on scientific theory with evidence?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What are the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe?

My thinking is this: Either something has always existed or something came into existence uncaused. If the universe has an external cause or source, I will call it a multiverse if it is unconscious and a God if it is conscious. That yields this list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

You presumably have narrowed this list down to number [6], but I would say that that is unjustified. None of these ideas can be ruled in or out, and they seem to me to be mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive, that is, one but not two or more must be correct.

Number [2] is the one that you mentioned and I said that it was only one candidate hypothesis.

I am certain God created the universe.

That's probably true - your certitude, that is.

I don't see how you can believe that a loving, omniscient, omnipotent god that wants to be found, known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped exists. I don't see how that's possible given what we see around us - needles suffering and so many different religions.

If not, what caused it?

We don't know, and might never know. And as my list implies, it was not necessarily caused (see item [1]).

 

[JustWondering]

I never said such was the case. I simply said that throwing a ball does not mean it will go through a hoop, therefore throwing a ball, alone, can not be the cause of it going through a hoop.

You're splitting hairs now. Throwing the ball is a necessary event/action for the ball to go through the hoop.

Nor do we see the mechanical nature and predictability in humans that we see in a pinball machine. If our observations are what you want to use, then be consistent.[/QUOTE]
If there were not predictable mechanisms in the brain for how it worked, pharmaceutical companies couldn't exist. Using scanners researchers can see the workings of the brain in real time. There are mountains of data and evidence that the brain is a super complex biological computer.

 

[JustWondering]

The ability to choose not fixed by prior effects. Intention. How could computers have it...first we would have to understand it in ourselves otherwise computers could have it only by accident.

At least you are open to the possibility that our thoughts, emotions, and consciousness are derived from physical means.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang

Very interesting. Enjoyed reading the article. Those apparent particles are based on speculation, and other scientists disagree.

The article was interesting but didn't provide solid evidence of anything, seemed to be filled with speculation to me.

Did you all miss this? "This story ran on 1 April 2014 and is an April Fools' joke. Enjoy!"

 

[JustWondering]

More to the point, can you prove that determinism exists (not that some events are determined) based on scientific theory with evidence?

Possibly, it would take time and I'd probably have to seriously get into science (go back to college) to do it. I don't see any other rational alternatives to determinism. I've seen some say that quantum mechanics shows that there are events that defy prediction but I'm not strong on math and physics, been years since I took any math and physics classes.

 

[JustWondering]

Did you all miss this? "This story ran on 1 April 2014 and is an April Fools' joke. Enjoy!"

Guess so.