• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
Every scientist is in consensus as to what the term "scientific theory" means. So, again, you are wrong.
Click to expand...
and all this discussion to prove me wrong is a fail....
I have a theory why people start such threads...

they couldn't hold their own in another thread....so...
they start a thread like this hoping to control the word game

it's a theory....and theory hold til proven wrong (wiki)
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
Here's a quote from Scientific American that attempts to quell the confusion you are experiencing (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/):

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
Click to expand...
a theory is an explanation
renote my signature
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
ben d said:
We are not even talking about the singularity after the beginning...we are discussing how the singularity came into existence..ie. why and from what... Please be relevant?
Click to expand...
Yup. and how do you know it came out of nothing? Simply because it didn't posses the qualities of the space and time it created? I think you're being a bit short sighted here.

Prove that I am mistaken about nothing
Click to expand...
I don't prove stuff unless its mathematical or logical, but I've already showed you the chink in your thinking.

"Because we have virtually no idea of the makeup of the singularity---although it is considered to have been a "state" of very high density and high temperature---all we can say is that it "was." And in as much as this "state" did exist, it comprised a something." It was something other than nothing.​

So, as far as "discussing how the singularity came into existence..ie. why and from what," science simply doesn't know. End of discussion.

....at a minimum explain why time came into existence?
Click to expand...
Short answer: The BB initiated successional change, and successional change creates an arrow of time.

The time that time has been in existence is irrelevant to this discussion, it is purely about why time and space came into existence from nothing...
Click to expand...
Yet you went to the trouble to erroneously point out that "Science does not know...when [the universe] arose," which I thought deserved to be set straight. :shrug: Of course, if you were looking for an answer like 13,799,658, 021 years, 155 days, and 16 hours ago, then no, science doesn't know. ;)
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
Yup. and how do you know it came out of nothing? Simply because it didn't posses the qualities of the space and time it created? I think you're being a bit short sighted here.

I don't prove stuff unless its mathematical or logical, but I've already showed you the chink in your thinking.

"Because we have virtually no idea of the makeup of the singularity---although it is considered to have been a "state" of very high density and high temperature---all we can say is that it "was." And in as much as this "state" did exist, it comprised a something." It was something other than nothing.​

So, as far as "discussing how the singularity came into existence..ie. why and from what," science simply doesn't know. End of discussion.

Short answer: The BB initiated successional change, and successional change creates an arrow of time.

Yet you went to the trouble to erroneously point out that "Science does not know...when [the universe] arose," which I thought deserved to be set straight. :shrug: Of course, if you were looking for an answer like 13,799,658, 021 years, 155 days, and 16 hours ago, then no, science doesn't know. ;)
Click to expand...
So we agree it did not have the qualities of space and time....what qualities did it have it were not absolute nothing?
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
ben d said:
So we agree it did not have the qualities of space and time....what qualities did it have it were not absolute nothing?
Click to expand...
The only answers everyone (scientists that dwell on such matters) agree on is: Other than a calculated extremely high density and extremely high temperature, No One Knows.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
The only answers everyone (scientists that dwell on such matters) agree on is: Other than a calculated extremely high density and extremely high temperature, No One Knows.
Click to expand...
Ahem....so you are saying that extremely high density and extremely high temperature preexisted the singularity?
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Ahem....so you are saying that extremely high density and extremely high temperature preexisted the singularity?
Click to expand...
No. Science has calculated that the singularity itself was extremely dense and had an extremely high temperature. It knows nothing of its preexistence; the what, whens, or hows.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
no really.....no afterlife?......and all of this humanity is then what?
just another genus bound for extinction....

there is no glory in being human.
we are born into blood and death.
Click to expand...
I agree that it would be better if there were an afterlife that was pleasant. But, the absence of an afterlife in no way makes our lives meaningless. We live to make the lives of those who come after us better.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
and all this discussion to prove me wrong is a fail....
I have a theory why people start such threads...

they couldn't hold their own in another thread....so...
they start a thread like this hoping to control the word game

it's a theory....and theory hold til proven wrong (wiki)
Click to expand...
Your theory has been proven wrong.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Thief said:
I don't believe in the 'end'

I believe in cause and effect.

I believe in continuance and therefore have a shot at it.

and you?
Click to expand...
I believe you have not thought this through all the way.
I believe the reason you have not thought it through all the way is due to your premature ejaculating of science and reason, and logic as soon as they get you where you want to go.
You claim you believe in cause and effect.
The fact that you toss it out the window the second you get to your god shows that to be a lie.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Mestemia said:
No you don't.
The reason I know you do not believe in god because of science is simply because you throw science out the window once it gets you to your god.
Click to expand...
I go all the way science will go....to the singularity
at that point....the choice to believe is mine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top