Science, the Universe, and Ex Nihilo

[Aupmanyav]

We know something now. It doesn't follow we will know more and more until we know everything in the future.

In that case no one should say that there is something which we will never know, except fake prophets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In that case no one should say that there is something which we will never know, except fake prophets.

There could be more than just fake prophets.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There could be more than just fake prophets.

Do we have proof of any or of one/many God/Gods/Goddesses?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do we have proof of any or of one/many God/Gods/Goddesses?

No, we only have proof of some version of solipsism. We don't even have proof of a we. So if you claim you have proof of a we, you are a fake prophet.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My 'we' probably fluctuates between existence and non-existence. I have a different kind of 'we'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My 'we' probably fluctuates between existence and non-existence. I have a different kind of 'we'.

Then it is not a "we" and no different than "God".

 

[Luchito Prays]

does science believe that there was nothing before the creation of the universe? or that the universe was created from nothing?

I guess if scientists do believe such a thing, then they ignore the biblical writings.

No claim in the Bible states that God created the universe from nothing. That's for sure.

 

[dybmh]

I guess if scientists do believe such a thing, then they ignore the biblical writings.

No claim in the Bible states that God created the universe from nothing. That's for sure.

It's not biblical, it's logical.

Nothing is the first creation. Without nothing created at first, every other created thing would be nullified back into the source like an individual spark of light is nullified into sunlight. Or like a candle's flame joins and nullifies itself into a larger proximal flame.

 

[Luchito Prays]

It's not biblical, it's logical.

Nothing is the first creation. Without nothing created at first, every other created thing would be nullified back into the source like an individual spark of light is nullified into sunlight. Or like a candle's flame joins and nullifies itself into a larger proximal flame.

Logic is not accepted as a requirement or part of the scientific method.

Then, your point belongs to philosophy. And sounds interesting.

Lets follow it.

According to the reading, "nothing" impedes things of a certain kind to be nullified by other things of that same kind: spark of light and sunlight, candle's flame and a larger flame.

What about things of different kind, like a drop of water and noise?

 

[dybmh]

What about things of different kind,

Interesting question

a drop of water and noise?

If the noise is big enough the water droplet will vibrate and evaporate. If the water is big enough it will muffle the noise.

Which ever is much much larger nullifies the much much smaller. That's the idea.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Interesting question

If the noise is big enough the water droplet will vibrate and evaporate. If the water is big enough it will muffle the noise.

Which ever is much much larger nullifies the much much smaller. That's the idea.

Got it.

Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then it is not a "we" and no different than "God".

I do not know your definition of God, and I do not believe in one however it is defined. I believe in the existence of 'physical energy' alone and that too, I believe, may have a non-existent phase.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not know your definition of God, and I do not believe in one however it is defined. I believe in the existence of 'physical energy' alone and that too, I believe, may have a non-existent phase.

You are honest.
So me it is unknown. Both God and physical energy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We know something about 'physical energy', but nothing about God/Gods/Goddesses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know something about 'physical energy', but nothing about God/Gods/Goddesses.

No, we don't. Nobody so far has solved the problem of what objective reality is in itself.
Your "know" is a belief system, just like a belief system in a God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I go by what science tells me. At the time of inflation, there was nothing other than 'physical energy'. Where did that come from? The only possible answer is 'from absolute nothing'. If I believe that something existed prior to that, it will require an explanation and evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, I go by what science tells me. At the time of inflation, there was nothing other than 'physical energy'. Where did that come from? The only possible answer is 'from absolute nothing'. If I believe that something existed prior to that, it will require an explanation and evidence.

You are like some other people and that is regardless of religion, gods or what not. You don't register when you are doing internal cognitive thinking and then do the following: That makes sense to me in my thoughts, therefore it is so independent of my thoughts.

To learn to avoid that requires that you learn to catch when you are doing it and learn from that. In effect you are no different than some religious people, because you treat your belief system as special without doubting it as you doubt other belief systems.
You are a scientific skeptic, I am a strong philosophical skeptic.

Your trick is very simple. I doubt how other humans make sense of objective reality, but I don't doubt my own beliefs, because they make sense to me. That is not different that what some religious people do in the general sense.

 

[KWED]

does science believe that there was nothing before the creation of the universe? or that the universe was created from nothing?

No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

How do you explain that you arrive at that no?

 

[KWED]

How do you explain that you arrive at that no?

Because that is the best response to that question.