science vs religion?

[ChristineM]

the steps are everything necessary to form a hydrogen. the steps preexist the hydrogen.

that ''who'' preexists the hydrogen.

I've asked several times now, i will ask once more and hope you don't try and wriggle our of not answering by not answering the question.

What are those logical steps you need to say your conclusion is the result of logic?

Either provide the logical steps required or admit you are misusing the word logical, alternatively, if you can't answer honestly then be honest about it.

 

[Polymath257]

the steps are everything necessary to form a hydrogen. the steps preexist the hydrogen.

So? Yes, there were quarks before the hydrogen.

that ''who'' preexists the hydrogen.

Again, why does there need to be something with a personality that pre-exists the hydrogen? As opposed, say, to other subatomic particles, like quarks and electrons?

You are assuming the pre-existent things had intelligence, when we know intelligence is a complex process needing many things before it. Isn't it much more reasonable to have things that existed but without an intelligence?

And, again, you assume that there was a single 'first' as opposed to many uncaused causes. Why do you assume only one? Why do you assume it had a personality? Very few ordinary causes have intelligence, why do you assume this one did?

And, of course, you never address the 'why' of your intelligent cause? Where did *it* come from? What preceded it? Why is it special in needing no cause?

 

[syo]

I've asked several times now, i will ask once more and hope you don't try and wriggle our of not answering by not answering the question.

What are those logical steps you need to say your conclusion is the result of logic?

Either provide the logical steps required or admit you are misusing the word logical, alternatively, if you can't answer honestly then be honest about it.

but it's for science to figure out these steps. the only thing I can say is that the steps preexist.

the logic is this:
god who precreates the rules of energy and matter (the unknown) ----> energy and matter come into life and science studies (can be known).

 

[ChristineM]

infinite is illogical?

Try defining it logically and see. Ohh right.

 

[syo]

So? Yes, there were quarks before the hydrogen.



Again, why does there need to be something with a personality that pre-exists the hydrogen? As opposed, say, to other subatomic particles, like quarks and electrons?

You are assuming the pre-existent things had intelligence, when we know intelligence is a complex process needing many things before it. Isn't it much more reasonable to have things that existed but without an intelligence?

And, again, you assume that there was a single 'first' as opposed to many uncaused causes. Why do you assume only one? Why do you assume it had a personality? Very few ordinary causes have intelligence, why do you assume this one did?

And, of course, you never address the 'why' of your intelligent cause? Where did *it* come from? What preceded it? Why is it special in needing no cause?

may I ask how the universe began?

 

[Polymath257]

but it's for science to figure out these steps. the only thing I can say is that the steps preexist.

Do they? Or do they co-exist? Does it mean anything to have rules without anything to rule?

the logic is this:
god who precreates the rules of energy and matter (the unknown) ----> energy and matter come into life and science studies (can be known).

And once again, you fail to establish that there needs to be a creator of the rules. What rules does the creator use to create the rules?

 

[Polymath257]

may I ask how the universe began?

What do you mean by 'the universe'?

If it means 'all that exists;, then I don't think it began to exist. It simply exists.

If you mean this causal bubble we find ourselves in, it depends on which of several quantum theories of gravity is correct.

 

[syo]

What rules does the creator use to create the rules?

logic.

 

[ChristineM]

but it's for science to figure out these steps. the only thing I can say is that the steps preexist.

the logic is this:
god who precreates the rules of energy and matter (the unknown) ----> energy and matter come into life and science studies (can be known).

No, you are the one claiming the steps, science already understands the steps which are explained in the link in my first correspondence to you on this topix. Unfortunately the reality of science does not correspond with your vague attempts in claiming logic for guesswork.

That is not logic, that is opinion.

 

[syo]

If it means 'all that exists;, then I don't think it began to exist. It simply exists.

no beginning then?

 

[ChristineM]

no beginning then?

That is not what polymath said, he qualified his answer and you misrepresented it. Is that a logical way to hold discussions?

 

[ChristineM]

logic.

Round and round we go

 

[syo]

That is not what polymath said, he qualified his answer and you misrepresented it. Is that a logical way to hold discussions?

all I want to know is if the universe has a beginning.

 

[ChristineM]

all I want to know is if the universe has a beginning.

This universe we inhabit is shown to have begun 13.8 billion years ago.

what is external (if anything is external ) to this universe is unknown.

And all i want to know is how you arrived at your claim that god created hydrogen is logical. Seems your curiosity is satisfied and i am left still wanting.

 

[syo]

This universe we inhabit is shown to have begun 13.8 billion years ago.

so the universe has a beginning. did it come out of nothing?

 

[syo]

god created hydrogen

god created everything. how? we will never know. god gave the initiative spark and the universe was born. the universe has its god given mechanisms that science studies.

 

[leibowde84]

That's like playing god or trying to find the top of the mountain. Instead of trying to find something greater, if it doesn't benefit us because we do die, why not be concerned of what's here in the present. How can the future benefit us when our death is not predestined?

It's, how you say, a foregone conclusion.

It's one thing to look "advance" in science. It's another to add the god concept to it. The former I understand. I'm just not a science person. The latter, I don't.

That is why no respectable scientist will add the God concept to any scientific theory.

 

[leibowde84]

so the universe has a beginning. did it come out of nothing?

Obviously it isn't either "it came out of nothing" or "God created it". There are many options out there, some that experts have considered, some that experts haven't realized yet. We aren't even close in our scientific understanding of the universe to declare that it is either God or something from nothing. We have no idea what existed prior to the BB.

 

[ChristineM]

so the universe has a beginning. did it come out of nothing?

It is mathematically possible, as polymath said there are several theories.

 

[ChristineM]

god created everything. how? we will never know. god gave the initiative spark and the universe was born. the universe has its god given mechanisms that science studies.

Then how can you claim it as logical if "we will never know"?