science vs religion?

[leibowde84]

If something comes from nothing at "the beginning" why doesn't the pattern continue? (Why don't other somethings come from nothings; where is the pattern?)

Maybe it is only universes that arise from nothing. Or, maybe the big bang wasn't actually the beginning, but, instead, is merely an expansion in an infinite succession of contractions and expansions. We just have no way of knowing yet.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He already said, it's a vacuum. Whether or not there are energy photons going thru it, it's still a vacuum.

I asked him what a vacuum is and so forth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe it is only universes that arise from nothing. Or, maybe the big bang wasn't actually the beginning, but, instead, is merely an expansion in an infinite succession of contractions and expansions. We just have no way of knowing yet.

I told Christine and Pyloth that I don't know science terms at all. I actually looked up lot of this on a kids sight and dictionary. Good I don't need to take science in college because regardless, I'd flunk. I took history of geology, which I loved, but got a D both times I took it.

So, entertaining the idea what is outside the universe and how does something come from nothing is pretty interesting. Unless the answers are something I understand, all three of ya'll can talk to this woman for ages and I still won't get it.

Have you had topics like that, that you just don't get no matter how hard you try? I mean, I wish I can speak Vietnamese but when I went to the temple and then tried it on youtube, that is one out of all languages I tried, I can't literally speak a word of.

 

[Polymath257]

That, and isn't the things inside our universe, if one likes, are a result of gasses and rocks from various galaxies rather than they exist in and of themselves where no light source is at?

I do not understand your question. Galaxies are made from gas, dust, stars, planets, etc. I'm not sure what you want to know about light sources.

 

[Grandliseur]

Sorry, it means nothing to me.

Just ran it through Google translate and the answer is
いいえ、決して

Hope that's right.

Thank you for answering.
I thought that perhaps I might have known you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Skip that question. I am going off my original post below, before I was side tracked and forgot my original points. @ChristineM

I do not understand your question. Galaxies are made from gas, dust, stars, planets, etc. I'm not sure what you want to know about light sources.

#15 First page

Something cannot pop out of thin air.

Something: as in any object and physical matter

Nothing: Space-being a "void that exists between celestial objects." That would mean if I held out my hand and have no pencil in it, that space/or void would be there until I place pencil on my palm to replace that void or empty space. Nothing scientific just an absence of objects.

My question is: Since there is nothing/a void in my hand, how can a pencil/an object-not gass, participles, etc-pop out of "thin' air" onto my hand.

Why would it happen then but the process of "something from nothing" does not happen in everyday life? Everything on earth is "created" by a combination of already existing things. If something came from nothing, where is the pattern?

You have celestial objects, gasses, etc in space but what's between it is void-that is space itself.

If something came from this void/absolute zero someone said, why couldn't that same thing happen on earth ideally as it happens in the universe?

Space is the absence of something. Without planets and stars etc there would be literally nothing. Space cannot be eternal; it's not even an it. Stars aren't eternal. Planets are not eternal.

Space, as above, is a void between two celestial objects in the universe, right. This void just IS. It can't be eternal (unless you can describe time in children's terms that is outside our definition of it).

Stars aren't eternal. Planets aren't (take Pluto for instance).

Everything is in constant flux and change. From the earth turning and weather and meteors and so forth. There is a cause and effect or causality. If not, everything, even atoms (case in point) would be solid. I'm speaking of the motion of the cause and how it affects other things by its movement and interaction.

Another thing is the Earth is not the center of space.

If "god" existed for people on earth, then god is pretty limited in the minds of people who live on earth. Can you think outside your own understanding of what it means for there to be an absence of something?

Earth isn't the center of the universe, I should say. It's not in the middle of a void either, but no one has explained how they can imagine this void and how it's defined unless there is no such thing as space. I'm thinking of bumping cars for some reason.

I'm saying that god could exist in people's minds to explain the void outside our all galaxies. So, if the universe is said to be "13.8 billion years old, so any light we see has to have been travelling" going by how far light travels, outside of that, we can only assume what we know of is similar to what we don't know. Some people do not leave the earth or universe or cosmos to thinks we can test with telescopes etc. A lot of us go beyond that because we do not know. If we did, a lot of scientist wouldn't believe in god (a first cause).

God being a personified first cause.

Space cannot create planets.

I was reading about the Big Bang and it supports what I keep saying. Something can only come from a combination of things that already exists. So, if there is a big bang (making a point) then that big bang, energy already exists, of course. The density of that energy created a reaction (cause/effect) and we are part of the results of that bang.

If the first cause can be created from a void between two existing things, that is the question I'd like to know: how.

How do you define space as eternal?

I'd say the universe could be eternal since we can't see farther than the light and instruments can detect (as mentioned above). The void, I honestly don't know how time can be measured within space/void between two celestial objects. Unless there is another definition of time, I'm pretty ignorant to whatever it means to have time in space/voidness.

In other words, can "nothing" be eternal?

Eternal tells me about time. I don't know how you can define space/void as having time in it. Matter yes. Time, no.

Why god?

If we know everything there is to know about the universe, I see no reason for god. Since we do not, I understand why god and other metaphysical religions exist. What I don't understand is why some atheists and non-theists make such a big deal out of it.

 

[Logos11]

Motion is a change in the position of an object over time. It is defined in terms of displacement distance velocity acceleration time and speed. An object’s motion cannot change unless acted upon by a force. Everything in the universe can be considered to be moving. Quantum mechanics is built on the basis that there is no such thing as empty space and even the most perfect vacuum is filled with a roiling cloud of particles which flare into existence and into nothingness. Considering this is true, there must be a chain of motion required to initiate the reaction of these quantum sized particles.

It was proven in physics, according to the law of motion, an object’s motion cannot change unless acted upon by a force. Everything in the universe that moves, and is in motion, are the descendants of a higher motion that took place at an earlier time. It is a great chain, acting through time, conforming the particles of the stars and planets to its dimensions. All these motions lead back to a singular motion, that initiated the Big Bang and set the cosmos on it’s axis.

Now what caused this movement? The eternal constant motion of quantum particles? There is no law in quantum physics that is able to prove a theory of eternal motion. There is no system in physics to describe the spontaneous motion of particles or any other object, without being acted upon by another object. There is no law of biology, to explain a stimulus of motion that is non-living. You see, motion is a product of life. This is why the universe goes back to a mind; or intelligence. A mind; or a brain; in this case, has two main functions. This is, to send information from the brain to the body organs and to receive information. It operates by stimuli, knowing just when and how to carry out the functions of the body. It is a system. So only by the existence of an intelligent mind could spontaneous movement be possible. In this system contains the stimulus, in the case of a divine being; a divine stimulus and the ability to initiate creative motion.

This is why the universe cannot find it’s root in eternal particles, or vacuums, but an eternal intelligence. The mind of a spirit-being. The materials are not the fathers of creation but an element of the ancient process. An eternal and infinite God, who knows when and how to construct life.

 

[syo]

What evidence are you basing this belief on?

the evidence is there must be something immortal that started everything. and that something is invisible. from that invisible something sprang out the universe.

 

[syo]

Why do you think that?

because nothing brings nothing.

 

[syo]

Well, in the paper she linked to, it is quite explicit (direct quote from the paper):

"
The wave function of the universe should sat-
isfy the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE) [5]. With
the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has
been suggested that the universe can be created spon-
taneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is
neither matter nor space or time [6], and the problem of
singularity can be avoided naturally"

what is nothing? for me it's absolute zero. for you?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.

I would agree with you on most of these Points, especially the problem of isolating variables. So far, you. . . nor anyone, can give me a single one that we could use.

But it's moot anyway. It's impossible to discuss how probable of an event is, if we only have the single instance of it occurring.

Imagine have a bag full of red and blue marbles. You don't know how many are in the bag. But if you drew out and replaced marbles thousands of times, you get a real clear picture of what proportion of marbles are red vs blue, and you can use that data to predict the outcome of your next draw, and how probable each color is.

But trying to use probability with variables, to explain the likelihood of conditions present in our universe, is akin to having a bag filled with many colors of marbles, but you only get to pick out a single marble. Once.

We only have a single instance of then universe to test, so assigning probability in this way is impossible.

I hope that makes some sense. Let me know if you have any questions.

 

[Polymath257]

because nothing brings nothing.

Why do you think that?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Motion is a change in the position of an object over time. It is defined in terms of displacement distance velocity acceleration time and speed. An object’s motion cannot change unless acted upon by a force. Everything in the universe can be considered to be moving. Quantum mechanics is built on the basis that there is no such thing as empty space and even the most perfect vacuum is filled with a roiling cloud of particles which flare into existence and into nothingness. Considering this is true, there must be a chain of motion required to initiate the reaction of these quantum sized particles.

It was proven in physics, according to the law of motion, an object’s motion cannot change unless acted upon by a force. Everything in the universe that moves, and is in motion, are the descendants of a higher motion that took place at an earlier time. It is a great chain, acting through time, conforming the particles of the stars and planets to its dimensions. All these motions lead back to a singular motion, that initiated the Big Bang and set the cosmos on it’s axis.

Now what caused this movement? The eternal constant motion of quantum particles? There is no law in quantum physics that is able to prove a theory of eternal motion. There is no system in physics to describe the spontaneous motion of particles or any other object, without being acted upon by another object. There is no law of biology, to explain a stimulus of motion that is non-living. You see, motion is a product of life. This is why the universe goes back to a mind; or intelligence. A mind; or a brain; in this case, has two main functions. This is, to send information from the brain to the body organs and to receive information. It operates by stimuli, knowing just when and how to carry out the functions of the body. It is a system. So only by the existence of an intelligent mind could spontaneous movement be possible. In this system contains the stimulus, in the case of a divine being; a divine stimulus and the ability to initiate creative motion.

This is why the universe cannot find it’s root in eternal particles, or vacuums, but an eternal intelligence. The mind of a spirit-being. The materials are not the fathers of creation but an element of the ancient process. An eternal and infinite God, who knows when and how to construct life.

The flaw here is that you are relying on measurements of movement to extrapolate a Big Bang. But if a being is acting on those forces, then how are our measurements reliable? Wouldn't every accepted standard, and it's associated data, for physics, chemistry, and biology be suspect? And if it's all suspect, then how can any of it be used to support a position?

If you presuppose the universe is magic, then the math (and the whole concept of contingency) is unreliable. If you presuppose the universe has consistent math, then where's the room for magic?

 

[leibowde84]

I asked him what a vacuum is and so forth.

A vacuum is a space entirely devoid of matter.

 

[leibowde84]

I told Christine and Pyloth that I don't know science terms at all. I actually looked up lot of this on a kids sight and dictionary. Good I don't need to take science in college because regardless, I'd flunk. I took history of geology, which I loved, but got a D both times I took it.

So, entertaining the idea what is outside the universe and how does something come from nothing is pretty interesting. Unless the answers are something I understand, all three of ya'll can talk to this woman for ages and I still won't get it.

Have you had topics like that, that you just don't get no matter how hard you try? I mean, I wish I can speak Vietnamese but when I went to the temple and then tried it on youtube, that is one out of all languages I tried, I can't literally speak a word of.

Actually, foreign languages are like that for me. German especially. I took it for years and nothing stuck.

 

[leibowde84]

the evidence is there must be something immortal that started everything. and that something is invisible. from that invisible something sprang out the universe.

That is merely a claim though. It isn't evidence in any way. So, what evidence are you basing your claims that 1. there must be something immortal that started everything; 2. that something must be invisible; and 3. that invisible something sprang out the universe?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A vacuum is a space entirely devoid of matter.

I asked if, by that term because I used space instead, can one imagine that. Also, relating to the OP, that would probably be why there are many mystical religions because it could be hard to imagine "space" without matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, foreign languages are like that for me. German especially. I took it for years and nothing stuck.

Pretty much. I didn't know someone was going to challenge me to detail. Shrugs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's "playing god."

Somebody should take responsibility.

Why is that phrase usually an accusation? Theists often tell atheists that the reason they reject gods is so that they can play god in their own lives. OK. I'm all for autonomy and self-actualization.

I'm also for making the world a better place. When I pull over on a rural road to escort a turtle crossing it safely to the other side before it is run over, I have a godlike experience. There was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take responsibility for this matter, so I did. Is that so wrong?

For all we know, mankind is the closest thing to a god or gods that exists.

People literally thought the world was flat. Right or wrong does not matter. The point was this is what they believe was a fact. They probably thought they were the center of the universe. Humans have a lot of ego.

Correct, right and wrong don't matter. What works is what matters. That model works very well for most aspects of daily life, where it doesn't really matter that the flatness is an illusion, or whether the earth is in the center of the universe or not. My plans for the day will not be affected either way.

There is a better model for other purposes, such as traveling very long distances, in which case the flat earth and spherical earth models make different predictions about whether one can or will fall off of the edge of the earth, or, for launching spacecraft from earth.

But for me and probably you as well, both models predict the same outcomes for today.

Here are some ideas that might be of interest to you:

The correspondence theory of truth - the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.

Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.

Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) is true​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Somebody should take responsibility.

Why is that phrase usually an accusation? Theists often tell atheists that the reason they reject gods is so that they can play god in their own lives. OK. I'm all for autonomy and self-actualization.

I'm also for making the world a better place. When I pull over on a rural road to escort a turtle crossing it safely to the other side before it is run over, I have a godlike experience. There was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take responsibility for this matter, so I did. Is that so wrong?

For all we know, mankind is the closest thing to a god or gods that exists.



Correct, right and wrong don't matter. What works is what matters. That model works very well for most aspects of daily life, where it doesn't really matter that the flatness is an illusion, or whether the earth is in the center of the universe or not. My plans for the day will not be affected either way.

There is a better model for other purposes, such as traveling very long distances, in which case the flat earth and spherical earth models make different predictions about whether one can or will fall off of the edge of the earth, or, for launching spacecraft from earth.

But for me and probably you as well, both models predict the same outcomes for today.

Here are some ideas that might be of interest to you:

The correspondence theory of truth - the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.

Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.

Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) is true​

My gosh. I'll have to look those up later. The "we're playing god" is some theists way of saying we dont know everything. Same concept, different "language".