-
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 vs religion?
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
No. Either there was no time 'before the universe', in which case it did not 'come out of nothing' or there *was* time before, in which case there was matter and energy, so again it didn't come out of nothing.
The known universe has a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. What, if anything, existed before that, we do not know. It is quite possible that there was no 'before that'.
Well, you never *actually* proposed a theory. You made some very vague statements that were completely non-specific and rather useless to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
You claimed it to be mathematical, but presented no mathematics. You claimed it to be based on statistics, but presented no stats. And you presented nothing that makes ID any more likely than before.
Then you got offended because people reasonably expected you do actually do what you said you were going to do.
Repox
Truth Seeker
I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.
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.
I never said the theory was complete. I said "propose," and then you and others jumped on it without knowing anything about it. I did post the "proposed theory." Apparently, there are those here who like to argue. You did it again. You said I claimed to be mathematical. What does that mean? If you can add and subtract, are you mathematical? There is a lot of stupidity here.
If you knew anything about science theories, you would understand the process. A theory is proposed, it is developed and tested. Finally, the hypotheses or accepted or rejected. It is called the scientific method. Do some research.
Last edited:
Sorry, but that isn't proposing a theory. That is making a few generic statements that show no insight or even a way to proceed. You seem to think this is ground-breaking, but it isn't even really worth the time it takes to read it. I gave a very specific critique a few posts back that you completely ignored.
Now, to *actually* propose a theory, what you need to do is *at least* make some specific claims and give enough details that it makes it look lie you have given the issue more thought than a 6th grader. You haven't yet done that.
Repox
Truth Seeker
Why didn't you read what I just posted. You know nothing of what you say. I did it correctly, I began the process of theory development as prescribed by the "scientific method." I am really tired of spending so much time with a lot of dumb comments. I am not now, nor have I been required to present the formal theory. This is not a scientific class, it is a religious forum. I am not required to fulfill your expectations, especially when you know little about the subject. None of you can even understand the "proposed" theory I posted.
Garbage. We *all* understand much more of what is going on that you seem to. These are NOT 'dumb questions'. They are directly to the point of what you claim to want to do. And yes, I did read what you posted. That is specifically what I am referring to.
So, no, you did not even begin the process of theory development. You have a few very vague speculations about how to proceed, but nothing at all even approaching a proposal.
No, you are not required to present a formal theory. You will be if you ever want your ideas to be taken seriously, but you don't have to do so here. But you seem to think you have already proposed a theory. You haven't. Instead, you have presented some vague ideas that are either trivial or trivially wrong.
What became of using the english language properly?
What became of being honest in what you say?
As to what became of the civilised world, i am pretty sure you were the one who began throwing the insults.
No matter how much you justify your post to yourself makes no difference to the fact you made an implication then refused to provide details, in fact became hostile when questioned.
Regolith Based Lifeforms
Early Earth Was Not Sterile
Laffin!
(not a theory)
(not a theory)
That was some time after your original claim, long after the requests for clarification and after your hostile responses. And its not even a theory, its an idea based on an misunderstood, incomplete and inaccurate understanding of prevailing conditions and present no statistics or mathematics.
Actually polymath is very knowledgeable about what he says but you must get your insults in eh?
Most people learn from him, i know that over the 7 years or so that i have known him, he has improved my knowledge by educating me on the more technical aspects of the area you are dipping you tow in at the grade school pool. You can be likened to a young, arrogent, first year student insulting his professor because you think you know more in 2 weeks part time interest than the professor knows from a lifetime of study.
No you are not required to propose the theory you claim you were proposing. Which in itself tells much.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Really? You call that a "theory?" Sorry, it does not cut it even at the level of an untested hypothesis.
No no, no! You have it all wrong. Theories are not proposed, hypotheses are.
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
A theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
It appears you are the one who needs to "do some research."
syo
Well-Known Member
can that nothing give birth to anything?
Depends. If you allow for the known laws of physics, yes. Most situations where there is 'nothing' are unstable and decay to states where there is 'something'.
But there is the more fundamental issue that 'giving birth' requires the pre-existence of time. Without time already existent, we cannot have 'giving birth' or 'becoming' or any dynamic process.Y
ANY change requires time, so without time, there is no causality and no way to 'become'.
Well, that's why I put on scare quotes. A vacuum is an entity. it has nothing 'in it', but that is an unstable situation.
A lack of matter and energy is still a state of existence and can be subject to the laws of physics and even be unstable.
It sounds like what you are proposing is neither a theory nor a hypothesis (which is actually a better word for a proposed idea when discussing technical matters), but a project to set up a mathematical model of the earliest universe on a computer and let it play out to see if it evolves into a universe like ours.
I believe that most scientific hypotheses result from initial observations that suggest an idea that is worthy of devoting resources toward testing. The hypothesis is not the starting point.