Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[DBT]

Unlike science, theists claim to know how the Universe came about: it was created by God (whatever that's supposed to be).

 

[bilby]

Thank you, but I haven't argued against energy at all, having beginnings or endings.

Energy and matter are interchangeable; Matter is just energy in a condensed form.

Well, it's down to whether or not, we're on the same-page, in regards to physicalities in context - which seems like we're not from the looks of the posts. So who's arguing against the above? Besides formed structures CAN be destroyed i.e. planets collide or Super Novas explode.

Sure. Structures are just patterns of energy, and they form, break up, and re-form constantly. They always and invariably do this in a completely understandable way, with no gods or non material influences needed. Indeed, we know all of the ways that material can be influenced at scales bigger than a molecule and smaller than a solar system, and no influences from immaterial or undiscovered sources are possible at these scales.

There are no more gaps, and we see no gods.

In contradiction of the First Law, the Bible doesn't suggest that God built these things from existing materials, but that he spoke them into existence from nothing.

The concept is God IS the energy source!

Or putting aside the theists concept - Energy is the source of existing materials!

Are you saying these structural forms have always existed ? Unless of course you start using a different context "philosophy," that these heavenly bodies existed ... only in different forms.

That's not merely philosophy, it's science. The sun was a cloud of (mostly hydrogen) gas spread over a very large area, before gravity caused the gas to fall together and become a star. All the matter/energy in the sun today (plus some that has since been lost as radiation and 'solar wind') existed for as long as we are able to know; Certainly for many billions of years.

Philosphy I'm afraid, runs parallel with science. It has alsways been a useful pondering method for scientists, and always will.

There's no need to be afraid.

Science has demonstrated that no intervention in our reality by the unknown is possible - so no gods performing miracles, or manifesting on Earth, or impregnating virgins, are possible. Also, reality cannot even in principle interact with the unknown. So no souls, no afterlife, no ghosts, no prayers. All these things are as likely to be possible as the discovery of a new kind of heavy rock that falls upwards.

Science is a process of ruling out things that cannot happen. No major world religion hasn't had its major tenets eliminated from possibility by science; The only reason religion persists is people's disinclination to learn the science, and test their beliefs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are you saying the only way we can determine physicality is by sight?

Physicality as in the structural stars, planets, organic birds, bees, trees, you and me etc.. Meaning, there is NO issues wth the Science ... which says these observable things have beginnings (one of the points). No contradictions to the bible either - stars, sun and moon began.

Would you therefore be saying these structural forms have always existed? Unless of course you're using a different context "philosophy," that these physical heavenly bodies have always existed ... only in different forms?

If you mean structural then you should say structural and not physical. They are not the same thing.

Give me examples of things that are non-structural so I can understand what you are talking about. For example, are you saying that water vapor is non-structural because we cannot see it?

What other things do you say are non structural? What is the dividing line between structural and non structural? How does something that is non-structural become structural?

It seems you are saying that things we know are there but cannot detect are non structural. How do you know something is there if you cannot detect it?

 

[FinBack]

...
OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.

This viewpoint, with an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll, is not too dissimilar to the Penrose idea that started the whole thread! The two main differences are:
(a) Penrose, an expert on black holes and general relativity, views "our universe" as created in an "entropy death" after super massive black holes have evaporated;
(b) Penrose believes it MAY be possible to "see" the prior universe via faint patterns in the CMB.

It seems to me that the similarity would be only that the two view the universe is eternal.

My understanding of the Penrose CCC is that the universe is continually expanding and that black holes are only temporary as they will eventually evaporate. That the universe will eventually reach a condition of maximum entropy, 'smoothness', or uniformity. As this is the condition of the early universe shown in the CMB, applying conformal geometry means that the 'end' of the expansion is indistinguishable from what is commonly seen as the 'beginning' in the BB theory. It is a compelling cosmological model and I see the math but have qualms about the physics.

The nested black hole model also proposes an eternal universe but suggests that what would be seen as an expanding universe from within one of the 'black hole universes' would actually be an ever collapsing of space time. This is also a compelling cosmological model but again I have qualms about the physics.

Black Holes ARE temporary. In the blink of an eye. !

That's the thing. There is NO time involved.

What ever has happened is not in the past but in the NOW....Same as what's not happened Will happen...No change. Infinitely.

Horrible conclusion. But it's what I personally believe in.

 

[steve_bank]

Can you see water vapor? The question of material-immaterial is purely pre 20th century philosophical thinking. Natural Philosophy was surpassed by modern empirical and observational math model based science.

There are models that can be tested and there is philosophical-religious speculation on experiment.

I would not be surprised that philosophical specualtion is not entirely a religious affair, when any experiments take place. Like for example having more than one model - all having some desired results. Correct me if I'm wrong, IIRC I think you mentioned you were not a proponant of the Big Bang or expanding universe or perhaps both.

The basis of most modeling is covered n undergrad math. Fields, curl, divergence and other etches that are ommon across all areas from engineering to physics.

Fields are a general concept. A field around a charged particle interacting with other fields.

No dispute here.

The BB is a good model n that from a theoretical starting point it predicts what we see today from particles to galaxies. Simulations based on theory show galaxy like structures. The problem is even with fast computers resolution down to particle level takes a very long time.

My position on cosmology in general is that it is based on the limits of our observations which is the limit of our ability to detect photons across the spectrum. In pop culture the BB has become a popular creation myth without understanding it does not explain what caused the initial conditions. As such it does not explain any ultimate origins.

We observe the universe from Earth as relative motion. When we translate the reference frame to any point in the universe everything seems to be moving away as if n a big explosion, hence BB.


I like to say cosmology is where science, religion, and philosophy converge. Neater the Christian god nor the BB nor any speculation is provable in a material sense.

Depending on where you set the boundary for categories some consider speculation with math to be science. For me it is a fuzzy line between science and philosophy. When String Theory was first proposed some considered it philosophy because there was no way to test it.

The term science is contextual.

 

[steve_bank]

Thank you, but I haven't argued against energy at all, having beginnings or endings. Well, it's down to whether or not, we're on the same-page, in regards to physicalities in context - which seems like we're not from the looks of the posts. So who's arguing against the above? Besides formed structures CAN be destroyed i.e. planets collide or Super Novas explode.

In contradiction of the First Law, the Bible doesn't suggest that God built these things from existing materials, but that he spoke them into existence from nothing.

The concept is God IS the energy source!

Or putting aside the theists concept - Energy is the source of existing materials!

Are you saying these structural forms have always existed ? Unless of course you start using a different context "philosophy," that these heavenly bodies existed ... only in different forms.

That's not merely philosophy, it's science. The sun was a cloud of (mostly hydrogen) gas spread over a very large area, before gravity caused the gas to fall together and become a star. All the matter/energy in the sun today (plus some that has since been lost as radiation and 'solar wind') existed for as long as we are able to know; Certainly for many billions of years.

Philosphy I'm afraid, runs parallel with science. It has alsways been a useful pondering method for scientists, and always will.

Not exactly. The Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to the creation and destruction of structures. Destroy a structure and the nass is the same. A If you loose 10 ponds of body weight it has to show up in 10 pounds of liquid and solid waste elimination .

Energy is the ability to do work derived from relative states of matter. Water in high revoir has potential energy relative to a lower altitude. The energy can be used to work turning a turbine.

Energy can seem like smoke and mirrors. Like asking someone at an airport to get a bucket of 'prop wash'. You can't get a bucket of energy, but you can get a bucket of coal which has chemical energy.

LOT in the texts are not stated as absolutely true, only that no exceptions have been found. They arouse out of research in the 19th century on steam engines. People tried to make perpetual motion machines.

 

[bilby]

Thank you, but I haven't argued against energy at all, having beginnings or endings. Well, it's down to whether or not, we're on the same-page, in regards to physicalities in context - which seems like we're not from the looks of the posts. So who's arguing against the above? Besides formed structures CAN be destroyed i.e. planets collide or Super Novas explode.




The concept is God IS the energy source!

Or putting aside the theists concept - Energy is the source of existing materials!

Are you saying these structural forms have always existed ? Unless of course you start using a different context "philosophy," that these heavenly bodies existed ... only in different forms.

That's not merely philosophy, it's science. The sun was a cloud of (mostly hydrogen) gas spread over a very large area, before gravity caused the gas to fall together and become a star. All the matter/energy in the sun today (plus some that has since been lost as radiation and 'solar wind') existed for as long as we are able to know; Certainly for many billions of years.

Philosphy I'm afraid, runs parallel with science. It has alsways been a useful pondering method for scientists, and always will.

Not exactly. The Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to the creation and destruction of structures. Destroy a structure and the nass is the same. A If you loose 10 ponds of body weight it has to show up in 10 pounds of liquid and solid waste elimination .

Not quite.

Most of the weight people lose when they diet and/or exercise is exhaled. Carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen. Losses in liquid and solid wastes are relatively trivial, though there is some loss as liquid water when fat is eliminated.

Energy is the ability to do work derived from relative states of matter. Water in high revoir has potential energy relative to a lower altitude. The energy can be used to work turning a turbine.

Energy can seem like smoke and mirrors. Like asking someone at an airport to get a bucket of 'prop wash'. You can't get a bucket of energy, but you can get a bucket of coal which has chemical energy.

LOT in the texts are not stated as absolutely true, only that no exceptions have been found. They arouse out of research in the 19th century on steam engines. People tried to make perpetual motion machines.

 

[steve_bank]

Thank you, but I haven't argued against energy at all, having beginnings or endings. Well, it's down to whether or not, we're on the same-page, in regards to physicalities in context - which seems like we're not from the looks of the posts. So who's arguing against the above? Besides formed structures CAN be destroyed i.e. planets collide or Super Novas explode.




The concept is God IS the energy source!

Or putting aside the theists concept - Energy is the source of existing materials!

Are you saying these structural forms have always existed ? Unless of course you start using a different context "philosophy," that these heavenly bodies existed ... only in different forms.

That's not merely philosophy, it's science. The sun was a cloud of (mostly hydrogen) gas spread over a very large area, before gravity caused the gas to fall together and become a star. All the matter/energy in the sun today (plus some that has since been lost as radiation and 'solar wind') existed for as long as we are able to know; Certainly for many billions of years.

Philosphy I'm afraid, runs parallel with science. It has alsways been a useful pondering method for scientists, and always will.

Not exactly. The Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to the creation and destruction of structures. Destroy a structure and the nass is the same. A If you loose 10 ponds of body weight it has to show up in 10 pounds of liquid and solid waste elimination .

Energy is the ability to do work derived from relative states of matter. Water in high revoir has potential energy relative to a lower altitude. The energy can be used to work turning a turbine.

Energy can seem like smoke and mirrors. Like asking someone at an airport to get a bucket of 'prop wash'. You can't get a bucket of energy, but you can get a bucket of coal which has chemical energy.

LOT in the texts are not stated as absolutely true, only that no exceptions have been found. They arouse out of research in the 19th century on steam engines. People tried to make perpetual motion machines.

Philosophy is for those who can't do calculus...the boundary between philosophy and science is artificial. it is all human thought and reasoning. Debate over what philosophy IS for me has no meaning. The word like science is a catch all contextual term.

I'd like to see how you go from scripture to god is the enry, defining what you mean by energy.

I will start a thread on science for the science derail

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23549-Energy-Demystified&p=881279#post881279

 

[Learner]

No Particular Order

Philosophy is for those who can't do calculus...the boundary between philosophy and science is artificial. it is all human thought and reasoning. Debate over what philosophy IS for me has no meaning. The word like science is a catch all contextual term.

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

I'd like to see how you go from scripture to god is the enry, defining what you mean by energy.

What would one expect from a theist born in the modern world, who doesn't need to converse in "ye olde English," so to speak?

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

Science sprang from 'natural philosophy' (Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher). Natural philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of the universe as opposed to the philosophy where questions such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was argued for years and years. So a PhD for the sciences seems quite appropriate.

 

[Learner]

Unlike science, theists claim to know how the Universe came about: it was created by God (whatever that's supposed to be).

Theists make the Faith statement that God created the Earth, so I'd say you're right in that case. Atheists have made faith statements because they believed the science of yesterday was sound e.g. the best explanation of the time until something new comes along etc... Will this still be the case today?

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophy translates to love of knowledge.

Traditionally there is PHD doctor of philosophy, JD doctor of laws, and MD doctor of medicine. A PHD can be literature, science, or philosophy. With the rise of modern science philosophy has been diminished. In his day Kant was a super hero of sorts. As a philosophy prof I had said, a figure like Kant when walking around on campus to lecture he would be in full regalia trailed by his top students/disciples.

Evangelicals I have known reject Catholics and Mormons as non biblical non Christian. Yet they themselves spin endless interpretation not explicitly in scripture. Strange, go figure.

From a science perspective have we adequately answered the why question Learner?

 

[Learner]

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

Science sprang from 'natural philosophy' (Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher). Natural philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of the universe as opposed to the philosophy where questions such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was argued for years and years. So a PhD for the sciences seems quite appropriate.

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who were religious, who contibuted to science in the same mind etc.,

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropiate when theists use it today?

Yeah nice one, bringing him up. (I wanted to make a similar point with nature)

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

Science sprang from 'natural philosophy' (Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher). Natural philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of the universe as opposed to the philosophy where questions such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was argued for years and years. So a PhD for the sciences seems quite appropriate.

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who contibuted to science etc.,

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropiate when theists use it today?

If theists would actually apply it today it would indeed be appropriate. I have yet to see a case today where theists applied 'natural philosophy' in their arguments. What I see is baseless assertions... sorta like the old philosophers who would declare they knew the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pen.

 

[Learner]

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who contibuted to science etc.,

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropiate when theists use it today?

If theists would actually apply it today it would indeed be appropriate. I have yet to see a case where theists applied 'natural philosophy' in their arguments. What I see is baseless assertions.

If you (plural) haven't gathered already, as indicated above. Theists (who love science) study nature for evidence! The "constructural matter" (those words again) Biology, bio-chemistry, (alongside history, archeology,geography, geology) - the tangible things you can actually HOLD in your hands! Here is where theists will dispute the science using science (one viewpoint over another) e.g. evolution, fossils, dating - AND Never any attempts to make claims by using cosmic "mathematical models" in physics etc. as evidence for God or theism!!

 

[skepticalbip]

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who contibuted to science etc.,

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropiate when theists use it today?

If theists would actually apply it today it would indeed be appropriate. I have yet to see a case where theists applied 'natural philosophy' in their arguments. What I see is baseless assertions.

If you haven't gathered already, theists study nature for evidence! The "constructural matter" (those words again) Biology, bio-chemistry, the tangible things you can actually HOLD in your hands. Here is where theists will dispute the science using science e.g. evolution, fossils, dating - AND Never any attempts to make claims by using mathematical models etc.. for theism!!

Yes, I have browsed through the the 'answers in genesis' website. They don't apply natural philosophy in their articles. But they do use 'sciency' sounding terms to promote their bald baseless assertions.

 

[abaddon]

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

Science sprang from 'natural philosophy' (Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher). Natural philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of the universe as opposed to the philosophy where questions such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was argued for years and years. So a PhD for the sciences seems quite appropriate.

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who were religious, who contibuted to science in the same mind etc.,

Newton wanted to figure out how to get gold from lead (he was into alchemy), and pondered if Jesus was co-eternal with "the Father" (he was into Arianism). Obviously this was wasted time on his part.

Some Christians like to make a thing out of how the early scientists were both Christians and scientists, and then pretending that tells what science is really about. It's a silly argument because everyone was Christian at that time so they cannot not have been Christian. That makes it a trivial matter that, aside from being scientists, they were also religious. You can see from many modern scientists who are atheists that the two things (religion and science) have no necessary connection.

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropriate when theists use it today?

Newton was a Christian and a proto-scientist (or "natural philosopher") therefore philosophical speculation about beings that existed before time is valid? Is that what you're saying?

 

[bilby]

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who were religious, who contibuted to science in the same mind etc.,

Newton wanted to figure out how to get gold from lead (he was into alchemy), and pondered if Jesus was co-eternal with "the Father" (he was into Arianism). Obviously this was wasted time on his part.

Some Christians like to make a thing out of how the early scientists were both Christians and scientists, and then pretending that tells what science is really about. It's a silly argument because everyone was Christian at that time so they cannot not have been Christian. That makes it a trite happenstance that, aside from being scientists, they were also religious. You can see from many modern scientists who are atheists that the two things (religion and science) have no necessary connection.

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropriate when theists use it today?

Newton was a Christian and a proto-scientist (or "natural philosopher") therefore philosophical speculation about beings that existed before time is valid? Is that what you're saying?

Plenty of the earliest science was done by Muslims and Confucianists. Christians, Atheists, and scientists of many other religions have built on their work. Not one iota of scientific theory requires the existence of gods or supernatural entities of any kind; If you say 'Inshallah, energy will equal mass times the square of the speed of light', you are just being unparsimonious. The reference to Allah changes nothing, and the science works exactly the same way if it is discarded. (Though if you're working in Saudi Arabia, that empty reference might save your funding, or even your neck, from the insanity of your wealthy and powerful hosts; And similar constraints applied in medieval Europe).

The history of scientific discoveries is a history of people of all faiths discovering that their faith is completely irrelevant in their field of expertise. As this is true for every field of scientific expertise, it strongly suggests that religion is irrelevant to reality as a whole.

 

[Learner]

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who were religious, who contibuted to science in the same mind etc.,

Newton wanted to figure out how to get gold from lead (he was into alchemy), and pondered if Jesus was co-eternal with "the Father" (he was into Arianism). Obviously this was wasted time on his part.

Some Christians like to make a thing out of how the early scientists were both Christians and scientists, and then pretending that tells what science is really about. It's a silly argument because everyone was Christian at that time so they cannot not have been Christian. That makes it a trite happenstance that, aside from being scientists, they were also religious. You can see from many modern scientists who are atheists that the two things (religion and science) have no necessary connection.

Some Christians pretending that "it's all about early Christians... rhetoric" is a silly argument itself, since I didn't bring up Newton. As you say 'everyone was Christian' in those days just highlights the fact - theists are not shy of learning and studying science!

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropriate when theists use it today?

Newton was a Christian and a proto-scientist (or "natural philosopher") therefore philosophical speculation about beings that existed before time is valid? Is that what you're saying?

Check skeps context, posting on natural philosophy. Thats the page I was on, I hope you realise.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Unlike science, theists claim to know how the Universe came about: it was created by God (whatever that's supposed to be).

Theists make the Faith statement that God created the Earth, so I'd say you're right in that case. Atheists have made faith statements because they believed the science of yesterday was sound e.g. the best explanation of the time until something new comes along etc... Will this still be the case today?

Those are not "faith" statements. Humans make probabilistic assessments based on the available information all the time (an AI would do as well). That is no faith, just like, say, it is not on faith that I believe that Biden won the election, or that Tesla's cars are electric, or that you are human. Those are vanilla everyday assessments.