The Causation Argument

[atrib]

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.


Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

Evolution is a process that acts on populations of living things. It does not address the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a process that generates self-replicating molecules using existing matter and energy gradients. Both evolution and abiogenesis are fields of scientific study. Creationism, on the other hand, is NOT a field of scientific study, in that it has no empirical basis. It is merely an unsupported claim based on religious beliefs.

While evolution/abiogenesis and creationism both make claims about the nature of reality, they are not equally credible. You appear to be confused about this distinction, so I am pointing it out.

You'd think that the two would be combined - stating strongly under one proposition, presenting the FULL picture of the existence of life. (if not for being over cautious perhaps)

Do we need to know where matter came from in order to describe how matter behaves in spacetime? Is Newton's or Einstein's theory of gravity any less true or any less meaningful because they don't describe where matter comes from?

We often hear atheists always keeping seperate the two with phrases like " You don't know anything about evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" blah blah blah. Ah ...so NO starting-point then, one must be asking? A little like magic or faith?

Ultimately, everything in the observable universe is the way it is because of the conditions/state of the universe at the Big Bang. To someone who is deeply ignorant of how the universe works, it may seem like magic or faith. But ignorance can be cured; you just have to be willing to learn.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Matter is a form of energy. In the very early universe (the primordial era), there was only energy. As the universe expanded and cooled down, this energy condensed into matter (galaxies, gas clouds and star systems). And matter can be turned back into energy, by burning a piece of paper, or in stellar cores. The distinction you appear to be making is trivial. The point is that we have no evidence of matter/evidence popping into existence ex nihilo. All the matter/energy we can observe today has existed since the Big Bang.

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We often hear atheists always keeping seperate the two.

no, dislearner. We hear PEOPLE WHO ARE SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE make the distinction. YOU continue to NOT LEARN that this group of people includes atheists, but is not solely composed of atheists.

with phrases like " You don't know anything about evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" blah blah blah.

well, you have been told this countless times, but your agenda forces you to hew to an ignorant stance on the subject.
Thus, we point out your ignorance.

Ah ...so NO starting-point then, one must be asking? A little like magic or faith?

Nope.

For the same reason metallury can be studied without having to be fully educated on mining engineering. For the same reason astronomers can look thru telescopes even if they do not know how to grind a lens. For the same reason welders fixing the diving planes on a sub need not understand that the sub dives by moving the center of buoyancy beneath the center of mass.

Different sciences, skills, areas of knowledge can be separate, with discrete boundaries, and still be functional.

Not kniwing where life came from does not change our observations of what it's doing, or has done.

 

[James Brown]

Matter is a form of energy. In the very early universe (the primordial era), there was only energy. As the universe expanded and cooled down, this energy condensed into matter (galaxies, gas clouds and star systems). And matter can be turned back into energy, by burning a piece of paper, or in stellar cores. The distinction you appear to be making is trivial. The point is that we have no evidence of matter/evidence popping into existence ex nihilo. All the matter/energy we can observe today has existed since the Big Bang.

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.)

To show subscript and superscript, look for the following icons. They aren't visible in the Quick Reply option.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner appears to have a learning impediment. Probably from years of not having to actually assumable anything of any complexity.

 

[Tigers!]

Matter is a form of energy. In the very early universe (the primordial era), there was only energy. As the universe expanded and cooled down, this energy condensed into matter (galaxies, gas clouds and star systems). And matter can be turned back into energy, by burning a piece of paper, or in stellar cores. The distinction you appear to be making is trivial. The point is that we have no evidence of matter/evidence popping into existence ex nihilo. All the matter/energy we can observe today has existed since the Big Bang.

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

Or you could use E=MC^2

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or, say E=mc2 and depend on most everyone here knowing the actual eququation....

 

[skepticalbip]

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

You seem to misunderstand the equation. It says that matter and energy are different aspects of the same thing. c² is just a conversion factor. No need to accelerate matter to c (or any acceleration at all) as demonstrated by nuclear power plants and in nuclear bombs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

You seem to misunderstand the equation. It says that matter and energy are different aspects of the same thing. c² is just a conversion factor. No need to accelerate matter to c (or any acceleration at all) as demonstrated by nuclear power plants and in nuclear bombs.

Can you explain that further? I thought it was a literal equation.

And thanks everyone for helping me.

 

[none]

I did find it curios that the universe is modeled as expanding faster than the speed of light at some time...

Yep and...

We long assumed particles carrying the force of gravity couldn't have mass. That's wrong

https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/1281529473867882496?s=20

what do they call that , when you say something but it comes from years of research on twitter?

 

[skepticalbip]

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

You seem to misunderstand the equation. It says that matter and energy are different aspects of the same thing. c² is just a conversion factor. No need to accelerate matter to c (or any acceleration at all) as demonstrated by nuclear power plants and in nuclear bombs.

Can you explain that further? I thought it was a literal equation.

And thanks everyone for helping me.

I don't really know which part needs further explanation but I'll try a few.

c² is a conversion factor, a number with units, to convert grams (units of mass) to ergs (units of energy). Pretty much like 2.54 is a conversion factor for converting inches to centimeters. (inch=2.54 cm)

Elements like U₂₃₅ or plutonium have more mass than the total mass of the elements of their decay products. This mass difference is released as energy when they undergo fission so is the power that runs nuclear power plants and is released in a fission bomb. Hydrogen bombs work by fusing hydrogen into helium because the mass of a helium atom is less than the mass of the sum of the mass of the hydrogen atoms that are fused to create the helium... the difference is released as energy.

The H-bomb description here is sorta thumbnail but I didn't want to go into the nitty gritty of deuterium, neutrons, etc.

Does that help to clarify the equation?

ETA:
I might add that accelerating matter to c is not allowed by relativity. Such an attempt would require an infinite amount of energy... as the saying goes, an infinite amount of energy is all the energy in the universe plus a lot more.

 

[atrib]

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

Quoting an earlier post I had made in response to the same nonsense you are repeating here:

The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model that was developed to fit the observations we have collected over the past 90 years, observations which show
1. that the universe is expanding, and
2. that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating

Are you questioning the data or the model that was built to fit the data? What specifically are you questioning?
1. Are you suggesting the observations are flawed? If so, how so? Please be specific. Do you even know how astronomers measure distances to other stars and galaxies?
2. Are you questioning the Big Bang Model that was developed using the observations? If yes, what methodology or construct or assumption are you questioning? Please be specific. Do you even know what the Big Bang Model is, what it predicts, and how its predictions match the data?

You never responded to this post. I don't think you understand what the Big Bang Theory actually states, or have any comprehension of the data it is based on. But you could surprise me and prove me wrong. So are you going to prove me wrong?

 

[none]

just like evolution is too difficult, so be it cosmology

 

[steve_bank]

E=Mc2 (the 2 should be in the exponential position. I don't know how to do that.) So obviously E=M. You just have to accelerate the mass to the squared speed of light to get back to energy. Easy peasy.

You seem to misunderstand the equation. It says that matter and energy are different aspects of the same thing. c² is just a conversion factor. No need to accelerate matter to c (or any acceleration at all) as demonstrated by nuclear power plants and in nuclear bombs.

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude square and is always positive. 1/2 cv^2 energy in a capacitor. 1/2mv^2 kinetic energy.
Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared. 1/2mv^2

 

[Wiploc]

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you.

You said that the physical universe began. You further said that (all-caps in the original) "SCIENCE SAYS SO."I'm interested in that claim. If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you.

I don't understand the relevance of that. You said that SCIENCE SAYS that the physical universe began. I'm asking you to support the claim that SCIENCE SAYS the physical universe .

Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ;

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I doubt that it's relevant to my question.

having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

If I do a google search, I can find your claim repeated a lot? Is that your evidence of a scientific consensus?

Nobody knows what happened before the BB, well yes sure. I DID say science can't prove either way in one of my posts.

You said that SCIENCE SAYS that the physical universe began. I'm interested in why you believe that. I'm asking you to support it so that I too can know what science says.

If I understand, you're now backpedaling, saying that science doesn't say the universe certainly began, but only that it probably began. If that's what you're doing, then my question remains: Why do you believe that science says the universe probably began? How can I believe that too? What support do you have for your claim?

SO what's left then to discuss but propose an idea - being opened to suggestion but ....someone (plural) thought to mstakenly pretend this was my debate for a claim or sumink. [Emphasis added]

If I understand -- and maybe I don't -- you are saying that my question is off topic, that you were discussing something else, and I'm only pretending to be interested in your claim that science says the universe began.

I am prepared to take offense.

In the meantime, I'd like you to address my question. Do you have any support for your claim? Can you share that support with me?

If you don't want to support it, just say so. Maybe you misspoke, overstated your case. Or maybe you believe your claim is true, but you don't have any support and don't want to look for any. That's all you have to say.

Support your claim or say that you don't intend to. But, please, no more evasions and insults.

 

[fromderinside]

The proof of god based on this this argument has several forms.

Generally the argument says all things we see occur through a causal chain. A bat hits a ball. Ball flies.

Therefore the universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an anci

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginning or end?

God fixed it. OMMMMM.

 

[steve_bank]

The proof of god based on this this argument has several forms.

Generally the argument says all things we see occur through a causal chain. A bat hits a ball. Ball flies.

Therefore the universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an anci

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginning or end?

God fixed it. OMMMMM.

I think this is god's universe 1.0 where he worked out the bugs, he is now working on universe 3.7.

 

[skepticalbip]

I visited 3.6 and it is a fucking mess. The coffee is terrible and there is no chocolate. I think god has become senile so I don't hold much hope for 3.7.

 

[Lion IRC]

...If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...e is 13.8 billion,at such an enormous number?

Determining the age of our universe from ancient stars and relic radiation left over from the big bang etc etc etc.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

If the universe is flat and composed mostly of matter, then the age of the universe is...
2/(3 H_o)

 

[skepticalbip]

...If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...e is 13.8 billion,at such an enormous number?

Determining the age of our universe from ancient stars and relic radiation left over from the big bang etc etc etc.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

If the universe is flat and composed mostly of matter, then the age of the universe is...
2/(3 H_o)

That doesn't say that scientists claim the universe began. It is clearly saying that IF the particular model being analysed is true THEN.....