2 proofs that nature was designed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The existence of the churches, the scripture, and early church letters. All can be cited as evidence.

No, that's evidence of a religion called Christianity. That's not evidence for Christ being the creator.
There's Hindu temples, Hindu scripture and all the same jazz, but you won't go around saying that that's evidence of Brahma being the creator of the universe.

There is evidence, even if it resulting in hypothesis instead of full on theories, that the universe was created naturally. You can throw God into the mix easily and it would work, but its gets INCREDIBLY hard to just go around saying that God created the universe because you need evidence for that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The existence of the churches, the scripture, and early church letters. All can be cited as evidence.

And mosques, and statues, and pyramids, and icons, and carvings - evidence of a variety of conflicting beliefs in a variety of unsubstantiated supernatural stories & entities. Meh.

 

[Astrid]

And mosques, and statues, and pyramids, and icons, and carvings - evidence of a variety of conflicting beliefs in a variety of unsubstantiated supernatural stories & entities. Meh.

Oh, all those things are evidence of SOMETHING.
Lots of evidence all about us.
If three ravens fly over at dawn, that too is evidence. But.
Best not to get too carried away figuring just what the
evidence points to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, all those things are evidence of SOMETHING.
Lots of evidence all about us.
If three ravens fly over at dawn, that too is evidence. But.
Best not to get too carried away figuring just what the
evidence points to.

Just watch out for black cats...

 

[klutedavid]

And mosques, and statues, and pyramids, and icons, and carvings - evidence of a variety of conflicting beliefs in a variety of unsubstantiated supernatural stories & entities. Meh.

There are likewise different theories on the origin of the universe.

I can assure you that we may never know if this unobservable universe is a 'natural universe'. That is a belief system and impossible to verify.

 

[klutedavid]

And mosques, and statues, and pyramids, and icons, and carvings - evidence of a variety of conflicting beliefs in a variety of unsubstantiated supernatural stories & entities. Meh.

It might be better to say. A variety of beliefs in a higher order.

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

 

[Astrid]

There are likewise different theories on the origin of the universe.

I can assure you that we may never know if this unobservable universe is a 'natural universe'. That is a belief system and impossible to verify.

I don't care to base much of my life on
theories, still on baseless guesses about
life's persistent questions.
A whole cosmology, world view complete
with rules and ideology etc based on something
unevidenced and unverifiable is definitely not
for me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It might be better to say. A variety of beliefs in a higher order.

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't mean the scientists are in the wrong.
You are not an all knowing being, so you cannot say definitively what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Astrid]

It might be better to say. A variety of beliefs in a higher order.

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

Sciencec is not about " believe in".
It is about data and working out what it may mean.
As for your "pure si fi", THAT is the "unsubstantiated" for, lo,
if you understood the math you would not BE puzzled.
It does make sense.

 

[Speedwell]

It might be better to say. A variety of beliefs in a higher order.

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

That's just the mathematical solution. What it was like in actuality is not known.

 

[Speedwell]

There are likewise different theories on the origin of the universe.

I can assure you that we may never know if this unobservable universe is a 'natural universe'. That is a belief system and impossible to verify.

That may be, but it is really not a scientific question.

 

[klutedavid]

Sciencec is not about " believe in".

You are an empiricist. You believe in the philosophy of empiricism. Don't tell me your not a believer.

It is about data and working out what it may mean.

What you claim to be data is not what I would regard as data. You believe that you can understand the universe through observation. I believe that you are chasing your own tail.

As for your "pure si fi", THAT is the "unsubstantiated" for, lo,
if you understood the math you would not BE puzzled.
It does make sense.

You have no idea what you are talking about. During the early inflation event, matter did not exist. The four fundamental forces did not exist. There is no mathematical description of the singularity.

Your an empiricist.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (wikipedia).

 

[klutedavid]

That may be, but it is really not a scientific question.

Can you elaborate.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you elaborate.

What it means to be a "natural" universe is a metaphysical question.

 

[Astrid]

You are an empiricist. You believe in the philosophy of empiricism. Don't tell me your not a believer.What you claim to be data is not what I would regard as data. You believe that you can understand the universe through observation. I believe that you are chasing your own tail.You have no idea what you are talking about. During the early inflation event, matter did not exist. The four fundamental forces did not exist. There is no mathematical description of the singularity.

Your an empiricist.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (wikipedia).

like I dont know what empiricism is.
Or know how to tell when someone is playing equivocation with
the word " belief".
Making up insultingvremsrks about me is churlish,
please desist from that and from telling me about
myself.

Have you determined to yourvsatisfsction that cutting edge
astrophysics is nonsense? Or, "pure fiction"
as you put it.

If so, by what means have you learned more
than any astrophysicist? We've met any number of
people who know that evolution is false but I've
never found one who could explain just how they came
to know more than any biologist/ geologist/
chemist etc on earth.

Maybe you can say how you achieved your insight?

 

[Frank Robert]

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

Your argument is not with the singularity and inflation but with science itself. The Big Bang theory has widespread acceptance for its unmatched ability to explain what is seen. This is how science works. Come up with a theory that better explains what we see and it will replace prevailing theory.

 

[klutedavid]

Your argument is not with the singularity and inflation but with science itself. The Big Bang theory has widespread acceptance for its unmatched ability to explain what is seen. This is how science works. Come up with a theory that better explains what we see and it will replace prevailing theory.

The problem is that the singularity cannot be defined within a scientific paradigm. In fact, if an entity is infinite, then that entity is beyond measurement.

An infinite entity is an incomprehensible entity in the philosophy of empiricism.

Any scientist that makes a claim concerning the existence of a singularity. Has stepped beyond the domain of science and into science fiction.

I can accept the inflation event after it's inception but not before.

 

[klutedavid]

like I dont know what empiricism is.
Or know how to tell when someone is playing equivocation with
the word " belief".
Making up insultingvremsrks about me is churlish,
please desist from that and from telling me about
myself.

Have you determined to yourvsatisfsction that cutting edge
astrophysics is nonsense? Or, "pure fiction"
as you put it.

If so, by what means have you learned more
than any astrophysicist? We've met any number of
people who know that evolution is false but I've
never found one who could explain just how they came
to know more than any biologist/ geologist/
chemist etc on earth.

Maybe you can say how you achieved your insight?

Traditional models of the Universe

The traditional model of the Big Bang
The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions.[1][3] In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.[4]

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[5] (wikipedia)

Was there ever a singularity, well science can make no comment on that.

 

[klutedavid]

Your argument is not with the singularity and inflation but with science itself. The Big Bang theory has widespread acceptance for its unmatched ability to explain what is seen. This is how science works. Come up with a theory that better explains what we see and it will replace prevailing theory.

How about String theory and there are a number of models available.

 

[klutedavid]

Your argument is not with the singularity and inflation but with science itself. The Big Bang theory has widespread acceptance for its unmatched ability to explain what is seen. This is how science works. Come up with a theory that better explains what we see and it will replace prevailing theory.

Alternatives to the singularity
Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces. (wikipedia)