2 proofs that nature was designed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I noticed that with a lot of these discussions, the people who try and argue against the science and the evidence for the science never present any evidence to support their claims.
Almost like... it's more about tearing down the science rather than supporting their own claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

You can accept anything you want but you still lack a theory let alone a better theory. What is science without theories?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

I spoke too quickly in my previous comment. There are are alternate theories, It is likely that as science learns more one will replace the big bang theory. That is the way science works.

 

[Astrid]

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

Are you a flood- believer ?

 

[klutedavid]

I spoke too quickly in my previous comment. There are are alternate theories, It is likely that as science learns more one will replace the big bang theory. That is the way science works.

That's right. Don't expect the progress of science to answer these problems anytime soon.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's right. Don't expect the progress of science to answer these problems anytime soon.

Why?

 

[klutedavid]

I noticed that with a lot of these discussions, the people who try and argue against the science and the evidence for the science never present any evidence to support their claims.
Almost like... it's more about tearing down the science rather than supporting their own claims.

It's no so much a debate about any observable evidence, rather the philosophy underneath. Empiricism is an Indian philosophy that was around centuries before, the Greeks proposed the idea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's no so much a debate about any observable evidence, rather the philosophy underneath. Empiricism is an Indian philosophy that was around centuries before, the Greeks proposed the idea.

Except that you're not doing anything to support a claim. All you're doing is saying the science is wrong and... that's it.
You're offering nothing as a counterpoint or replacement.

 

[klutedavid]

Why?

Science needs a much larger linear accelerator than the one at Cern. This may be decades away. Let's hope that when it's fired up that the data obtained is comprehensible. Otherwise, science will be unable to make any headway. I won't be here and I don't think some of you folk will be either.

It was all really about the dream we had.

 

[klutedavid]

Except that you're not doing anything to support a claim. All you're doing is saying the science is wrong and... that's it.
You're offering nothing as a counterpoint or replacement.

Not really. I follow revelation and not an Indian philosophy. I do not replace broken theories. Dream on while you still can.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science needs a much larger linear accelerator than the one at Cern. This may be decades away. Let's hope that when it's fired up that the data obtained is comprehensible. Otherwise, science will be unable to make any headway. I won't be here and I don't think some of you folk will be either.

It was all really about the dream we had.

So they can't make hypothesis based on the evidence that we have already?

Honestly, I'm not really understanding what your entire argument is. You first came to this thread with the claim that the universe can't be explained naturally but then gave nothing as a counter to that idea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not really. I follow revelation and not an Indian philosophy. I do not replace broken theories. Dream on while you still can.

Let me quote a post you made, in post #293:

That's assuming of course, that a so called 'natural' event can even occur. To discuss such high end concepts, is far above mankind's pay scale.

Science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Science cannot know whether the universe is a 'natural' universe. Science does not know and will probably never know, the scale of the universe. We don't even know what space-time actually represents.

An invisible creator?

Jesus Christ was observed in person; an invisible creator?

And then there's post #296:

This is exactly the point I am making. The evidence does exist that does establish the Christ as the creator. Yet, there is zero evidence to support the idea that the universe is a 'natural' entity. One has evidence and the other is a blind guess, an assumption.

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

You made two claims twice: science cannot know how the universe was created and that God is the creator of the universe.
You have not backed up those claims with anything and have none nothing to even offer them as opposing ideas to scientists knowing how the universe was created.

So why even makes those comments if you won't support them? This isn't the forum or thread to talk philosophy, it's to talk science. If you don't want to talk science, then why are you here?

 

[klutedavid]

So they can't make hypothesis based on the evidence that we have already?

Honestly, I'm not really understanding what your entire argument is. You first came to this thread with the claim that the universe can't be explained naturally but then gave nothing as a counter to that idea.

I just correct misinformation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just correct misinformation.

Except that you aren't. You're just saying that science is wrong and that's about it.

What credentials do you have to say that physicists or cosmologists are wrong?

 

[Frank Robert]

That's right. Don't expect the progress of science to answer these problems anytime soon.

Whether the science progresses slowly or quickly is not the issue. The beauty about science is as it progresses it is self correcting. I have no bets on the big bang theory remaining the leading theory.

 

[klutedavid]

Let me quote a post you made, in post #293:


And then there's post #296:


You made two claims twice: science cannot know how the universe was created and that God is the creator of the universe.
You have not backed up those claims with anything and have none nothing to even offer them as opposing ideas to scientists knowing how the universe was created.

So why even makes those comments if you won't support them? This isn't the forum or thread to talk philosophy, it's to talk science. If you don't want to talk science, then why are you here?

Science does not know how the universe began. Science can speculate on that subject but that is all science can do. We are no closer to solving this riddle than we were a century ago.

Years ago, one could propose the idea of a Big Bang and get some traction. These days, the game is immensely complex and deeply difficult. We currently have two trillion galaxies inhabited by innumerable stars. The number of galaxies is still climbing. So any hypothesis will need to provide a reasonable explanation. An explanation to address how it is possible to generate matter to, and perhaps, an infinite scale.

I cannot see how science can deal with an infinite universe. Most certainly the present scale of the universe is incomprehensible.

I trust revelation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science does not know how the universe began. Science can speculate on that subject but that is all science can do. We are no closer to solving this riddle than we were a century ago.

Years ago, one could propose the idea of a Big Bang and get some traction. These days, the game is immensely complex and deeply difficult. We currently have two trillion galaxies inhabited by innumerable stars. The number of galaxies is still climbing. So any hypothesis will need to provide a reasonable explanation. An explanation to address how it is possible to generate matter to, and perhaps, an infinite scale.

I cannot see how science can deal with an infinite universe. Most certainly the present scale of the universe is incomprehensible.

I trust revelation.

Your entire argument boils down to "science does not know with certainty, only speculation, so therefore nothing cannot know".

I'll be fair, I can respect it as a viewpoint. But it also shows that your really not here to talk science. Yes, the number of galaxies is climbing, that's because we're finding more of them. Humans used to only thing the countries that existed were the ones they knew about. Human knowledge expands.
Your comment "I cannot see how science can deal with an infinite universe" really is just an argument from incredulity: you can't understand it, so therefore no-one else can. That doesn't mean anything you say against science is right.

The Bible doesn't really offer much to compete. You're fine to say that God created the universe, but it's not fine to say that science is wrong and then offer nothing to support your claim, like you have done.

 

[klutedavid]

Whether the science progresses slowly or quickly is not the issue. The beauty about science is as it progresses it is self correcting. I have no bets on the big bang theory remaining the leading theory.

Science can only self correct when the hypothesis is understood as an invalid hypothesis.

When science progresses we reach eventually limitations. These limitations are already evident in sub atomic physics. We do not understood the current data from the Cern linear accelerator. So a tangible hypothesis is not currently available.

Science deals with the observable and the universe is currently unobservable.

 

[klutedavid]

Your entire argument boils down to "science does not know with certainty, only speculation, so therefore nothing cannot know".

I'll be fair, I can respect it as a viewpoint. But it also shows that your really not here to talk science. Yes, the number of galaxies is climbing, that's because we're finding more of them. Humans used to only thing the countries that existed were the ones they knew about. Human knowledge expands.
Your comment "I cannot see how science can deal with an infinite universe" really is just an argument from incredulity: you can't understand it, so therefore no-one else can. That doesn't mean anything you say against science is right.

The Bible doesn't really offer much to compete. You're fine to say that God created the universe, but it's not fine to say that science is wrong and then offer nothing to support your claim, like you have done.

In all truth, science is rapidly reaching a point that represents a dead end.

The micro and macro domains are incomprehensible. It just took us centuries to understand that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In all truth, science is rapidly reaching a point that represents a dead end.

The micro and macro domains are incomprehensible. It just took us centuries to understand that.

And you have something else science can be replaced with?