Discussion on the how it all started

[Godistruth1]

It's not only possible, I think it's the norm. I've done experiments in the past that supports the hypothesis.

What exactly did u do to make u think so?

 

[Tom 1]

Does anyone have an understanding of how quantum activity might lead to an event like the Big Bang, and can explain it in a post?

 

[Larniavc]

If an Atheist claims theory of evolution seems more logical to atheists thats fine. People who believe in God can see creationism as more logical. What is more logical is no doubt subjective

That’s true. But it does not mean that the specific type of Christian creationism can be supported by evidence when there exists easily verifiable evidence that only a minority of Christian creationism types could be true (if not parsimonious).

 

[Larniavc]

Does anyone have an understanding of how quantum activity might lead to an event like the Big Bang, and can explain it in a post?

If you use Bohmian trajectories instead of classical geodesics you avoid the singularity- but I can barely remember any more than that.

If you’re interested google Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta.

 

[timewerx]

Multiverse is just an atheistic fantasy to evade the fine tuning of our universe. Its not testable in real life. What experiments inside our universe do you propose to test the multiverse?

It's not fantasy. It's real.

I really don't care if Atheists put forth the idea. I didn't believe in multiverse too at first until the experiments proved their existence.

It seems to also prove the artificial nature of our universe or reality itself

Ofc, I cannot reveal the nature of these experiments. They are super secret for now.

 

[Occams Barber]

Not at all so... there must be a first cause.

Why?

OB

 

[Speedwell]

If an Atheist claims theory of evolution seems more logical to atheists thats fine. People who believe in God can see creationism as more logical. What is more logical is no doubt subjective

I don't think that is true. I would say that by the numbers (if that is important to you) most people who believe in God think creationism nothing more than a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an ancient story. As to Christian creationists particularly, most of them are in the US and are a minority of Christians even here.

 

[solid_core]

Ofc, I cannot reveal the nature of these experiments. They are super secret for now.

Of course.

 

[Godistruth1]

That’s true. But it does not mean that the specific type of Christian creationism can be supported by evidence when there exists easily verifiable evidence that only a minority of Christian creationism types could be true (if not parsimonious).

Yes if there is proof otherwise which can be verified, that should no doubt be accepted as long as its undeniable proof. There are theories on how the universe started that cannot be proof as long as they remain theories and are not proven to be a fact. How good is a hypothesis is subjective again

 

[Larniavc]

Yes if there is proof otherwise which can be verified, that should no doubt be accepted as long as its undeniable proof.

I wonder how many times this has been paraphrased in this site?

Science does not deal in proofs. Conclusions are always held tentatively.

 

[Godistruth1]

I don't think that is true. I would say that by the numbers (if that is important to you) most people who believe in God think creationism nothing more than a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an ancient story. As to Christian creationists particularly, most of them are in the US and are a minority of Christians even here.

There are a bit different versions of creationism theory same as scientists differ on various stages of evolution. Numbers can never be a proof for anything. A person may be alone on earth to believe some aliens genetically engineered humans and put us on earth. He may be 100% right. I mean we never know. Its all about how much logical a hypothesis is for you

 

[timewerx]

What exactly did u do to make u think so?

Top secret for now.

 

[Godistruth1]

I wonder how many times this has been paraphrased in this site?

Science does not deal in proofs. Conclusions are always held tentatively.

Agree that conclusions can keep changing. Tomorrow we can have altogether different theory of how we got something from nothing which is altogether different from the current theory of evolution

 

[Larniavc]

Agree that conclusions can keep changing. Tomorrow we can have altogether different theory of how we got something from nothing which is altogether different from the current theory of evolution

Yes, that is true. That is how we increase our knowledge of the universe. Stopping at 'goddidit' is an intellectual dead end.

We always say "this seems to be how it works but maybe we can learn more".

 

[Shemjaza]

And yet all considered together in the published papers, over your protest.

How, specifically.

They aren't really related except in an existential sense.

 

[solid_core]

Yes, that is true. That is how we increase our knowledge of the universe. Stopping at 'goddidit' is an intellectual dead end.

We always say "this seems to be how it works but maybe we can learn more".

"God did it" is no intellectual dead end. Because you can always ask "how".

 

[Godistruth1]

Yes, that is true. That is how we increase our knowledge of the universe. Stopping at 'goddidit' is an intellectual dead end.

We always say "this seems to be how it works but maybe we can learn more".

I agree with u on that point. If there is a better explanation to how this universe came about we must follow that. But again how can u convince someone that one explanation is better than the other? Proof no doubt is a way but again proof can differ. Right now theory of evolution is the most popular narrative which explains origins of universe but being most popular explanation does not make it the right explanation. This is a theory. Something like humans needing air to breathe, gravity, earth being oval is undeniable proof which can be observed, verified and tested. There is no proof similar to that about how it began. There are theories which are hypothesis not facts.

 

[Speedwell]

"God did it" is no intellectual dead end. Because you can always ask "how".

And from creationists you never get an answer.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not at all so... there must be a first cause.

Why can't the substance of the Universe itself be this necessary first cause?

One of the four. And we know that science requires "cause and effect" so avoiding that is Special Pleading.

-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".

Why is a will or intelligence necessary? Can't it just be a natural state?

If an Atheist claims theory of evolution seems more logical to atheists thats fine. People who believe in God can see creationism as more logical. What is more logical is no doubt subjective

It's a mistake to think of evolution or the Big Bang as atheist ideas.

There are far more believers who accept them then there are atheists.

Agree that conclusions can keep changing. Tomorrow we can have altogether different theory of how we got something from nothing which is altogether different from the current theory of evolution

Scientific theories like evolution only exist to explain facts and evidence. We would need a lot of fresh evidence to change them.

 

[Godistruth1]

And from creationists you never get an answer.

Well you can get an explanation but you would not accept that claiming that to have no proof. There are theories on both sides u see. Evolution is not a proof of how it began but a hypothesis. You can claim it to be scientific but its not proven science. We must admit the problem is how we see some things as proof and some we don't. The concept of proof is always subjective.