• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Do Aliens Exist?

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I wanted to address "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I didn't do it before because your side has the math to near infinity. This certainly can be the case of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as the numbers for a potential another Earth increase. Yet, I think the probabilities that we have will bear me out. However, I can't show it if we go beyond our solar system. I can say for near certainty using experimental evidence that there aren't any aliens anywhere in our solar system. Again, it's because of fine tuning. With an increasing larger set of solar systems in the universe, then the probabilities could change to favor your side.

I would honestly be shocked and amazed if we find another near-Earth like planet. I'd honestly just settle for multi-cellar organisms in a pond somewhere near Alpha Centauri as evidence of alien life.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Even if I accept the infinite density and infinite temperature, what is the source of the energy required and to leave it in the universe to be converted? The infinite temperature claim of is only the result of some type of infinite energy.
The infinite density and temperature suggested by general relativity are not taken to be real phenomena but indications that general relativity is not sufficient to describe what happened - this is because the extreme conditions at the big bang require quantum mechanics to be taken into account - the CMB provides evidence of the early quantum fluctuations. Unfortunately, we don't have a theory of quantum gravity (a quantum mechanics that includes gravity) that works in such a regime. So, for now, we can't describe it - although there are numerous hypotheses, none of which involve infinite energy or density.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's false. Conservation of energy is a local approximation in Einstein's General Relativity, a very well-tested theory.

Conservation of energy is law and not an approximation. Maybe you do know Einstein's general relativity, but go wrong when starting out?
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The evidence is that the Big Bang happened... we just don't have an explanation as to where the material that expanded came from.

I can accept a big bang beginning. What I can't accept is the explanation.

Yours sounds repetitive. The science of atheism states the singularity had infinite density. That's where the matter came from.

What is the mystery is where all the energy for the universe and Earth came from? There is no explanation with infinite temperature. There are questions about the physics, too, as there isn't a cause for the start of the big bang. What about the cosmic inflation as it violates the law of physics by suddenly expanding? It traveled faster than light, too. Finally, this happened more than once with multiverses.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The infinite density and temperature suggested by general relativity are not taken to be real phenomena but indications that general relativity is not sufficient to describe what happened - this is because the extreme conditions at the big bang require quantum mechanics to be taken into account - the CMB provides evidence of the early quantum fluctuations. Unfortunately, we don't have a theory of quantum gravity (a quantum mechanics that includes gravity) that works in such a regime. So, for now, we can't describe it - although there are numerous hypotheses, none of which involve infinite energy or density.

No, the GR theory isn't sufficient to explain quantum mechanics. Singularity isn't light, so quantum mechanics does not come into the big bang either. I've heard the particle-wave of light were coming into and going out of existence, but that isn't something that can be shown nor observed happening. It's just a presupposition or assumption to cause the big bang. Besides, Stephen Hawking admitted one needs spacetime for quantum mechanics and before the big bang there was neither. I don't want to waste space to get into the wacky multiverse bellefs haha.

To me the problem is there hasn't been an explanation to Neil Bohr's non-intuitive interpretation of the particle-wave experiments with light particles. He knew about the results and could only offer the Copenhagen theory, but it's the best we got so far from almost a century of work. This makes the quantum world weird.

The experimental evidence that Neil Bohr's non-intuitive interpretation of the particle-wave experiments (only by looking in the box explains what happened to the other, i.e. like Shrodinger's cat we can have both light as particle and wave while it hasn't been observed) and Einstein's explanation of quantum entanglement (the spins were already predetermined and then put in the box, i.e. God does not play dice). The complex experiments have shown Bohr's weird theory to be right. I mean while what happens in our macro world is explained by Newton's force theory, GR and SR, it doesn't hold in the quantum world. Yet, the quantum world makes up the macro world, so shouldn't they jibe?

Is there anything to state for quantum gravity to get it into existence before the big bang? We don't have a good explanation for Bohr's theory so it's left open as the Copenhagen interpretation. The scientists think we just don't know what the others are, i.e. not enough data.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And when I talk about conspiracies, it's your claim that scientists got rid of data from the internet that showed they were wrong about the 'fine tuning' argument, an argument I only see from Christians who think they know better then a world of scientists.

I just googled and Stephen Hawking let it out before his death, but he added that the multiverse hypothesis would allow for it. It's a way to explain what happened before the big bang and not have God, i.e. the science of atheism. It was he and his scientists who found the fine tuning parameters.

"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life.


Stephen Hawking's final theory sheds light on the multiverse
Read more

Some philosophers think the fine-tuning is powerful evidence for the existence of God. However, in his 2010 book The Grand Design (co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow), Stephen Hawking defended a naturalistic explanation of fine-tuning in terms of the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, the universe we live in is just one of an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of universes. If there are enough universes then it becomes not so improbable that at least one will chance upon the right laws for life."

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

Thus, it wasn't something coming from just creationists. I think Hawking had to get evidence and more support for his Multiverse by the quantum mechanics scientists before he confessed.

What do think caused the big bang if that's what you believe?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I just googled and Stephen Hawking let it out before his death, but he added that the multiverse hypothesis would allow for it. It's a way to explain what happened before the big bang and not have God, i.e. the science of atheism. It was he and his scientists who found the fine tuning parameters.

"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life.


Stephen Hawking's final theory sheds light on the multiverse
Read more

Some philosophers think the fine-tuning is powerful evidence for the existence of God. However, in his 2010 book The Grand Design (co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow), Stephen Hawking defended a naturalistic explanation of fine-tuning in terms of the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, the universe we live in is just one of an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of universes. If there are enough universes then it becomes not so improbable that at least one will chance upon the right laws for life."

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

Thus, it wasn't something coming from just creationists. I think Hawking had to get evidence and more support for his Multiverse by the quantum mechanics scientists before he confessed.

What do think caused the big bang if that's what you believe?

No, this was your claim:
"Yet, the atheist scientists are the ones who found the fine tuning facts trying to describe what happened with the big bang. Now, they've disavowed and scrubbed everything of their discovery from the internet because it helps the creationists. Isn't that more about the atheists and their religion?"

Where is your evidence for this claim?
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I would honestly be shocked and amazed if we find another near-Earth like planet. I'd honestly just settle for multi-cellar organisms in a pond somewhere near Alpha Centauri as evidence of alien life.

I believed in abiogenesis and evolution probably before 2007 sometime. However, the time period between 2007-2011 brought out a lot of disagreement and questioning of evolution. It wasn't just creationist against uniformitarianism and evolution, but other secular scientists themselves. Today, I don't think any scientist or layman needs any evolution to get their work done. Abiogenesis? Believe what you want.

The drawback of this belief is for taxpayers as they have to fund finding simple life in the Milky Way or close proximity to it gives NASA reason to look for aliens and signs of abiogenesis.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I believed in abiogenesis and evolution probably before 2007 sometime. However, the time period between 2007-2011 brought out a lot of disagreement and questioning of evolution. It wasn't just creationist against uniformitarianism and evolution, but other secular scientists themselves. Today, I don't think any scientist or layman needs any evolution to get their work done. Abiogenesis? Believe what you want.

The drawback of this belief is for taxpayers as they have to fund finding simple life in the Milky Way or close proximity to it gives NASA reason to look for aliens and signs of abiogenesis.

I think you're talking a load of codswallop. I really do.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, this was your claim:
"Yet, the atheist scientists are the ones who found the fine tuning facts trying to describe what happened with the big bang. Now, they've disavowed and scrubbed everything of their discovery from the internet because it helps the creationists. Isn't that more about the atheists and their religion?"

Where is your evidence for this claim?

I didn't keep a file or hard copy of all the stuff Hawking or other atheist, i.e. secular, scientists wrote back then probably before 2007. Who would think it would be scrubbed from the internet? He had his The Grand Design book in 2010 which he let it out, but I didn't read that -- The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow | Book review.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I didn't keep a file or hard copy of all the stuff Hawking or other atheist, i.e. secular, scientists wrote back then probably before 2007. Who would think it would be scrubbed from the internet? He had his The Grand Design book in 2010 which he let it out, but I didn't read that -- The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow | Book review.

I would like you to answer this question:
This was your claim:
"Yet, the atheist scientists are the ones who found the fine tuning facts trying to describe what happened with the big bang. Now, they've disavowed and scrubbed everything of their discovery from the internet because it helps the creationists. Isn't that more about the atheists and their religion?"

Where is your evidence for this claim?
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think you're talking a load of codswallop. I really do.

Believe what you want. We know more about why abiogenesis doesn't happen and how amino acids are plentiful, but one needs the right kinds (chirality) to form proteins. We also know about water dissolving them. Don't we look for life elsewhere where there is evidence of water? OTOH, the science of atheism makes wild claims like proteins are found by itself somewhere. Why don't you think that is "talking a load of cosswallop?"
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Believe what you want. We know more about why abiogenesis doesn't happen and how amino acids are plentiful, but one needs the right kinds (chirality) to form proteins. We also know about water dissolving them. Don't we look for life elsewhere where there is evidence of life? OTOH, the science of atheism makes wild claims like proteins are found by itself somewhere.

Again: codswallop.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Creation scientists aren't allowed to participate in peer review anymore, so the debate and their objections get carried out in internet debates. I believe this is where the disagreements and complaints against the science of atheism starts and the atheist scientists who have their hypotheses and findings have to address. We are discussing getting one's paper published, especially in Nature and Science so the stakes are high. There's no reason to censor the creation scientists because they were the best scientists before the 1850s. I think atheist scientists use substitute terms for God such as dark energy for the expansion of space or singularity for the cause of the big bang.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
1. What "fine tuning facts" did these atheist scientists discover. Be specific.
2. Were no theist scientists involved in these discoveries?
3. How did these atheist scientists manage to scrub everything from the internet?
4. How does scrubbing "everything of their discovery" from the internet deny help to creationists? The internet is not where scientific discoveries are officially reported or preserved.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Creation scientists aren't allowed to participate in peer review anymore, so the debate and their objections get carried out in internet debates. I believe this is where the disagreements and complaints against the science of atheism starts and the atheist scientists who have their hypotheses and findings have to address. We are discussing getting one's paper published, especially in Nature and Science so the stakes are high. There's no reason to censor the creation scientists because they were the best scientists before the 1850s. I think atheist scientists use substitute terms for God such as dark energy for the expansion of space or singularity for the cause of the big bang.

... what are you blathering on about? There is no creation science. It's either science with a religious outlook and basis on it, or it's people going "The Bible says this, and if science doesn't say it, science is wrong".
The former can be worked with very easily. The latter is not science, it's idolatry of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Creation scientists aren't allowed to participate in peer review anymore, so the debate and their objections get carried out in internet debates. I believe this is where the disagreements and complaints against the science of atheism starts and the atheist scientists who have their hypotheses and findings have to address. We are discussing getting one's paper published, especially in Nature and Science so the stakes are high. There's no reason to censor the creation scientists because they were the best scientists before the 1850s. I think atheist scientists use substitute terms for God such as dark energy for the expansion of space or singularity for the cause of the big bang.
The work of creation scientists is generally rejected because they do not follow the scientific method. There were no creation scientists before the 1850s. There are very few even now. But more important, your attempt to divide scientists into "creation scientists" and "atheist scientists" is affront to scientists of faith--including many Christians--who are not creationists.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟141,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
... what are you blathering on about? There is no creation science. It's either science with a religious outlook and basis on it, or it's people going "The Bible says this, and if science doesn't say it, science is wrong".
The former can be worked with very easily. The latter is not science, it's idolatry of the Bible.

Getting touchy now. Scientists who believed in God and creation have been around since the beginning of civilization. They were the best scientists before the 1850s and there are still great ones today. One doesn't have to say they believe in evolution to find work.

I think with all your codswallop and complaints about what creation scientists have found and developed (they did peer review among themselves) to counter the evolutionists. Evolution is the codswallop, but you cannot admit it to yourself yet and so you become flustered. Good day.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Getting touchy now. Scientists who believed in God and creation have been around since the beginning of civilization. They were the best scientists before the 1850s and there are still great ones today. One doesn't have to say they believe in evolution to find work.

I think with all your codswallop and complaints about what creation scientists have found and developed (they did peer review among themselves) to counter the evolutionists. Evolution is the codswallop, but you cannot admit it to yourself yet and so you become flustered. Good day.

Except, as @Speedwell pointed out, you are just dividing scientists along an incredibly arbitrary line, which is basically: those that I support because of my religion, and those I do not.
To call historical scientific minds 'creation' scientists is also ahistorical and just asinine: they may have believed in the Seven Day creation story of the Bible, but that does not mean that they based their work around Biblical creationism, which is what anyone who is actually called a creationist today does.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Getting touchy now. Scientists who believed in God and creation have been around since the beginning of civilization.
Yes, there were and still are many scientists who believe that God s author of our being. But very few are creationists.
They were the best scientists before the 1850s and there are still great ones today.
That is codswallop. There were no creation scientists before the 1850s because it wasn't until about then that scientific discoveries began to cause serious problems for a literal interpretation of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0