Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

Was it?

Yes

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes

Because the Bible says so, or because you do?

 

[Doveaman]

Because the Bible says so, or because you do?

Because scientists say so.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Because scientists say so.

If you're going to try and say something like that, please do so in a way that doesn't make you look like a ridiculous liar. The vast majority of scientists do not say any of that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you're going to try and say something like that, please do so in a way that doesn't make you look like a ridiculous liar.

... if at all possible.

 

[Doveaman]

If you're going to try and say something like that, please do so in a way that doesn't make you look like a ridiculous liar.

... if at all possible.

Sure.

The observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago. On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that “God did it” can prevent this happening.

“God did it” is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This “God did it” process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.

If the Universe expanded from a singularity, its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. As with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the “God did it” scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow the singularity to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence. All of these problems would be resolved if something or someone gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still a singularity, and it turns out that “God did it” offers the best scientific explanation.

 

[Cabal]

Sure.

The observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago. On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that “God did it” can prevent this happening.

“God did it” is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This “God did it” process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.

If the Universe expanded from a singularity, its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. As with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the “God did it” scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow the singularity to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence. All of these problems would be resolved if something or someone gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still a singularity, and it turns out that “God did it” offers the best scientific explanation.

Well, that's nice.

Is there any evidence that scientists are claiming this, or are you just making stuff up? False testimony is a sin.

Stop projecting your desperate antiscientific nonsense on those actually doing science.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, that's nice.

Is there any evidence that scientists are claiming this, or are you just making stuff up? False testimony is a sin.

Stop projecting your desperate antiscientific nonsense on those actually doing science.

It's not just a matter if scientists are claiming this. It's the fact that "God did it" offers the best scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from the singularity. Do you have a better explanation? I didn't think so.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Sure.

The observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago. On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that “God did it” can prevent this happening.

“God did it” is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This “God did it” process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.

If the Universe expanded from a singularity, its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. As with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the “God did it” scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow the singularity to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence. All of these problems would be resolved if something or someone gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still a singularity, and it turns out that “God did it” offers the best scientific explanation.

Ok, you have a scientific hypothesis.

Now all you need is evidence and you have yourself a theory. Just saying something is the best explanation doesn't make it the explanation. Just a hypothesis.

 

[Cabal]

It's not just a matter if scientists are claiming this. It's the fact that "God did it" offers the best scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from the singularity. Do you have a better explanation? I didn't think so.

This isn't an explanation, it's an argument from incredulity. Additionally, inserting supernatural entities means you are no longer using a scientific explanation.

Postulate away, just don't claim your views are something they're not.

 

[Doveaman]

Ok, you have a scientific hypothesis.

Now all you need is evidence and you have yourself a theory. Just saying something is the best explanation doesn't make it the explanation. Just a hypothesis.

Do you have any better explanation at all for the origin of the universe from the singularity? "God did it" seems to be the best explanation so far.

 

[Doveaman]

This isn't an explanation, it's an argument from incredulity. Additionally, inserting supernatural entities means you are no longer using a scientific explanation.

Postulate away, just don't claim your views are something they're not.

Do you have any better explanation at all for the origin of the universe from the singularity? "God did it" seems to be the best explanation so far.

 

[Cabal]

Do you have any better explanation at all for the origin of the universe from the singularity? "God did it" seems to be the best explanation so far.

You're repeating yourself a lot there, D-man. Who are you really trying to convince here?

 

[Doveaman]

You're repeating yourself a lot there, D-man. Who are you really trying to convince here?

OK, so you don't have a better explanation. Fine.

 

[Cabal]

OK, so you don't have a better explanation. Fine.

As has been pointed out to you already, this is not an explanation, it's a hypothesis. And that's charitable, given that this is basically an unimaginative God-of-the-gaps rehash.

Don't kid yourself that this trumps anything.

 

[Skaloop]

OK, so you don't have a better explanation. Fine.

I have an explanation. I did it. I created the entirety of existence, and I did so exactly as it appears in the historical/geological/paleontological record. That's a much better explanation than "God did it" because mine is not open to debate. I did it exactly how it looks like I did it. Show me wrong, I dare you to try.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Do you have any better explanation at all for the origin of the universe from the singularity? "God did it" seems to be the best explanation so far.

You see that word I highlighted there? That's the reason why "Goddidit" is a hypothesis. I don't have a concrete theory, but that doesn't mean we should jump to an unfounded conclusion because it "seems" to be a good one. Instead, we must accept that we don't actually know, and work to find out the truth.

"God did it" is a hypothesis. Replaced God with your word of choice ("Cheese did it") and you have another hypothesis. Come up with an entirely different idea ("Nothing can actually create something given that the laws of cause and effect were not in place") and you have another hypothesis. None of these are theories.

The correct answer to "how the the universe begin" is "we don't know yet". Making up answers that seem right just works to stifle what knowledge we may actually get.

 

[sandwiches]

It's not just a matter if scientists are claiming this. It's the fact that "God did it" offers the best scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from the singularity. Do you have a better explanation? I didn't think so.

I got a better one. One day, the universe decided to create itself.

What's that baseless nonsense, you say? Exactly.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you have any better explanation at all for the origin of the universe from the singularity? "God did it" seems to be the best explanation so far.

"Goddidit" is nothing more than "Assume there was a cause. Call that cause 'God'. Therefore, God did it". That's not an explanation, that's semantics.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's not just a matter if scientists are claiming this.

So, when you said before that scientists were claiming this, you were lying -- is that it?

It's the fact that "God did it" offers the best scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from the singularity. Do you have a better explanation? I didn't think so.

From a strictly scientific point of view, what would be the difference between saying "God did it," and saying "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

What's that, you say? None whatsoever?