The origin of the universe - short exercise

[Hans Blaster]

This is cherry-picking. Why deliberately omit all the list of scientific theories published by 'scientific geniuses' of the past century which have been debunked as of this present point?
'end of the world' predictions are few and far inbetween in comparison.
(the bigger problem is, of course, that all such 'predicters' are deliberately ignoring Matthew 24:36.)

Which of these failed ideas of the "geniuses" do you have in mind?

 

[Piers Plowman]

Which of these failed ideas of the "geniuses" do you have in mind?

List Of Debunked Scientific Theories

For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'List of debunked scientific theories' themselves.

letmegooglethat.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

List Of Debunked Scientific Theories

For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'List of debunked scientific theories' themselves.

letmegooglethat.com

I'm not interested in some list compiled by some one else. You seem to have one or more in mind. Is your claim nothing more than empty rhetoric?

 

[Piers Plowman]

I'm not interested in some list compiled by some one else. You seem to have one or more in mind. Is your claim nothing more than empty rhetoric?

Bringing up 'end of the world predictions' is not a rhetoric?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bringing up 'end of the world predictions' is not a rhetoric?

I suppose it is, but it wasn't mine. It is, however, annoying that people treat the updating of conclusions when we have more information (as we do in science) as somehow a "bad" thing, rather than a good thing.

 

[Piers Plowman]

I suppose it is, but it wasn't mine. It is, however, annoying that people treat the updating of conclusions when we have more information (as we do in science) as somehow a "bad" thing, rather than a good thing.

Personally, I am more concerned with same folks in science fighting over priority.

List of scientific priority disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific advancement is great and all, but many folks have been left unprofited and unappreciated for their findings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Personally, I am more concerned with same folks in science fighting over priority.

List of scientific priority disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific advancement is great and all, but many folks have been left unprofited and unappreciated for their findings.

I'm not interested in that either.

 

[Piers Plowman]

I'm not interested in that either.

Is it not important for particular persons to receive recognition for their particular work of research?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is it not important for particular persons to receive recognition for their particular work of research?

To them, I suppose, but to the progress of science, no. Science is about facts and understanding, not personalities.

 

[Piers Plowman]

To them, I suppose, but to the progress of science, no. Science is about facts and understanding, not personalities.

sounds rather harsh!

 

[Hans Blaster]

sounds rather harsh!

I've dealt with enough ego maniacs in science.

 

[Kylie]

At first you say:

Everything in the universe is caused by something, and that cause is always outside and separate from what was being caused.

And then you say:

This means the cause of the universe needs to be:

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

So, your argument only works if you claim that the universe is something that is within the universe.

The universe is not within the universe anymore than a box can be inside itself.

You can't take some property of a part and then claim that property applies to the whole. By this logic, the entire Earth is a liquid because the water on it is a liquid.

 

[AdB]

So, your argument only works if you claim that the universe is something that is within the universe.

How do you get to that conclusion? The argument is actually that the cause of the universe has to be outside of the universe itself

You can't take some property of a part and then claim that property applies to the whole. By this logic, the entire Earth is a liquid because the water on it is a liquid.

These qualities apply to the universe as a whole...
The whole universe is subjected to the passage of time.
The whole universe is contained within the 3 dimensions.
The whole universe contains matter and energy

 

[Shemjaza]

How do you get to that conclusion? The argument is actually that the cause of the universe has to be outside of the universe itself

These qualities apply to the universe as a whole...
The whole universe is subjected to the passage of time.
The whole universe is contained within the 3 dimensions.
The whole universe contains matter and energy

You are describing aspects within the universe, not its entirety.

A perspective outside or overall the universe may not even be a coherent concept... everything within the universe is made up of matter/energy from earlier structures and exists within space/time, so that gives us exactly zero information about anything that isn't.

 

[AdB]

You are describing aspects within the universe, not its entirety.

A perspective outside or overall the universe may not even be a coherent concept... everything within the universe is made up of matter/energy from earlier structures and exists within space/time, so that gives us exactly zero information about anything that isn't.

Sorry but I don't get what you're trying to say

 

[BCP1928]

This is cherry-picking. Why deliberately omit all the list of scientific theories published by 'scientific geniuses' of the past century which have been debunked as of this present point?
'end of the world' predictions are few and far inbetween in comparison.
(the bigger problem is, of course, that all such 'predicters' are deliberately ignoring Matthew 24:36.)

Well, as the great philosopher tells us,

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”​

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry but I don't get what you're trying to say

I don't think I'm explaining myself well.

But our ways of understanding the universe are entirely from within the ways the universe currently works leading back to points where we can't determine like the Big Bang.

Even with our current universe black holes and and relativistic effects show us that the Universe doesn't always behaving in a way consistent with our intuitions and experiences on Earth.

All this leads me to not being confident about extrapolating what possible and impossible for the Universe as a whole.

 

[Kylie]

How do you get to that conclusion? The argument is actually that the cause of the universe has to be outside of the universe itself

These qualities apply to the universe as a whole...
The whole universe is subjected to the passage of time.
The whole universe is contained within the 3 dimensions.
The whole universe contains matter and energy

No, the argument that "Everything in the universe is caused by something, and that cause is always outside and separate from what was being caused" only applies to things that are inside the universe.

The universe is NOT inside the universe.

So that particular argument can't be said to apply to the universe, can it?

 

[AdB]

No, the argument that "Everything in the universe is caused by something, and that cause is always outside and separate from what was being caused" only applies to things that are inside the universe.

The universe is NOT inside the universe.

So that particular argument can't be said to apply to the universe, can it?

Why wouldn't the properties that generally apply to all components of the universe also apply for the universe as a whole?

The "universe" isn't some kind of an envelope that contains the components of the universe, rather it is the collection of all these components. So it is more logical to expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.

 

[BCP1928]

Why wouldn't the properties that generally apply to all components of the universe also apply for the universe as a whole?

The "universe" isn't some.kind of an envelope that contains the components of the universe, rather it is the collection of all these components. So it is more logical to expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.

That's a fine hypothesis, but it won't be a scientific hypothesis until you can suggest some way of testing it empirically.