joseph1013:
Why can't we mathematically describe anything before the Big Bang?

Booyakasha:


Cool..

Btw YOU'VE BEEN IN NANDA PABART FOR TOO LONG YOU FORGOT EVERYTHING!!! EVEN YOUR FRIENDS...

We've actually finished building her, she'll be up this evening

Teempakguy:
yeah, I was suffering from depression.

Teempakguy:
yeah, I was suffering from depression.

but I'm getting better. soon to make a flamboyant entry.

johnydon22:

WTF!!! what caused it?

Booyakasha:

hm. wtf? i get depressed too.. please we need to talk, what IM do you use more?

joseph1013:
Why can't we mathematically describe anything before the Big Bang?

SidL:

I doubt any real headway will be made not when mainstream science as of June 2016 cannot properly define gravity.

SidL:


Hmm...that's very interesting. Would it not be easier to say that the Laws of macro physics were just opinion in the first place? Why is there such huge personal investment in being right about them so much so that such an unnatural conclusion as correctness or uncorrectness according to scale is entertained? Is this not testament to how Academia draws its unnatural conclusions to save face? I have said and i maintain, that Quantum mechanics is a replacement for classical mechanics and the correct attitude is to call the old version of science, wrong and refrain from making the new science sacrosanct or they will yet go through many versions of mechanics most assuredly.

For one, Newton's Laws are figment of imagination because in nature, objective bodies are never at rest are they? How long will a peeled banana remain viable when left alone on your table? Also, motion in nature is never a straight line, it is a curve. Newton's first "law" is thus invalid! There is a lot to learn about what "motion" is, obviously.

What you quote as observed facts is quite interesting for nature's dynamics are always two-part--the subjective and objective. Now, I have yet to fully peruse the claims of quantum mechanics, but why is it a surprise that something comes into objective being from the subjective and then reverses? How is that different from heavenly bodies appearing out of space and later being swallowed up by space? How is that different from from clapping your hands and making a sound?
AH! The answer to that question is Consciousness. Academia has a vast amount to learn, or more appropriately, to unlearn.

Nature has not one set of principles for one affair, and a different set for another. She is consistent and that makes her awfully dependable, much unlike the fickleness of Man which it dares ascribe to nature like he does in his religions. If it were not so, no one would have been bold enough to assume a black hole in the centre of the galaxy, whereas every example of a galaxy, from planets with rings to suns tells you that a black hole most definitely does not centre a galaxy, but a big-ass sun.

Teempakguy:
It's a long and embarrassing story. developed below.

a few months ago, I had a bout of . . . libido. . just felt compelled to go and get myself a girlfriend and take care of her until we both grow old and die. And yes, I had all the fantasies. from wedding days to kids and so on. Now, I am aware that this is perfectly normal behavior, I just Hate that sort of thinking. my ideal fantasies include spending my life in front of a blackboard, or alone in a library, isolated from the world forever. amen. but here I was thinking about love and family(ewww). an emotional conflict between the life I wanted, and the life my genes wanted.(self-servicer genes.)
So I tried to suppress such emotions. and the consequence was me going into depression. where I just wanted all the ladies in the world do disappear and leave me alone(no offense). where I just feel annoyed after I subconsciously change my behavior when a girl passes. where i just felt angry at everyone for literally no reason. and so on and so forth.



I suppose Facebook . . . the pictures that ladies post on social media are sometimes disturbing to me, so I tend to avoid them. however, I can make an exception.

---

we can mathematically describe anything. the problem is, what branch of mathematics do we use?
we can assign numbers to describe the density, the temperature, the size, the quantum states, and so on, of the singularity. that is mathematics. we can find interactions between these numbers. the only problem is, the laws of physics that existed before the big bang are obviously not the ones that are occurring today. so, when we try to apply them, it doesn't work. we just need to find the right fundamental laws that apply in all cases. and that is a lot more than just mathematics.

two years ago, we didn't even know gravity was propagated in waves for sure. who knows what will happen in two years time?

Booyakasha:


heck off!! that's nothing like depression

Teempakguy:
is that sarcasm?

symptoms of depression ...

Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. ...
Loss of interest in daily activities. ...
Appetite or weight changes. ...
Sleep changes. ...
Anger or irritability. ...
Loss of energy. ...
Self-loathing. ...
Reckless behavior.
lack of motivation. ....

I had [i]every single one. [/b]

hey, the gdevit website seems to be in a similar situation. . .
I've been trying to load the site for hours and all I get is the statement : undergoing management. hope no problem? you said it would be up by evening the day before.

Booyakasha:


lol.. I'm depressed myself.. but the depressions will end this week once gdevit is ready..

It seems you're always only active here..

johnydon22:



And so it remains that even an absolute 0 of a kelvin is still equivalent to −273.15 °C or −459.67 °F..

so was it really a state of absolute nothingness or just a state of extremely inactive thermodynamics.

And again to further stretch the mischievous idea i was trying to portray {V,T,E,M} = are existential values. with {} ---> being the limitless nothingness on which they exist upon.

if V T E M ceases to exist we are still left with {} even though the values of VTEM are at a zero...




It is not an over complication, it only shows that 'nothing' in essence is still 'something' regardless of us calling it 'nothing'. As a virtue of it's existentiality it nullifies it's own self.

Nothingness (inexistence) but then exists this contradicts it's own self.



we might also get to hear that

johnydon22:
Hi guys. . . Seems our science section is beginning to slack a bit these days and getting somewhat dry and unsciency.

I am here yet again to propose a new discourse thread.

This is a thread i am particularly open to entertain questions regarding [size=18]the cosmos, astronomy, astrophysics.[/size] and a butter of healthy philosophy.

And also have a very good discussion on them....

Here i will not pick questions to answer but will attempt all to the best i can and for the religiously inclined who always somehow bears a religious view toward the above said disciplines i am also open to answer your questions based on my own opinions that i will never at any time claim absolute truth or correct.

The questions asked are as always open to discussion but i'd appreciate if do not argue or engage in any emotional batters...

I'd even love for it to have a strictly science tilt but since the cosmos also invokes a sense of spirituality and somewhat religiosity in most, i am inclined to also leave the floor open to accommodate such questions as regards the cosmos.

Please i will love for us to keep this sane and orderly with a good stack of intellectual riches and enlightening discussions.

the floor is open

Cc. Loj Blackjewelry Sirwere RobinHez FrancisTony donnffd Antiparticle Krystalzkris freecocoa OgundeleT TheDauraMallam, K9blunt ( f ), joywendy( f), herald9 , MarieSucre reallest PAGAN9JA krattoss hahn Queed, dabosuker
realtem sorextee Dekatron djdoxxx kolajamesjnr Liekiller SIRANDREWS , plaetton , menesheh wiegraf , finofaya Redlyn , Longstride, Rainess rinrin23 tangled Misogynist2014 Pr0ton , davien teempakguy dorox..

dorox:


Sorry for taking so long to reply, I have been busy with work and exam.
It appears to me that you argument in a nut shell is that if anything including an idea is something, then nothing must be something since it is alo an idea.
This view of nothing that is something does not contradict my view of nothing as an empty set. The empty set becomes a container of a sort devoid of any property that can be used to describe the universe i.e energy, space, time and quantum flictuations whatever that is.
Going by the way you defined 0 kelvin, nothing becomes -ve everything which gives you an empty set.
The idea that energy which we know cannot be created being zero in that empty set makes sense if you view God as external to the universe and the source of the energy contained in it. Which would mean that without God the universe would be nothing.

dorox:


Sorry for taking so long to reply, I have been busy with work and exam.
It appears to me that you argument in a nut shell is that if anything including an idea is something, then nothing must be something since it is alo an idea.
This view of nothing that is something does not contradict my view of nothing as an empty set. The empty set becomes a container of a sort devoid of any property that can be used to describe the universe i.e energy, space, time and quantum flictuations whatever that is.
Going by the way you defined 0 kelvin, nothing becomes -ve everything which gives you an empty set.
The idea that energy which we know cannot be created being zero in that empty set makes sense if you view God as external to the universe and the source of the energy contained in it. Which would mean that without God the universe would be nothing.

Teempakguy:
. . . And since there was nothing, there wouldn't be the natural laws. one of which is the laws of conservation of energy, and the passage of time. ergo, instantaneously, energy would have been created, since all possible things would have occurred simultaneously, since time doesn't exist. and only the laws that prevented any other outcome would have been able to survive. hence, the universe would have created itself from nothing.


Note that the laws that guide our universe are simultaneously preventing it into regressing into nothing. the universe is expanding, entropy is irreversibly increasing, Time travel is strictly prohibited, there is a limit to the updating of the universe. it seems to me that if nothing existed at first, all possible kinds of universes would have immediately appeared since nothing itself cannot stop them from existing. nothing means no laws, and where there are no laws, there are no prohibitions.

two things may have happened from there, either these universe continued to coexist as a multiverse, or they were annihilated by a super-universe that evolved all the laws that would prevent it from destruction -- ours.

All of these explanations do not require a divine intervention, i.e, there is no need for God.

johnydon22:


Too tired to draft a reply that would be as long as i would have loved but yet still.

God is something therefore if there was God before the universe still there wasn't nothing.. (depends on what you call God though)

And yet still since the problem is between nothing and something and God still within the confines of something, it is still how is there something (of which God is still part of ) and not nothing..

So you see God (the conventional view) does not answer that question......

Let's broaden this a bit, when referring to God here are you referring to a Personal conscious entity?

dorox:

We are really trying to split hairs here but I understand that this is a subject where a slight shift in perspective can make a whole lot of difference of opinion.
I did say without God the universe is nothing, which implies that the nothing I was referring to is restricted to the universe.

To your other question about God, yes I am referring to a conscious and intelligent being, and not some nebulous impersonal force.

johnydon22:


Yet still we are still faced with a problem of something and nothing, God is something and so it yet leans back down to how there is something and not nothing.

You see i first left the inability of Energy to be an uncreated value in order to allow total annihilation of the subject, now God a fully functional personal and consciousness entity is being used to fill a gap of nothingness/something problem not only is that irrational in my opinion but a very severe leap of many wholes.



Transcendant and personhood are paradoxical attributes that can only annihilate the subject.

-If a God (personal God) is and is transcendent

-If something is transcendent it cannot perform actions within time or exist within time

-But a person or personal being must exist and perform actions within time

-therefore something transcendent cannot be a person

so if there is such a thing as a transcendent personal entity, it is paradoxical and cannot be.

dorox:

I am as adversed to invoking God as a place holder for knowledge gaps as anyone else, I think it is borne out of intellectual laziness. So while it is true that our capacity to learn and to discover new things is as limitless as the universe is limitless both in size and the mysteries it contains, I also think that because we are a product of the universe our understanding of it will never exceed it as long as we are confined to it. That is the reason why I think the laws of physics breaks down the closer we get to the moment of the big bang. So the only time I invoke God is when the discussion is on or just before the birth of the universe.

johnydon22:


Yet still you are still invoking God as the placeholder for ignorance, that same thing you are accusing others of.

We may propose a "intelligent being (God) hypothesis" but it must remain within the confines of a hypothesis and also we cannot employ special pleading like exempting this 'God' also from causality and need for design cus that outrightly means we can then not consider pulling of such a hypothesis in the first place.

You say you only invoke 'God' at the place for the 'birth of the universe' this is still the same act of 'God of the gap' argument.

You or i or anyone else do not know what or how the universe was birthed and so now that we have reached a climaxing point of our knowledge when our mind is being disturbed by this humongous uncomfortable ignorance.

You choose to invoke 'God' to fill the answer instead of simply just saying I do not know.

I think that is intellectual dishonesty my brother and such invocation of an uncertain assumption to fill a gap of knowledge is consonant with science.

In science you must be comfortable with admitting ignorance, you must be humble enough to agree i don't know rather than trail that same line of intellectual laziness i'd also say intellectual egoism like you rightly pointed out at the start of your post.

Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von Holbach [1770] once remarked:

" If a faithful account was rendered of Man’s ideas upon Divinity, he would be
obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word ‘gods’ has been used
to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed;
that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known
causes, ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or
as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty,
terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods . . . When, therefore, he
ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon . . . does he, in fact,
do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to
which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

This is exactly what you are doing here bro

Dawdy:

God is the creator of the universe (if there is anything of such) and you weather you believe or not? It will be clear to you when you die if you don't believe now. Even Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness (soul) doesn't die.

dorox:

The problems you presented above can be resolved if you allow for an entity that is external to the universe to be its creator, then the energy and laws of interaction of energy would have to come from this entity.

To your second point, you are half right. Nothing means no laws as you said, but it also means no energy so the talk of all kinds of universe popping up would not be possible.
Your last point is as much a claim as me saying God did it, only less believable in my opinion.

Teempakguy:
Okay, first, Quantum mechanics is not a replacement for classical mechanics. Trying to apply that to classical objects is just a waste of time and whatever ink the equations are written in. a more fitting candidate is the special theory of relativity.

second, it is important that these laws are right because science makes predictions. the entire goal of science is to be able to predict the future. to know what will happen. so obviously, these laws we make have to describe the world as accurately as possible in order to allow for prediction of the future. the engineer must know what material will withstand the stress of gravity when building a bridge so that he can know for sure what will happen. would you sleep in your bed if the maker put a note that said "may explode spontaneously."?

Newton's second law states the condition for bodies not at rest. they are moving in the direction of a force. so, if objects are not at rest, there is a force acting on them. this holds true in every classical case. also, a banana left on the table will never leave the table. if it does, something took it. and we should immediately commence search for the thief.

second, motion in nature is not a straight line because forces are always acting on them. this is also stated by newton's laws. if you go into deep space, and shoot a bullet, until it gets near a gravitational point, it will move as straight as light.


that's the whole point of the Academia. to learn. the moment we know it all, the Academia ceases to exist from sheer uselessness.

Actually, Nature is very annoyingly inconsistent. the large amount of universal constants is a testament to that. we even have four fundamental forces. I would rather say that Nature is Hierarchically consistent. there is a fundamental law, which devolves into different smaller laws that apply to specific situations . . . and smaller ones, and smaller ones . . . and so on.

About the black hole theory . . . if a "big-ass sun" were to exist in the center of the galaxy, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's size. the intense gravity would convert it into a pulsar. a neutron star. and even the star wouldn't be able to contain the gravitational force. eventually, it would collapse as the neutron degeneracy pressure falls under the reign of gravity. hence singularity . . . hence black hole.

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics.

Okay, first, Quantum mechanics is not a replacement for classical mechanics. Trying to apply that to classical objects is just a waste of time and whatever ink the equations are written in. a more fitting candidate is the special theory of relativity.

second, it is important that these laws are right because science makes predictions. the entire goal of science is to be able to predict the future. to know what will happen. so obviously, these laws we make have to describe the world as accurately as possible in order to allow for prediction of the future. the engineer must know what material will withstand the stress of gravity when building a bridge so that he can know for sure what will happen. would you sleep in your bed if the maker put a note that said "may explode spontaneously."?

Newton's second law states the condition for bodies not at rest. they are moving in the direction of a force. so, if objects are not at rest, there is a force acting on them. this holds true in every classical case. also, a banana left on the table will never leave the table. if it does, something took it. and we should immediately commence search for the thief.

second, motion in nature is not a straight line because forces are always acting on them. this is also stated by newton's laws. if you go into deep space, and shoot a bullet, until it gets near a gravitational point, it will move as straight as light.

Actually, Nature is very annoyingly inconsistent. the large amount of universal constants is a testament to that. we even have four fundamental forces. I would rather say that Nature is Hierarchically consistent. there is a fundamental law, which devolves into different smaller laws that apply to specific situations . . . and smaller ones, and smaller ones . . . and so on.

About the black hole theory . . . if a "big-ass sun" were to exist in the center of the galaxy, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's size. the intense gravity would convert it into a pulsar. a neutron star. and even the star wouldn't be able to contain the gravitational force. eventually, it would collapse as the neutron degeneracy pressure falls under the reign of gravity. hence singularity . . . hence black hole.

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics. wink

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics. wink

Teempakguy:
sorry about your depression. if you like you can use my solution. which is loud rock music and marathon coding bouts. or story writing. I found it helpful.

if you'll notice, i'm not active here either. I just can't resist scientific arguments. like the ones sidl is making. I'm looking forward to having similar ones over there.

SidL:
I have never heard of anything more insipid or absurd before. I'm sorry, just had to post this somewhere.
What a bunch of charlatans.

LoJ:

Could you develop my bro

johnydon22:


Yet still you are still invoking God as the placeholder for ignorance, that same thing you are accusing others of.

We may propose a "intelligent being (God) hypothesis" but it must remain within the confines of a hypothesis and also we cannot employ special pleading like exempting this 'God' also from causality and need for design cus that outrightly means we can then not consider pulling of such a hypothesis in the first place.

You say you only invoke 'God' at the place for the 'birth of the universe' this is still the same act of 'God of the gap' argument.

You or i or anyone else do not know what or how the universe was birthed and so now that we have reached a climaxing point of our knowledge when our mind is being disturbed by this humongous uncomfortable ignorance.

You choose to invoke 'God' to fill the answer instead of simply just saying I do not know.

I think that is intellectual dishonesty my brother and such invocation of an uncertain assumption to fill a gap of knowledge is consonant with science.

In science you must be comfortable with admitting ignorance, you must be humble enough to agree i don't know rather than trail that same line of intellectual laziness i'd also say intellectual egoism like you rightly pointed out at the start of your post.

Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von Holbach [1770] once remarked:

" If a faithful account was rendered of Man’s ideas upon Divinity, he would be
obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word ‘gods’ has been used
to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed;
that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known
causes, ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or
as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty,
terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods . . . When, therefore, he
ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon . . . does he, in fact,
do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to
which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

This is exactly what you are doing here bro

dorox:


Let me clarify what I meant to say in my previous post. Every theist including myself believe that everything was created by God.

Where some of us differ from other theist is our belief that God did not accomplish his creative work through magic but by logically expressing his power. So when someone says God did it, to me it is as useless as saying an engineer made the Airbus A380, I would like to know how it works, the principles behind its enormous jet engines, the materials used to construct its extra-long pair of gigantic wings that does not buckle under its weight, etc.

I believe that God did everything and that with the passage of time we will continue to unravel more of the mysteries of the universe. And it is also my belief that the mystery of the very birth of the universe will forever remain unknown to us due to the fact that we are a product of the universe.
For the most part our difference is of a philosophical nature rather than scientific I think.

johnydon22:


I bolded the word Believe to clarify the weight of that opinion, you believe you do not know.

So it is still the same method of filling a gap left by ignorance with 'belief'.. that is a mark of uncertainty because belief in that context is an affirmation of uncertainty but yet the will to accept I don't know is lacking.

That to me is a mark of ego, unable to agree ignorance when it is surely there.

How has the so called space exploration benefited mankind?


For an engineer to assemble the Airbus A380 the materials needed were already existing, most even older than the engineer.

the engineer did not materialize the materials out of nothing by talking to it, he rather configured the already pre-existing natural materials to meet his own desired end.

'knowledge' further more always has a foundation, an inspiration. You just cannot know something when there is 'nothing'

so there cannot be design when there is 'nothing' and again no such a thing as 'all knowing' when there is nothing to know in the first place or any pre-existing inspiration.

e.g: to get inspiration behind the design of aeroplane, it is the natural manifestation of 'bird'

so if you assert 'God' a designer of the universe then the materials must have been pre-existing before then and again an inspiration already in place.

To assert a deity that materializes the universe by 'speaking or vomit' connotes magic not design..

Further more here you are trying to explain nature because of it's intrinsic manifestation with an even more intrinsic value that somehow needs to be specially exempted from causality and the design allegedly complexity suggest.



'belief' if we rowed on such a boat of uncertainty, imagine if science worked like that.

'I believe the sun is silicon' instead of probing to eventually 'know'

'i believe the earth is flat'

No my good sir such blind leap of faith is dangerous to our intellectual evolution, does not even answer the question rather but makes one feel good with assumption, substitutes 'gut feelings' for what is true.

and more severely prevents one from probing to actually ascertain the truth of the subject since 'belief' already filled that void.

This has always been the story of human intellectual development, the sad strive of science always dispelling 'belief' tried to be pulled out as truth, deductions based purely on 'gut feelings' than empirical grounds.

Like Heinrich i quoted above does he, in fact, do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

this was the sad truth of great minds of the past like Ptolemy, Aristotle, plato, Newton limited by their employment of superstition at the limit of their knowledge.

Ptolemy could not understand the planetary motions he invoked God (zeus) to fill that gap of ignorance and that terminated his curiosity since he already thinks he got the answer.

Newton came along and answered the question, developed calculus, theory of gravity and motions and explained so well the natural mechanics behind the motions of the celestial objects.

then he came to the problem of solar system stability, he got to his wits end instead of simply agree and accept ignorance therefore leave the door open to further his probe and find out.

He invoked God tolling the same line Ptolemy did, placing 'God' at a place shielded by a curtain of human ignorance.

showing God(s) as a projection of human ignorance.

Leplace came along, solve the problem of solar stability and when asked where God fit in simply answered 'sir i have no need of that hypothesis' because he had figured out the natural forces and interactions responsible and there was no 'god' needed or any necessary.

The answers newton got canceled the 'god' of ptolemy, Leplace canceled the 'god' of newton.

Now we are faced with the problem of 'universal causality' a place of scientific blindness yet and we are already hearing 'already conceived answers' based on 'gut feelings and beliefs'

god did it

Again placing god at a place of scientific ignorance, if that is the only place God can be invoked in order to be relevant then like Neil Digress tyson said "God will always be an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" getting smaller and smaller and irrelevant with more discoveries.

I rather suggest my good sir "we agree and accept ignorance at places that we lack knowledge [mark of intellectual humility and honesty] and in that throw open the window of discovery.

Let us throw away the whole notion of 'belief' and try to find things out and derive certainty

johnydon22:


I bolded the word Believe to clarify the weight of that opinion, you believe you do not know.

So it is still the same method of filling a gap left by ignorance with 'belief'.. that is a mark of uncertainty because belief in that context is an affirmation of uncertainty but yet the will to accept I don't know is lacking.

That to me is a mark of ego, unable to agree ignorance when it is surely there.



For an engineer to assemble the Airbus A380 the materials needed were already existing, most even older than the engineer.

the engineer did not materialize the materials out of nothing by talking to it, he rather configured the already pre-existing natural materials to meet his own desired end.

'knowledge' further more always has a foundation, an inspiration. You just cannot know something when there is 'nothing'

so there cannot be design when there is 'nothing' and again no such a thing as 'all knowing' when there is nothing to know in the first place or any pre-existing inspiration.

e.g: to get inspiration behind the design of aeroplane, it is the natural manifestation of 'bird'

so if you assert 'God' a designer of the universe then the materials must have been pre-existing before then and again an inspiration already in place.

To assert a deity that materializes the universe by 'speaking or vomit' connotes magic not design..

Further more here you are trying to explain nature because of it's intrinsic manifestation with an even more intrinsic value that somehow needs to be specially exempted from causality and the design allegedly complexity suggest.



'belief' if we rowed on such a boat of uncertainty, imagine if science worked like that.

'I believe the sun is silicon' instead of probing to eventually 'know'

'i believe the earth is flat'

No my good sir such blind leap of faith is dangerous to our intellectual evolution, does not even answer the question rather but makes one feel good with assumption, substitutes 'gut feelings' for what is true.

and more severely prevents one from probing to actually ascertain the truth of the subject since 'belief' already filled that void.

This has always been the story of human intellectual development, the sad strive of science always dispelling 'belief' tried to be pulled out as truth, deductions based purely on 'gut feelings' than empirical grounds.

Like Heinrich i quoted above does he, in fact, do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

this was the sad truth of great minds of the past like Ptolemy, Aristotle, plato, Newton limited by their employment of superstition at the limit of their knowledge.

Ptolemy could not understand the planetary motions he invoked God (zeus) to fill that gap of ignorance and that terminated his curiosity since he already thinks he got the answer.

Newton came along and answered the question, developed calculus, theory of gravity and motions and explained so well the natural mechanics behind the motions of the celestial objects.

then he came to the problem of solar system stability, he got to his wits end instead of simply agree and accept ignorance therefore leave the door open to further his probe and find out.

He invoked God tolling the same line Ptolemy did, placing 'God' at a place shielded by a curtain of human ignorance.

showing God(s) as a projection of human ignorance.

Leplace came along, solve the problem of solar stability and when asked where God fit in simply answered 'sir i have no need of that hypothesis' because he had figured out the natural forces and interactions responsible and there was no 'god' needed or any necessary.

The answers newton got canceled the 'god' of ptolemy, Leplace canceled the 'god' of newton.

Now we are faced with the problem of 'universal causality' a place of scientific blindness yet and we are already hearing 'already conceived answers' based on 'gut feelings and beliefs'

god did it

Again placing god at a place of scientific ignorance, if that is the only place God can be invoked in order to be relevant then like Neil Digress tyson said "God will always be an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" getting smaller and smaller and irrelevant with more discoveries.

I rather suggest my good sir "we agree and accept ignorance at places that we lack knowledge [mark of intellectual humility and honesty] and in that throw open the window of discovery.

Let us throw away the whole notion of 'belief' and try to find things out and derive certainty

Dawdy:
see this guy! All you have been sharing, aren't they speculations based on calculations proved by animation? Which of them is fact?