davidylan:

That's the problem, simply pointing out "ignorance" (i.e. things i dont agree with but have no idea why other than hating God) without any reason why such should be considered "ignorance" makes little sense. Telling me to just go "read" since you wont "spoon feed" (i.e. have no idea what i'm talking about so cant be relied upon to substantiate my claims) me is nonsense.

If you don't know why your lack of knowledge on these basic issues shouldn't be considered knowledge, then you're worse off than I thought. While it is expected that on certain issues, many people may not have knowledge but if you're online and you've seen a few science documentaries, what else can one say when you persist in such ignorance?

davidylan:

Allergy to knowledge? At least that indicates i have been sensitized by knowledge no?

Sure. You were sensitized by a source of poor information aka your religious text. Note that you're not alone in this.

davidylan:

It was just as bereft of any serious empirical evidence to back up your claims. You seem to have "educated yourself on the best information available" (i.e. you've been browsing through atheist websites that use high-fallutin nonsense to deceive you into thinking they know what they are saying) but that doesnt seem to be coming across here at all. Your responses have been simply the same standard format:

1. Claim everyone else is "ignorant"

Not everyone, just you.

davidylan:

2. Cry about "spoon feeding" when you are asked to provide evidence of your claims

I've been through this several times. Sometimes with you so you take the simple step of reviewing what is already available. If you were unable to understand something, then I may offer you some insight.

davidylan:

3. insult some more if you cant get your way

Nah I leave that to you as usual.

davidylan:

4. Ignore the thread

I'll let you know when I'm ready to ignore a thread so have no fears.

thehomer:

If you don't know why your lack of knowledge on these basic issues shouldn't be considered knowledge, then you're worse off than I thought. While it is expected that on certain issues, many people may not have knowledge but if you're online and you've seen a few science documentaries, what else can one say when you persist in such ignorance?

Sure. You were sensitized by a source of poor information aka your religious text. Note that you're not alone in this.

Not everyone, just you.

I've been through this several times. Sometimes with you so you take the simple step of reviewing what is already available. If you were unable to understand something, then I may offer you some insight.

Nah I leave that to you as usual.

I'll let you know when I'm ready to ignore a thread so have no fears.

bla bla bla. where is the science?

davidylan:

Just an example of thehomer's nonsense:

This is spurious.

Is it?

davidylan:

1. the fact that total energy = zero does not negate a need for God. Infact it makes the idea that the universe spontaneously occurred an even more difficult point for scientists to prove. Science has NEVER been able to generate matter from nothing neither have we seen this occur in nature. What Hawking and his equally clueless proteges are trying to tell us is that highly complex laws of nature, the universe and highly diverse forms of life just appeared out of NOTHING!

Generate matter from nothing? You are confusing two different concepts of nothing here. There is the philosophical concept and the scientific concept.

davidylan:

2. Again the fallacy of knowing exactly what God would do. If God created the universe why do you think it would start from 1 and not 0?

Knowing what God would do is a fallacy? Please tell me again why you worship this God of yours.
Here, we have your God simply being unpredictable. Consider this. If God exists, why do you think he would be good and not bad?

davidylan:

I wont even waste my time on his claim that man arrived after millions of years of evolution, i'm sure he doesnt even know how to prove it either unless of course he goes off to copy some article on talkorigins.

No don't waste your time on that. Simply go through the previous threads on it in which I tried to again show you what we know.

davidylan:

1. where is the "relevant information" you claim to present?

2. At least your first point would make sense if i did see any "scientific knowledge" from you.

3. At least i try to keep my discussions on the issues the thread is supposed to be on, you keep rambling on about exactly what?

For relevant information, please click here.

thehomer:

For relevant information, please click here.

As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Just to humor myself . . . i got this off the wikipedia page thehomer links to . . . of course since he has no knowledge of his own . . .

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

this is a silly claim - where did this "extremely dense and hot state" come from? So is the claim that matter and energy have ALWAYS existed? How did this "dense and hot state" result in the complex organisms we have today? How did it create such a delicately balanced universe that depends on such fine tuned laws of nature with very little room for flexibility?

How then can we claim that net energy in space = 0 if matter had ALWAYS existed in the form of a "dense and hot state"?

Hopefully thehomer isnt going to answer by telling us to "link here". That's all he seems capable of doing despite bleating about "knowledge".

davidylan:

bla bla bla. where is the science?

For the science, please see my previous post. Note that you never pointed out the sort of evidence you'll accept.

davidylan:

As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Good. Since you know that, do you also know about the singularity state?

thehomer:

For the science, please see my previous post. Note that you never pointed out the sort of evidence you'll accept.

links do not equal science.

thehomer:

Good. Since you know that, do you also know about the singularity state?

more links and name dropping. Explain yourself. This claim is itself bogus and is simply invented to excuse the need for God. Matter at this state is of course assumed to have almost zero volume so that would presumably take care of the "how can you create something out of nothing" question.

the problem being that NO ONE seems to be able to re-create this singularity state! Can we make matter have infinitesimal volume again and create complex life forms?

davidylan:

links do not equal science.

more links and name dropping. Explain yourself.

Simply read the links. I already told you, I will not be spoon feeding you. Simply read it and let me know what puzzles you.

thehomer:

Simply read the links. I already told you, I will not be spoon feeding you. Simply read it and let me know what puzzles you.

Which is quite funny because i already pulled up one portion where i am puzzled. See post #36, that came from the wiki link. Did you even read it in detail?

"i will not be spoon feeding you" - code for i dont really know anything myself, i can only point you to what others think.

davidylan:

Which is quite funny because i already pulled up one portion where i am puzzled. See post #36, that came from the wiki link. Did you even read it in detail?

I did not read your post. You will notice that I had not responded to it. I will do that next.

davidylan:

"i will not be spoon feeding you" - code for i dont really know anything myself, i can only point you to what others think.

Sure you may see it that way. Just as long as you know that the others you're referring to are highly qualified and knowledgeable scientists.

thehomer:

I did not read your post. You will notice that I had not responded to it. I will do that next.

you just post without reading? And you call others ignorant? so exactly what are you responding to?

thehomer:

Sure you may see it that way. Just as long as you know that the others you're referring to are highly qualified and knowledgeable scientists.

Isnt that always the case? Ignorant folk hiding behind the skirts of "highly qualified and knowledgeable scientists". Have you no opinion OF YOUR OWN that you can then back up with empirical evidence from work others have done? That is how we were taught to do science - not just piggy back on the words of others lazily.

So every question you are asked, your response is merely to go pull off links you do not understand because they are "highly qualified"?

I asked a simple question - you brought up the case of singularity case, what do YOU understand by it and how does that affect your theory of how the universe came about? I read the bible, but i also learnt to think independently. Its a skill you should learn too . . . before you come here bleating about the ignorance of others.

davidylan:

As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Just to humor myself . . . i got this off the wikipedia page thehomer links to . . . of course since he has no knowledge of his own . . .

And I guess you have all this knowledge of your own? Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect.

davidylan:

According to the Big slam model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

this is a silly claim - where did this "extremely dense and hot state" come from? So is the claim that matter and energy have ALWAYS existed? How did this "dense and hot state" result in the complex organisms we have today? How did it create such a delicately balanced universe that depends on such fine tuned laws of nature with very little room for flexibility?

Which part of the claim is silly? You're one hilarious fellow. Are you disagreeing with the fact that the universe expanded or that it continues to expand? How's that for comprehension?
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?
Delicately balanced universe? That is an example of what is known as "puddle thinking". I wonder what your answer is.

davidylan:

How then can we claim that net energy in space = 0 if matter had ALWAYS existed in the form of a "dense and hot state"?

So this is the root of your entire problem. The point isn't that the net energy in space is zero because recall that space is as a result of the expanding matter and energy. Hawking's point is that gravity when considered as negative energy counterbalances the matter and energy of the universe. Keep in mind that it wasn't matter that was in that hot and dense state but the universe in another state.

davidylan:

Hopefully thehomer isnt going to answer by telling us to "link here". That's all he seems capable of doing despite bleating about "knowledge".

No. Since you were able to clearly point out what you were unable to understand, I simply had to try to help you along. I hope you're now better informed.

davidylan:

you just post without reading? And you call others ignorant? so exactly what are you responding to?

What I was responding to was quoted in my post. Read it.

davidylan:

Isnt that always the case? Ignorant folk hiding behind the skirts of "highly qualified and knowledgeable scientists". Have you no opinion OF YOUR OWN that you can then back up with empirical evidence from work others have done? That is how we were taught to do science - not just piggy back on the words of others lazily.

Opinion? You are really misguided. You will note that when I'm talking about certain phenomena, I'm not dealing with opinions but scientific evidence. It appears that your problem runs deep indeed. You were poorly taught how do do science because scientists don't simply form opinions then look around for evidence from other people's work to back them up (that is an easy way to arrive at a cognitive bias), they check the work to various levels depending on their level of expertise and see how well it also matches other theories and laws available.
I wonder what sort of evidence and empirical research you did to arrive at this God of yours.

davidylan:

So every question you are asked, your response is merely to go pull off links you do not understand because they are "highly qualified"?

I asked a simple question - you brought up the case of singularity case, what do YOU understand by it and how does that affect your theory of how the universe came about? I read the bible, but i also learnt to think independently. Its a skill you should learn too . . . before you come here bleating about the ignorance of others.

No, not every question. I wonder, do you not agree that those inferences were made by highly qualified people? Again, I wonder why you and your ilk have so much disdain for science yet you claim to use it.
If you read the Bible and believe it, then I doubt that you've learned to think independently knowing its contents.
On the singularity, read up on it and let me know what baffles you. There's something on it on that page.

thehomer:

And I guess you have all this knowledge of your own? Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect.

That's plain mischievous name-dropping. Doesnt apply to me, asking questions is not a claim to know all. You on the other hand have an already set opinion built NOT by your own careful analysis but merely regurgitating the ideas of others you clearly do not understand.

thehomer:

Which part of the claim is silly? You're one hilarious fellow. Are you disagreeing with the fact that the universe expanded or that it continues to expand? How's that for comprehension?
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?
Delicately balanced universe? That is an example of what is known as "puddle thinking". I wonder what your answer is.

That's quite stup[i]i[/i]d. Where did this matter and energy come from? In what form did it ALWAYS exist? THAT my friend is the question not this merry-go-round nonsense.

What has puddle thinking or comprehension to do with such a simple question?

thehomer:

So this is the root of your entire problem. The point isn't that the net energy in space is zero because recall that space is as a result of the expanding matter and energy. Hawking's point is that gravity when considered as negative energy counterbalances the matter and energy of the universe. Keep in mind that it wasn't matter that was in that hot and dense state but the universe in another state.

Makes no sense either. If matter was NOT in the hot and dense state, where was it?
Where did the hot and dense state come from? Can we re-create this state? What is the probability that given billions of years, a hot and dense state can give rise to complex biological life forms, all the delicately tuned laws of nature and the universe itself? THAT is the question again dude, not the metaphysical may-be's we keep reading all freaking day.

thehomer:

No. Since you were able to clearly point out what you were unable to understand, I simply had to try to help you along. I hope you're now better informed.

you've added nothing to the debate, simply rehashed the same old story.

thehomer:

Opinion? You are really misguided. You will note that when I'm talking about certain phenomena, I'm not dealing with opinions but scientific evidence. It appears that your problem runs deep indeed. You were poorly taught how do do science because scientists don't simply form opinions then look around for evidence from other people's work to back them up (that is an easy way to arrive at a cognitive bias), they check the work to various levels depending on their level of expertise and see how well it also matches other theories and laws available.
I wonder what sort of evidence and empirical research you did to arrive at this God of yours.

Evidence of what? Where is your empirical evidence for the big bang, singularity state or the claim that the universe expanded from a hot dense state?

Exactly what "evidence" are you refering to? the meritless claims of Stephen Hawking?

thehomer:

No, not every question. I wonder, do you not agree that those inferences were made by highly qualified people? Again, I wonder why you and your ilk have so much disdain for science yet you claim to use it.
If you read the Bible and believe it, then I doubt that you've learned to think independently knowing its contents.
On the singularity, read up on it and let me know what baffles you. There's something on it on that page.

circular reasoning.

1. since i read the bible then automatically i have not learned to think independently

2. Since virtually ALL your "opinions" have been formed by repeating what "highly qualified people" have proposed as theories without evidence (not very different from what you accuse the bible of doing) . . . that what are you? An independent thinker? Yeah right.

davidylan:

That's plain mischievous name-dropping. Doesnt apply to me, asking questions is not a claim to know all. You on the other hand have an already set opinion built NOT by your own careful analysis but merely regurgitating the ideas of others you clearly do not understand.

It is not name dropping, look it up because it clearly applies to you.

davidylan:

That's quite stup[i]i[/i]d. Where did this matter and energy come from? In what form did it ALWAYS exist? THAT my friend is the question not this merry-go-round nonsense.

I just told you that it may have always existed. There are other hypotheses. If you have a better one, I'm willing to hear it.

davidylan:

What has puddle thinking or comprehension to do with such a simple question?

Look that up too.

davidylan:

Makes no sense either. If matter was NOT in the hot and dense state, where was it?

Wow. Did you take any basic level physics courses? Have you heard of energy and matter being converted?

davidylan:

Where did the hot and dense state come from? Can we re-create this state? What is the probability that given billions of years, a hot and dense state can give rise to complex biological life forms, all the delicately tuned laws of nature and the universe itself? THAT is the question again dude, not the metaphysical may-be's we keep reading all freaking day.

you've added nothing to the debate, simply rehashed the same old story.

We do not know "where" it came from or if that is even a coherent concept. So what if we cannot re-create it? The probability? It again shows that you don't really understand how probability is used. Simply understand that we have shown that it is what happened.
I see that you do not like the tentative language of science. I guess that is a core reason why you turn to religion. Not really surprising.

davidylan:

Evidence of what? Where is your empirical evidence for the big slam, singularity state or the claim that the universe expanded from a hot dense state?

Exactly what "evidence" are you refering to? the meritless claims of Stephen Hawking?

Did you read the page I referred you to? They are clearly stated there. Simply take the time to read it. If you're having English comprehension problems, then I'm sorry I cannot help you.

davidylan:

circular reasoning.

Again, your ignorance manifests itself. Look up circular reasoning. It has a well known and acceptable meaning.

davidylan:

1. since i read the bible then automatically i have not learned to think independently

No, since you've read and believed the Bible, . . . .
Again, this is simple comprehension.

davidylan:

2. Since virtually ALL your "opinions" have been formed by repeating what "highly qualified people" have proposed as theories without evidence (not very different from what you accuse the bible of doing) . . . that what are you? An independent thinker? Yeah right.

The Bible simply collected various stories and myths of a certain tribe. There is a reason why the Bible isn't used as a scientific text you know. Being an independent thinker doesn't mean you must reject scientific knowledge and reasoning.

thehomer:

Did you read the page I referred you to? They are clearly stated there. Simply take the time to read it. If you're having English comprehension problems, then I'm sorry I cannot help you.

If they were, Hawking would not need to be on national TV trying to prove what allegedly has STRONG EMPIRICAL PROOF. Try again.

thehomer:

Again, your ignorance manifests itself. Look up circular reasoning. It has a well known and acceptable meaning.

Perhaps. I'll concede the point.

thehomer:

No, since you've read and believed the Bible, . . . .
Again, this is simple comprehension.

Stup[i]i[/i]d. You can believe the bible but still hold valid scientific opinions as long as there is empirical proof. Example, we hold to be true that the earth isnt flat.

thehomer:

The Bible simply collected various stories and myths of a certain tribe. There is a reason why the Bible isn't used as a scientific text you know. Being an independent thinker doesn't mean you must reject scientific knowledge and reasoning.

Again stup[i]i[/i]d. Biased opinion masquerading as "fact".

thehomer:

It is not name dropping, look it up because it clearly applies to you.

Ad hominem alert. No it doesnt.

thehomer:

I just told you that it may have always existed. There are other hypotheses. If you have a better one, I'm willing to hear it.

Just the same way i could simply tell you that Jonah could live in the belly of a fish for 3 days. "it may have always existed" is not empirical proof please.

thehomer:

Look that up too.

ad hominem alert

thehomer:

Wow. Did you take any basic level physics courses? Have you heard of energy and matter being converted?

Stup[i]i[/i]d again. Boils down to the daft "they always existed" argument. No empirical proof, just empty claims.

thehomer:

We do not know "where" it came from or if that is even a coherent concept. So what if we cannot re-create it? The probability? It again shows that you don't really understand how probability is used. Simply understand that we have shown that it is what happened.

Where did you "show that it is what happened" again? Please remind me where this experiments re-creating the universe from matter and energy has happened.

thehomer:

I see that you do not like the tentative language of science. I guess that is a core reason why you turn to religion. Not really surprising.

Stup[i]i[/i]d again. You cant claim the bible is simply a myth when you also employ myths to explain away science. We could easily claim the bible is tentative too.

@thehomer and co.

Please stop killing science. You guys make science a guessing game. Science does not deal with "May," "might," and etc. Be honest or informed enough to know that when the word "may or Might" is attached to a theory, that theory is not yet science. At best you might say that it is a scientific speculation. Yet a speculation is a speculation; it carries no more weight than other speculations.

Please show me any scientific laws or theories that say "may." Science deals with the exact. Please consider this statement: "A body at motion May or 'May not' remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force" Does this sound scientific?

Another example, consider: "The phenomena that causes day and night 'may' or 'may not' be caused by the rotation of the earth." Or someone can equally say "for every action their 'may' or 'may not' be a reaction." Now tell me are these statements scientific laws or certainties.

You cannot disprove what you consider an uncertainty with another uncertainty. If you consider the religious views uncertain, then in your quest to prove their invalidity you should only use theories that have been tested and confirmed valid Truth. You cannot fight the religious speculations with scientific speculations.

This is just a logical blunder that I find it very hard to remain silent in the face of it.

Consider your statement: “I just told you that it may have always existed.” Is this statement of yours science? How does this statement carry more validity than the statement that “God always existed!” Consider another statement of yours, "It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form." Is this statement science or voodoo? Somebody can equally say "it could be that this matter and energy existed in some form, and this form was created by God, or this form is in the mind of God, or that this form is the Holy spirit or the power of the Holy spirit." How does the possibility that matter and energy have always existed in some form disprove the need for God or the existence of God? The question remains where did this matter and energy come from? Actually the question shouldnt entail "matter" because matter is energy; so the question is where did this energy that formed everything come form? Somebody can as well assumme that this energy is God or the power of God or what people usually refer as to the Holy spirit. By saying that this energy has always exisited, you are only confirming the same thing that the religionists claim -- that God has always exisited.

You are free to express your personal beliefs, but be honest enough to call them personal beliefs; don’t present them as scientific facts, for in so doing you make a ridiculous religion of science.

If only enthusiast will leave science alone! Today, in their quest to fight the religious they make a mockery of science. A few decades ago there was a scientific speculation that the universe ‘might’ not require a beginning. Hardly did scientists make this speculation than enthusiast picked and used it to fight the religionists who believed that the universe was created and hence had a beginning. Today we know that the universe had a beginning, the big slam. It’s as if science is confused, they say one thing today and another tomorrow. But the fault does not lie with science, the fault lies with enthusiast who would pick up every stone of scientific speculation and throw it at the religionist as facts.

Please let’s separate science from personal views and any form of speculation.


Thanks.

@ justcool, you said it far eloquently than i could. I doff my hat.

justcool:

@thehomer and co.

Please stop killing science. You guys make science a guessing game. Science does not deal with "May," "might," and etc. Be honest or informed enough to know that when the word "may or Might" is attached to a theory, that theory is not yet science. At best you might say that it is a scientific speculation. Yet a speculation is a speculation; it carries no more weight than other speculations.

Please show me any scientific laws or theories that say "may." Science deals with the exact. Please consider this statement: "A body at motion May or 'May not' remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force" Does this sound scientific?

Another example, consider: "The phenomena that causes day and night 'may' or 'may not' be caused by the rotation of the earth." Or someone can equally say "for every action their 'may' or 'may not' be a reaction." Now tell me are these statements scientific laws or certainties.

You cannot disprove what you consider an uncertainty with another uncertainty. If you consider the religious views uncertain, then in your quest to prove their invalidity you should only use theories that have been tested and confirmed valid Truth. You cannot fight the religious speculations with scientific speculations.

This is just a logical blunder that I find it very hard to remain silent in the face of it.

Consider your statement: “I just told you that it may have always existed.” Is this statement of yours science? How does this statement carry more validity than the statement that “God always existed!” Consider another statement of yours, "It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form." Is this statement science or voodoo? Somebody can equally say "it could be that this matter and energy existed in some form, and this form was created by God, or this form is in the mind of God, or that this form is the Holy spirit or the power of the Holy spirit." How does the possibility that matter and energy have always existed in some form disprove the need for God or the existence of God? The question remains where did this matter and energy come from? Actually the question shouldnt entail "matter" because matter is energy; so the question is where did this energy that formed everything come form? Somebody can as well assumme that this energy is God or the power of God or what people usually refer as to the Holy spirit. By saying that this energy has always exisited, you are only confirming the same thing that the religionists claim -- that God has always exisited.

You are free to express your personal beliefs, but be honest enough to call them personal beliefs; don’t present them as scientific facts, for in so doing you make a ridiculous religion of science.

If only enthusiast will leave science alone! Today, in their quest to fight the religious they make a mockery of science. A few decades ago there was a scientific speculation that the universe ‘might’ not require a beginning. Hardly did scientists make this speculation than enthusiast picked and used it to fight the religionists who believed that the universe was created and hence had a beginning. Today we know that the universe had a beginning, the big slam. It’s as if science is confused, they say one thing today and another tomorrow. But the fault does not lie with science, the fault lies with enthusiast who would pick up every stone of scientific speculation and throw it at the religionist as facts.

Please let’s separate science from personal views and any form of speculation.


Thanks.

Interesting summation. may God increase your knowledge. I've been following this thread for quite a little while in an attempt to 'learn' from both sides of the divide(though from the theistic view). However let me contribute my 'little' idea to buttress what u've just said about 'may' or 'might'

'may' or 'might' me thinks is used in a state of uncertainty or non exactness. Or let me say used based on probability of 50/50 chance of being correct or being wrong.

Like saying the character behind the handle 'justcool' might be a man has a chance of being true or false. Until i can empirically prove that the character behind the handle is really a male as against being a female, the word 'might' or 'may' is based not on fact but rather on probability.

toba:

Interesting summation. may God increase your knowledge. I've been following this thread for quite a little while in an attempt to 'learn' from both sides of the divide(though from the theistic view). However let me contribute my 'little' idea to buttress what u just said about 'may' or 'might'

'may' or 'might' me thinks is used in a state of uncertainty or non exactness. Or let me say used based on probability of 50/50 chance of being correct or being wrong.

Like saying the character behind the handle 'justcool' might be a man has a chance of being true or false. Until i can empirically prove that the character behind the handle is really a male as against being a female, the word 'might' or 'may' is based not on fact but rather on probability.

That's exactly what justcool said . . . its funny how "may" or "might" is allowed as part of the "tentative language of science" (as thehomer likes to put it) but is a complete no no when it comes to the bible. I wonder if thehomer would expect me to say "God may exist" and consider it a valid answer. Of course while he would be insisting on clear empirical proof, he seems to be OK with bandying around scientific OPINIONS that have no basis in factual science.

I was beginning to wonder if and when someone would make sense of all this, but that up there by justcool is just . . . cool.

And this -

I see that you do not like the tentative language of science.

- is confusing the soup altogether! While 'tentative' is indeed used in in scientific hypothesis, the way you have used it is neither scientific nor hypothetical! Scientific conclusions are tentative in the sense that all ideas are inconclusive and therefore encourage further, rigorously tested axioms to be formulated. That which is 'tentative' in science does not pass as 'science' - it is rather just a tool for speculating about things.

It is therefore not the language of science that is tentative, for in doing so the 'scientist' would quite simply be cheating and thrashing about with words!

You may be interested in perusing this paper: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/research/!TheMultipleMeaningsOfTentativeScience_IHPSTfi.PDF (it is a PDF file).

How can nothing form something? Honestly i go with the creation a zillion times. Its even safer to conclude that we dont know who create the earth than the idea of just popping out from NOTHING.

My new BMW just pop out from NO WHERE! NOTHING?!! This is delusion at its peak.

Give me GOD any time, anyday. . .Apes & monkies are not my choice.

thehomer:
. . . .
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?

Sums it all up, doesn't it?

And irony of irony, the same poster (in the same post) warns someone else to beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

davidylan:

If they were, Hawking would not need to be on national TV trying to prove what allegedly has STRONG EMPIRICAL PROOF. Try again.

Again, it seems you did not properly read the link the evidence for the big bang is there. You have also missed Hawking's point. I've stated it here before maybe you should simply watch the documentary again.

davidylan:

Perhaps. I'll concede the point.

Good.

davidylan:

Stup[i]i[/i]d. You can believe the bible but still hold valid scientific opinions as long as there is empirical proof. Example, we hold to be true that the earth isnt flat.

Of course. Pick and choose. Discard your Bible once science shows it is false. And calmly read through my post. Note that I did not say you couldn't do science if you believed the Bible.

davidylan:

Again stup[i]i[/i]d. Biased opinion masquerading as "fact".

What do you think the Bible is?

davidylan:

Ad hominem alert. No it doesnt.

It seems you didn't understand what you read. Also, you need to realize that you don't just trot out the name of a fallacy, you need to show how it actually matches what you're referring to.

davidylan:

Just the same way i could simply tell you that Jonah could live in the belly of a fish for 3 days. "it may have always existed" is not empirical proof please.

Of course you could tell me that but do you believe that Jonah actually did that?
You want empirical proof? In other words, you're implying that the only thing that will satisfy you is being able to observe the earliest times of the universe? Again, I simply have to ask, did you take any basic science courses?

davidylan:

ad hominem alert

Advising you to look something up is an ad hominem? What is wrong with you? I'll also recommend that you look up what an ad hominem is.

davidylan:

Stup[i]i[/i]d again. Boils down to the daft "they always existed" argument. No empirical proof, just empty claims.

Again, you really need to grasp how science works. I'd refer you but you'll just start whining again.

davidylan:

Where did you "show that it is what happened" again? Please remind me where this experiments re-creating the universe from matter and energy has happened.

What I'm referring to there is that we already know that the universe expanded and is still expanding. Read through the only page I referred you to.

davidylan:

Stup[i]i[/i]d again. You cant claim the bible is simply a myth when you also employ myths to explain away science. We could easily claim the bible is tentative too.

What myth was employed in explaining science? You cannot claim that the Bible is tentative because several stories in it are simply mythological and have been shown to be so except of course if you're a "True Believer". Then you're free to deny the actual science.

justcool:

@thehomer and co.

Please stop killing science. You guys make science a guessing game. Science does not deal with "May," "might," and etc. Be honest or informed enough to know that when the word "may or Might" is attached to a theory, that theory is not yet science. At best you might say that it is a scientific speculation. Yet a speculation is a speculation; it carries no more weight than other speculations.

Science is more of a process or a tool and not just some static point of reference. Do you really think that science does not deal with may? I hope you realize the part that probability plays in science. Then the notion that science only deals with absolutes is a deeply mistaken one. The fact that one isn't dealing with absolutes doesn't mean that it is all speculation.

justcool:

Please show me any scientific laws or theories that say "may." Science deals with the exact. Please consider this statement: "A body at motion May or 'May not' remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force" Does this sound scientific?

Another example, consider: "The phenomena that causes day and night 'may' or 'may not' be caused by the rotation of the earth." Or someone can equally say "for every action their 'may' or 'may not' be a reaction." Now tell me are these statements scientific laws or certainties.

It seems you have missed the point of how science works. Pointing out to you that it is tentative is to let you know that our current theories and laws depend on what we currently know. They could in principle be refined or changed depending on what we find out. That is how science progresses.

justcool:

You cannot disprove what you consider an uncertainty with another uncertainty. If you consider the religious views uncertain, then in your quest to prove their invalidity you should only use theories that have been tested and confirmed valid Truth. You cannot fight the religious speculations with scientific speculations.

This is just a logical blunder that I find it very hard to remain silent in the face of it.

Actually, we can and are justified in doing so because science is based on evidence and reasoning while religious speculations are in some cases simply invented whole cloth.

justcool:

Consider your statement: “I just told you that it may have always existed.” Is this statement of yours science? How does this statement carry more validity than the statement that “God always existed!” Consider another statement of yours, "It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form." Is this statement science or voodoo? Somebody can equally say "it could be that this matter and energy existed in some form, and this form was created by God, or this form is in the mind of God, or that this form is the Holy spirit or the power of the Holy spirit." How does the possibility that matter and energy have always existed in some form disprove the need for God or the existence of God? The question remains where did this matter and energy come from? Actually the question shouldnt entail "matter" because matter is energy; so the question is where did this energy that formed everything come form? Somebody can as well assumme that this energy is God or the power of God or what people usually refer as to the Holy spirit. By saying that this energy has always exisited, you are only confirming the same thing that the religionists claim -- that God has always exisited.

That statement is tentative in that we may one day come to find out if it is true or not. It carries more validity because it is based on some extrapolations from what we do know e.g that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Dragging in this God of your particular religion that is conveniently left undefined who has also been receding in the face of scientific evidence is really not good enough. You would need more evidence than simply making that bald assertion.
If energy has always existed in some form, what work is left for your God to do in creation? Assuming that this energy is God is quite different from the Christian concept of God, the Holy Spirit and similar entities. This is why I'd first ask which God are you talking about and what can you tell us about him?

justcool:

You are free to express your personal beliefs, but be honest enough to call them personal beliefs; don’t present them as scientific facts, for in so doing you make a ridiculous religion of science.

When I'm expressing personal beliefs, I point that out. Please note what I've presented as scientific facts.

justcool:

If only enthusiast will leave science alone! Today, in their quest to fight the religious they make a mockery of science. A few decades ago there was a scientific speculation that the universe ‘might’ not require a beginning. Hardly did scientists make this speculation than enthusiast picked and used it to fight the religionists who believed that the universe was created and hence had a beginning. Today we know that the universe had a beginning, the big slam. It’s as if science is confused, they say one thing today and another tomorrow. But the fault does not lie with science, the fault lies with enthusiast who would pick up every stone of scientific speculation and throw it at the religionist as facts.

Please let’s separate science from personal views and any form of speculation.

Thanks.

I notice how religious people keep agreeing with scientists that the universe commenced at some point in time yet reject the other implications that are drawn from the same disciplines. Especially when the results contradict their favourite texts. Simply realize that science is more like a process or a tool and not just a set of statements.

wordtalk:

I was beginning to wonder if and when someone would make sense of all this, but that up there by justcool is just . . . cool.

And this -

- is confusing the soup altogether! While 'tentative' is indeed used in in scientific hypothesis, the way you have used it is neither scientific nor hypothetical! Scientific conclusions are tentative in the sense that all ideas are inconclusive and therefore encourage further, rigorously tested axioms to be formulated. That which is 'tentative' in science does not pass as 'science' - it is rather just a tool for speculating about things.

It is therefore not the language of science that is tentative, for in doing so the 'scientist' would quite simply be cheating and thrashing about with words!

You may be interested in perusing this paper: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/research/!TheMultipleMeaningsOfTentativeScience_IHPSTfi.PDF (it is a PDF file).

While the paper is more inclined towards the philosophy of science, how does it contradict what I said?

Rhino.5dm:

How can nothing form something? Honestly i go with the creation a zillion times. Its even safer to conclude that we dont know who create the earth than the idea of just popping out from NOTHING.

My new BMW just pop out from NO WHERE! NOTHING?!! This is delusion at its peak.

Give me GOD any time, anyday. . .Apes & monkies are not my choice.

The problem with this philosophical question is that you assume that there must have been a state of nothingness. The question becomes why would you think that?
Your BMW popping out is not out of nowhere, but it is within this universe and thus not "nothing".