Reply With Quote
No, it really hasn't.
You're just kind of a slow fella, aren't you?
where do you get that from?
No, it really hasn't.
You're just kind of a slow fella, aren't you?
I skipped over the majority of this conversation buti will still say this is a chicken vs the egg conversation. No side will ever be able to explain origin. Someone posted that matter CAN be created from nothing. It still needs something to trigger it. Likewise the religion debate, who created a deity?
Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. And die hard religion zealots also share that equally from believing God always just kinda was without a back plot.
it's completely different.
science is able to say "we dont know... yet" and then strive to find answers.
religion says "i already know 100%, its a supernatural deity" and the search ends.
also, the egg came first. that's not even in question
ps... baseline bum said matter can come in and out of existence, as long as there is no net change over a significant period of time. we dont fully understand things yet, and thats ok.
Why is that? Why keep it a secret?
If the motivation was to spread the Word, a being capable of creating a star, let alone a universe, would find it trivially easy to communicate a message to every human on planet.
The only logical conclusions are therefore:
It is unwilling to communicate with all people, i.e. it is untrue that is wants to communicate with all humans.
It is unable to communicate with all people, i.e. it isn't all powerful.
It doesn't exist, i.e. your perception of receiving communication is a self-inflicted delusion.
Which is it?
Based on what? The anthropic principle is a fatally flawed argument at our stage of understanding the universe.
Everything we have learned breaks down without a time function. When t=0, the equations break down. Cause/effect are only meaningful concepts with time.
"Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. "
This is a textbook example of "argument from ignorance". It is a really, really, really badly flawed line of reasoning.
If you particularly care:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...from-Ignorance
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Religion isn't right about god/God/Gods simply because science can't explain EVERYTHING all at once.
Just because I don't know the score of last nights game, doesn't mean that some asshat coming along claiming it was 17 to 953 is correct because he choses to pull some score out of his ass.
Anthropomorphizing a diety is dicey at best.
i think what the whole "which came first" analogy is problematic because we cannot retrodict to the past (based on laboratory experiments-where all external influences except the experimenter are excluded). furthermore, we cannot predict the very specific large scale structure of the universe today from data of the standard inflationary model expansion because in genous traits in regards to density have since grown from the quantum fluctuations in whatever substance powered inflation. the existence of our galaxy and earth and life on earth, for example, was not determined by the initial data of the very early universe. so, it would be like looking at an egg but you had no idea that it was a chicken egg or even really an egg at all. and the egg or chicken question is, in many ways, an issue of time as well or a question of immanence. this could become a philosophical riddle or a problem for cosmology, as in the evolving block universe versus the block universe model. multiverse theory can maybe change this question but multiverse theory relies pretty much on math alone and more speculation than science is comfortable (or should be comfortable) with.
If there's a multiverse is there a multi-god situation out there.....who all report to a higher power. .....who reports to me
we're in his image tbh. he done anthropomorphized himself
if there's a multiverse, technically there could be a universe out there in which the multiverse is false.
interesting thought, but i can't see it.
the greater multiverse would be external to that specific universe. if you consider each universe a drop of water in an ocean, thats like saying in one of those drops, there is no ocean.
i was being mostly facetious but the multiverse model has many flaws, including a lack of agreement among cosmologists on the term much less the model. there is a level 1 multiverse and there is one that allows for almost an infinite amount with infinite possibilities (including my halfway serious claim). still, it is really more of a concept than a theory at this time.
What an awkward ing word.
best comic strip ever (with apologies to the far side).
Close race.
One of my favorites and I'm not sure why...
Science has nothing to say about deities, except you don't use them trying to explain physical phenomena.
The answer is the first one.
You’ll find out like I did, one day, that the people God chose were Jews.
And I can say that with as much certainty as anything. Why He did, I’m still not sure.
How did you find out that God chose the Jews
We’re getting into that territory where a lot of that info I don’t want floating around on the Internet.
And, no, that isn’t an “evasion” tactic, but the chips just fail so that you’re a person on the internet that I don’t know & I only entrust that info with people I do know—at least fairly well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
