On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

There are scientists who speculate so, but just like theories about multi-verse, such speculations are not science, they have no value for scientific research, and they cannot contribute to the advancement of true science.

Where is the line drawn between scientific speculation backed up by scientific research and “legitimate” scientific theory?. Quantum mechanics is taken seriously in the realm of science. Because of methodological naturalism,it is necessary for science to attempt to explain the origin of the universe as being produced by nothingness. That is the only option.

2think.org/nothingness.shtml

discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

 

[anthony022071]

The quantum idea of matter popping into existence from nothing is an idea grounded in a false and extreme philosophy of idealism. It is ideology coated in scientific garb, rather than being strictly science.

It is the result of MN,just as with evolution theory,abiogenesis theory,chaos theory.

First, the “nothing” in this context is actually something. To say that nothing is something is logically and ontologically incoherent.

Nothingness is something in that it is empty space.

Second, the idea is based on Heisenberg’s denial of causality. That is, Heisenberg foolishly claimed that he had conclusively disproved causality.

Third, the denial of causality destroys science as an investigation into the natural world. It also makes knowledge of the external world impossible, and leads to an extreme solipsism.

Quantum mechanics does not deny causality,it invents hypothetical causes.

 

[anthony022071]

In conclusion, I fully maintain my original position: science, when it remains within its specific competence, does not attempt to show that matter arises out of nothing. The fact that some theoretical physicists speculate about a self-creating universe does not make it science. Such statements are philosophical rather than scientific. And the philosophy involved is a rank and false idealism.

It isn’t necessarily philosophical to speculate about the origin of the universe. It’s only philosophical if it done by someone who looks for some kind of moral meaning.
Science does not consider anything that it can do research on to be out of its range of competence. Because it takes the naturalistic perspective,everything but the existence of the supernatural is a potential subject of science.

 

[itinerant1]

It isn’t necessarily philosophical to speculate about the origin of the universe. It’s only philosophical if it done by someone who looks for some kind of moral meaning.

Your statement is totally innacurate. Philosophical statements about the universe encompass much more than the moral realm. Also, atheists who believe there is no meaning, moral or otherwise, do make philosophical statements about the universe.

For example, to claim that matter and only matter exists is a strictly philosophical statement. It is not a scientific statement. In fact, it is called “metaphysical materialism.”

In addition, science cannot disprove causality. Causality in itself is beyond the scope of science, which is why Heisenberg’s denial of causality was a philosophical claim, albeit a false one.

Science cannot research or investigate matter popping into existence out of nothing because science cannot investigate and quantify the “nothing”, which is same reason why science cannot prove or disprove Creatio ex nihilo.

Hence, my argument stands. And your objection fails again because you have not made the least effort to understand the difference between scientific knowledge and philosophic knowledge.

 

[inocente]

And to explain things in terms of mechanisms and processes does not answer the real question,which is,“By what power does this happen?”

I’ll ask again. If I’m a scientist and you want me to change the way I work, you need to give me a set of instructions that I can use. Sure, I could add “And apart from that I dunno” to the end of every paper, but isn’t that redundant?

The scientists of the 1700’s and 1800’s who believed that the circulation of the blood was caused by spirit were much closer to the truth than the scientists of today who explain it in naturalistic and mechanistic terms.

Now I’ll assume you are not saying that medical science should have given up long ago, that the cause of a stroke is spirit, that all hospitals should be replaced with the sign “take one spirit twice a day”. But if not that then what?

He is the cause behind natural causes.

We agree, but again, if I’m a scientist, how do you suggest I go about proving that when God isn’t keen on being tested?

Nothingness is something in that it is empty space

“nothingness noun - a state where nothing is present, or where nothing exists that is important or gives meaning to life”

I may add that to my sig as a constant reminder to argue coherently.

 

[itinerant1]

Nothingness is something in that it is empty space.

If space is some-thing, then it cannot be no-thing. The terms are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, when we say God created the universe out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo, we do not in any manner mean that He created it out of empty space.

 

[SevenSwans]

I read an interesting book, entitled “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell. It discusses the way people frequently make decisions based on information they are not even aware of having processed. He uses interesting examples, like folks who are aware of danger prior to any ‘obvious’ observations (like the way a person just makes one ‘feel’ ill-at-ease) and as well, pre-judgement of people based on subtleties in their appearance.

We are complex creatures and our five senses, while limited, are nevertheless extremely sophisticated and still beyond our full scientific understanding. That said, to me the possibility of still more we have simply failed to apprehend in an ‘empirical’ way is entirely likely. Therefore it is entirely possible, IMHO, that things that seem far-fetched in the retelling are simply things we have failed to understand because of our own limitations, one of which may simply be the reliance on those five senses for all truths.

 

[anthony022071]

I’ll ask again. If I’m a scientist and you want me to change the way I work, you need to give me a set of instructions that I can use. Sure, I could add “And apart from that I dunno” to the end of every paper, but isn’t that redundant?

I’m not here proposing a different methodology,I’m saying that scientists ought to be logical rather than naturalistic in their interpretations of how nature works. That means that they ought to recognize what kind of power is necessary to produce a certain effect. For example,it does not make sense to say,as Darwin did,that natural selection (a process involving environmental factors and adaptational needs) produced the variety of existing species. Species are composed of individuals that are conceived into existence. (Right there you have the reality of individual creation,which Darwin wanted to debunk.) And it is hardly possible for a species to develop different physical attributes in response to environmental factors and its own needs,because neither the environment nor the species has the power to affect what happens at the moment of conception,when creatures become essentially what they will be until they die. Evolution theorists treat living species as if they were like an amorphous non-living substance,like “evolutionary rock”,which gradually evolves according to environmental factors.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m not here proposing a different methodology,I’m saying that scientists ought to be logical rather than naturalistic in their interpretations of how nature works.

Given that science has extended the human lifespan, reduced travel times a thousand fold, controlled many diseases, explained the fundamental forces of the Universe to within a trillionth of a second of the big bang and built the very computer that you’re typing on, don’t you think it would be prudent to leave science as it is?

 

[anthony022071]

Given that science has extended the human lifespan, reduced travel times a thousand fold, controlled many diseases, explained the fundamental forces of the Universe to within a trillionth of a second of the big bang and built the very computer that you’re typing on, don’t you think it would be prudent to leave science as it is?

The practical benefits and technological products of science do not justify the naturalistic explanations for life,order,the origination of matter,the human mind. Nor is science capable of measuring or explaining what it cannot witness,like the beginning of the universe.

 

[anthony022071]

Now I’ll assume you are not saying that medical science should have given up long ago, that the cause of a stroke is spirit, that all hospitals should be replaced with the sign “take one spirit twice a day”. But if not that then what?

The fact that the circulation of the blood is moved by spirit does not mean that spirit causes strokes. It does not mean that natural factors for health problems should be ignored.

We agree, but again, if I’m a scientist, how do you suggest I go about proving that when God isn’t keen on being tested?

Again,by recognizing what kind of power would be necessary to make matter come into existence,and to create functional order in nature,and life in creatures (which is manifested as functional order and voluntary movement). We cannot see God,but we can observe the power of God,through our reasoning,as it is manifested in natural things. And the power of God in nature is God himself working. Jesus called his heavenly Father “Power”.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The practical benefits and technological products of science do not justify the naturalistic explanations for life,order,the origination of matter,the human mind. Nor is science capable of measuring or explaining what it cannot witness,like the beginning of the universe.

I never said it could explain the beginning of the Universe. Science can recreate, and ergo witness, the conditions of the Universe from a fraction of a second after the big bang.

It is the only valid method of determining what is true and false.

 

[Coleski]

In regard to Young’s Therom. Theres and old joke about a drunk looking for his car keys under a lighted street lamp on a dark cloudy night. Is the lighted area under the lamp more real than the unlighted area around it?

 

[inocente]

And it is hardly possible for a species to develop different physical attributes in response to environmental factors and its own needs,because neither the environment nor the species has the power to affect what happens at the moment of conception,when creatures become essentially what they will be until they die.

Hence my four dogs, each of a different breed, all look exactly the same and selective breeding is a myth. I see that now. Just had to switch the lights off.

 

[anthony022071]

Hence my four dogs, each of a different breed, all look exactly the same and selective breeding is a myth. I see that now. Just had to switch the lights off.

Selective breeding is something different from natural selection. The world didn’t have to wait for Darwin to know that new kinds of animals could be bred from two different parents.

 

[Moonstruck888]

In regard to Young’s Therom. Theres and old joke about a drunk looking for his car keys under a lighted street lamp on a dark cloudy night. Is the lighted area under the lamp more real than the unlighted area around it?

I think you’re a little confused as to the meaning of observation.

 

[anthony022071]

I never said it could explain the beginning of the Universe. Science can recreate, and ergo witness, the conditions of the Universe from a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Science cannot re-create the conditions of the universe at or near the time of it’s beginning. Nobody can go back in time to see what it’s conditions were,and there is no method of finding out. Scientific models of the beginning of the universe are not based upon what has been seen,they are based upon assumptions and speculation. There is no way to demonstrate that there was a Big Bang.

It is the only valid method of determining what is true and false.

The experimental method cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the beginning of the universe.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science cannot re-create the conditions of the universe when it had come into existence. Nobody can go back in time to see what it’s conditions were,and there is no method of finding out. Scientific models of the universe are not based upon actuality.

If you would care to re-read what I said, science can recreate the conditions that would have existed a fraction of a second after the big bang. I never said it could recreate the conditions of the Universe at t=zero.

Scientific models of the Universe, while incomplete, are the only models that explain anything of any worth.

 

[anthony022071]

If you would care to re-read what I said, science can recreate the conditions that would have existed a fraction of a second after the big bang. I never said it could recreate the conditions of the Universe at t=zero.

A fraction of a second after the beginning of the universe would still the beginning. The Big Bang cannot be demonstrated to have occured. And it is pointless to speak about measurements of time in regard to the universe,because there is no point of reference with which to measure time. Our measurements of time are based upon the revolutions of the earth,sun,and moon. Outside of that context,our measurements of time are meaningless,because the rest of the universe is not subject to the patterns or sequences of oue earth,sin and moon.

Scientific models of the Universe, while incomplete, are the only models that explain anything of any worth.

That they are incomplete is not the point. Scientific models of the conditions of the newly created universe are not based on anything that has been seen.

 

[anthony022071]

Your statement is totally innacurate. Philosophical statements about the universe encompass much more than the moral realm. Also, atheists who believe there is no meaning, moral or otherwise, do make philosophical statements about the universe.

I know that philosophy encompasses much more than the moral realm. The claim that nature is all that exists is not by itself philosophical,any more than the claim that there is no God.