There is no possible scientific explanation for the universe

[warpspeedpetey]

there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe.

specifically, it is impossible for any physical process to be responsible for the causation of the universe.

nothing physical can cause itself, if it does not exist then it cannot act, if it cannot act than it cannot form its own existence. nothing physical can therefore cause itself

therefore, there is no possible empirically verifiable, physical process, to explain how our universe happened.

simply,

a scientific explanation is impossible

 

[estesbob]

There are two parts to this question

How did something come from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life?

 

[4Horsemen]

It appears that the existence of the universe doesn’t have a scientific explanation. We can discuss its exisence in a philosophical and metaphysical way, but it’s hard to find a plausible scientific explanation. Then, with that thinking, most inquirers should come to the conclusion that its existence must arise from means outside the universe. However, the idea of causality with a First or Primary Cause is equivalent to the study of ancient modalities to other inquirers. They postulate that the “vast majority of the universe is neither from change (pure probability) nor for an end (teleology).” These “modern” philosophers conjecture that the universe is simply from how the basic particles interact with each other. It was said that trying to see them for an end is like “being afraid of a face in a cloud.” We see a purpose where there is none.

In the documentary Expelled, there is an inteview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. Stein asks Dawkins how life began on earth. The probablility of a cell generating on its own is so miniscule as to be virtually nonexistent. Dawkins’ answer was that it was “seeded” on earth–meaning by an alien race from another planet. And they chide us for believing a “sky-fairy” or “sky-daddy.” Might as well believe in the virtual FSM.

The Vatican had cohosted a conference on Charles Darwin in early March. I found it revealing the those in favor of Intelligent Design were not invited.

There are many other threads out there concerning the topic of cosmology which are scholarly and interesting to read. I hope to continue to do so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It appears that the existence of the universe doesn’t have a scientific explanation. We can discuss its exisence in a philosophical and metaphysical way, but it’s hard to find a plausible scientific explanation. Then, with that thinking, most inquirers should come to the conclusion that its existence must arise from means outside the universe. However, the idea of causality with a First or Primary Cause is equivalent to the study of ancient modalities to other inquirers. They postulate that the “vast majority of the universe is neither from change (pure probability) nor for an end (teleology).” These “modern” philosophers conjecture that the universe is simply from how the basic particles interact with each other. It was said that trying to see them for an end is like “being afraid of a face in a cloud.” We see a purpose where there is none.

In the documentary Expelled, there is an inteview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. Stein asks Dawkins how life began on earth. The probablility of a cell generating on its own is so miniscule as to be virtually nonexistent. Dawkins’ answer was that it was “seeded” on earth–meaning by an alien race from another planet. And they chide us for believing a “sky-fairy” or “sky-daddy.” Might as well believe in the virtual FSM.

The Vatican had cohosted a conference on Charles Darwin in early March. I found it revealing the those in favor of Intelligent Design were not invited.

There are many other threads out there concerning the topic of cosmology which are scholarly and interesting to read. I hope to continue to do so.

i think it destroys atheism, as an idea grounded in the empirical sciences. it cuts away the only leg they had to stand on.

 

[MindOverMatter]

there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe.

specifically, it is impossible for any physical process to be responsible for the causation of the universe.

nothing physical can cause itself, if it does not exist then it cannot act, if it cannot act than it cannot form its own existence. nothing physical can therefore cause itself

Just as i suspected. They have fooled many into believing that one day they would have all the answers. The merging of science and naturalist philosophy was a powerful synthesis because it gave the appearance, under the guise of the natural world, that natural explanations were more abundant and that therefore monistic-naturalism is a more reasonable thing to believe in. Thats the one thing they had going for them, and i must say, that at one point in my life, they even had me running for the hills.

Let it be known then, that the rusty engine of naturalism is running on a triumphant bluff!!!

Big respect to you Warpspeedpetey.

 

[Trilor]

.

In the documentary Expelled, there is an inteview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. Stein asks Dawkins how life began on earth. The probablility of a cell generating on its own is so miniscule as to be virtually nonexistent. Dawkins’ answer was that it was “seeded” on earth–meaning by an alien race from another planet. And they chide us for believing a “sky-fairy” or “sky-daddy.” Might as well believe in the virtual FSM.

Doesn’t that beg the question of how did life begin on that alien planet, assuming that the alien planet full of life exists in the first place?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

4Horsemen

*The Vatican had cohosted a conference on Charles Darwin in early March. I found it revealing the those in favor of Intelligent Design were not invited. *

Don’t be disheartened. The Vatican didn’t think much of Galileo either. Now, these many centuries later, it got around to an apology.

Michael Behe, on trial for his science, was also convicted in the Dover court. I think some day, when the dictatorship of the Darwinists has finally collapsed, Behe will have his conviction overturned.

 

[geometer]

Michael Behe, on trial for his science, was also convicted in the Dover court. I think some day, when the dictatorship of the Darwinists has finally collapsed, Behe will have his conviction overturned.

What crime did he commit?

 

[buffalo]

Vatican-backed conference snubs creationism

The Discovery Institute’s president, Bruce Chapman, said he wasn’t surprised intelligent design was kept out. But in an e-mail, he said the conference didn’t speak for the Vatican as a whole, where he said evolution and intelligent design “remain in serious and fruitful dialogue.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

geometer
*
What crime did he commit? *

He challenged the dictatorship of the evolutionists.

No free thought allowed any more, unless it’s atheistic.

 

[PatThompson]

This really isn’t a very reasonable place to get any modern, scientific answers to your question, especially under the ‘Philosophy’ forum! No doubt you’ve heard the expression ‘preaching to the choir’? I’ve read a few science threads here, and they are embarrassing, to say the least.

The wider internet is full of much more complete discussions on this subject, both for an against…

But I can never resist!

In a ‘philosophical’ mood, answer the following:

Where is the start of an elastic band? Where is the end?

If An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga created the universe, who created An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga?

(In case you’re unaware of the vast number of creation stories, An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga are from the 18th century BC Sumerian tablets - I thought I’d avoid more modern religions, trying to keep this philosophical after all, rather than dogmatic!)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

geometer
*
What crime did he commit? *

He challenged the dictatorship of the evolutionists.

No free thought allowed any more, unless it’s atheistic.

athiests can no longer claim a natural, scientifically explainable theory for the origins of the universe.

there is no possible scientific explanation, so what can an atheist then say?, only ‘i dont know’

i dont know that atheism as a serious philosophy can escape the death of a scientific explanation…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This really isn’t a very reasonable place to get any modern, scientific answers to your question, especially under the ‘Philosophy’ forum! No doubt you’ve heard the expression ‘preaching to the choir’? I’ve read a few science threads here, and they are embarrassing, to say the least.

The wider internet is full of much more complete discussions on this subject, both for an against…

But I can never resist!

In a ‘philosophical’ mood, answer the following:

(In case you’re unaware of the vast number of creation stories, An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga are from the 18th century BC Sumerian tablets - I thought I’d avoid more modern religions, trying to keep this philosophical after all, rather than dogmatic!)

i thought i had written that specific argument, have you heard it before? where at?

 

[PatThompson]

There are two parts to this question

1. How did something come from nothing?
2. How did life spring from non-life?

It seems the first question takes up most of the conversation here, but I’m wondering if there has been a well rounded thread on Abiogenesis? I read somewhere that the Catholic Church doesn’t comment on science, but it seems that our steady march toward’s not just various potential scientific explanations of how life was created here on Earth, but the honest-to-goodness ability to create real life can hardly be ignored by major religions!

Many on the forum seem to believe that all living things, from humans, through dogs, to plants have souls. So by extension, we will be creating life and souls?!?

 

[reggieM]

It seems the first question takes up most of the conversation here, but I’m wondering if there has been a well rounded thread on Abiogenesis? I read somewhere that the Catholic Church doesn’t comment on science, but it seems that our steady march toward’s not just various potential scientific explanations of how life was created here on Earth, but the honest-to-goodness ability to create real life can hardly be ignored by major religions!

Many on the forum seem to believe that all living things, from humans, through dogs, to plants have souls. So by extension, we will be creating life and souls?!?

Pope John Paul II spoke about how science cannot comprehend the “ontological leap” that is evident in the difference between human beings and other living things. By this he was refering to the presence of what Catholic teaching would call the “soul” (consciousness, mind, will, imagination & memory).

From my perspective, I do not see scientism’s steady march towards understanding this ontological difference. On the contrary, scientific answers are farther away.

This is an interesting new book – excerpts from reviews and a quote here:

Reviews: Le Fanu is a distinguished British physician and author of peer-reviewed medical journal essays. He exemplifies the Talmud’s note of advice that a person should “Teach your tongue to say ‘I do not know’” (Berachot 4a). Le Fanu knows a lot and wears his erudition very lightly, but his main point is that the more science reveals about the most important question a human can ask — What is man and how did he come to be? — the more we have to admit that we don’t know.

Le Fanu demonstrates this by masterfully recounting the epic crack-up of expectations that prevailed till recently for the prospects of three scientific enterprises. Darwinian evolution, genetics, and brain research were supposed to combine to give a compelling, coherent and united account of man’s origin and nature. They did no such thing and the prospect of their doing so in the future appears hopeless.

“Scientists do not ‘do’ wonder,” he writes in his introduction. “Rather . . . they have interpreted the world through the prism of supposing there is nothing in principle that cannot be accounted for.” But Le Fanu argues that there is nothing so full of wonder as life itself. As revealed by recent scientific research, it is simply not possible to get from the monotonous sequence of genes strung out along the double helix to the infinite beauty and diversity of the living world, or from the electrical activity of the brain to the richness and abundant creativity of the human mind. Le Fanu’s exploration of these mysteries, and his analysis of where they might lead us in our thinking about the nature and purpose of human existence, form the impassioned and riveting heart of Why Us?

Quote: “When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong . . . This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.”

amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/037542198X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

 

[PennitentMan]

In the documentary Expelled, there is an inteview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. Stein asks Dawkins how life began on earth. The probablility of a cell generating on its own is so miniscule as to be virtually nonexistent. Dawkins’ answer was that it was “seeded” on earth–meaning by an alien race from another planet.

The movie you sited is at best an intellectual disgrace, by most standards today, Stein showed a definitve lack of scientific understanding.

More importaltly, you also totally misquoted Dawkins.

"In Dawkins’ interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred.

Dawkins responded with Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel’s example that in the case of the “highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’”

He never said that he believes that, it was a total hypothesis, and still maintained the evolution stance through the hypotheitcal…get the facts right.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The movie you sited is at best an intellectual disgrace, by most standards today, Stein showed a definitve lack of scientific understanding.

More importaltly, you also totally misquoted Dawkins.

"In Dawkins’ interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred.

Dawkins responded with Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel’s example that in the case of the “highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’”

He never said that he believes that, it was a total hypothesis, and still maintained the evolution stance through the hypotheitcal…get the facts right.

i always thought that the evolution debate was kind of pointless in metaphysical terms, it doesnt explain anything about the origin of the universe, its a poor basis for atheism, now, that we know, that no scientific theory regarding the origins of the universwe is possible, i wonder what the point of the whole debate is on that subject anyway.

 

[Shin]

there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe.

specifically, it is impossible for any physical process to be responsible for the causation of the universe.

nothing physical can cause itself, if it does not exist then it cannot act, if it cannot act than it cannot form its own existence. nothing physical can therefore cause itself

therefore, there is no possible empirically verifiable, physical process, to explain how our universe happened.

simply,

a scientific explanation is impossible

Very nicely put! Well said!

 

[4Horsemen]

Doesn’t that beg the question of how did life begin on that alien planet, assuming that the alien planet full of life exists in the first place?

Absolutely! Assuming the condition that life began on a distant planet and that aliens "seeded’ life on earth requires an infinite regression of causes since the question resumes, “How did life begin on such and such a planet?” It’s a conundrum or sorts for non-theists to supply an answer, in other words, prove their assumption.

Generally, we think of Charles Darwin as the source of contention in the evolution debate since he formulated the “Theory of Evolution.” Yet, it’s interesting to note that he, himself, was a theist: “I feel compelled to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (I found that quote as a poster’s signature, but I don’t remember who the poster is).

As a Christian, we can believe in evolution understood rightly. Gennaro Auletta is a professor of philosophy at the Pntifical Gregorian University in Rome. He contends that evolution is compatible with Church teaching. He writes that the universe “is a growing emergence of different levels.” from an atomic explostion to matter and structure; then to biological systems, and then to human beings. However, the article doesn’t get into his idea of how these “leaps” occurred.

Here’s an interesting website based upon a Christian understanding of cosmology:

www.BioLogos.org (I find the last article listed particulaly astute titled, “If God created the universe, what created God?”) Here’s a sample:

The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.

Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes.5 He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.

 

[PennitentMan]

i always thought that the evolution debate was kind of pointless in metaphysical terms, it doesnt explain anything about the origin of the universe, its a poor basis for atheism, now, that we know, that no scientific theory regarding the origins of the universwe is possible, i wonder what the point of the whole debate is on that subject anyway.

I think it probably comes to a head with the YEC folks (Young Earth Creationalist) that maintain that there is no such thing as evolution.

And I think for your thread topic, to be 1005 correct, I’d remove one word and add one….”There is no scientific explanation for the universe yet