There is no possible scientific explanation for the universe

[4Horsemen]

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.

Nonetheless, Dawkins said it “might” have happened.

"Near the end of the film, Stein asks Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the best-known living evolutionary biologist on the planet, if he could think of any circumstances under which intelligent design might have occurred. Incautiously, Dawkins brings up the idea that aliens MIGHT have seeded life on earth; so-called directed panspermia. "

reason.com/news/show/125988.html (not a site favorable to Stein with the title of the article: “Flunk this movie.”)

I just watched the YouTube clip for myself. Dawkins uses the words “possible” and “intriguing” and with a seriousness that shocks the even-keeled Stein, mentions a possible super intelligent being (within the universe, of course) who could have created or “seeded” life on other planets.

YouTube - Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview An interview from Ben Stein’s Expelled documentary. Richard Dawkins … The Scientific Method And Ben Stein’s ‘Expelled’ Movie - The Atheist Experience #571 …
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc - 108k - Cached - Similar pages

If you check out this video, note Dawkins diabolically distorted definition of God.

 

[buffalo]

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

And there will always be at least one gap of knowledge or we would be God.

 

[PennitentMan]

Nonetheless, Dawkins said it “might” have happened.

.
.
.
I just watched the YouTube clip for myself. Dawkins uses the words “possible” and “intriguing” and with a seriousness that shocks the even-keeled Stein, mentions a possible super intelligent being (within the universe, of course) who could have created or “seeded” life on other planets.

He’s a scientists. Possible and intriguing is part of their vocab…

 

[PennitentMan]

And there will always be at least one gap of knowledge or we would be God.

Or, maybe god doesn’t exists and we’d just know more and more about the universe with each discovery…whatever…it depends on your point of view, I guess.

 

[buffalo]

Or, maybe god doesn’t exists and we’d just know more and more about the universe with each discovery…whatever…it depends on your point of view, I guess.

Then we could become God?

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

 

[PennitentMan]

Then we could become God?

well, that would depend entirely on your definition of God.

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’)

Link not working on my browser, please check and confirm?

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

It’s from the Catechism, so it’s a church document. It’s not going to prove anything in or convince anyone a “First Cause” argument, that’s for sure. Essentially it says (other than “Believe what we say because we hear the voice of god and we are never wrong”), that man knows within himself that god is real…deep down, under all the unproven statements, man knows because……he just knows.

Hmmm……

 

[reggieM]

It’s from the Catechism, so it’s a church document. It’s not going to prove anything in or convince anyone a “First Cause” argument, that’s for sure. Essentially it says (other than “Believe what we say because we hear the voice of god and we are never wrong”), that man knows within himself that god is real…deep down, under all the unproven statements, man knows because……he just knows.

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end,…

Do you disagree with that?

but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end.

This is a profound statement, and irrefutable as far as I’ve seen.

Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

By logic, man can know that Being is a necessary characteristic of all observed reality. This is not the First Cause argument but an Ontological Argument. It’s similar to the First Cause approach. In any case, the quoted passage did not refer to any revelation but rather, philosophical proofs.

 

[buffalo]

well, that would depend entirely on your definition of God.

Link not working on my browser, please check and confirm?

It’s from the Catechism, so it’s a church document. It’s not going to prove anything in or convince anyone a “First Cause” argument, that’s for sure. Essentially it says (other than “Believe what we say because we hear the voice of god and we are never wrong”), that man knows within himself that god is real…deep down, under all the unproven statements, man knows because……he just knows.

Hmmm……

What would be your definition of God?

 

[w_stewart]

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

Please explain to me why Big Bang is not a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

Please explain to me why Big Bang is not a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

It is a possible scientific explanation of the origin of the universe but it does not explain itself. So it is not a complete explanation of the universe.

 

[LolLolLolLol]

LOL! You lot are SO right.

I mean, how can athiests be so stupid? The big bang theory is ridiculous.
Much more likely that a big guy in the sky made the universe and everything in it in 7 days then rested on the seventh. Hahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah
ahahahhahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahaaaa!

You guys crack me up;]

 

[tonyrey]

LOL! You lot are SO right.

I mean, how can athiests be so stupid? The big bang theory is ridiculous.
Much more likely that a big guy in the sky made the universe and everything in it in 7 days then rested on the seventh. Hahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah
ahahahhahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahaaaa!

You guys crack me up;]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

thanks, but if i remove that word, it changes the argument. there is now, nor can there ever be a scientific solution to the question of the universes origin. no matter how advanced we get, star trek style or whatever, as no physical thing can cause itself to exist. as science only deals with empirically verifiable, physical phenomenon, there can never, no matter how advanced or diligent the research, be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. it is an impossibility

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please explain to me why Big Bang is not a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

it describes the expansion of the physical universe, it doesnt speak to why the BB happened, it only describes the evolution of the universe from points after the expansion.

for instance, its commonly held, though in fact never observed, that the universe expanded from a tiny point called the monobloc, or singularity. assuming there was a singularity, what caused that matter to exist? as all physical things, if it does not exist, it cannot act, if it cannot act, it cannot cause itself.

 

[liquidpele]

thanks, but if i remove that word, it changes the argument. there is now, nor can there ever be a scientific solution to the question of the universes origin. no matter how advanced we get, star trek style or whatever, as no physical thing can cause itself to exist. as science only deals with empirically verifiable, physical phenomenon, there can never, no matter how advanced or diligent the research, be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. it is an impossibility

Exactly. Science can tell us what happened starting at about 1/trillionth of a second after the big bang, but nothing about before it as science defines itself with analyzing the physical universe that only existed after the BB.

That said, this does not validate a God or any other theory about how the very origins of the cosmos came about. We will never know. Ever. I’m okay with that, I’m not sure why that bothers other people so much though.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Exactly. Science can tell us what happened starting at about 1/trillionth of a second after the big bang, but nothing about before it as science defines itself with analyzing the physical universe that only existed after the BB.

That said, this does not validate a God or any other theory about how the very origins of the cosmos came about. We will never know. Ever. I’m okay with that, I’m not sure why that bothers other people so much though.

the argument is not about validating G-d, rather it is about invalidating atheism.

as to theories of origins, we can say certain things, i.e. the universe can only be the result of non-physical events, because physical self causation is impossible.

so we know that there is a non-physical cause, is it the J/C G-d? the argument doesnt say. it only says that that a non-physical cuase must necessarily be the origin of the physical universe.

 

[liquidpele]

the argument is not about validating G-d, rather it is about invalidating atheism.

as to theories of origins, we can say certain things, i.e. the universe can only be the result of non-physical events, because physical self causation is impossible.

so we know that there is a non-physical cause, is it the J/C G-d? the argument doesnt say. it only says that that a non-physical cuase must necessarily be the origin of the physical universe.

Define non-physical. Before the cosmos existed, there could be anything there. Another previous universe perhaps, maybe a different kind of reality, who knows. Maybe there was a universe with life and they turned on their LHC and it exploded into a new universe

Point being, we don’t know what would create the cosmos, whatever it was. Trying to compare pre-existence with existence in any way, shape, or form makes no sense as they are definitively separated.

 

[Leela]

I don’t understand this thread. “No possible scientific explanation for the universe”? What is science supposed to be about if not the universe? All scientific explanations concern the universe, don’t they?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Define non-physical.

metaphysically the correct term is “supernatural” and “natural” but as so few people understand the technical terms, its easier to say “non-physical” and “physical”. otherwise you spend hours with folks that think your talking about ghost and goblins or some such.

as to specific definition, “non-physical” means what exists that possesses no physical qualities, i.e. mass, dimension, etc.

Before the cosmos existed, there could be anything there. Another previous universe perhaps, maybe a different kind of reality, who knows. Maybe there was a universe with life and they turned on their LHC and it exploded into a new universe

that universe would be no more capable of self causation than ours is, if something does not exist, it cant act, if it cant act, it cant act to form itself.
so it doesnt matter if their was a previous universe in terms of causality becuase that universe is no more immune to causation than ours.

further, we have no reason to suspect tha there was anything physical at all prior to the BB

Point being, we don’t know what would create the cosmos, whatever it was.

as to specific events , your right, with in certain deductive bounds. we can however eliminate any possible physical cause because of physical things cant cause themselves.

Trying to compare pre-existence with existence in any way, shape, or form makes no sense as they are definitively separated.

im not trying to compare the two, rather im pointing out the the properties of the physical prevent their involvment in our origins.

 

[liquidpele]

metaphysically the correct term is “supernatural” and “natural” but as so few people understand the technical terms, its easier to say “non-physical” and “physical”. otherwise you spend hours with folks that think your talking about ghost and goblins or some such.

as to specific definition, “non-physical” means what exists that possesses no physical qualities, i.e. mass, dimension, etc.

But you don’t know what existed before. There could have been physical things there before our universe. The physical things might have had entirely different characteristics. Who knows.

that universe would be no more capable of self causation than ours is, if something does not exist, it cant act, if it cant act, it cant act to form itself.
so it doesnt matter if their was a previous universe in terms of causality becuase that universe is no more immune to causation than ours.

further, we have no reason to suspect tha there was anything physical at all prior to the BB

My point was simply that we don’t know what there was, so the debate is moot. Maybe it was God, maybe it was a heard of flying pink monkeys that collided with a group of space-fish, maybe it was the collapse of the previous universe.

as to specific events , your right, with in certain deductive bounds. we can however eliminate any possible physical cause because of physical things cant cause themselves.

Physical things can cause other physical things though. Besides, physical on one universe could be very different than that of another, but that’s all speculation anyway.

im not trying to compare the two, rather im pointing out the the properties of the physical prevent their involvment in our origins.

The properties of what we call the physical universe mean that that’s what the properties were from the time of the BB. That’s all. Claiming that you can know anything about what was prior to that is a tall order because there is no current evidence regarding such things, perhaps you would care to provide a citation?

Basically, you are assuming that nothing physical could possibly exist before the big bang (or whatever) and thus what you call non-physical must be the cause. “assuming” being the key word there.