Why do believers in science-only believe they are entitled to one supernatural mulligan which jump started the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManOnFire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManOnFire

Guest
If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?
 
Most non-believers are simply honest about the fact that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang.

We don’t claim to know what happened before that – we simply don’t see any reason to think that there is a supernatural intelligent being who created the universe.
 
Most non-believers are simply honest about the fact that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang.

We don’t claim to know what happened before that – we simply don’t see any reason to think that there is a supernatural intelligent being who created the universe.
You believe it is more reasonable to believe reason comes from that which do not reason!
 
It’s not a question of “don’t know” but of “we simply don’t see any reason”. There is a vast difference…
You are confusing the results of scientific inquiry with ‘belief’. It is possible to believe things for which there is no evidence (Jesus emerging from Mary’s body leaving her entirely ‘intact’ for example). It is not possible to make scientific conclusions about things for which there is no, or insufficient evidence. The pre-universe origins of the universe are as far as I know in this category. Like other areas of scientific ignorance, they will gradually become known as a result of scientific inquiry. just as God and associated beings have ceased to be thought of as a cause of epidemics, the change of weather, the rising of the sun and mental illness, belief will also retreat in the area of the ultimate origins of the universe. I try to discipline myself not to ‘believe’ anything at all, but rather to ‘conclude’ things on the basis of evidence.
 
If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?
As a religious astrophysicist, I have to say that your ideas about what science thinks “jump started” the universe is utterly wrong.

Science has firm evidence for the beginning of our universe taking place 13.7 billion years ago. It could not have been started by “infinite gravity”, as you claim atheistic scientists think. Gravity pulls things together, it doesn’t send them flying apart. The universe did not “unscientifically poof itself into existance”, there are various mechanisms that could have caused the Big Bang. The problem is not that we can’t think how it happened, but that we have several ways of a Big Bang occuring and we are examining the evidence to see which of these ideas is correct.

Scientists may not be able to prove that the start of the universe did not have a supernatural cause, but neither can religious people prove that the Big Bang was caused by a deity. What evidence could either side produce? As a religious person, I believe that God is in charge; as an astrophysicist, I know that the Big Bang took place and eagerly await the results of research that will help to determine the process that caused it.

Science and religion are not enemies, so please do not attack science and scorn those who do not share your beliefs. Science deals with “what? where? when? and how?”, religion does “who? and why?”.
 
Most non-believers are simply honest about the fact that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang.

We don’t claim to know what happened before that – we simply don’t see any reason to think that there is a supernatural intelligent being who created the universe.
Honesty doesn’t upset me at all. We don’t know what happened scientifically speaking. My point is that, if there’s no Creator, then science will NEVER know. It’s scientifically impossible for the very first something to magically pop into existence without a Creator. That means that the universe has ALWAYS existed in some form. Therefore, there was NO beginning, by definition. Since there was no beginning, then a reason for the universe’s existence can NEVER be known. “What happened before Big Bang” has not yet been discovered and named. The point is moot. It’s equivalent to what happened before “Flat Earth.” There’s SOME reason out there for what came before Big Bang, but the POINT is that the reasons go on infinitely if there was no Creator. It doesn’t much matter what name the “brilliant” scientist ascribes to them because there is no chance of reaching the beginning because a creatorless absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into “something” without a supernatural mulligan. Get it?
 
As a religious astrophysicist, I have to say that your ideas about what science thinks “jump started” the universe is utterly wrong.

Science has firm evidence for the beginning of our universe taking place 13.7 billion years ago. It could not have been started by “infinite gravity”, as you claim atheistic scientists think. Gravity pulls things together, it doesn’t send them flying apart. The universe did not “unscientifically poof itself into existance”, there are various mechanisms that could have caused the Big Bang. The problem is not that we can’t think how it happened, but that we have several ways of a Big Bang occuring and we are examining the evidence to see which of these ideas is correct.

Scientists may not be able to prove that the start of the universe did not have a supernatural cause, but neither can religious people prove that the Big Bang was caused by a deity. What evidence could either side produce? As a religious person, I believe that God is in charge; as an astrophysicist, I know that the Big Bang took place and eagerly await the results of research that will help to determine the process that caused it.

Science and religion are not enemies, so please do not attack science and scorn those who do not share your beliefs. Science deals with “what? where? when? and how?”, religion does “who? and why?”.
“brane cosmology models[69] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model, **the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.**70][71][72]
chaotic inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[73][74][75]
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

The point is that if there was a non-supernatural something *ELSE * in existence before big bang to create it, then big bang was not really the true beginning, as thought. For it is scientifically impossible for something to come from nothing. I’m not knocking science. I have several degrees. I’m just saying let’s stop kidding ourselves into believing that we can reach a scientifically plausible creatorless beginning since either a creatorless infinity OR God will keep moving the goal posts on us with every quantum leap in technology which produces more senstive instruments which will inevitably make the universe older and which will inevitably make fools out of previous geniuses who thought they were actually capable of reaching a creatorless beginning. 🤷
 
“brane cosmology models[69] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model, **the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.**70][71][72]
chaotic inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[73][74][75]
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

The point is that if there was a non-supernatural something *ELSE * in existence before big bang to create it, then big bang was not really the true beginning, as thought. For it is scientifically impossible for something to come from nothing. I’m not knocking science. I have several degrees. I’m just saying let’s stop kidding ourselves into believing that we can reach a scientifically plausible creatorless beginning since either a creatorless infinity OR God will keep moving the goal posts on us with every quantum leap in technology which produces more senstive instruments which will inevitably make the universe older and which will inevitably make fools out of previous geniuses who thought they were actually capable of reaching a creatorless beginning. 🤷
The Big Bang was the beginning of our universe. These differning theories all have a problem for your argument, which is that as it must be infinitly old that’s rubbish and therefore there is a God. First of all, that isn’t what the theories all say and the concept of time is a little irrelevant in some cases, as time is simply another part of the universe we live in, we cannot say what time is like outside of it. It may not exist or there could be several time dimensions, just as our universe has several space dimensions. It is also likely if our universe was an offshoot of an older universe, that it too had it’s own Big Bang.

It is not impossible for something to come from nothing in science. In empty space, far from stars and planets, the space is seething with particles that pop in and out of existance. In quantum mechanics, it is possible for this to happen as long as it does so quickly enough that the universe doesn’t notice. It is possible that the Big Bang may have had a similar beginning. I know that violates “common sense” but at the quantum level our common sense doesn’t work.

I don’t know what on earth you are talking about when you say that “more sensitive instruments” will “make the universe older”. Are you talking about telescopes? We have a very exact age for the universe, it is 13.7 billiion years old. That was actually younger than was thought before, when I was at university, we used an age of 15 billion years for the calculations. In science, we constantly question and refine our answers.

Your argument comes down to a God of gaps argument. I have always found these to be very dangerous. If tomorrow some cosmologists were to announce that they had discovered the trigger for the Big Bang, and that it had not depended on an older universe, what happens to your argument for the existance of God? My reasons for believing in God are compatible with what is known by science, not dependant on what is not.

Your argument will not persuade any scientific atheists. In fact, your arguments, because of the way you speak about science, is likely to put them off religion even more. Before I became a Catholic, this sort of thing would have driven me away. Your assumption that these “geniuses” automatically dismiss a creator is also wrong, there are many religious cosmologists, and there are those who are atheists. As I said in the previous post, science is not about “is there a creator or not?”, that is the job of religion and philosophy.

PS are your degrees in science?
 
Honesty doesn’t upset me at all. We don’t know what happened scientifically speaking. My point is that, if there’s no Creator, then science will NEVER know.
So? There are lots of things science will probably never be know. No biggie. But saying that god did it and therefore condoms are bad really doesn’t bring much to the discussion.
 
The Big Bang was the beginning of our universe. These differning theories all have a problem for your argument, which is that as it must be infinitly old that’s rubbish and therefore there is a God. First of all, that isn’t what the theories all say and the concept of time is a little irrelevant in some cases, as time is simply another part of the universe we live in, we cannot say what time is like outside of it. It may not exist or there could be several time dimensions, just as our universe has several space dimensions. It is also likely if our universe was an offshoot of an older universe, that it too had it’s own Big Bang.

It is not impossible for something to come from nothing in science. In empty space, far from stars and planets, the space is seething with particles that pop in and out of existance. In quantum mechanics, it is possible for this to happen as long as it does so quickly enough that the universe doesn’t notice. It is possible that the Big Bang may have had a similar beginning. I know that violates “common sense” but at the quantum level our common sense doesn’t work.

I don’t know what on earth you are talking about when you say that “more sensitive instruments” will “make the universe older”. Are you talking about telescopes? We have a very exact age for the universe, it is 13.7 billiion years old. That was actually younger than was thought before, when I was at university, we used an age of 15 billion years for the calculations. In science, we constantly question and refine our answers.

Your argument comes down to a God of gaps argument. I have always found these to be very dangerous. If tomorrow some cosmologists were to announce that they had discovered the trigger for the Big Bang, and that it had not depended on an older universe, what happens to your argument for the existance of God? My reasons for believing in God are compatible with what is known by science, not dependant on what is not.

Your argument will not persuade any scientific atheists. In fact, your arguments, because of the way you speak about science, is likely to put them off religion even more. Before I became a Catholic, this sort of thing would have driven me away. Your assumption that these “geniuses” automatically dismiss a creator is also wrong, there are many religious cosmologists, and there are those who are atheists. As I said in the previous post, science is not about “is there a creator or not?”, that is the job of religion and philosophy.

PS are your degrees in science?
I would not be shocked if scientists will one day learn to create “something from nothing” under certain conditions, but then the scientists and those needed conditions already “exist.”

Take all the universes and cosmoses and ask what created ***the very beginning ***of the first of them. The existence of multiple dimensions of time and space in the universes and cosmoses is supportive of “existence of something,” so those dimensions don’t go far back enough to reach the “beginning” of time and space. That’s my point.

In the very beginning, either there was a Creator, or there was no Creator. If it is factually true that there was NO Creator, then either all the universes, cosmoses, and dimensions of time and space:
  1. had a beginning,
    or
  2. had no beginning.
  3. If they had a beginning, (hypothetically assuming there was NO Creator), then they needed a supernatural mulligan event to first create them since it is scientifically impossible that the very first something could have magically poofed from nothing with nothing else is existence.
  4. If all the universes and cosmoses had no beginning BY DEFINITION, then there is no beginning and therefore it is impossible to find a REASON for the existence of all the universes and cosmoses (and us). If there’s no reason for our existence, then let’s stop kidding ourselves by pretending that we are capable of one day finding one.
You and I are comfortable with our ultimate belief that God created the universe because of both faith AND it makes sense scientifically and philosophically, but this is NOT true for those who believe in science-only, because an intellectually honest scientist must realize that the very first matter cannot poof itself into existence if absolutely no other conditions exist. I’ve come to terms with that and it makes me happy, but it must drive the science-only believers mad to know there’s no ideology behind their beliefs, and there can never be. It’s NOT a matter of “some day we’ll reach the beginning” because science is wrong in either the possibility that the very first something poofed into existence from absolute nothing, or wrong to believe that we exist for no creatorless reason. EITHER WAY, a supernatural mulligan is needed for the science-only believers. That certainly deos NOT prove that God exists. It only shows that God is the more logical belief, and the only belief that makes science make sense, because science can’t make sense on it’s own without at least one supernatural mulligan. 😉
 
  1. There is no evidence for the multiverse theory of the origin of the universe, nor can there be…in talking about multiverses, we are referring to states outside of our space-time continuum, i.e., “nature,” which cannot be observed or examined, Thus, multiverse theories are inherently and by definition, “supernatural” explanations. We are merely arguing about one supernatural explanation (Multiverses) versus another (God). Which you choose to consider may indicate your level of personal bias or preconceptions, but in no way indicates whether a person who holds one belief is more “scientific” than the other.
  2. In the absence of evidence, Multiverse theory is an attempt to explain, by creating a logically consistent (albeit complex) theory, such issues such as the creation of the universe and the anthropic principle without the need to involve God. As such, it could be said to include elements of both special pleading and a “multiverse of the gaps” argument.
The problem seems to be that many people don’t fully recognize what “supernatural” means - it’s used by many atheists to mean, what…“ooky bookie”? “Mystical”? “Occult”? “Ultra-mundane” might be a preferable term without excess semantic baggage.

The cover story in the new Scientific American on multiverse theory is quite good, BTW. The author, who is generaly considered to be one of the top cosmologists in the world, clearly recognizes the weaknesses of the Multiverse model.
 
We don’t know what happened scientifically speaking. My point is that, if there’s no Creator, then science will NEVER know.
So science may never know the reason. So what?
It’s scientifically impossible for the very first something to magically pop into existence without a Creator. That means that the universe has ALWAYS existed in some form. Therefore, there was NO beginning, by definition. Since there was no beginning, then a reason for the universe’s existence can NEVER be known.
Yeah. It might never be known. Why must there be a reason?
There’s SOME reason out there for what came before Big Bang, but the POINT is that the reasons go on infinitely if there was no Creator.
Is there now? You want there to be a reason. There is not necessarily a reason though. Lots of things happene without a reason (IMO). Existence is no exception in my book. It might have a reason. It might not. I don’t know. I accept that it is probably unknowable and don’t feel the need to fill in the blank.

Even if there is a supernatural being, it didn’t necessarily have a reason either.
 
It’s not a question of “don’t know” but of “we simply don’t see any reason”. There is a vast difference…
All scientific enquiry is based on belief in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.
It is possible to believe things for which there is no evidence (Jesus emerging from Mary’s body leaving her entirely ‘intact’ for example).
There is no physical evidence but there are reasons for believing Mary was a virgin. Otherwise the belief would be irrational.
It is not possible to make scientific conclusions about things for which there is no, or insufficient evidence.
Evidence is not confined to physical objects.
The pre-universe origins of the universe are as far as I know in this category.
We know nothing whatsoever about the subject.
Like other areas of scientific ignorance, they will gradually become known as a result of scientific inquiry.
That is an act of faith for which there is no evidence! How do you know science will explain everything?
just as God and associated beings have ceased to be thought of as a cause of epidemics, the change of weather, the rising of the sun and mental illness, belief will also retreat in the area of the ultimate origins of the universe.
Will belief in science also retreat? :rolleyes:
I try to discipline myself not to ‘believe’ anything at all, but rather to ‘conclude’ things on the basis of evidence
Your notion of evidence is too restricted. Don’t your thoughts, feelings and decisions count?
 
All scientific enquiry is based on belief in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.

There is no physical evidence but there are reasons for believing Mary was a virgin. Otherwise the belief would be irrational.
By belief I mean upholding the truth of something for which there are insufficient observations to allow that truth to be reasonably concluded. Anyone who asserts the ‘truth’ of a hypothesis is committing an act of belief. One who says: ‘let us test the hypothesis’ is acting reasonably. People’s reasons for believing in the ‘physical virginity’ of Mary tend to be that other people believed it and wrote it down. ‘Pass-the-belief’ is not evidence of any sort. The belief is not irrational in the sense that there are obervable countervailing facts, but there are no facts in its supprt either. In that sense it is like the belief that the world will end whenever it is not meant to do so. people believe it, there is no reason to, but you can’t show them a reason not to. That is why I try to resist the human instinct to believe, and instead try to only conclude things. it’s harder than you might think!
 
If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?
The pseudo-scientific belief that the universe arose from a “singularity” which came from nothing is functionally identical to the religious belief that God created the universe from nothing.

God is the religious equivalent of science’s absurd “singularity.” Neither concept is consistent with our best observations of reality, or with common logic.
 
By belief I mean upholding the truth of something for which there are insufficient observations to allow that truth to be reasonably concluded. Anyone who asserts the ‘truth’ of a hypothesis is committing an act of belief. One who says: ‘let us test the hypothesis’ is acting reasonably.

Science is based on principles which are not always testable - like the principle of induction.
People’s reasons for believing in the ‘physical virginity’ of Mary tend to be that other people believed it and wrote it down.
It’s impossible because all your conclusions are based on your initial assumptions. You can’t construct anything without any tools!
 
  1. There is no evidence for the multiverse theory of the origin of the universe, nor can there be…in talking about multiverses, we are referring to states outside of our space-time continuum, i.e., “nature,” which cannot be observed or examined, Thus, multiverse theories are inherently and by definition, “supernatural” explanations. We are merely arguing about one supernatural explanation (Multiverses) versus another (God). Which you choose to consider may indicate your level of personal bias or preconceptions, but in no way indicates whether a person who holds one belief is more “scientific” than the other.
  2. In the absence of evidence, Multiverse theory is an attempt to explain, by creating a logically consistent (albeit complex) theory, such issues such as the creation of the universe and the anthropic principle without the need to involve God. As such, it could be said to include elements of both special pleading and a “multiverse of the gaps” argument.
The problem seems to be that many people don’t fully recognize what “supernatural” means - it’s used by many atheists to mean, what…“ooky bookie”? “Mystical”? “Occult”? “Ultra-mundane” might be a preferable term without excess semantic baggage.

The cover story in the new Scientific American on multiverse theory is quite good, BTW. The author, who is generaly considered to be one of the top cosmologists in the world, clearly recognizes the weaknesses of the Multiverse model.
Is the weakness of the Multiverse model related to a failure to bridge the gap between how absolute nothing could natually evolve into the very first something without a supernatural mulligan? Your paragraph #1 seems to claim that multiverse theory is supernatural. There needs to be a distinction between natural laws of science that have not yet been discovered VS. a true supernatural event. I’m sticking to my claim that a supernatural mulligan had to occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top