I am really curious what this dark matter is. I hope they figure it out in my lifetime.

True, no deity was needed to explain the data. In thinking about physics and cosmology, I have come around to thinking that there is a higher intelligence that caused (directly or indirectly) things to exist as they do. My mind needs to have that as a placeholder until we have a more complete scientific understanding. I can certainly understand those who do not need it in their minds. The scientific community does not seem to need it, and there is a blank space where my metaphysical "God" is.

That said, I think so much religious argument comes down to two-choices thinking. It is possible that the metaphysical God does exist, and at the same time all the world religions are false.

I expect it will be examined further. With a fairly simple antenna, they managed to look at something that most people didn't think was possible. They may be seeing the evidence of the very first stars that appeared after the big bang. That's pretty amazing.

I'm going to look forward to the next information we get.

As for metaphysics, I'm find with just physics. What I'm hoping is that this will open the way to understanding even more about the origins of the known universe.

if we see no evidence of a higher intelligence and if nothing we do know needs one for an explanation, why put one in as a placeholder?
Your mind can handle the uncertainty.

But... as compared to what?

We don't know what an actual, purposely-designed universe looks like. If we had one to compare to this one, EVERYONE might be able to look and say, "Wow, yeah, we were wrong about that intelligent design thing. Yikes."

True, we do not have a separate test and control universe neatly labeled to compare with each other. Not all science requires this, though it does make it more convincing if you have it. For example, we do not have a "control" Earth where no one dumped massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet climate science is legit.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2018, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

We *do* have the ability to determine what CO2 concentration does to the trapping of energy, etc. So that's not a very good comparison at all.

And at any rate, it's vastly superior to your "well it looks like it was designed to me" claim.

Basic scientific theory predicts that more CO2 in the air will raise the temp, we put more CO2 in the air, and the temp went up. All of the fancy computer models are just to make more accurate predictions than you could do by hand calculations.

They're the laws of physics, even if we don't fully understand them. They just are. The universe just is. We can try to understand the rules which apply to it, but that doesn't imply anything about any "higher intelligence."

My contention is more like a hunch, an intuition. I'm not at all saying that the laws of physics prove God, scientifically.

Is it faith? Probably not, because I think I could be convinced otherwise. Faith is not falsifiable.

I said it wasn't evidence of it. I believe it can be understood just fine without relying on an entity of any kind. It can also be understood if you posit a creator. However, since there is no evidence of such a creator entity, I see no reason to suppose that one exists or existed.

We have evidence of the universe's existence. Using science, we can understand the universe better and better all the time. None of that interferes with the fact that it exists. To posit that the universe was created by some entity would seem to demand some evidence that such an entity exists or existed. No such evidence has been presented.

Since it's clear that the universe has a starting point in time, that presents a dilemma, but that can be dealt with through any number of hypotheses regarding the beginning of the known universe. Since we don't really understand time itself all that well so far, we have to consider the possibility that time began simultaneously with the origin of the existing universe.

For an entity to have created the universe, that entity must have existed at that time. Where did it exist and how did it come to exist? Those questions are not answerable any better than the one asked about what was present when the known universe came into existence.

I maintain that it does not matter. There is no need for a creator. There was no known universe and then there was. How and why are questions that can only be asked from outside of the known universe. We don't know if such a thing even exists, and have no way to experience it. So, lacking evidence of a creator entity, I maintain that such an entity has never existed at all.

for myriad ordered structures. We know how crystals form, we know why planets are spheres.
What ordered structure do you see that needs an intelligence to explaine it.
If you say just "the Universe" yes, there is certain order to it (though chaos as well) but that is necessary for it to even exist.
Again no engineer needed.
To quote someone, if there is a Watchmaker, he is blind.

We know that these natural phenomena happen because micro and macro bits of matter are obeying the laws of physics. Even the disorder is orderly, as it obeys physical laws (e.g. entropy). And then there are things on the micro level that are just strange, like quantum entanglement. How does one particle know, "at a distance" what its entangled brother is doing?

Where did these rules come from? I would really like an explanation. Not everyone may care. As science digs deeper, perhaps we'll have an explanation that dispenses the God hypothesis once and for all. Or not.

an invention of Bronze Age Man for which there is no evidence or support other than people believe it.

The "rules" are just the physical nature of the Universe. They formed as the Universe formed. They did not need to "come from" anywhere.

There is no reason to attach an intelligent agency to them.

The big bang represents the creation of a new thing - the universe. We constantly get closer and closer to understanding what that might have been like.

Cosmology. It's the study of that creation. The creation of a universe. From what? Well, we don't know that yet. We may never know that. It doesn't matter, really.

We understand what we are able to understand of the physical universe. We know hugely more than we did, say, 100 years ago. I'm 72 years old. I'm hoping to learn even more before I stop being.

The beginning of the universe is commonly called the creation. That's not a religious term. It's just a word.

Something changing into something else is a metamorphosis not a creation.

We haven't gotten that far back yet in our understanding.

I used the word in exactly the way I intended to use it. I'll bet you can figure that out, too.

Now, I've replied to you in this subthread once. That's my limit for subthread replies for some posters. You have joined that group.

It is unlikely to have more than two options, I think.

I continue to feel free to reply at my pleasure.

It's not mine or the headline of the article.

an intention he did not mean.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2018, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Unlike metamorphosis, which is never used to describe it, even when describing theories that the universe did in fact come from something else.

There was a former DUer, since banned for trolling and defending pedophile priests, in that category.

Basically they wait for an atheist to use a common word or expression (Oh my god!, creation, good-bye, holiday) and spring into action, as if using words having shared roots or origins with religion meant that you're validating that religion or religious belief in general. Checkmate, atheist!

Tiring, juvenile, annoying? Yes. Best just to laugh at them.

The gun-toters use it all the time to attempt to derail discussions. Let a control advocate misuse firearms nomenclature or use a common term not agreed to, and they pounce.

When people run out of arguments, they resort to such diversions. It's boring. When religionists do it, it's just comical.

Hey, MineralMan! You wrote, "I'm 72 years old."

Did you recently have a birthday? I seem to remember you recently wrote that you were 71.

Happy Birthday, friend!

Or time is flashing past me faster than I can sense even though I'm moments from turning 60... I think.

My ex-wife referred to "Man-Time" as the notion that we men don't have a good perception of the past. For example, I would say that something happened a month or so in the past. She would accurately point out that it happened more than a year earlier.

One of the few things she was right about!

Maybe the universe created the gods, too, while it was at it.