Summarised: Every science v. religion discussion in history

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where the church threatens to turn you into a public bonfire if you keep saying "it works like this"

Since every theist gasbag on Earth obviously knows more about atheism than we do.

there are no atheist gasbags?

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You see, in science, the process starts with an educated guess or "hypothesis." This hypothesis is rigorously tested and if it's confirmed, it can be elevated to "theory." If at any point this "theory" is falsified, it gets tossed out.

In religion, the religious "thinker" begins with a guess and adds successive guesses and suppositions to make a theology. This theology is dogmatically upheld until such time as it can no longer be supported in the face of reality. At this point, the faithful split. Some introduce rationalizations to cling to their now-falsified guesses and suppositions while others continue to dogmatically adhere to said guesses and lie about reality.

The difference is illustrated in this convenient (albeit simplified) chart:

and contributed greatly to science, were all wrong? "Hey, see all that stuff up in the sky. We now call that "nothing" and we now have proven that something can indeed come from nothing."

Here's a tip: Combining straw men from two tangentially related arguments doesn't work.

Really. Christians who were scientists were wrong because Stephen Hawking described a known and understood phenomenon?

That's bizarre, even for you.

There have been many that were known and understood. It's just another physical event, but to pass it off as the origin of existence is a huge leap, totally subjective, and most definitely not creating something from nothing.

If our universe exhibits specific physical characteristics, then it could have spontaneously formed from nothing.
Our universe exhibits those characteristics.

Therefore: Our universe could have spontaneously formed from nothing.

In case you're still confused, I'll simplify:

Let "our universe exhibits specific physical characteristics" be "P"
Let "it could have spontaneously formed from nothing" be "Q"

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q modus ponens

There's another way to work it too.

If an external agency is required to account for the universe's existence, then it would exhibit specific physical characteristics.
It doesn't exhibit those characteristics.

Therefore, no external agency is required to account for the existence of the universe.

Simplifying, let "an external agency is required to account for the universe's existence" be "R" and let "it would exhibit specific physical characteristics" be "S"

If R, then S.
Not S.
Therefore, not R modus tollens.

So there you have it. It's possible that our universe spontaneously formed from nothing and your god isn't needed to account for it.

You are still attempting to redefine "nothingness" as it has been traditionally understood. What you are describing is a totally physical event.

It's an explanation without need to invoke supernatural forces. Your prime mover's services are no longer needed; I guess you should start looking for a new gap to hide Him in.

Plus the fact that proof is being claimed, which is an absolute sham. Kinda like calling a 40 foot ladder a 20 foot ladder.

But it does reach 20 feet.

Yes, but there is more to it than that.

Yes, but it does reach 20 feet, therefore it's a 20 foot ladder.


Total, unverifiable sham!

We've been over this. The definition of "nothing" you prefer is contradictory and logically impossible. Not only that, but even if we were to ignore this and accept it as our initial state, the results would be the same--the production of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs is a consequence of the uncertainty inherent in any system, not preexisting stuff.

As to your ladder analogy, I'm not even sure you know what you're trying to say.

It is only contradictory when considered within the very narrow framework of Logical Positivism, which Hawking has always adhered to. And yes there is always "preexisting stuff" as you call it, whether it be gravity, or very discrete bundles of energy only a fraction of a nanometer long. Nothing comes from nothing.

Your version of nothing is self-contradictory. You've described it as having "no physical attributes," but contradict that so readily, it's laughable. If it can be described in physical terms, it must have physical attributes. You routinely describe your imaginary "nothingness" in physical terms, so there must be physical attributes." Of course, you've already called classical logic "vacuous," so I imagine you'll be dismissing everything I've stated out of hand.

When I say nothing, here's what I mean:

No particles of any type--no photons, no elementary particles. This means there's no light of any kind and there's no mass, which means no gravity.

This is also what Hawking, Krauss, or any other physicist means when they describe the process by which you can get something from nothing. There's no preexisting stuff of any kind. So remember, when you insist they there must have been something, you're wrong. Thanks to the mechanics of the quantum world, nothing will give you something. This has been experimentally confirmed.

"You routinely describe your imaginary "nothingness" in physical terms, so there must be physical attributes.'" That's pure babble.

Your description is beginning to look much like mine - "no photons, no elementary particles. This means there's no light of any kind and there's no mass, which means no gravity." that's very nearly what I have been describing. Unfortunately, you are now eliminating gravity, which you did not before, AND which Hawking claims has always existed. You have changed your story.

The "nothingness" that I have always considered as being truly nothing does not even include empty space, which has infinite height, length, and depth. Those are physical attributes, also. You are attempting to change that description. Within your narrow epistemological framework, that is indeed illogical. Fortunately, yours IS NOT the only one.

:rofl:

You're on a roll, and yes, I do realize you view ignorance as a superior epistemology because of it's limitless nature. Theologians have certainly been taking advantage of that for millennia.
----
Gravity cannot exist in the absence of mass--it's a consequence of the warping effect mass has on spacetime. No mass=no gravity. I know you'd like to believe that Hawking has argued otherwise, but he didn't. I have been consistent here; it's just your lack of basic scientific knowledge that has you confused. But then again, you aren't limited by facts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hawking is stating that gravity, by acting as a negative equivalent to energy, allowed the universe to self-start. Time and gravity began with the big bang, so in that sense gravity has always existed. That doesn't mean that it existed prior to the universe. I understand how that can seem confusing, but it isn't that confusing if you give it a tiny bit of thought.

BTW: What's my "now buddy," how am I on it, and what does your comma spliced ad hominem have to do with it?

you really don't know what you are talking about. Now you are only going back to the Big Bang.

You've been mischaracterizing my position so consistently, that I wonder if you can grasp the not-too-subtle difference between what Hawking is saying and what you think he's saying.

Maybe if you were willing to trade your ignorance of the subject matter for a basic understanding of the underlying principles you'd see where you're wrong. Unfortunately, as long as you view said ignorance as "far superior" way of knowing, you may never know the joy of understanding how nature actually works.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, it just isn't the best state in which to operate: Honestly investigating the world is far more satisfying than making wild guesses and building elaborate philosophies around those guesses, especially when those honest investigations lead to revolutionary discoveries and breathtaking achievements.

Oh, and those discoveries and achievements made by my "extremely limited" POV are what allow you to live as you see fit.

like yours has. I have not moved one nanometer from my original position. You speak of "building elaborate philosophies," but those elaborate philosophies are the result of people using their ability to think.

I have tried different explanations of the same mechanism to help you understand why you're mistaken. Unfortunately, it seems that your profound scientific illiteracy has led you to mistakenly conclude that each explanation was of a different scenario.

BTW: Ignorance =/= stupid. There are some very bright people who have spent considerable effort in constructing elaborate philosophies around a guess. Aristotle is a great example of someone who spent his life guessing and building elaborate systems around those guesses without ever bothering to check if his guesses were correct. It isn't his fault that he didn't know any better, but we do know better.

Now you've got some history.






edit:sp

You could also add an off-shoot form the flow-chart to where well-meaning scientists become creationist scientists or "quitters."
Just an arrow from THEORY CREATED. -> "Theory too hard? screw it, GOD!"