Origins of the Universe

[Tychus]

Excluding the metaphysical world from consideration when approaching these questions is denying a potential avenue for answering the question. Particularly when science is at a loss when trying to explain the origin of the universe, why not consider the metaphysical realm?

science is a process. science doesn't arbitrarily exclude metaphysical things, or really anything - it's simply the case that we have no way of verifying every random idea. take faeries. do they exist? nobody's found any before. how would we test? nobody knows. is there shareable evidence? none so far. what can science do with that?

that's where the notion of "falsifiability" comes into play. if you don't have a way (in principle) of disproving something, you can't properly know if it is true or false.

I do agree there is no answer for "who made the Creator", but I don't see how that question is different from the "where did anything come from?" that a non-theist would ask.

to me, there is a problem with the phrasing: did anything "come from" anywhere? this would seem to presuppose total nothingness as a default state, but we have never heard or seen an example of this.

[Tijuana]

Why do you have to add fairies?

We don't have a working theory of the big bang singularity. MIGHT AS WELL BE GODS!!

What is the purpose of adding that last part?

Someone noted fairies earlier. Are you some kind of faerie bigot or something?

My point is purely semantic: when there is no data, the "default" assumption is no more valid than any other. Because there is no data.

[May90]

Without data, science cannot occur. No matter how simple the hypothesis, if zero data exists, it cannot be completed. If you are unaware of the existence of a shark, that will not keep him from eating you.

There is a difference though between lack of data (including lack of awareness of the existing data), and presence of data suggesting lack of evidence. If I went to swim in an area highly populated by sharks, evidence of which exists and easily available, and didn't prepare for meeting a shark, then I simply haven't done my homework. On the other hand, going swimming and preparing for the possibility of meeting Godzilla would be pretty silly.

10,000 years ago the data availability was scarce, tribes mostly relied on first-hand experience to survive, hence they had to resort to making a lot of questionable hypotheses to explain their everyday experiences: their ignorance led to a vast space of possibilities - hence the religious views were born, since it is our nature to overdramatize unexpected experiences. Nowadays, we have a vast array of theories explaining most of the things we observe without the need to add a supernatural being to the equation, so it doesn't make much sense to assume the possibility of its existence: its existence does not contribute to our theories in any meaningful way.

I agree with that. I love science for what it is - a study of the universe around us and the pursuit of understanding how it all works. I just don't see why God and science can't live side-by-side. The hostility between the science camp and the God camp seems unnecessary and unwarranted.

Where religion got us is a interesting question, and I would agree its hard to point to specific technological examples that sprung directly from religion, although I don't know if tech is the ultimate measure of something's value; but that's a separate topic.
I suppose I could make the argument that the religious inclinations of the founding fathers of the USA played a role in their creation of their constitution and government, particularly concerning things like free will, land rights, the pursuit of happiness etc.



I think its fair to say that the capitalist framework that sprung from that system has indirectly led to a great deal of technologies that would have been much harder to achieve in a system that does not give such encouragement to entrepreneurship, and the safety to pursue it.

I'd say there are two reasons for that. First, people are tribal by nature, we tend to resent the views that contradict our own, unless we make a conscious effort not to. Second, modern science operates on the assumption that nothing supernatural is possible, that everything should have a down-to-the-ground explanation, even if we don't have one at the moment. It is pretty hard for the idea of God to coexist with it, because, if God is not supernatural, then is it even fair to call it God and not just assume it to be another property of the universe, without the need to bring in religion?

I think both science and religion play important roles in the society, and have played throughout the centuries - however, I think, they should be different domains. An attempt to merge them in a single entity, or to try to explain the same things by both, aren't going to work very well, because the frameworks of science and religion are very different and mutually contradicting in quite a few aspects.

I also think that religion contributed to our culture in similar way to how war contributed to our technology (not implying that religion is akin to war, of course, just making an abstract analogy). War didn't have to happen for the technological progress to occur, but it naturally sped it up, as nations competed, trying to get a technological edge for military purposes, and ended up boosting technological progress overall. Similarly, religion wasn't needed for our culture to evolve the way it did, it wasn't needed for the Founding Fathers to write the constitution and create the political system - however, in some ways, it accelerated these processes (although also decelerated in some regards), facilitated them.

Where would our society be without the history of religion, or where our technology would be without the history of wars, is an interesting question. Likely, our world would be very different now. But whether those differences would be overall positive or overall negative is hard to say.

[Donald Hellscream]

something created something ( assuming there must be a creator ), that something blew up, universe happened, stuff started to congeal and cool down after the huge fireworks display, then some scientific stuff about ideal conditions for life, then life flourished and a few billion years from now our dear old ball of glowiness in the sky will go supernova, which will be sad for whatever inhabits the earth at that point.

This makes no sense but I am also writing this at 3:40 in the morning so yeah....

[Stonecloak]

There is a difference though between lack of data (including lack of awareness of the existing data), and presence of data suggesting lack of evidence. If I went to swim in an area highly populated by sharks, evidence of which exists and easily available, and didn't prepare for meeting a shark, then I simply haven't done my homework. On the other hand, going swimming and preparing for the possibility of meeting Godzilla would be pretty silly.

10,000 years ago the data availability was scarce, tribes mostly relied on first-hand experience to survive, hence they had to resort to making a lot of questionable hypotheses to explain their everyday experiences: their ignorance led to a vast space of possibilities - hence the religious views were born, since it is our nature to overdramatize unexpected experiences. Nowadays, we have a vast array of theories explaining most of the things we observe without the need to add a supernatural being to the equation, so it doesn't make much sense to assume the possibility of its existence: its existence does not contribute to our theories in any meaningful way.


I'd say there are two reasons for that. First, people are tribal by nature, we tend to resent the views that contradict our own, unless we make a conscious effort not to. Second, modern science operates on the assumption that nothing supernatural is possible, that everything should have a down-to-the-ground explanation, even if we don't have one at the moment. It is pretty hard for the idea of God to coexist with it, because, if God is not supernatural, then is it even fair to call it God and not just assume it to be another property of the universe, without the need to bring in religion?

I think both science and religion play important roles in the society, and have played throughout the centuries - however, I think, they should be different domains. An attempt to merge them in a single entity, or to try to explain the same things by both, aren't going to work very well, because the frameworks of science and religion are very different and mutually contradicting in quite a few aspects.

I also think that religion contributed to our culture in similar way to how war contributed to our technology (not implying that religion is akin to war, of course, just making an abstract analogy). War didn't have to happen for the technological progress to occur, but it naturally sped it up, as nations competed, trying to get a technological edge for military purposes, and ended up boosting technological progress overall. Similarly, religion wasn't needed for our culture to evolve the way it did, it wasn't needed for the Founding Fathers to write the constitution and create the political system - however, in some ways, it accelerated these processes (although also decelerated in some regards), facilitated them.

Where would our society be without the history of religion, or where our technology would be without the history of wars, is an interesting question. Likely, our world would be very different now. But whether those differences would be overall positive or overall negative is hard to say.

Can man be driven to achieve the same level of technological progress, and evolution without war? I'd say the answer is yes. There's already been times of peace and prosper which have lead to progress. The technology would most likely be very different though. Science would probably be much further along. The technology reflects the culture.

[xenogear3]

You sure it's not the quran that has it right? Or hindaism? How can you tell wich one is true? May it be cause you happened to be raised in a catholic community? Convinient that, isn't it?

That is the "weakness" with religion.

I am not saying they are all fake.
However, it has too many "clones". You cannot tell which is which.

A famous monk (Buddhism) is complaining that Buddhism has a disadvantage, when it has conflict with other religion.
Buddhists don't allow killing, but some religions have reward for killing.

[Mihalik]

rticularly when science is at a loss when trying to explain the origin of the universe, why not consider the metaphysical realm?

Because science deals with the study of the natural universe. It has no mechanisms to deal with metaphysical because the metaphysical is neither observable or testable.

It just boggles the mind that you keep equating a method to a belief. They are not the same thing. One requires no belief of any sort, the other does.

Furthermore the supernatural by definition is irrelevant to the study of the universe. It is in the very definition of the word itself, supernatural (beyond nature), science deals exclusively with the study of the natural world, if any phenomenon becomes observable (via some new method) it is inherently natural and not supernatural. Science would simply incorporate that new observation into itself, revise previous assumptions and move along (Quantum physics).

Faith does not do this. You are not doing this.

You simply say; Science=Faith, but you don't seem to accept the definition of science, and you refuse to accept all observed evidence (no evidence for anything supernatural) and maintain your faith in some sort of "god".

Furthermore I explained repeatedly why science and religion cannot coexist. Science progresses, incorporates new ideas and adjust its views, it holds no dogma and doesn't try to pigeonhole evidence into pre-existing assumptions. On the other hand religions do the polar opposite, religions reject questions, are dogmatic, they pigeonhole things, are incapable of adjusting their views. The two thus become mutually exclusive.

This becomes even more problematic when the scientific method is applied to analyzing religions, science tends to quickly dismantle beliefs that people hold out of ignorance. Any historian barely worth his salt can essentially take apart any religion and trace it to down to its source, along the way showing how they incorporated elements into themselves or how they appropriated pre-existing myths and superstitions, and how things that people now consider immutable elements of their faith are really just stuff people pulled out of their asses, and how the whole thing is essentially useless for making working predictions.

Religions are social constructs. We created "gods" in our image and not the other way around.

Again, whether there is a god or not, is in effect irrelevant. And science cannot coexist with a thought system that rejects observation and reality. The problem is not on science's end.

[Hammerfest]

You sure it's not the quran that has it right? Or hindaism? How can you tell wich one is true? May it be cause you happened to be raised in a catholic community? Convinient that, isn't it?

I'll stick with the Torah.

[Vash The Stampede]

My belief is that the universe has always existed. Big bang didn't create it, just the matter we're made of. My thinking is the singularity was just a really massive black hole, and every so often enough matter comes together to form another big bang like black hole that just explodes with enough mass. Thus the universe is in a cycle.

As for the expansion of the universe, I think it's to do with all the energy being emitted. Empty space isn't empty, and has lght and other particles zipping through it emitted from stars and other sources. This is what I think cause the expansion, and once stars begin to emit less energy, so too will the universe being to shrink, but not enough for a big crunch.

That's my idea anyway. Just a fun thought experiment.

[May90]

Can man be driven to achieve the same level of technological progress, and evolution without war? I'd say the answer is yes. There's already been times of peace and prosper which have lead to progress. The technology would most likely be very different though. Science would probably be much further along. The technology reflects the culture.

I am not sure if science would be in a better state right now, because without the urgent need to innovate, perhaps, people would focus on polishing already existing convenient technology, rather than trying to develop new technological fields.

In any case, it is interesting to speculate on how difference science and technology would be now had it not been for wars. For example, rockets were mainly developed as a weapon, and then the military technology was adapted to civilian use for spacefaring. Without wars, perhaps rockets would never have been developed, and, instead, space launches would be performed by adapting the aircraft technology, as was the case with the initial design of shuttles.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Because science deals with the study of the natural universe. It has no mechanisms to deal with metaphysical because the metaphysical is neither observable or testable.

It just boggles the mind that you keep equating a method to a belief. They are not the same thing. One requires no belief of any sort, the other does.

Furthermore the supernatural by definition is irrelevant to the study of the universe. It is in the very definition of the word itself, supernatural (beyond nature), science deals exclusively with the study of the natural world, if any phenomenon becomes observable (via some new method) it is inherently natural and not supernatural. Science would simply incorporate that new observation into itself, revise previous assumptions and move along (Quantum physics).

Faith does not do this. You are not doing this.

You simply say; Science=Faith, but you don't seem to accept the definition of science, and you refuse to accept all observed evidence (no evidence for anything supernatural) and maintain your faith in some sort of "god".

Furthermore I explained repeatedly why science and religion cannot coexist. Science progresses, incorporates new ideas and adjust its views, it holds no dogma and doesn't try to pigeonhole evidence into pre-existing assumptions. On the other hand religions do the polar opposite, religions reject questions, are dogmatic, they pigeonhole things, are incapable of adjusting their views. The two thus become mutually exclusive.

This becomes even more problematic when the scientific method is applied to analyzing religions, science tends to quickly dismantle beliefs that people hold out of ignorance. Any historian barely worth his salt can essentially take apart any religion and trace it to down to its source, along the way showing how they incorporated elements into themselves or how they appropriated pre-existing myths and superstitions, and how things that people now consider immutable elements of their faith are really just stuff people pulled out of their asses, and how the whole thing is essentially useless for making working predictions.

Religions are social constructs. We created "gods" in our image and not the other way around.

Again, whether there is a god or not, is in effect irrelevant. And science cannot coexist with a thought system that rejects observation and reality. The problem is not on science's end.

I do accept the definition of science, and I like the fact that it does not try to pigeonhole itself with pre-existing assumptions. I, like you, am truly after the pursuit of truth and recognize science as a tool to find it. I think where you and I differ is that I do not consider science to be the only tool to find it.

I think the very premise of "no observable evidence of the metaphysical" is entirely subjective, because of our original discussion about the origin of the universe. Since there is no scientific answer to this very large question of origin, it would be unfair to completely dismiss a metaphysical explanation. If one were to hypothetically accept such a possibility to explain origin, then everything we experience around us today is evidence of the metaphysical realm, as it all sprung from that source.

I don't know how you can claim that whether God exists or not is irrelevant. If God's existence was proven it would turn science on its head, the entire community would accept that the metaphysical realm exists and alter their methods to account for this fact.

You swapped my word (metaphysical) for your word (supernatural) to shoehorn it into your point, but for sake of discussion I think we can agree that we're referring to God. You say that science has no mechanism to study the supernatural (God in our context)), but how does that prove that the supernatural cannot exist? Its like a blind man saying stars do not exist because he personally does not have a tool to see them. I view this lack of ability to study the supernatural as a shortcoming of science, not as proof the supernatural does not exist.

As far as the faith point and why I keep bringing it up, again it's because of the origin question. Science does not have an answer for this. If you accept the scientific view on origin, you are "believing in something for which there is no proof", which is the definition of faith.

[Garnier Fructis]

If one were to hypothetically accept such a possibility to explain origin, then everything we experience around us today is evidence of the metaphysical realm, as it all sprung from that source.

This is circular.

As far as the faith point and why I keep bringing it up, again it's because of the origin question. Science does not have an answer for this. If you accept the scientific view on origin, you are "believing in something for which there is no proof", which is the definition of faith.

There is no scientific view on origin, because we know that our equations fail if we try and 'run the clock back to the origin,' so to speak. I think you're conflating what many scientists personally believe, with what science has concluded.

[vindicatorx]

Science has always stood on the shoulders of giants, giants that were religious if even in appearance. (Newton held a firm belief in a "masterful creator.")

I always find it amusing when religious people bring up the greatest minds of the past like it somehow gives their religion credit or something. You are aware that they knew next to nothing compared to what we know now right? They couldn't observe things that prove the big bang happened like cosmic radiation, red shift of galaxies, etc. Heck when you got sick when Newton was alive people thought you were possessed by evil spirits. So how again does Newton believing in a god make religion valid again?

[May90]

I haven't followed your conversation too closely, so I may be missing an important detail.

I think you are fine to consider the metaphysical realm if you prefer, but it does not seem possible for science to presently do so. This would be why someone expanding the frontiers of science would simply not consider a God. It's as simple as that--there is no technical bias against a divine creator.

Proving a negative has always been incredibly challenging. Did Einstein ever say "Insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results"? Experts say no, but it would be quite exhausting, and practically impossible, to truly identify every string of speech Einstein ever uttered to compare against the quote.

Similarly, how do we know a planet doesn't exist between Mercury and Venus? Have we truly checked every speck of space between them? What if it just happens to not interact with its surroundings in any way? Maybe it only comes to visit once every 1000 years and then leaves again?

This seems to be the box we have put ourselves in with God, and for a discussion to occur of it, you would ultimately need to speak from an argument of philosophy, not science. Disregarding the proof of a negative, how can you even prove the existence of a God without first defining what a God is? And even once we have these definitions, once placed under scrutiny, have we really dismantled the proof of a God? If God is defined as omnipotent, the fact that he somehow creates a rock so heavy he cannot lift it is a contradiction of omnipotence, not of a God. And it seems that once you hold God under such a scrutiny, it becomes redefined to fit our new understanding of what can or cannot constitute a God, reiterating this process constantly until the question "Does God exist?" finally becomes a question well-posed enough for science to explore and answer.

And then it becomes as silly as placing God under a microscope and asking if it is God.

I don't mean to enter a religious discussion, as I believe that is against the rules, but I hope the emphasis on the scientific process is understood, to the point that introducing God to a scientific discussion doesn't technically intersect scientific discussion.

Scientifically, as far as we know, God is a mythological creature, nothing more. There aren't many people around that believe in Minotaurs, for example, because it is a well known part of the Greek mythology. The only difference between this, and, say, Christian god is that Minotaurs fell out of favor due to the cultural changes, while the Christian god has not. Minotaurs are now history. Christian god will be a history some day as well, only to be replaced by some other supernatural being...

Now, the possibility of our Universe being manually created by some higher being, of course, cannot be dismissed. Even the possibility of our Universe being partially controlled by some higher being exists. However, there really is no need to assume that that being has some magical powers that defy the laws of physics. It is not a God, it is just some part of the Universe (if exists) that is to be found out, learned and understood, after which it becomes a part of our scientific world view.

---

In one of the fictional Universes, the world was created by demons, that were so proficient with technology (in that world, magic), they created the mortal plane purely for observational purposes. The mortals could never directly interact with the demons, because demons belonged to their plane and wouldn't let any mortals in - however, the demons had a certain influence on the mortal plane and could sometimes even communicate with mortals through ethereal forms. Of course, the mortals saw them as Gods, and they had a reason to, because everything about them, as seen from the mortal plane, was godlike - but, looking at it as readers, we see the bigger picture, in which demons are not gods, but merely much more advanced beings.

So, if there really is a creator, then, for all purposes, we can assume it to be just another species in the bigger picture of the expanded Universe. No need to believe that it is in any way special and defies the laws of physics. And, for the lack of any evidence, just as with the Minotaurs or Demons, for now we should assume that there is no such species at all.

[vindicatorx]

Proving a negative has always been incredibly challenging.

Let me reword that for you. It is impossible to 100% prove something that does not exist, does not exist. Which is why I roll my eyes every time time I hear some dumbass say "You can't prove there is no god". I see people talking about metaphysical things like they exist as well. You do realize metaphysics is a philosophy not an actual scientific thing right? That's almost as funny as the morons who want to teach creationism in science class like it has any scientific value.

[May90]

Let me reword that for you. It is impossible to 100% prove something that does not exist, does not exist. Which is why I roll my eyes every time time I hear some dumbass say "You can't prove there is no god". I see people talking about metaphysical things like they exist as well. You do realize metaphysics is a philosophy not an actual scientific thing right? That's almost as funny as the morons who want to teach creationism in science class like it has any scientific value.

But that is false, you don't always have the ability to prove that something does not exist. If the God is a large ethereal dude that can do anything in the Universe whenever he pleases, then the best you can prove is that, if he does exist, he is not doing anything at the present; you can't prove that the God won't make a "Judgment day" some time, because you can't make an experiment lasting infinitely with a definitive conclusion.

There is also a difference between being able to prove something in theory, and being able to prove something in practice. In theory, you can check the Russell's Teapot claim: you just need to investigate the whole space between the orbits of Earth and Mars. In practice, it is unlikely to ever be possible, because of the insane level of technology such a research would require.

[Garnier Fructis]

It we cheat a bit and expand 'existence' to include mathematics, then non-existence proofs are all over the place.

[xenogear3]

We cannot find any aliens on other planets.

This means either it is difficult to survive or the universe is not what it seems.

[vindicatorx]

It we cheat a bit and expand 'existence' to include mathematics, then non-existence proofs are all over the place.

And that doesn't apply to the physical world at all now does it?

- - - Updated - - -

If the existence of something necessitates that another thing does not exist and you can prove the existence of the former thing, then you will have proven that something that does not exist does not exist.

Yeah in Math that's called double negation which again only works in math and not the real world.

[Keosen]

We cannot find any aliens on other planets.

This means either it is difficult to survive or the universe is not what it seems.