Do you believe that the universe is a puzzle that science could eventually solve completely (given enough time)?
But what would people look forward to?
Yes. Soon after gravity and quantum mechanics are integrated.
Science will never understand the universe until it abandons its anti-supernatural bias.
Those damn scientists and their bias toward demonstrable facts. Just think of all the things we could have not discovered if they just would make things up when they didn’t know the answer to something. Not accepting claims that have no empirical evidence supporting them, I mean none at all, is so blatantly bias towards the things we can demonstrate happens and exist. I mean what a bunch of jerks! They think that really understanding how the universe works is better somehow than an explanation that contradicts much of what we have learned about the universe and has no evidence to support it! What a bunch of morons! How do they think our computers, airplanes, medicines, all of our current advancements and everything we know with a high degree of certainty came about. Evidence-based research? Evidence sucks! Assertions with no evidence rule!
It’s not like it’s biased to insist that my belief system is somehow the only way to truly understand the universe.
They really need to get over their anti-tooth fairy bias also. 😂
What does the supernatural have to do with science? It is, literally, something beyond scientific understanding.
@Biologist - OK, so make a solar system. Or, if you prefer, a single star. If science hasn't advanced to that point yet, maybe you can make me a daffodil or even a dandelion.
Please tell me, in your wildest imagination, do you actually believe in your heart of hearts that someday humans will be able to do those things? That actually takes more faith than it takes to believe in my God, Who created the universe.
No, creating worlds and stars and microbes and also lots and bamboo and humans takes far more than human effort, and certainly far more than random chance plus billions of years. This is why your supernatural bias makes it so difficult for you to understand that there must have been an Intelligent Designer.
What scientists claimed that humans will be able to make a solar system? But we can try to understand the processes that lead to solar system formation.
There zero evidence of any intelligence guiding natural processes. Not knowing the answer to something is not evidence of a thing (in this case a supernatural) that there have no evidence for. Not knowing is simply means we don’t know.
This doesn’t give anyone permission to assert (with no evidence) that a supernatural designed it. You can propose it as a hypothesis. But then you must do rigorous well-designed testing to see if your hypothesis is supported by the data collected.
Of course there is huge problem with this hypothesis. It is not falsifiable. Which means you can’t actually test it. Which means it isn’t science.
Why would anyone propose a solution to a question, when the proposed solution can’t even be demonstrated to be a possibility?
Asserting a made up answer ( one with no evidence) doesn’t give you a greater understanding of anything. It just makes you feel better about not knowing.
Of course. Science can solve everything
In order to be science, it must be based on a central dogma. Axioms are much stronger than dogma.
I don't think you've thought that through. Axioms are basically philosophy. Where as science is actually proven fact.
Read a book man😂
Given enough time, sure. But we only just got here, relatively speaking, and have changed a lot in just those few hundred thousand years. We are still evolving, as is the species (or machine) almost certain to displace us as we did the Neanderthal. Who knows if we will even still be here or be us for the millions or billions of years it might take to get it done?
If you asked a person from 12,000 years ago when civilization was first starting if we could eventually understand how to get into space, or how the earth orbits the sun, they would have said “no it’s too complex.” Here we are now knowing both of those things and more. Our minds can not comprehend it but future humans will.
Since all of the saved will dwell upon earth for a millennium under the reign of the savior, of course! We'll be enlightened by the creator who. Made all things! Will it be important then? No.
Not because the universe is special. Science doesn’t work that way.
What was the question? 😉
I think we’ll be gone before we figure out that puzzle
Our existence is beyond human comprehension
Given infinite time, of course.
Man, they may have found a fifth force in Hungary. At this point, science continues to amaze me to the point that anything is possible given enough time.
And human commitment to the process.
Well of course they did. It's what makes our gypsy curses so effective!
We should have talked to the gypsies instead of burning them at the stake decades ago.
Humans have limits.
As does the universe
The spatial size of the universe is unknown, so that’s false.
The spatial size of the universe is unknown, so it doesn’t have limits?
I’m saying humans have no way of knowing, at this point in time, whether the universe is finite or not.
That’s just completely untrue.
Ok, then give me the exact diameter of the universe in light-years. And I’m not just talking about the observable universe.
This reminds me of when I asked a know-it-all how many stars are in the universe. He told me the given number of how many stars are in the known universe. When I told him that’s not the question, he accused me of moving the goalposts.
Just a bit over 23 trillion light years. Google is your friend.
We also know that the universe is finite because, beginning with the Big Bang it has been expanding for 13.8 billion years. And because of general relativity.
No, we don’t know if it’s finite. NASA even admits this.
"So how big is the universe? No one knows if the universe is infinitely large, or even if ours is the only universe that exists. And other parts of the universe, very far away, might be quite different from the universe closer to home. Future NASA missions will continue to search for clues to the ultimate size and scale of our cosmic home."
We need to be careful with what we think we know and with what we believe.
We know the universe is finite and has a beginning, because it is changing.
We don’t know how long the universe has been here, but we can see how long we believe it has been here.
As in its present state and how things functions and interact with each other? Absolutely.
As in knowing the past and how everything came to be? Doubtful.
There are some things, rather many things, that are undoubtedly beyond human understanding.
“Given enough time”, sure.
It’s not a puzzle, pretty straight forward. All time space & matter began when the universe began. Everything in this universe began when this universe began so nothing in this universe existed prior to the beginning of the universe. Everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning so it had a cause. All causes are either intelligent or non intelligent. So either non intelligence created everything in this universe from nothing or intelligence did. If intelligence did then it would explain the order and scientific and mathematical laws that exist in the universe.
But all of the laws and mathematics could easily exist in a world of non intelligent design.
How can non intelligence design anything?
Sorry, more of a formatting error. Not ‘non intelligent design’ like designed by non intelligence, I mean it more like without intelligent design.
Same question. How can something that does not have intelligence, design anything?
First you would have to prove that it was designed. As far as I can see, nothing natural in the universe was designed, and came together over time naturally.
So you think that 1) natural random occurrences result in sound ordered physical and mathematical laws and 2) doesn’t that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
I believe the universe has its own laws that were made, I don’t know exactly how, since I don’t know everything.
And no, it doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics
@ARedHerring something getting more orderly and uniform over time would indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics. And if the laws in the universe were made that could no have been done by without intelligence.
Besides the teleological argument and the anthropic principles (both which rely on those laws that were made) are evidence that the universe was designed. I get that evidence doesn’t equate to 100 % proof but when compiled together they present substantial physical and reasonable evidence that the universe was indeed designed.
The universe has not at all gotten more orderly over time, and I believe you’re misunderstanding what the law states, would you please tell me how you think my idea of the universe is violating the 2nd law of the universe?
We also have no proof that the laws needed a designer, most laws could work just by saying that that is how the atoms and subatomic particles interact with each other.
What about miracles? They tend to break natural laws as well as common sense.
The teleological argument is also a false analogy and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that the universe is too complex to be natural is an argument from personal incredulity. If you go the way of the watch side of the teleological argument, that the watch is complex and has a designer, or the painting has a painter, that is the part that is a false analogy.
For instance, saying the universe is complex, and watches are complex, therefore the universe has a designer since the watch has a creator doesn’t work, because that,
A) Isn’t something that can be just assumed
B) Opens up Pandora’s Box to matching any quality of a watch to the universe, such as the watch being invented in the 15th or so century, therefore the universe was as well
@IMO, which miracles? The ones that have no evidence except for eye witness accounts which are faulty, or the ones with no evidence except for an archaic book?
ARed, the pastor is making that basic mistake of attributing things we, at this point in time, can’t understand yet and attributing these things to some creator (god). That’s ok because he’s in the god business and needs to believe that.
The idea that something must have a beginning is for him a given. Time is a human construct and in our limited understanding of science, it makes sense for him to say that there must be a beginning and an end. Not necessarily so.
I appreciate you discussing this topic with him in a civil way but realize that he is committed to a faith based belief system where science is just a distraction to prove his faith in something (religion) that is unprovable by science.
Alright fine, well there-goes my morning entertainment, drat
@ARedHerring first of all I didn’t say the 2nd law of the universe, I specifically said the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So let’s start with you looking that up and making sure we are on the same page as to what is being said. Second, how is the teleological argument a false analogy. It’s a fact so please share which part of it is false and why. Third, laws are intentional and unbreakable and repeatable. They exist across all space and at all times. That defies being the random occurrence of how electrons and molecules interact not to mention there are set laws about how molecules and electrons interact. Finally, I said nothing about the universe being too complex to be natural. Go back and read what I wrote without reading into it what you think I am trying to say.
“which miracles? The ones that have no evidence except for eye witness accounts which are faulty, or the ones with no evidence except for an archaic book?”
EVERY CHANGED LIFE....including mine is a miracle. Look at Kanye West. He was a selfish spoiled atheist rapper. Now he is a changed man putting Christ first. If the same thing happened in your life you would consider it a miracle based on where you are now.
@tractorman the idea that all things that have a beginning must have a cause is a scientific reality. It’s called the law of causality. The idea that the universe had a beginning is a scientific reality. These aren’t things that I need to believe they’re scientific facts.
Given relativity and quantum theory, it is anything but “straightforward.”
We used to be certain that the way time progresses doesn’t change, and that an object’s length is invariant. It makes complete sense and is extremely intuitive. Then relativity came along and upended all of that. But after all, we don’t live at relativistic speeds, so why should we expect their effects to make intuitive sense to us?
We used to think that particles and waves were mutually exclusive, and that waves must always travel through a medium. It makes complete sense and is extremely intuitive. Then quantum physics and quantum mechanics came along and upended all of that. But after all, we don’t live at quantum scales, so why should we expect their effects to make intuitive sense to us?
And now, creationists are constantly going on about how it’s obvious why there is something rather than nothing, presenting their “law of causality” to argue why there must be something beyond the universe pulling the strings. It makes sense and is extremely intuitive. But then again, we don’t live in a universe still in its infancy, nor in a state prior to the universe’s existence (if there even is such a thing). And what have we learned from the discoveries of relativity and quantum? It’s a valuable lessons creationists have apparently failed to learn.
This is exactly why you cannot just sit in an armchair and think about stuff to solve the deepest mysteries of the cosmos.
Very well said Talren. The scientific method is the best way we have to find facts within the universe. Funny how miracles have diminished as knowledge becomes wide spread.
Pastor, the universe is anything but straightforward and simple. There is no such straightforward progression of time, as Talren said, and there is no “law of causality” (at least, it isn’t a physical law I’ve heard of). And that’s not how the 2nd law of thermodynamics works, either. (Think of it in theological terms of you like: would a universe that God made be a puzzle so easily solved?)
Red herring, your argument has severe burden of proof issues. But aside from that, you state that the laws could be there just because that’s the way matter interacts. That is a tautology and says absolutely nothing; the question of why that information is there, or whether that’s a meaningful question, remains.
@JulesVerne no one said the universe is straight forward and simple. There actually is a law of causality. Not everything is defined by whether or not you have heard of it. Feel free to do the research and look it up. It is not a physical law just like many of the existing laws in the scientific realm are not physical laws. Also look up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it appears you don’t understand it at all. As for whether a universe God created could be so easily solved 1) Why would a God who created the universe desire to keep it a secret? And 2) why wouldn’t a universe created by God be easily explained? I used the word explained because solved indicates it was created as a mystery which there is no evidence it was created that way.
There’s a principle of causality (especially in classical physics), but a “law” of causality only exists in archaic philosophies (I believe Ayn Rand used the term most recently). It’s not a physical law because it has no mathematical form and makes no concrete predictions.
As for the second law of thermodynamics, it’s one of the most commonly misunderstood physical concepts (maybe second only to some stuff from quantum mechanics). It emphatically does not say that complexity in the universe is naturally decreasing with time. It has to do with energy dissipating into forms that are the most “spread out” and unusable, and gives us some of the only clues we have about why time seems to flow one way. Sometimes this results in more complexity, and sometimes in less.
For example, when you stir sugar into tea, the situation becomes more “disorderly” as the particles of each are all mixed together, and you can’t un-mix them without putting energy into the system.
But, if you have a huge cloud of dirt out in the middle of space, gravitational attraction will cause it to converge on itself into a big round ball (since gravity is spherically symmetric). A totally natural process where the result has a lower potential energy, but the result is an orderly ball and not a disorderly cloud.
@ARedHerring @Tractorman @IMO @Talren It seems you are all refuting a very basic scientific fact: that universe had a beginning. We aren’t talking about theories or about quarks. We are talking about the current scientific fact that this universe had a beginning. This isn’t a creationist theory or a religious theory, although it does line up with Christian theology. This is the simple fact that the universe had a beginning. So please clarify for me: are you disputing what Einstein’s theory of relativity proved: are you disputing that the universe had a beginning?
It’s also worth noting that simplicity, and not complexity, points to design or outside interaction.
I for one never disputed that the universe had a beginning. I don’t know if others did or not
@JulesVerne it seems you continue to limit reality to what you understand. I guess the easiest response is which has produced more complex structures? Natural occurrences or intelligence? If you see writing in the sky from a plane and a cloud which is more likely the result of design or outside interaction? The simple cloud or the more complex design? Apply the same to writing in the sand or a sandcastle next to a pile of wet sand. Which more likely the result of design or outside interaction? The simple pile of wet sand or the more complex castle or writing. Apply that same thinking to buildings and structures. Which is more evidence of design: a mountain or the more complex Mount Rushmore? This shows you note is quite inaccurate as are your other musings.
Shit just happens....
Jules has a degree in physics. If there were a scientific “law of causality,” I’m sure he would have heard of it by now.
And what on earth is a “non-physical law,” anyway? Science only deals in the physical.
@Talren I can’t speak to what others have heard of, only what exists. It’s funny because other Atheists such as Hume and Hawking have heard of it and referred to it in their writings.
Haha, Jules, I know my arguments aren’t exactly strong. My degree is in engineering, not physics. I’m winging it based on what I know already, which isn’t much.
I’m sorry my musings struck you as inaccurate.
In each of those situations, the “complex” thing you described was actually the simpler one!
Imagine a shattered pane of glass lying on the floor. Say, into 500 pieces. There are are many thousands of thousands of ways to arrange each of those pieces in relation to each other; the exact arrangement you see is the result of a highly random process. But it’s extremely complex to describe, since you have to delineate it from thousands of other arrangements.
Now imagine the pane of glass before it was broken. There is just *one* arrangement of those 500 (imaginary) pieces that can make it a pane of glass, so the situation is very much simpler than the broken glass. But much more orderly, and clearly someone made the pane that way. More orderly, less complex.
Fair enough, red herring.
And good point about Hume and Hawking, although Hume wasn’t a scientist and Hawking published a lot of speculative, nonscientific nonsense too (not an insult, he knew the difference I’m sure). Being an atheist doesn’t make one a scientist.
@JulesVerne your explanation doesn’t seem to meet your own merits for determining outside interaction. In your example you state there is only one arrangement of the 500 pieces of glass that could make it a pane and this is simpler. But that would take an arrangement, outside interaction of the more complex 500 pieces to become what you call simpler. In the same way it takes outside interaction to make the pane of glass, which in your example is the complex structure. And although I see what you are trying to say it really doesn’t hold up in this premise. And in this premise Mount Rushmore, the finished product, is more complex than the mountain it was before outside intelligent interaction. It is both more organized and more complex. No one would look at the two finished products a mountain and Mount Rushmore and claim the mountain is the more complex and Mount Rushmore the simpler.
Mount Rushmore indicates outside design, yes. Because it’s a specific arrangement that has *meaning* to the human brain.
And perhaps my example was misunderstood; of course it took someone arranging the imaginary glass pieces to make it into a pane. My point was that the pane, being the result of design, is more orderly and less complex than bits of glass scattered about the room.
@JulesVerne the then you see why your example and claim that the simple and not the complex is evidence of outside interaction doesn’t work or hold merit.
Pastor - you’re fine right up to the last statement. We see the laws of nature in this universe as having orderly design. However, that could also be an artifact of survivorship bias. That is, if any of the physical laws were different, we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
No. It's too big, too complex, and too hard to explore. For example, the center of gas giants will never be more than an educated guess.
I disagree, I think we could probe the deepest parts of Uranus
Walked into that one 😂
No, I think there are mysteries to the universe we will never understand.
Seems as if every time science gets one answer, two more questions pop up.
Given enough time, yes. We already know most of the big picture just from radio telescopes, spectrographic analysis and so forth. If we don't blow ourselves up or otherwise render our planet uninhabitable, we've got quite a bright future, tapping the limitless potential of Space.
Unfortunately “science” has become far too politicized to be of any use anymore. Global warming was debunked years ago and is a confirmed hoax yet “scientists” keep running around peddling its propaganda. They have ZERO credibility.
Scotty if I may ask, what’s your background in the sciences? Have you taken classes on thermodynamics, ever conducted research on the climate? Read scientific journals with papers on the subject?
Thank you for asking as I am a tenured professor with a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. I can firmly tell you my field has become highly politicized and devoid of scientific rigor in favor of a kind of religiosity surrounding this climate change hoax. CO2 is a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere and we only contribute 25% of the 0.04%. By contrast even a minuscule change in luminosity from our closet star has enormous impacts on our climate, as has been soundly demonstrated in numerous journals of scientific study.
Do you mind providing links to the studies you are referring to? From the data I have seen we are experiencing a rather rapid increase in average surface temperature, is your claim that this is almost entirely due to variations in energy received from the sun?
Even tho we’ve contributed only 100 ppm so far why is that not significant? Everything I have seen indicates co2 is a potent greenhouse gas that accelerated warming.
And do you mind providing evidence that you are indeed who you say you are? Tbh I’ve always thought you were a troll so that claim in my mind is rather bold
You don’t need “studies” to prove basic logic. You mentioned a 100ppm increase. That’s parts per MILLION, as in again, 0.04% of the atmosphere of which 75% is completely natural. We are an insanely minor contributor.
Yes that giant fusion ball in the sky, the sole thing keeping us above a natural temperature of four degrees Kelvin over absolute zero and responsible for all life on this planet, is solely responsible for all climatic variation in addition to the natural cycles of Earth’s axial tilt and revolutions around the sun. That’s why we have ice ages, glaciation and warming periods like now as we just came out of the Little Ice Age.
For a tenured professor you seem to have a distinct lack of access to papers
It’s entirely logically to over 50 of the population that greenhouse gases such as co2 are the contributing factor for global climate change so apparently we do need papers
Link wars bore me and I don’t expect you to read on the spot 50 page in depth research with complex scientific jargon. And sadly yes, much of the general population lacks basic scientific education and blindly believes a bunch of made up propaganda by Al Gore and mentally ill Swedish girls.
Can you please show your credentials. And yes I would read it. Send it my way
Send me ones you’ve worked on
Why not debate the topic? You haven’t refuted a single argument, just attacked my credentials and used logical fallacies like appealing to authority or mass belief. How can 25% of 0.04% of the atmosphere control climate but the giant fusion ball is irrelevant?
Never said it was irrelevant. But the output is relatively constant, unlike the atmosphere co2. We know from Venus and Mars the importance of greenhouse gases and and 33% increase is not negligible. It all depends on what is normal and the effects of such an increase.
Can you please provide your credentials now. Show us you aren’t lying plz
Arguing someone on climate change is like arguing wether or not it feels good to shoot yourself in the head. There’s no point in even entertaining Scotty.
However it is interesting to pick the brain of a functioning retard.
I appeal to authority because I am not a climatologist. If you are you have gone thru more data. Also plz provide the data, I said I am more than willing. I can claim whatever I want and so can you but if there’s no data to back it up it isn’t very strong.
So 1. Show your credentials
2. Show the data, I am willing to go through it and that’s much more damning evidence than someone on the internet raving about it who hasn’t shown their credentials
You are typical of most of my students and appealing to authority is just a really bad way of arguing. I can easily find ten “experts” that agree with me while you can easily find ten “experts” that agree with you. Nothing is accomplished. So let’s just assume we’ve both done that and now let’s tackle the argument. How does 25% of 0.04% of the atmosphere control the climate?
Still waiting on those credentials and papers
Unless you have the data to back up your claims, or show that you are who you say you are, I have no reason to believe your claims. Unless I have the data why would my claims change your mind? They aren’t substantiated
These are easily Google-able facts, I trust you’re bright enough to use a simple search engine?
Problem is you can’t refute facts or have a simple debate so you deflect and obfuscate. Sad!
Show your credentials. I can’t google those
And I’m not doing your homework for you 😂. It’s you making the claim. I claim your a transgender lizard! Guess cuz I said it it’s on you do to the research to disprove it 😂
Plus as a climate professor I’m sure you’d have a much better idea of what studies I should be looking at. Assume you can show you are indeed who you say you are
Argonaut, having a Scotty experience?
Join the club.
Ah so he is a troll
Scotty, I don’t believe you.
If none of you are willing to debate and just yap on about nonsense and call me names I guess I win my default. That was easy. 🏆
You can have your self made trophy for the debate. You’ve lost at life. Is trolling really how you want to spend your time?
Look in the mirror kid.
Scotty, why do you troll? Do you somehow get satisfaction from it?
Scotty, if you’re really a professor, it would be very easy to give a link to a university webpage or any paper you’ve authored or co-authored.
And if you’re really a professor, you’d laugh at the statement “I don’t need to provide data, I’m just arguing from common sense,” rather than making it yourself (or whatever that was).
And furthermore, no one is willing to debate you because you haven’t made any substantive or even intelligible statements.
Ikr, there’s absolutely no way he could make it in academia saying stuff like that. ^
Since he’s a troll he’s well aware that what he says has no basis. He’s just here to annoy people cuz for some reason he likes it?
Yeah I guess so. I can’t imagine being so bored that lying to people on the internet sounded like fun!
Let’s try this another way, the entire premise that we’re “warming” or “changing” from some objective standard is flawed. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old (do I need a link proving this basic fact? 🙄), out of that 4.5 billion years which year was the “normal” climate we’re “supposed” to be and stay at forever?
That there’s climate change and always has been isn’t in dispute by anyone that I know of. That the climate change we’re seeing now is anthropogenic is what’s on the table here.
But you’re still not going to address anything I’ve said, are you?
Scotty show is you actually are who you say you are and provide links to papers you’ve published on the topic
Yeah I don’t get it either Jules. He’s got to be lacking something in real life
So if we know the climate has been much hotter and much colder than it is now, long before evil humans set the camp fire, how can one separate natural climate change from man made if by definition they would be happening simultaneously? 🤔
Also who’s to say the much warmer or much colder time long before humans evolved was the “perfect” climate we must aim for? 🤔
Scotty show us your credentials and papers 😂
Scotty, how can you expect anyone to take your statements seriously after lying like that? You may or may not have good points there. I’m not going to address them until you address mine.
And, that’s not what “by definition” means.
Or you can keep blabbering on if you really enjoy it so much 😂
Jules, do you think it’s best to make him actually provide evidence to support his claims before any continuing of this farce of a “debate.”
He knows very well that it’s climate relative to what’s normal and optimal for this period of the earth and has provided absolutely nothing to show he wasn’t lying or owned up to the fact if he is, which seems extremely likely at this point. He’s just going to give statements like that that have absolutely no substance
Nah I think that would be mostly fruitless. But it’s an olive branch. If he’ll admit that he’s lying about being a climate scientist, or (totally shock me and) prove that he is, then I’ll address his points and engage in some debate.
Are you guys scared to debate or just realize you’re way over your head here?
Oh yes, we’re in way over our heads and scared shitless to debate with you
That is PAINFULLY obvious! 🏆
Scotty, real talk, you doing alright? Like you got friends and people to do stuff with aside from the internet?
Yeah your mom’s one of’em.
Scotty go out and meet people. Connect with them on a personal level
Oh I connected with your mom on a deeply personal level. Deeply.
Take care Scotty, seems like you could use some more people in your life
Your mom is all I need, mmm mmm mmm.
Man thought he learned everything God knows and challenged God. So God tosses dirt in the air and a man is formed. Man,in his arrogance,reaches down for a handful at which point God said , "hey start with your own dirt".
It's still God's creation.
I don’t subscribe to a creation myth, but even if it was created why does that necessarily mean we can’t understand aspects of it?
Btw I am referring to myth as the first definition you can find on google
Thanks for sharing, Joe. Made me chuckle
The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
Definitely considering how far we’ve come in the last 500 years.
Could you reword the question?