Many Believe....Many Don't.

[PoliticalChic]

Re: 6. Which is why the word believe should have nothing to do with Science. The Big Bang Theory is a description based on observation, evidence, math, physics, etc. about what may have happened in the early part of this observable universe. I don't believe it, and neither should you. And neither should anyone else including any scientists. Not because it isn't true, accurate, or not contain any element of Truth, but because it does not require belief. Its a theory not a belief.

There may never be scientific answers to all of the questions we have about life, the universe, and everything. To believe you have any of those answers is belief.

Re: 7. Is this an appeal to authority?

Re: 8. A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it. What happened before the expansion of the Universe is currently unknown and maybe unknowable. NO ONE KNOWS - not me, not you, nor anyone else. To claim otherwise is to lie. To think otherwise is delusion.

Epicurus would agree. We don't know all the information (and who knows how much we don't know about the origins of the Universe) so best not to make a decision regarding it yet.

Science will probably never answer all our questions. And its okay not to know. In fact, its better not to know because it makes existence far more interesting.

Kant had a point: no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it...

Scientists have pretty much shred the view that we can know the world trough our senses.


9. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Sensitivity of Human Ear That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!






"A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it."

Of course, yours is the misconception.
Before the big bang there was nothing...at least that is the scientific view.

There is prominent scientific atheist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an Americantheoretical physicistand cosmologist...known as an advocate of thepublic understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma inpop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star TrekandA Universe from Nothing." Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void?


"Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you like I will provide Alexander Vilenkin saying the same thing.

 

[G.T.]

We can know plenty of things outside of ourselves, and how they really are.

Such as, not being omniscient. Every person can know for absolute certain that they are or are not omniscient.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We can know plenty of things outside of ourselves, and how they really are.

Such as, not being omniscient. Every person can know for absolute certain that they are or are not omniscient.

Oh, how nice.

You may now return to the 24 hour All Cartoon Network

 

[G.T.]

Defeated and hurling insults. pc's everyday.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Defeated and hurling insults. pc's everyday.

I said you were dismissed.

 

[G.T.]

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Anti-religion folks demand that all knowledge be based on our senses, and, therefore, religious faith falls short.

But our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.


a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.



11. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?
Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?


a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,…proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton.

The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless.
He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin




b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.

‘It isbest to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Re: 6. Which is why the word believe should have nothing to do with Science. The Big Bang Theory is a description based on observation, evidence, math, physics, etc. about what may have happened in the early part of this observable universe. I don't believe it, and neither should you. And neither should anyone else including any scientists. Not because it isn't true, accurate, or not contain any element of Truth, but because it does not require belief. Its a theory not a belief.

There may never be scientific answers to all of the questions we have about life, the universe, and everything. To believe you have any of those answers is belief.

Re: 7. Is this an appeal to authority?

Re: 8. A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it. What happened before the expansion of the Universe is currently unknown and maybe unknowable. NO ONE KNOWS - not me, not you, nor anyone else. To claim otherwise is to lie. To think otherwise is delusion.

Epicurus would agree. We don't know all the information (and who knows how much we don't know about the origins of the Universe) so best not to make a decision regarding it yet.

Science will probably never answer all our questions. And its okay not to know. In fact, its better not to know because it makes existence far more interesting.

Kant had a point: no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it...

Scientists have pretty much shred the view that we can know the world trough our senses.


9. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Sensitivity of Human Ear That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!






"A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it."

Of course, yours is the misconception.
Before the big bang there was nothing...at least that is the scientific view.

There is prominent scientific atheist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an Americantheoretical physicistand cosmologist...known as an advocate of thepublic understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma inpop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star TrekandA Universe from Nothing." Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void?


"Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you like I will provide Alexander Vilenkin saying the same thing.

Regarding your thoughts on Kant, it goes even further e.g.: take a plain object such as a brown, cardboard box. What you see when you look at the box is actually electronic impulses that start at the optic nerve, are transported to the brain, and then are interpreted in the brain into a representative image in the brain. You aren't objectively seeing the box at all, but only perceiving an image that oriniginates in your mind that has been interpreted from electronic signals sent from a nerve ending.

Kant wasn't far off. Nietzche was closer. And Heisenberg took it even further, beyond common sense in that the reality we observe is actually influenced simply by our observation of it.

Regarding Valenkin and Krauss. They're work is not part of the BBT. Prove me wrong. You can't. What Valenkin and Krauss and others are doing is speculating, and not without good reason, about what came before the Big Bang. They are attempting to feel out what may have been before the BB. But the Big Bang Theory only describes what may have happened from expansion until now. Science is not monolithic, and scientists are just people, but show me where the BBT states that the Universe came from nothing. Prove me wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Re: 6. Which is why the word believe should have nothing to do with Science. The Big Bang Theory is a description based on observation, evidence, math, physics, etc. about what may have happened in the early part of this observable universe. I don't believe it, and neither should you. And neither should anyone else including any scientists. Not because it isn't true, accurate, or not contain any element of Truth, but because it does not require belief. Its a theory not a belief.

There may never be scientific answers to all of the questions we have about life, the universe, and everything. To believe you have any of those answers is belief.

Re: 7. Is this an appeal to authority?

Re: 8. A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it. What happened before the expansion of the Universe is currently unknown and maybe unknowable. NO ONE KNOWS - not me, not you, nor anyone else. To claim otherwise is to lie. To think otherwise is delusion.

Epicurus would agree. We don't know all the information (and who knows how much we don't know about the origins of the Universe) so best not to make a decision regarding it yet.

Science will probably never answer all our questions. And its okay not to know. In fact, its better not to know because it makes existence far more interesting.

Kant had a point: no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it...

Scientists have pretty much shred the view that we can know the world trough our senses.


9. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Sensitivity of Human Ear That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!






"A common misconception about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is that before the Big Bang there was nothing, then an explosion which eventually cooled and coalesced into the Universe as we perceive it."

Of course, yours is the misconception.
Before the big bang there was nothing...at least that is the scientific view.

There is prominent scientific atheist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an Americantheoretical physicistand cosmologist...known as an advocate of thepublic understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma inpop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star TrekandA Universe from Nothing." Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..." Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void?


"Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you like I will provide Alexander Vilenkin saying the same thing.

Regarding your thoughts on Kant, it goes even further e.g.: take a plain object such as a brown, cardboard box. What you see when you look at the box is actually electronic impulses that start at the optic nerve, are transported to the brain, and then are interpreted in the brain into a representative image in the brain. You aren't objectively seeing the box at all, but only perceiving an image that oriniginates in your mind that has been interpreted from electronic signals sent from a nerve ending.

Kant wasn't far off. Nietzche was closer. And Heisenberg took it even further, beyond common sense in that the reality we observe is actually influenced simply by our observation of it.

Regarding Valenkin and Krauss. They're work is not part of the BBT. Prove me wrong. You can't. What Valenkin and Krauss and others are doing is speculating, and not without good reason, about what came before the Big Bang. They are attempting to feel out what may have been before the BB. But the Big Bang Theory only describes what may have happened from expansion until now. Science is not monolithic, and scientists are just people, but show me where the BBT states that the Universe came from nothing. Prove me wrong.

What is the source of the material required for the creation of the universe?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

10. Anti-religion folks demand that all knowledge be based on our senses, and, therefore, religious faith falls short.

But our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.


a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.



11. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?
Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?


a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,…proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton.

The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless.
He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin




b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.

‘It isbest to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

Re: 10. No one claims that. Link, please.

Science is a process that is based on a materialistic principle, in that one can't do science without empirical data. Is that what you are getting at?

Re: 11. Possibly.

Re: 11.b. I don't understand the connection you are trying to make here. Please clarify.

Re: the quote by Epicurus. Have you decisive verification of your religious beliefs? If not, shouldn't you be open-minded to a Universe that may not be created by God?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What is the source of the material required for the creation of the universe?

No one knows yet, if ever. NO ONE.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Anti-religion folks demand that all knowledge be based on our senses, and, therefore, religious faith falls short.

But our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.


a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.



11. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?
Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?


a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,…proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton.

The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless.
He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin




b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.

‘It isbest to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

Re: 10. No one claims that. Link, please.

Science is a process that is based on a materialistic principle, in that one can't do science without empirical data. Is that what you are getting at?

Re: 11. Possibly.

Re: 11.b. I don't understand the connection you are trying to make here. Please clarify.

Re: the quote by Epicurus. Have you decisive verification of your religious beliefs? If not, shouldn't you be open-minded to a Universe that may not be created by God?

10. Anti-religion folks demand that all knowledge be based on our senses, and, therefore, religious faith falls short.

You say: "Re: 10. No one claims that. Link, please."

Of course, you're wrong again.

When historians say ‘modern,’ they generally men the period beginning with the Enlightenment. In fact, many thinkers were so impressed with the scientific revolution that they began to regard science as the sole source of truth: whatever could not be known by the scientific method was not real! It was elevated into an exclusive worldview- ‘scientism’ or ‘positivism.’

1. 1. Positivism: A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology. positivism - definition of positivism by The Free Dictionary
   2. 
      
   3. 
      
   4. 2. Enlightenment thinkers laid claim to the realm of “facts,” with many subscribing to a doctrine of materialism, that fundamental reality consisted only of matter….leading to Marxism. The Romantics, on the other hand, wanted to protect “values,” or idealism, wherein reality consists of mind or spirit. ["Saving Leonardo," Nancy Pearcey, p.91].

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the source of the material required for the creation of the universe?

No one knows yet, if ever. NO ONE.

One cannot discuss the Big Bang Theory without that question being concomitant.

As I have shown, leading scientists have endorsed the absurd notion that it comes from nothing....

"But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far:Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all.This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today.If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com





And, as you have shown that you don't mind embarrassing yourself.....what is your position on something from nothing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. The term 'faith' has fallen into disrepute today, especially among the elites, the intellectuals. What is almost amusing is that 'faith' infuses so many of the most firmly held beliefs of the secularists.


In his book, "Cosmos," Carl Sagan made the ultimate statement of faith in atheistic materialism, claiming "the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (p.4).

Of course, there is no way for him to know that for sure. How could he?


a. Sagan was making his statement out of the realm of probability....very much the way religious folks do about God.




13. And...the less evidence one has for their position, the more faith they would need to believe it. Faith covers a gap in knowledge.

Case in point: the origin of the universe. Either 'someone' created something out of nothing, the religious view, or, no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic view.)

Which is more reasonable? Which requires more faith?


a. "Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.."

Richard Dawkins,The Blind Watchmaker,p. 116




So, ...where is more faith required, to believe that 1.000 encyclopedia were written by happenstance, or that there that there was some intelligence behind it?

Speaking to that exact point is the title of Turek's opus, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist."

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Of course, you're wrong again.

When historians say ‘modern,’ they generally men the period beginning with the Enlightenment. In fact, many thinkers were so impressed with the scientific revolution that they began to regard science as the sole source of truth: whatever could not be known by the scientific method was not real! It was elevated into an exclusive worldview- ‘scientism’ or ‘positivism.’

1. 1. Positivism: A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology. positivism - definition of positivism by The Free Dictionary
   2. 
      
   3. 
      
   4. 2. Enlightenment thinkers laid claim to the realm of “facts,” with many subscribing to a doctrine of materialism, that fundamental reality consisted only of matter….leading to Marxism. The Romantics, on the other hand, wanted to protect “values,” or idealism, wherein reality consists of mind or spirit. ["Saving Leonardo," Nancy Pearcey, p.91].

Positivism is only one aspect of epistemology.

Epistemology:

"Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid.

Epistemology is the explanation of how we think. It is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a proper method of evaluation. It is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us. Without epistemology, we could not think. More specifically, we would have no reason to believe our thinking was productive or correct, as opposed to random images flashing before our mind. With an incorrect epistemology, we would not be able to distinguish truth from error. The consequences are obvious. The degree to which our epistemology is correct is the degree to which we could understand reality, and the degree to which we could use that knowledge to promote our lives and goals. Flaws in epistemology will make it harder to accomplish anything.

Our senses are valid, and the only way to gain information about the world. Reason is our method of gaining knowledge, and acquiring understanding. Logic is our method of maintaining consistency within our set of knowledge. Objectivity is our means of associating knowledge with reality to determine its validity. Concepts are abstracts of specific details of reality, or of other abstractions. A proper epistemology is a rational epistemology."

Epistemology

In other words, scientifically knowledge comes from reason and information comes from our senses.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What is the source of the material required for the creation of the universe?

No one knows yet, if ever. NO ONE.

One cannot discuss the Big Bang Theory without that question being concomitant..

Of course.

As I have shown, leading scientists have endorsed the absurd notion that it comes from nothing.....

Just because some scientists speculate that the Universe comes from "nothing" doesn't mean that that is part of the Big Bang Theory. Even if they are considered imminent scientists or leading scientists.


"A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it."

My bolding of the last phrase.

Big Bang Theory

"But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far:Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all.This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today.If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

All just speculation, and very interesting, but not part of the BBT.

And, as you have shown that you don't mind embarrassing yourself.....what is your position on something from nothing?

I don't have a position on it. How can anyone KNOW if something can come from nothing? They can speculate about it, show how it may be possible using mathematical models, and debate the merits of the idea but can't prove it. Not yet, if ever.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

12. The term 'faith' has fallen into disrepute today, especially among the elites, the intellectuals. What is almost amusing is that 'faith' infuses so many of the most firmly held beliefs of the secularists.

That would be true if "secularists" hold beliefs and many do, incorrectly. Knowledge requires no faith: either you know or you do not. If one thinks one knows, then that would be "belief". And that requires faith in the manner you are using the word.

In his book, "Cosmos," Carl Sagan made the ultimate statement of faith in atheistic materialism, claiming "the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (p.4).

Of course, there is no way for him to know that for sure. How could he?

He is defining the word Cosmos not the phrase "the physical universe". You may think he's implying that it's a materialistic universe but that is subjective.

cos·mos
noun \ˈkäz-məs, 1 & 2 also -ˌmōs, -ˌmäs\
the cosmos : the universe especially when it is understood as an ordered system

: a tall plant that has usually white, pink, or red flowers

universe 1

b (1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe — compare chaos (2) : order, harmony
2
: a complex orderly self-inclusive system
3
plural cosmos also cos·mos·es [New Latin, genus name, from Greek kosmos] : any of a genus (Cosmos) of tropical American composite herbs; especially : a widely cultivated tall annual (C. bipinnatus) with yellow or red disks and showy ray flowers

a. Sagan was making his statement out of the realm of probability....very much the way religious folks do about God.

13. And...the less evidence one has for their position, the more faith they would need to believe it. Faith covers a gap in knowledge.

Agreed.

Case in point: the origin of the universe. Either 'someone' created something out of nothing, the religious view, or, no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic view.)

That is not the atheistic view. Atheists aren't a monolithic group. Some believe there is no god or gods and cannot be. Others are not convinced there is a god or gods.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Those atheists who lack belief, like me, don't believe the Universe was created by no one out of nothing. We don't have beliefs about such things.

Which is more reasonable? Which requires more faith?

It doesn't matter. Any belief that one has knowledge that one cannot show to be knowledge requires faith. In this case, making either position flawed. Either you know or you don't.

a. "Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.."

Richard Dawkins,The Blind Watchmaker,p. 116

So, ...where is more faith required, to believe that 1.000 encyclopedia were written by happenstance, or that there that there was some intelligence behind it?

Speaking to that exact point is the title of Turek's opus, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist."

Since you or I or anyone else don't know whether DNA occurs randomly, or only under specific conditions, or as an intelligent design any position other than "No one knows yet" requires faith making that position inherently flawed and not rational.

Using degrees of faith to validate your position by showing that because there is less knowledge on one side of the argument and therefore more faith is like saying, "Because my pile of bullshit is smaller than the other pile of bullshit, my pile of bullshit is the more valid shit." Both sides are just shitty positions.

Beyond that, since your theistic "theories" have absolutely no predictive power and no explanatory scope, and especially no scientific evidence, they require complete faith and are therefore less valid than any theory which makes predictions, has explanatory scope, and supporting evidence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I said you were dismissed.

Notice when she isn't plagiarising how her posts are just bumpersticker length. If not reposting someone else's blog no one'd read a thing she says.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, you're wrong again.

When historians say ‘modern,’ they generally men the period beginning with the Enlightenment. In fact, many thinkers were so impressed with the scientific revolution that they began to regard science as the sole source of truth: whatever could not be known by the scientific method was not real! It was elevated into an exclusive worldview- ‘scientism’ or ‘positivism.’

1. 1. Positivism: A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology. positivism - definition of positivism by The Free Dictionary
   2. 
      
   3. 
      
   4. 2. Enlightenment thinkers laid claim to the realm of “facts,” with many subscribing to a doctrine of materialism, that fundamental reality consisted only of matter….leading to Marxism. The Romantics, on the other hand, wanted to protect “values,” or idealism, wherein reality consists of mind or spirit. ["Saving Leonardo," Nancy Pearcey, p.91].

Positivism is only one aspect of epistemology.

Epistemology:

"Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid.

Epistemology is the explanation of how we think. It is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a proper method of evaluation. It is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us. Without epistemology, we could not think. More specifically, we would have no reason to believe our thinking was productive or correct, as opposed to random images flashing before our mind. With an incorrect epistemology, we would not be able to distinguish truth from error. The consequences are obvious. The degree to which our epistemology is correct is the degree to which we could understand reality, and the degree to which we could use that knowledge to promote our lives and goals. Flaws in epistemology will make it harder to accomplish anything.

Our senses are valid, and the only way to gain information about the world. Reason is our method of gaining knowledge, and acquiring understanding. Logic is our method of maintaining consistency within our set of knowledge. Objectivity is our means of associating knowledge with reality to determine its validity. Concepts are abstracts of specific details of reality, or of other abstractions. A proper epistemology is a rational epistemology."

Epistemology

In other words, scientifically knowledge comes from reason and information comes from our senses.

Tap dance as fast as you like....this is what you said:

10. Anti-religion folks demand that all knowledge be based on our senses, and, therefore, religious faith falls short.

You say: "Re: 10. No one claims that. Link, please."

Of course, you're wrong again.


Perhaps you should put more care into what you post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the source of the material required for the creation of the universe?

No one knows yet, if ever. NO ONE.

One cannot discuss the Big Bang Theory without that question being concomitant..

Of course.

As I have shown, leading scientists have endorsed the absurd notion that it comes from nothing.....

Just because some scientists speculate that the Universe comes from "nothing" doesn't mean that that is part of the Big Bang Theory. Even if they are considered imminent scientists or leading scientists.


"A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it."

My bolding of the last phrase.

Big Bang Theory

"But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far:Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all.This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today.If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

All just speculation, and very interesting, but not part of the BBT.

And, as you have shown that you don't mind embarrassing yourself.....what is your position on something from nothing?

I don't have a position on it. How can anyone KNOW if something can come from nothing? They can speculate about it, show how it may be possible using mathematical models, and debate the merits of the idea but can't prove it. Not yet, if ever.

1. "I don't have a position on it."
In general, I take the view that there is as much reason to believe as there is in much of what is called 'science' today.


Both are largely based on faith.

I don't attack....denigrate....based on your view, but have found that you do, those with my view.
As you have no doubt found, I can back up everything I post, and do so without reference to the bible or my faith.


I mean this in the kindest way,...your fear of taking a position on the sourced of what is now the universe is spineless.
Let me bold a statement as well: "This heretical statement clashes with common sense,..."






2. The reason why absurdities are accepted by science is the desire to attack religion.
Otherwise folks like you,who have bought the nonsense wholesale, would pronounce it absurd.

And prominent scientists have admitted exactly that:

a. Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up, clearly a tactic appropriated from Liberalism, secularism.



b. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”