Science isn’t always the answer.

[forkup]

you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Did you forget that YOU were the one who asked for evidence for God's existence.

I have literally given you what YOU asked for.

Definition of evidence | Dictionary.com I think it would be helpful for you to look up the word evidence. You have provided no evidence. You have provided a hypothesis.

Maybe this will clarify the difference. Someone is accused of murder and the prosecutor says " I have evidence the accused did it." He subsequently shows the accused had no alibi and was physically capable of committing the murder. He shows nothing more. What do you suppose the chances are he gets convicted?

Same circumstances but now the prosecutor shows a bloody knife with DNA from both the accused and victim on it. Plus a tape putting them in the same room at the time of death. This person will be convicted. What do you suppose the difference is between the 2?

 

[forkup]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

They call something like this a hypothesis. Wich is the first step. Maybe he can prove it mathematically possible.

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen. There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe yet you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

See why someone could have a problem with that?

So you believe the universe existed forever then? Not possible. Do you understand what happens thermodynamically to objects. They equillibrate. So as time approaches infinity all objects will equillibrate. That is the consequence of the SLoT. You cannot avoid this fate.

Which is why there had to be a beginning. And lo and behold, red shift and CMB confirm there was a beginning?

So then the question becomes where did it come from? Well it couldn't have existed forever because it would have equillibrated. So then the question becomes how can it be created without violating the FLoT. And that's where the explanation that the sum of the energy of the universe is a net zero. That the matter and energy of the universe is balanced by the gravity of the universe which does not violate the law of conservation.

I don't believe anything that's the definition of not knowing. Claiming knowledge without actually providing evidence is your shtick. And yes THIS universe had a beginning. It doesn't mean time and space didn't exist before. It just means it didn't exist before in THIS universe.

 

[forkup]

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe

Actually there aren't. And for you to make this statement without actually checking proves your bias. There is literally no evidence you will accept because you don't believe you can be wrong. It certainly isn't because you actually have any evidence for your beliefs. That's for sure.

I accept there are not hundreds of models. Although in my defense as I always do when I don't know something for certain I make it a point to put this in my post. It doesn't bring you any closer to being able to say that yours is the correct one or for that matter proving that your logical construct on the basis of that one model is actually correct.

 

[forkup]

It boggles my mind how anyone who claims to believe in science will argue against science the moment it doesn't suit their purpose.

The universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago from nothing and then began to expand and cool until it produced beings that know and create. These are the facts.

Argue against it. I double dog dare you.

Fine again I will. There is this model conformal cyclic cosmology , this model Loop quantum cosmology , the Baum Frampton model all suggesting that this universe did not just pop into existence but rather is one of several.

 

[forkup]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

Again a statement. Not you supporting it.

Since we are dealing with a hypothesis. What is intelligence and what makes you believe it's necessarily pre-ordained? Earth is billions of years old. So far we have proof of one highly intelligent species. Out of billions upon billions species on the only planet, we know life exists, one developed intelligence. This species can not be considered especially successful since it has been around for only a few million years on the broadest interpretation of the word human. And from where I'm sitting we are just as likely to get ourselves extinct by nuclear war or by depleting this planet's resources.

What if that's the inevitable outcome of intelligence? You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

 

[ding]

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

 

[ding]

I am giving you the proof.

*turns to camera and whispers

"Arguments aren't proof of anything, kids. And proof is for mathematics anyway..."

I submit that people like you and forkup aren't interested in exploring anything that contradicts your beliefs. It's obvious.

I'm very interested in learning and accepting the truth. Just type in my name and the words ("I stand corrected"). What you'll find is that I routinely admit when I'm wrong. I very much doubt you can show the same.

You would be wrong.

For any given thing there will be a final state of fact. This is known as objective truth or reality. Once discovered it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way even when it was believed to be different. In other words, objective truth or reality is eternal and unchanging. And it is discovered.

The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. You have a preference for an outcome. I spent 15 years searching for truth without a preference for an outcome.

 

[ding]

you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Did you forget that YOU were the one who asked for evidence for God's existence.

I have literally given you what YOU asked for.

Definition of evidence | Dictionary.com I think it would be helpful for you to look up the word evidence. You have provided no evidence. You have provided a hypothesis.

Maybe this will clarify the difference. Someone is accused of murder and the prosecutor says " I have evidence the accused did it." He subsequently shows the accused had no alibi and was physically capable of committing the murder. He shows nothing more. What do you suppose the chances are he gets convicted?

Same circumstances but now the prosecutor shows a bloody knife with DNA from both the accused and victim on it. Plus a tape putting them in the same room at the time of death. This person will be convicted. What do you suppose the difference is between the 2?

I have looked up the definition of evidence. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence. Which means that everything which was created is evidence. If you created something I could use that as evidence, right? So why can't I use everything which was created as evidence? In fact, what else do you think one can use to answer the question I posed?

Let me refresh your memory...

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

So given that you claim that you are open minded and seek truth, why is it that you have never examined the only evidence you have at your disposal?

I am showing you the bloody knife and you are telling me it's not evidence. It seems you want to skip the examination of evidence and go straight to sentencing.

 

[ding]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

They call something like this a hypothesis. Wich is the first step. Maybe he can prove it mathematically possible.

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen. There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe yet you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

See why someone could have a problem with that?

So you believe the universe existed forever then? Not possible. Do you understand what happens thermodynamically to objects. They equillibrate. So as time approaches infinity all objects will equillibrate. That is the consequence of the SLoT. You cannot avoid this fate.

Which is why there had to be a beginning. And lo and behold, red shift and CMB confirm there was a beginning?

So then the question becomes where did it come from? Well it couldn't have existed forever because it would have equillibrated. So then the question becomes how can it be created without violating the FLoT. And that's where the explanation that the sum of the energy of the universe is a net zero. That the matter and energy of the universe is balanced by the gravity of the universe which does not violate the law of conservation.

I don't believe anything that's the definition of not knowing. Claiming knowledge without actually providing evidence is your shtick. And yes THIS universe had a beginning. It doesn't mean time and space didn't exist before. It just means it didn't exist before in THIS universe.

But you are making a claim. Making the claim that one cannot know is making a claim.

Unfortunately for you we have tons of evidence that shows the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool; specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Of course our time and space did not exist before. It is the presence of energy/matter which creates space and time. So any energy/matter that existed outside of our space and time would have had it's own space and time.

 

[ding]

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe

Actually there aren't. And for you to make this statement without actually checking proves your bias. There is literally no evidence you will accept because you don't believe you can be wrong. It certainly isn't because you actually have any evidence for your beliefs. That's for sure.

I accept there are not hundreds of models. Although in my defense as I always do when I don't know something for certain I make it a point to put this in my post. It doesn't bring you any closer to being able to say that yours is the correct one or for that matter proving that your logical construct on the basis of that one model is actually correct.

The question is why are you arguing against it at all if you don't know.

You have already admitted that the universe began. That is the central point of my evidence.

 

[ding]

It boggles my mind how anyone who claims to believe in science will argue against science the moment it doesn't suit their purpose.

The universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago from nothing and then began to expand and cool until it produced beings that know and create. These are the facts.

Argue against it. I double dog dare you.

Fine again I will. There is this model conformal cyclic cosmology , this model Loop quantum cosmology , the Baum Frampton model all suggesting that this universe did not just pop into existence but rather is one of several.

You do realize that what I have been describing (i.e. a universe being created from nothing) is a quantum event, right? So you are literally pointing to the same thing I have been telling you.

...it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

Again a statement. Not you supporting it.

Since we are dealing with a hypothesis. What is intelligence and what makes you believe it's necessarily pre-ordained? Earth is billions of years old. So far we have proof of one highly intelligent species. Out of billions upon billions species on the only planet, we know life exists, one developed intelligence. This species can not be considered especially successful since it has been around for only a few million years on the broadest interpretation of the word human. And from where I'm sitting we are just as likely to get ourselves extinct by nuclear war or by depleting this planet's resources.

What if that's the inevitable outcome of intelligence? You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

You do realize that the reason SETI searches for intelligent life is because they expect to find it, right?

The laws of nature are such that the potential for beings to know and create existed before space and time. It isn't some accident that intelligence arose. Intelligence arose because the laws of nature preordained it would rise.

The inevitable outcome of intelligence can be extrapolated from the evolutionary stages that preceded it. Do you even know what those stages are? Because it's like you have never given this any serious consideration before and yet you are determined to argue from a position of ignorance.

 

[Deleted member 73486]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

"Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth."

Wrong...the bible is not a source of truth -- it is more similar to a fable, a philosophy that was written as a moral guide of that particular time.

 

[forkup]

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

 

[ding]

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

Spirit is no thing. The universe was created by no thing.

 

[ding]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

 

[forkup]

you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Did you forget that YOU were the one who asked for evidence for God's existence.

I have literally given you what YOU asked for.

Definition of evidence | Dictionary.com I think it would be helpful for you to look up the word evidence. You have provided no evidence. You have provided a hypothesis.

Maybe this will clarify the difference. Someone is accused of murder and the prosecutor says " I have evidence the accused did it." He subsequently shows the accused had no alibi and was physically capable of committing the murder. He shows nothing more. What do you suppose the chances are he gets convicted?

Same circumstances but now the prosecutor shows a bloody knife with DNA from both the accused and victim on it. Plus a tape putting them in the same room at the time of death. This person will be convicted. What do you suppose the difference is between the 2?

I have looked up the definition of evidence. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence. Which means that everything which was created is evidence. If you created something I could use that as evidence, right? So why can't I use everything which was created as evidence? In fact, what else do you think one can use to answer the question I posed?

Let me refresh your memory...

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

So given that you claim that you are open minded and seek truth, why is it that you have never examined the only evidence you have at your disposal?

I am showing you the bloody knife and you are telling me it's not evidence. It seems you want to skip the examination of evidence and go straight to sentencing.

Define nothing?
The problem you keep on having is that you jump from something came from nothing to it has to be purposeful if it did. That is simply not the case they are other possible hypotheses that don't rely on some undefined spirit. There are other possible hypotheses than "nothing" before the Big bang. Again you created a logical construct predicated on a shaky premise and then just ran with it.

 

[forkup]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?

Because the same laws which describe the evolution of the universe explain the creation of the universe. Did you even watch Vilinken's explanation?

Here let me summarize.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

They call something like this a hypothesis. Wich is the first step. Maybe he can prove it mathematically possible.

Yet here's the thing. No sign of actual proof this did happen. There are probably hundreds of models that deal with possible explanations of the nature of the universe yet you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

See why someone could have a problem with that?

So you believe the universe existed forever then? Not possible. Do you understand what happens thermodynamically to objects. They equillibrate. So as time approaches infinity all objects will equillibrate. That is the consequence of the SLoT. You cannot avoid this fate.

Which is why there had to be a beginning. And lo and behold, red shift and CMB confirm there was a beginning?

So then the question becomes where did it come from? Well it couldn't have existed forever because it would have equillibrated. So then the question becomes how can it be created without violating the FLoT. And that's where the explanation that the sum of the energy of the universe is a net zero. That the matter and energy of the universe is balanced by the gravity of the universe which does not violate the law of conservation.

I don't believe anything that's the definition of not knowing. Claiming knowledge without actually providing evidence is your shtick. And yes THIS universe had a beginning. It doesn't mean time and space didn't exist before. It just means it didn't exist before in THIS universe.

But you are making a claim. Making the claim that one cannot know is making a claim.

Unfortunately for you we have tons of evidence that shows the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool; specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Of course our time and space did not exist before. It is the presence of energy/matter which creates space and time. So any energy/matter that existed outside of our space and time would have had it's own space and time.

I didn't make the claim one cannot know. I made the claim that by what we so far know no convincing evidence for a supreme being creating the cosmos has been given. The fact that you are trying to argue here on a message board with someone who has only a passing understanding of astronomy and quantum physics strongly suggests that you don't possess evidence strong enough to publish and defend your hypothesis before people who do.

As to space and time. You can not claim space and time didn't exist before and in the next sentence acknowledge that space and time could have existed before the creation of our universe albeit separate.

 

[forkup]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

Again a statement. Not you supporting it.

Since we are dealing with a hypothesis. What is intelligence and what makes you believe it's necessarily pre-ordained? Earth is billions of years old. So far we have proof of one highly intelligent species. Out of billions upon billions species on the only planet, we know life exists, one developed intelligence. This species can not be considered especially successful since it has been around for only a few million years on the broadest interpretation of the word human. And from where I'm sitting we are just as likely to get ourselves extinct by nuclear war or by depleting this planet's resources.

What if that's the inevitable outcome of intelligence? You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

You do realize that the reason SETI searches for intelligent life is because they expect to find it, right?

The laws of nature are such that the potential for beings to know and create existed before space and time. It isn't some accident that intelligence arose. Intelligence arose because the laws of nature preordained it would rise.

The inevitable outcome of intelligence can be extrapolated from the evolutionary stages that preceded it. Do you even know what those stages are? Because it's like you have never given this any serious consideration before and yet you are determined to argue from a position of ignorance.

You do realize so far SETI hasn't found any right? Radiowaves originating from Earth have been penetrating space for a century. Meaning that any intelligent life within 50 lightyears would have been able to pick up and respond in the same manner to these radiowaves. Not only that but considering the age of the universe and the fact that there is little theoretical limit on the range of radio waves which is the simplest form of long-distance communication we know, there is no reason to not assume that by now at least some non-random signals would have been picked up if intelligent life really is prevalent in the universe.

Seti is NOT a supporting argument for your position.