sciencebro

God and the Big Bang

Recommended Posts

Lack of evidence for the existence of oneor more deities. An unwillingness or inability to provide said evidence. More logical alternative explainations for events previously ascribed to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, sciencebro said:

Why is it that God and Science are so often separated?

For the same reason the tooth fairy and science are so often separated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sciencebro said:

Why is it that God and Science are so often separated?

God(s) are supernatural by the definition of science, which is a methodology used to observe the natural world. The much better question is why are they so often mistakenly joined? 

Speaking of mistakenly joined, I hope you aren't here just to promote your YouTube channel. That's against the rules. This is a science discussion site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Lack of evidence for the existence of oneor more deities. An unwillingness or inability to provide said evidence. More logical alternative explainations for events previously ascribed to them.

Hmmm... based on your knowledge how high would you put the probability that minimum one advanced AI exist longer than 10 million years in this minimum 13.8 billion lightyear big system? Now that we are their at it's gates in our own reality (let it be 1000 years).

Does an advanced AI would count as a supernatural entity for you? Any advanced AI supported biological entity could be supernatural maybe? What is supernatural?

You, me, we? Maybe for our gut bacteria if they would be able to perceive US. 

I kind of believe that someOne/something is out there evolving with (in) the system. I would put it's probability on 99.99.9...%

I can not imagine that there is exactly One such superintelligent entity exist in the system...

Note we do not have the same habitat as they, so what they would want from us?

They would want to have earth as a London resident would want the spot of space of an universally harmless bacteria in the Amazon river....

Than what is leading to Advanced AI if not Science...?

Or is it the final question? Is there a God or not?

There is consciousness in the universe...

Who knows how small God could have been....

 

Maybe the smallest information after Nothing....the moving force behind the velocity of spacetime.

Which just had had to be a basic consciousness(fundamental information) in proportion to nothing...

Seems to be singular... 

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic church is ok with the big bang.

More general: the God hypothesis is not falsifiable, and unfalsifiable hypotheses are useless to science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bender said:

the God hypothesis is not falsifiable, and unfalsifiable hypotheses are useless to science

How you mean this? What is God meaning in your sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bender said:

The Catholic church is ok with the big bang.

And also the theory of evolution. Then of course there "god of the gaps" comes into play. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You mean if something has just proof science can not use it? Lets say Nature is the proof of God? Why this information useless for them?

Aren't they interested about Nature and what/how/why it is?

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

And also the theory of evolution. Then of course there "god of the gaps" comes into play. :rolleyes:

There are quite some good God alternatives here. Thanks op for the special One :)

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lasse said:

How you mean this? What is God meaning in your sentence?

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.

Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it.

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.

A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.

Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Lets say Nature is the proof of God? Why this information useless for them?

Nature is not proof of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, beecee said:

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.

Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it.

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.

A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.

Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

 

Yes they are with technology and that they are falsifiable does not make them science.

While recognizing that Nature is Real, does the prove provided by every atom, space and time makes reality unimportant for science....

2 minutes ago, Bender said:

Nature is not proof of God.

What is God in your understanding?

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lasse said:

What is God in your understanding?

A figment of human imagination. You can apply that to any sensible definition of God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Yes they are with technology and that they are falsifiable does not make them science.

You didn't read the full link?

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

Examples of Falsifiable Statements

No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico.

Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it.

This critter (just pulled from Loch Ness) is a fish.

Just one observation --- "Uh, it has fur all over it." --- is enough to disprove this statement, so it is falsifiable.

How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Quote

While recognizing that Nature is Real, does the prove provided by every atom, space and time makes reality unimportant for science....

This may help to answer your question...only 7.5 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Quote

What is God in your understanding

Simply some supernatural excuse to short circuit scientific understanding and continued research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Changed my mind... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Lasse said:

Hmmm... based on your knowledge how high would you put the probability that minimum one advanced AI exist longer than 10 million years in this minimum 13.8 billion lightyear big system? Now that we are their at it's gates in our own reality (let it be 1000 years).

Does an advanced AI would count as a supernatural entity for you? Any advanced AI supported biological entity could be supernatural maybe? What is supernatural?

You, me, we? Maybe for our gut bacteria if they would be able to perceive US. 

I kind of believe that someOne/something is out there evolving with (in) the system. I would put it's probability on 99.99.9...%

I can not imagine that there is exactly One such superintelligent entity exist in the system...

Note we do not have the same habitat as they, so what they would want from us?

They would want to have earth as a London resident would want the spot of space of an universally harmless bacteria in the Amazon river....

Than what is leading to Advanced AI if not Science...?

Or is it the final question? Is there a God or not?

There is consciousness in the universe...

Who knows how small God could have been....

 

Maybe the smallest information after Nothing....the moving force behind the velocity of spacetime.

Which just had had to be a basic consciousness(fundamental information) in proportion to nothing...

Seems to be singular... 

Am I so negative/unreal with my questions... I asked a statistical approximation of a describe set up....

The result of a probability is not a proof. We do no have any sign of God and we can not now how S/He is. That is why science do not include the conception in their explanations. They rather say they do not know. Which is a fair statement.

Some information(basic consciousness) I would expect at the beginning ( today's  recognizable concious entities evolved somewhere too...)

Any absolutely evolve advanced Intelligence's existence at the beginning  (if there is such) can be rejected with a ca 99.99...% approximation.

I hope the Pope of negative votes understand minimal sarcasm or if other problem rather express and ask what is not liked if I may ask on a science based discussion forum...

Does culture impact science? 

7 hours ago, Bender said:

Nature is not proof of God.

I know, just tried to set up an example

Could be though....

Depending how you define God...

7 hours ago, Bender said:

A figment of human imagination. You can apply that to any sensible definition of God. 

If i say God is basic information at the beginning can you confidently deny that the universe is running on basic information (laws of nature). Not like we have to call basic information God but if One would want to call it so why not... 

Note the individual level of understanding of humans try to sense Nature...

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I know, just tried to set up an example

Could be though....

Depending how you define God

Defining God in such a way that nature proves it, would not be a meaningfull definition of God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bender said:

Defining God in such a way that nature proves it, would not be a meaningfull definition of God. 

Why?

I would promote to call it basic information but if someOne wanna call it God why to stress on it....

Anyone can have any believe(religion) they pleased to until it does not harm others...

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Why? 

Because no God from any religion would be recognised as a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Bender said:

Because no God from any religion would be recognised as a god.

That is sure. I do not think such entities in such a scenario would be possible...

Such almightiness would have to originate from somewhere, could not just pop up from nothing. That would be against evolution....  

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

God(s) are supernatural by the definition of science, which is a methodology used to observe the natural world. The much better question is why are they so often mistakenly joined? 

Speaking of mistakenly joined, I hope you aren't here just to promote your YouTube channel. That's against the rules. This is a science discussion site.

Supernatural:

1, of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2, of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

1, can not exist, impossible. 

The laws of nature has to apply on a god like entity as well (i.e. it would have to exist in space)

2. Plausable. After ca 5-6 billion years of evolution....

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 11:12 PM, Lasse said:

We do no have any sign of God and we can not now how S/He is.

if this 'god' is real i believe that'god' would be an 'it' as it is not human but rather a humanoid form. i am not saying 'god' is real, rather that there is a small possibility and i have to acknowledge that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sci-man said:

if this 'god' is real i believe that'god' would be an 'it' as it is not human but rather a humanoid form. i am not saying 'god' is real, rather that there is a small possibility and i have to acknowledge that. 

We can fulfill any duty to acknowledge that small probability with "We don't know", and I understand removing gender from our thinking, but I don't understand the insistence on a humanoid form. This is the kind of claim for which you need supportive evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

We can fulfill any duty to acknowledge that small probability with "We don't know", and I understand removing gender from our thinking, but I don't understand the insistence on a humanoid form. This is the kind of claim for which you need supportive evidence. 

Have wondered as well. The humanoid form would not fit.

I would think about God as S/He would be more like an Energy with conciousness, with an absolute acess to information, with the potential of materialisation without loss of information. It always could sustain the conciouss energy what One could be. That would be supernatural for me.

I am pretty sure reality has much more what we do not know.

I would not exclude the potential of humanoid transformation. 

Who would wanna anyway come here, we stick Jesus to the cross last time  (if He was real). 

Edited by Lasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Have wondered as well. The humanoid form would not fit.

Another claim that needs supportive evidence. Incredulousness doesn't count. 

God(s) have chosen NOT to be observable in a scientific sense, which makes them outside nature. How can anyone make claims about their form?

Science is a tool for measuring nature. Mixing religion with science is like trying to figure out how wide your driveway is by reciting a poem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

God(s) have chosen NOT to be observable in a scientific sense, which makes them outside nature. How can anyone make claims about their form?

It used to be science forum... I miss that...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now