What are the questions science cannot answer?

Agreed. WOW!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But wait! If you agree with: "A finite means it never existed before - including all and anything in it. "

Then you cannot ask if time existed - it is one of the products in this finite realm. Nor can you accept other universes - it violates this universe's finite factor. Your spatial infinity is just a slight of hand backdoor to deflect the impact of a finite universe. No arms length here. Why deny the blatancy you cannot accept an absolutely finite universe and still hold your ground?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great rational input here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My view is somewhat different. I think there is no writings in Geo-history with more credibility, including absolutely # 1 in greatest proof category of ancient history.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your curiousness here shows a lack of historical knowledge. Ancient Egypt was infamous for erasing anything derogatory; not mentioning someone's name was a supersticious belief here. But there is 100% proof there was a war with Israel, at the same nominated datings - check out the Egyptian Stelle.

Please prove another 3,300 year Historical figure as David elsewhere. FYI, over 70% of all descriptions and figures in the Hebrew bible have already been scientifically proven. Please sghow an example of 20% proven in any other scripture - choose from anywhere you like.

No, because I already did answer them. Soon I will be accused of engaing in religious nonesense.

 

first of..i didn't say 'always'..

second..

JOSEPH..TAKE A BREAK! I have been trying to defend you from the others...but if you continue..you will be banned.

its not the use..its the abuse..and you are starting to abuse your rights..shut up before you bury yourself..

even jesus got screwed because of public opinion..

 

Once more with feelings.

The question of Creator and its antithesis are the only two choices on the table. Here, calling only one of two choices as unacceptable, myth, etc., itself is an unscientific charade. Its like saying only one political party is legitimate, even when both [Dems & Repubs] have earned the right to apply - else its an Iranian court, not a debate! Everyone must understand there are only two choices - either there is a Creator - or there is none. Religions don't factor in. Period.

Here, my view is absolutely not based on religion. Genesis' opening creation chapter is not a religious treatise; indeed no religions existed here yet or metioned. It is dismissed not because it is unscientific but by association, namely the paranoaic anxst displayed today of the term religion. So why am I even raising any items from Genesis? Because I do see pristine science here. Others do not because they are not examing things scientifically but religiously. So let me state my correct position here, and it must be responded to based on the premise applied.

If based on a finite universe, the origins of the universe inclines only with creationism - especially so from a scientific premise. So it depends which universe is being discussed. Nothing to do with religion - the escape valve.

Further, this refers only to an absolutely finite realm - not a partical one - another notorious escape valve. It is easily seen here that this factor is not applied - instead of applying a spatial infinity, there was no admission that an absolutely finite realm poses a great problem. I call that a deficient debating. James never said: "YES, IF AN ABSOLUTELY FINITE REALM IS CONSIDERED AND FACTORED IN THE EQUATION, I AM CORRECT"! But that's what Genesis is saying, stupid!

If anyone has an alternative to Creationism in this scenario - I would glaldly welcome and appreciate knowing of it. Lets be honest - Genesis is discussing a finite realm. Also, Genesis makes a pivitol scientific premise: everything originated in a duality - namely the universe and life could not emerge with a ONE - a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity - no actions can occur here. These are 100% scientific premises, and IMHO, with no alternatives applying, while at least being legitimate whether one subscribes to it or not. They are not dismisible by the religious and myth terms as a response.

But the pivotal finite and duality factors are never factored in the equation! If you do not accept these two factors, then we are discussing different universes - not one with a Creator. I have no arguement with this, I do not even go there - nothing to do with me - carry on carrying on. But no one has presented an arguement based on the two nominated factors applying - they just shout I am a religious freak - I am not - they are!? :bugeye:

 

Yes - but by Rome! So did 1.1M other Jews. Its unscientific to dismiss the applicable factors.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Joe

The origin of the universe can, indeed, be stated to be either by a deity acting as creator, or independent of deity.

Where religious people like you go wrong, is assuming that this deity must be their specific deity.

If, for sake of argument, a deity did, indeed, create the universe, then why should you assume it was the deity described in the Hebrew bible? Or any other 'holy' book?

The deity might be a computer programmer in some other reality setting up a simulation, which results in a pseudo-universe - ours. Or he/she/it could be any one of a million other non-Hebrew possibilities.

For example : there is absolutely no empirical evidence that such a deity would have the slightest interest in humanity. We might well be no more to that deity than a bunch of bugs to be stepped on if we are in the deity's way.

Or, the universe could have originated from a process that had nothing whatever to do with any deity. If the cosmologists who believe the Big Bang came from a singularity are correct, then the action that caused the singularity to become the Big Bang may have been caused by a simple quantum, and random fluctuation.

In spite of your ONE hypothesis, there is nothing in science to say that actions have to have an outside cause. Because of the uncertainty principle, a subatomic particle that was 'there' one instant, can be 'here' the next. An action caused by just ONE thing, and a random thing at that.

In the same way, the original singularity may have become the Big Bang because of a simple quantum and random fluctuation.

I am not saying that happened. I do not know. And neither do you.

 

Agreed. But this is a dfferent arguement. Creationism, based on a Creator or a supreme force, is the fundamental issue.

The ONE factor applies ultimately. Otherwise the finite factor is violated. Science, remember?

This is a ligimate view; its dismisal is dishonesty.

Totally disagree. Once, there were no fluctuations possible - else you violate the singulairty factor. The BBT is ultimately non-sustainable by science based on the duality factor applying for all originations; it is used merely as a framework to bypass its glitches, which is an area barred to our mind's wiring.

Once, there was no OUTSIDE.

Incorrect. The UP is not based on a singulairty; there is a subject and an object here.

Quantum cannot apply either: it is based on mulitple particles + fluctuations + a subject.

Been there, done it, analysed it. Ultimately, based on its given terms, Genesis is correct. Here, the issue of anxst of why one religion's premises stands out - is a religious, not a scientific, negation. Its all based on going back to the drawing board and re-define your notion of an absolutely finite realm. Its a mind boggling, exasperating premise open to a host of inter-human and inter-premises wars - and this is what's been happening. The science is totally on Genesis' side - a statement bound to upset. :shrug:

If anyone knew, we would not need this debate. However, we do know enough to negate what is accepted but scientifically non-viable. We cannot know - but we can know what is not.

 

Joe

Your statements do not upset me, but I have to disagree.

I have seen nothing to narrow down the wide range of possibilities to a single one. I accept that a deity who created the universe is one viable hypothesis. However, that is all it is. Nor is there any empirical evidence to describe said deity, even if he/she/it exists.

The simple fact is that no-one knows exactly how the Big Bang came into being. There are a range of hypotheses, but we know of no way to narrow them down. No scientist would be arrogant enough to claim to know the answer. Only the religious have that quality.

 

ok..if that is how you feel..you are on your own..

 

Diddit? Where is unimpeachable proof?

Yes. As meaningless as the singularity from which the alleged BB came.

 

This is incorrect. Not knowing is generic to all premises, thus superfluous. You have omitted from the equation that we logically and scientifically can omit as non-feasable certain notions included in the paradigm. We "KNOW" that the one factor cannot apply; we "KNOW" an infinite cannot apply. Here, you have to be scientific by taking the only path open, and this alters the scenario of not knowing.

It says there is no alternative to Creationism - and nothing to do with religions. And I have not seen this better devised than in Genesis. The latter is what I have been pelted for - but none have shown me another, better premise. I remain open to any other scenario which fits better, no matter where it comes from.

 

When I read IamJ's posts, I can feel my brain cells being stunned into incredulity.

 

There is no confusion about form and formless. This unfolds by the impacting previous and follow-up verses in Genesis:


V.1 says the universe was created. This refers to everything in the universe now and all that will come forth[there is no outside 'from' for anything new to come from]. Otherwise, from where else will a new thing emerge from - there is only the universe applying? Here, even changes and growth can only come from within the universe, and this is only possible if those changes are factored in. It says that everything which constitutes everything was ushered in, but with one difference, and this refers to V2.

V2: The everything which constitutes everything in V1 is now given FORM - it was formless in V1. Formless is the mush; soup; void - a massive basin of not-yet particles stage. What this means is that galaxies, hydrogen, quarks and pineapples were all one mush [formless]. No definitive formed product is mentioned in V1 - they are only mentioned later; they became indivual entities only when form was inserted. This is affirmed in the follow-up verses:

V3. Critical separations occured. Darkness and light were part of the formless mush, but they were separated. How this occured is not important here, its further explanations and breakdowns come when we observe and make scientific theories and equations, which is a never ending set of thresholds parallel to any generations knowledge status.

It is a sceintific process. It says all the components were created in V1 in their potential form, and became actualised later. Test this via reductionism in any scenario one chooses. If you reduce a car or a pineapple - you will arrive at a mush of formless quarks; they become cars and pineapples when we change them from their potentials to a desired actual.This says there was no science [universal laws] in V1; the scence was inserted in V2 - namely that which changed the formless to form.

The universe was created in wisdom [had to] - namely awesome engineerings, from the design of a skeletal structure to the galaxies and moral/ethical paradigms. Science is the identification of laws; and laws are the tendons which process the entire construct - sometimes aka as nature.

 

For BB to happen, there has to be a singularity. But its existence, or feasibility of the existence, has not been proved. Reason why you are using conjectures like "may have been". Then there has to be a causative agent too. Quatum fluctuations caused by uncertainity principle will ensure that the singularity cannot be but unstable. A moments stability would make it determinate, which cannot be.

Even creation by such random fluctuations cannot be out of nothing. There has to be some energy which can be converted into material particles. A single such particle is enough to make the system randomly inderterminate.

But where would such a particle be created? Obviously, outside the so called singularity. Ha. And it is alleged that even space was only within the singularity. Gentleman, do you see the untenability? A particle within the singularity means nothing.

Now you accept you do not know. But how do you say others too do not?

 

An Unknown causative agent does not 'prove,' or even imply- God.

Anymore than a superstitious person believing Demon Possession is responsible for an Unknown causative agent, until Germs are seen under the microscope.

 

Consider also this position.

The number of space bodies [galazies, planets, meteors, etc], combined with the time factor alloted them [e.g. earth is 5B years old] - cannot be accounted for in the 13.4B life span of the universe. Similarly, the number of life forms on this planet [zillions], and their accepted evolutionary development period - cannot be accounted for in the period accepted since life emerged on this planet. Do the math.

This says the space bodies and the life forms could not have emerged as minutae simple forms and then developed via evolutionary phases. The observances of fossil imprint readings and the time factor - contradict each other. It is the reason I previously asked:

Did all Zebras emerge at once or did one zebra emerge and many followed by its seed? Did all stars emerge at once - or did one star emerge and the other quark particles follow suit? Any explanations here?

 

And my position is that it does imply a Creator where there is no concievable alternative. You can impress me more if you nominate one.

 

Where do you come up with these ridiculous claims? Do the math? I dare say you've never done any math in your life.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of the meaning of the word science, yet you wave it around like it was a flail.