Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

What do you think science tells us about the origin of the universe Hillside?

A great deal, and more information is coming to light all the time. Here’s some Stephen Hawking on the subject to get you started:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

There are things that science cannot yet tell us about matter because we don't have the means.

It was always thus and, for all I know, maybe always will be. That’s why people do science – to fill the gaps. So what?

Science may well tell us more and more about matter…

Matter and forces actually, but ok…

…but it cannot say anything about the origin of matter/energy without invoking more or previous matter/energy in which case it is not examining the origin but merely matter/energy itself.

Ah, I see your mistakes here. You’ve assumed that time is linear, that there was a “time before time” in which a creator could have functioned, and that an agency external to the universe was necessary to cause it. Fortunately science tells us otherwise though and besides – even if it didn’t – all you’d have is an argument from incredulity (“I can’t imagine how the universe happened, therefore god”) and some special pleading (“the universe must have required a creating agency but god didn’t because he’s, you know, magic and everything”).   

That is why science cannot examine the origin of the universe.

To a twelve-year-old child or to someone living in the pre-scientific age I guess that would make some kind of sense at least. Your problem though is that your audience here fits neither description. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

So far it has had to make assumptions in order to do so. Eg the existence of dark matter to enable gas clouds to collapse and form stars. How do you know this won't always be the case?

You don’t. The point about assumptions in science though is that they have to be coherent and cogent to have any potential explanatory power, whereas the white noise of “god” satisfies nether condition. And because they are coherent and cogent it’s possible to build all sorts of explanatory models that rest on them that can be tested against real world experience.

Assumptions in science are called “axioms” by the way – and sometimes they too can be tested and then rejected or accepted according to the results. You can’t do that with “god” (or with leprechauns for that matter) though because those who assert them never manage to propose a method to do so.       

[ippy]

In your rush to have a sneer at religion, you have misread Spud's post. He didn't say that.

Don't tell me you're trying to support Spud's rather simplistic ideas, I thought you were a cut above that Steve, unless Spud comes up with something like it's a nice day today, and it is, that should be about limit of any endorsement you offer him.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy,

Yes, as Spud says: things that don't exist.

including the origin or existence of the universe.

The Universe undeniably exists. Science can't analyse its origin at the moment, but that doesn't mean it will never be able to.

Religion, on the other hand has no means of analysing even things that do exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, as Spud says: things that don't exist.
The Universe undeniably exists. Science can't analyse its origin at the moment,

Straight to the point and far, far, far, far, far, better than Hillside except you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins. Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.

Oh and cut the arseclenching scientism thank you.

[jeremyp]

Straight to the point

Talking of getting straight to the point, when are you going to get to the point of telling us how you know that religionist ideas are right?

you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins.

Well first somebody has to come up with a testable idea of why there is a Universe rather than not.

Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.

Yes, but you don't know which one it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Straight to the point and far, far, far, far, far, better than Hillside except you haven't explored the reasons why it cannot analyse origins. Which of course is not necessarily a shortfall in technology but a shortfall in science itself.

Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about it, but no-one suggests that the explanation so far is complete. Is that a “shortfall” in science itself? There’s no reason to think so – rather it’s more likely a shortfall in as far as science has taken us so far. That though does not give you licence to drop “god” (or leprechauns) into the gap when they offer no explanatory value of any kind. Why not just say "magic" or "abracadabra" if "we don't know yet" upsets you so? 

Oh and cut the arseclenching scientism thank you.

Stop lying.

Oh and given your notoriety here for quote doctoring, here’s the bit you left off:

“Religion, on the other hand has no means of analysing even things that do exist.”

Why are you so dishonest?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Talking of getting straight to the point, when are you going to get to the point of telling us how you know that religionist ideas are right?
Well first somebody has to come up with a testable idea of why there is a Universe rather than not.

Yes, but you don't know which one it is.

I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universe ....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins

like?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universe ....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.

Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. Science would only fail conceptually here if you could demonstrate first that the universe necessarily had an origin, second that if it did then it had a cause outwith the universe, and third that whatever that cause was is also whatever you happen to guess it to be.

As you've never even tried to make an argument for any of these things we can safely point, laugh and move on.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. Science would only fail conceptually here if you could demonstrate first that the universe necessarily had an origin, second that if it did then it had a cause outwith the universe, and third that whatever that cause was is also whatever you happen to guess it to be.

As you've never even tried to make an argument for any of these things we can safely point, laugh and move on.     

Why is the universe being eternal or popping out of nothing suddenly superior to the idea of an origin?

Also let me put another question? Why is the universe here at all?

How can science demonstrate eternality anyway. How does it propose to find evidence of the universe popping out of nothing since as the universe is here what evidence can there be of the nothing it appeared out of?

Present your scientific evidence for any scenario now rather than trying to guff on about what you think I think.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is the universe being eternal or popping out of nothing suddenly superior to the idea of an origin?

Also let me put another question? Why is the universe here at all?

How can science demonstrate eternality anyway. How does it propose to find evidence of the universe popping out of nothing since as the universe is here what evidence can there be of the nothing it appeared out of?

Present your scientific evidence for any scenario now rather than trying to guff on about what you think I think.

Gibberish

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You’re either terribly lost, terribly ill-informed or terribly obtuse.

Why is the universe being eternal or popping out of nothing suddenly superior to the idea of an origin?

No-one says that it’s necessarily “superior”, but these and other conjectures mean you cannot just assume that a "something" must have created the universe. If you really want to find a reason for the likely superiority though, try at least to read the Hawking link I gave you. If spacetime began with a singularity, then talking about a “before” then when a creator could have been at work is meaningless.   

Also let me put another question? Why is the universe here at all?

That’s a non-question, for reasons that have been explained to you many times. You can only have a “why” if you can demonstrate first that there was an intelligent agency to decide on or care about the why.

How can science demonstrate eternality anyway. How does it propose to find evidence of the universe popping out of nothing since as the universe is here what evidence can there be of the nothing it appeared out of?

You’re collapsing into incoherence again. Science (or theoretical science at least) would demonstrate eternality if it could provide a cogent model in which that was the answer. Alternatively, if spacetime began then question evaporates in any case because there was no time before then. 

Present your scientific evidence for any scenario now rather than trying to guff on about what you think I think.

Read the link I gave you to get you started.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You’re either terribly lost, terribly ill-informed or terribly obtuse.

No-one says that it’s necessarily “superior”, but these and other conjectures mean you cannot just assume that a "something" must have created the universe. If you really want to find a reason for the likely superiority though, try at least to read the Hawking link I gave you. If spacetime began with a singularity, then talking about a “before” then when a creator could have been at work is meaningless.   

That’s a non-question, for reasons that have been explained to you many times. You can only have a “why” if you can demonstrate first that there was an intelligent agency to decide on or care about the why.

You’re collapsing into incoherence again. Science (or theoretical science at least) would demonstrate eternality if it could provide a cogent model in which that was the answer. Alternatively, if spacetime began then question evaporates in any case because there was no time before then. 

Read the link I gave you to get you started.

When I said Science could not say anything about the origins of the universe you said science had plenty to say about the origins of the universe. You told me to read Hawking on the origins.
You then contradicted yourself by questioning the term origin. So you wouldn't have to admit that science has nothing to say on the origin of the universe.

Why is it a non question?
It is an inconvenient question for you and the scientist you quoted Krauss made an arse of himself redefining the definition of the term nothing.

You have no scientific evidence for an eternal universe because there cannot be any.

If science tells us anything it is that it cannot work if there is nothing for it to work on.

[Nearly Sane]

When I said Science could not say anything about the origins of the universe you said science had plenty to say about the origins of the universe. You told me to read Hawking on the origins.
You then contradicted yourself by questioning the term origin. So you wouldn't have to admit that science has nothing to say on the origin of the universe.

Why is it a non question?
It is an inconvenient question for you and the scientist you quoted Krauss made an arse of himself redefining the definition of the term nothing.

You have no scientific evidence for an eternal universe because there cannot be any.

If science tells us anything it is that it cannot work if there is nothing for it to work on.

more gibberish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

more gibberish

Lets then have the scientific explanation of how the universe either came into existence out of nothing that can be described as a universe. Whether it is eternal, whether it created itself, or whatever.

What can be simpler than that?

[Nearly Sane]

Lets then have the scientific explanation of how the universe either came into existence out of nothing that can be described as a universe. Whether it is eternal, whether it created itself, or whatever.

What can be simpler than that?

and more gibberish

[SteveH]

Is this tiresome thread still going?

[Maeght]

Is this tiresome thread still going?

No, it finished ages ago.

[Owlswing]

Is this tiresome thread still going?

It will continue as long a there is one person willing to respond to Vlad's posts.

Any response to Vlad is what he requires, his raison d'etre - ignore him and he will have no reason to post anything.

[jeremyp]

I've already said what it is science is the explanation of things in the universe by things in the universe

Your definition is wrong.

....that says nothing about the origin of the universe and never can.

I agree but your definition is wrong. When are religionists going to come up with an explanation of the origin of the Universe that is more than just a random guess?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It will continue as long a there is one person willing to respond to Vlad's posts.

Any response to Vlad is what he requires, his raison d'etre - ignore him and he will have no reason to post anything.

Yes if everyone stops posting Vlad will stop..........great idea what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your definition is wrong.
I agree but your definition is wrong. When are religionists going to come up with an explanation of the origin of the Universe that is more than just a random guess?

You raise one fair point out of two here. Religionists don't know/have proof whether the universe is eternal or created ex nihilo. The Aristotelian and Thomist arguments though are designed to work for either eventuality.......Not many antitheist people know that.

That the universe is or could be eternal does not eventually answer the question, ''why something and not nothing?''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

like?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

But isn't Hawking, according to you faulty, for entertaining the idea of an origin of the universe?