The Religion Discussion Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

How many Planck time units have elapsed since the Big Bang?

Do any of you reckon that is a big number?

The A. Squares of the world, spinning around and waving their stick arms around are sort of amusing, at least.

I don't get the A. Square thing. Source?

[Speaker to Animals]

Apropos: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-m ... cs-1.16535

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts.

These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.

The religion of atheism that infects so much of the theoretical physics community leads towards a dark age mentality of trying to justify the dogma by subverting first principles. They are so obsessed with the problem that the beginning of creation creates for their religion that many haven't even been doing actual science for generations. When challenged on that, they attempted to transform science into a farce. This is religious thinking coming out of atheists in defense of a currently indefensible system of thought. The Big Bang was the killing blow to atheism as we know it.

Maybe something else will overturn that, but for now, it's just so much religious nonsense infecting science by the hand of atheists.

[katarn]

It comes down to first cause.

Some say, "I don't know."

Others say, "because god."

God is not proof of god, because what caused god? Does god have a god?

Please, don't answer, it will just sound like blathering to me.

It always boils down to first cause. Always.

To blather then I go. The argument typically used to counter the totally valid question of who caused the first cause is that time is a part of the universe. Whatever caused the universe must be outside (or have been outside) the universe, so it would not have been affected by time, which it created. If one accepts that resoning, problem solved. If not, you do still have quite the conundrum.

[Okeefenokee]

It comes down to first cause.

Some say, "I don't know."

Others say, "because god."

God is not proof of god, because what caused god? Does god have a god?

Please, don't answer, it will just sound like blathering to me.

It always boils down to first cause. Always.

To blather then I go. The argument typically used to counter the totally valid question of who caused the first cause is that time is a part of the universe. Whatever caused the universe must be outside (or have been outside) the universe, so it would not have been affected by time, which it created. If one accepts that resoning, problem solved. If not, you do still have quite the conundrum.

Boss.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It comes down to first cause.

Some say, "I don't know."

Others say, "because god."

God is not proof of god, because what caused god? Does god have a god?

Please, don't answer, it will just sound like blathering to me.

It always boils down to first cause. Always.

To blather then I go. The argument typically used to counter the totally valid question of who caused the first cause is that time is a part of the universe. Whatever caused the universe must be outside (or have been outside) the universe, so it would not have been affected by time, which it created. If one accepts that resoning, problem solved. If not, you do still have quite the conundrum.

Does time exist outside of the universe? Does there even need to be a “first cause”? We know that speed is related to time somehow, so perhaps time works completely differently without normal space around. Perhaps the universe is static after all. Perhaps it’s only within this pocket of matter that time even exists.

What’s normal space even made of? Perhaps it’s the movement through a background “ether” that moves time forward.

One thing is certain though - without pursuing science, pretending that we have the answers, these questions will never be answered.

[heydaralon]

You guys can put your head in the sand, but Bill Nye already answered all of these questions. Its pretty pointless to keep debating religion at this point.

[K@th]

To blather then I go. The argument typically used to counter the totally valid question of who caused the first cause is that time is a part of the universe. Whatever caused the universe must be outside (or have been outside) the universe, so it would not have been affected by time, which it created. If one accepts that resoning, problem solved. If not, you do still have quite the conundrum.

What evidence do you have that the first cause must be sentient?

[SuburbanFarmer]

To blather then I go. The argument typically used to counter the totally valid question of who caused the first cause is that time is a part of the universe. Whatever caused the universe must be outside (or have been outside) the universe, so it would not have been affected by time, which it created. If one accepts that resoning, problem solved. If not, you do still have quite the conundrum.

What evidence do you have that the first cause must be sentient?

Because randomness is scary.

[SuburbanFarmer]

My philosophy in 2 minutes.

[Fife]

How many Planck time units have elapsed since the Big Bang?

Do any of you reckon that is a big number?

The A. Squares of the world, spinning around and waving their stick arms around are sort of amusing, at least.

I don't get the A. Square thing. Source?

Just had the first pint of the evening and feeling charitable: