Faith and Reason.

[Tristam]

What Neosutra forgot to mention is to understand this "reality" completely, we would have to find a larger reality (one with physics laws that are more general than our), and because of basic science principles, this new reality would necessarily have an impact on our.
In other word, any larger reality would just become our reality, and we would be back at the beginning.


Physics (and sciences) is never exact, it's simply the best approximation we can make with our knowledges. I agree approximation is all you need to solve a problems on a macroscopique level, but it's never "everything". This is the key part in any sciences vs religion topic.

No offense, but this is God of the Gaps.

[Tristam]

It's illogical for this universe to not be a part of a bigger physics structure. You can approximatively explain interaction within it, but you can't possibly explain the reason why it started.

But hey, what kind of physicist would ask themselves this kind of stupid question about our universe birth.

Asking a testable question is science, asking an untestable question is not. If your bigger order universe is untestable or unobservable by humans, it is outside the realm of science.

What if, before the universe, there was nothing? Just as likely.

[0ni0n]

It's illogical for this universe to not be a part of a bigger physics structure. You can approximatively explain interaction within it, but you can't possibly explain the reason why it started.

But hey, what kind of physicist would ask themselves this kind of stupid question about our universe birth.

Any serious physicist will simply admit that he or she does not know anything before the bigbang. Assuming that God created the universe because we don't know is presumptuous and tenuous. Try this, if god was incipient without a creator, why couldn't the universe?

[Seraph]

It's illogical for this universe to not be a part of a bigger physics structure. You can approximatively explain interaction within it, but you can't possibly explain the reason why it started.

But hey, what kind of physicist would ask themselves this kind of stupid question about our universe birth.

I would then just say you are improperly defining 'universe'. If you can understand the mechanics of how things work, it is quite possible you can understand exactly what its origin state was, and how it arrived there.

I have a hard time believing an explosion happened at the beginning of existence 'just because'. That doesn't mean we can't come to a conclusion to remedy that mystery though.

[Kaylia]

Maybe there's no reason to it, maybe it just is the way it is, and discovering the laws that govern the universe are the best answer anyone can come up with. Beyond the creation of the universe, I think we have a pretty good understanding of how things came about above the level of atoms.

At this point, it's just philosophical.

The only thing sciences allow us to say is that we don't know anything about the "true" beginning, except that we will never know anything about it.

Kaylia, you do know the inadequacy of our current understanding about the universe is not a sound reasoning for the existence of God. Using a God as a means to an end in explaining natural phenomenon is a cop-out.

That's not quite what I meant, you're reading too far into it . The only statement I'm making is that science can't possibly explain everything, there will always be something that can't be explained.

[0ni0n]

At this point, it's just philosophical.

The only thing sciences allow us to say is that we don't know anything about the "true" beginning, except that we will never know anything about it.




That's not quite what I meant, you're reading too far into it . The only statement I'm making is that science can't possibly explain everything, there will always be something that can't be explained.

How do you know?

Our ignorance about the universe is not a tacit proof that god exists. Perhaps we may not be intelligent enough to know everything about the universe, that doesn't mean that has to be a higher power that created and oversees everything.

[Kuya]

Any serious physicist will simply admit that he or she does not know anything before the bigbang. Assuming that God created the universe because we don't know is presumptuous and tenuous. Try this, if god was incipient without a creator, why couldn't the universe?

But that's what makes a god without origin illogical. You can't have something come out of nothing. So if god having no creation is illogical, so is the universe coming out of nothing, and at the same time, if you can never be certain of an end to the "origins" then a god can always be postulated to explain the seeming paradox that arises from the question itself. Making the only possible position to take on all of this is taking a stance of irrelevance in regards to a postulation of a god as a creator because it cannot be proved, while others can and will simply believe because the question might very well always exist.

I've said this before already, but the entire debate only really has validity if it centers around criticizing specific religions.

[0ni0n]

But that's what makes a god without origin illogical. You can't have something come out of nothing. So if god having no creation is illogical, so is the universe coming out of nothing, and at the same time, if you can never be certain of an end to the "origins" then a god can always be postulated to explain the seeming paradox that arises from the question itself. Making the only possible position to take on all of this is taking a stance of irrelevance in regards to a postulation of a god as a creator because it cannot be proved, while others can and will simply believe because the question might very well always exist.

I've said this before already, but the entire debate only really has validity if it centers around criticizing specific religions.

My point is that we should just admit we don't know, instead of assuming God is the origin of everything.

[Tristam]

My point is that we should just admit we don't know, instead of assuming God is the origin of everything.

This, a million times over. The answer is we don't know. That's all.

[Kuya]

My point is that we should just admit we don't know, instead of assuming God is the origin of everything.

I do, that's why i'm agnostic, but good luck convincing other people to choose this position. Furthermore, good luck wishing that religions stop existing, because i believe a belief in god or gods will always come up.

[Kaylia]

I don't think you need to recreate the universe, or expand upon it, to understand how everything in it works, and model its behavior.

I know it's completely unreasonable at this time, but based on how other models are created, it's just a matter of scope.

Scope is pretty much a synonyms of approximation in physics. Sciences is bringing us to the point where we can start observing the structure of our universe (space/time), and the model we are trying to build is attempting to explain everything that happen within those boundaries. However, it still leave many questions unanswered, and there will always be certain thing that can't be predicted.

Quantum mechanics for one uses a lot of statistic (it doesnt matter when we uses it on a macroscopic level like we do, but the randomness won't be explained, even if we understand its pattern)

How do you know?

Because there will always be unexplained and unverified axioms in your models. Because you can't observe something from the inside without modifying it, and when you're building a model based on a single universe you're interacting with, it would be weird to talk about "complete" understanding.

[0ni0n]

I do, that's why i'm agnostic, but good luck convincing other people to choose this position. Furthermore, good luck wishing that religions stop existing, because i believe a belief in god or gods will always come up.

I am just pointing out how ridiculous, tenuous some of the religious arguments sound, and I know better to wage a crusade on religious beliefs. However, people who have the courage, intellectual capacity to challenge such an overwhelming opposition, such as Richard Dawkins, have my utmost respect.

Because there will always be unexplained and unverified axioms in your models. Because you can't observe something from the inside without modifying it, and when you're building a model based on a single universe you're interacting with, it would be weird to talk about "complete" understanding.

Again, how do you know? A caveman couldn't have comprehended the current level of our scientific advancement and wouldn't have dreamt that we landed on the moon neither. Why are you so sure that in 5000 years, we won't have the technology for intergalactic travel to visit another universe?

[Kaylia]

Our ignorance about the universe is not a tacit proof that god exists. Perhaps we may not be intelligent enough to know everything about the universe, that doesn't mean that has to be a higher power that created and oversees everything.

(Missed the 2nd part of your post, sorry)

That's why I said we can't say anything about the world origin. Anyone, on any side, who is talking about a proof that God exists or doesn't exist is bullshitting. You can attacks the reason why someone was lead to believe that a God exists, but you can't deny its existance.

[Demosthenes11]

My point is that we should just admit we don't know, instead of assuming God is the origin of everything.

as much as I would like to say "assuming" isn't the right word, it probably is with a lot of theists. I think it's a wrong statement as well.

Believing, however, that god is the origin of everything is completely different concept

[Kaylia]

My point is that we should just admit we don't know, instead of assuming God is the origin of everything.

Well, I totally agree with you here. That's why I'm waving the "agnosticist" flag whenever I can.

I don't believe (keyword: belief) in a God tho. My pessimist/physicist side is telling me the reality is harsh and boring, but it's just a hunch, not an argument or logical reasoning. Not that I would complain if there was an afterlife... especially if many virgins awaits us, I just don't think it will happen.

[Kuya]

Why would anyone want virgins? Straight people are so boring.

[Tristam]

(Missed the 2nd part of your post, sorry)

That's why I said we can't say anything about the world origin. Anyone, on any side, who is talking about a proof that God exists or doesn't exist is bullshitting. You can attacks the reason why someone was lead to believe that a God exists, but you can't deny its existance.

Can't deny my unicorn loving leprechaun either.

[0ni0n]

(Missed the 2nd part of your post, sorry)

That's why I said we can't say anything about the world origin. Anyone, on any side, who is talking about a proof that God exists or doesn't exist is bullshitting. You can attacks the reason why someone was lead to believe that a God exists, but you can't deny its existance.

It's one thing to entertain notions regarding the creation of the universe and the period before the bigbang and time, it's another thing all together for us to make up silly stories to justify the existence of a deity and dictate what people can and cannot do with books written 2000 years ago.

We all know we can either prove or disprove the existence of a high power. I will just acknowledge that we don't yet know, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[kuronosan]

No I stated I abandoned religion when I determined their tenants had no validity. I simply noted the restraints that predestination held on those of faith.

What tenants had no validity? Live your life as a good person? Treat others as you would want to be treated? I'm not following you here.

[Kaylia]

Again, how do you know? A caveman couldn't have comprehended the current level of our scientific advancement and wouldn't have dreamt that we landed on the moon neither. Why are you so sure that in 5000 years, we won't have the technology for intergalactic travel to visit another universe?

I would argue against this for many reasons, most of them involving the speed of light and energy conservation laws, but I would be missing your point.

It doesn't really matter what technological advancement we have at our disposal. As a physicist, i work under the assumption that everything can be explained. Admitting something can't be explained is pretty much giving up on sciences, and taking a wild guess.

At this point, there is two possibility:
-The world is infinite: No matter how much you progress, you will never be able to understand everything because well...it's infinite. You could observe patterns probably, but you still can't say anything about this infinity.

-The world is finite: That alone bring the question, "how can something exists without any background", something sciences can't answer.

But let's say it's the case and we postulate it as our first axiom, you will be left in an universe in perpetual movement. Nothing is static, since everything become relative to each other. Fine..we already have many tools to deal with this (none succeeded tho), but your models will always be limited to a certain precision. It's not a perfect models, it's simply one that is enough for what you need.