Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why Was Richard Dawkins Unable To Explaint The Origin Of The Universe?


sandiego4me

Recommended Posts

 

"People are working on the origin of the universe."  Who are these people? What are they working on?  Do you know ANY of their theories?  Doesn't that trouble you that you quite literally have no explanation for the origin of the building.  Yes, the paint inside the building may have change, or furniture been moved.  But this is small potatoes compared to where the heck the building came from.  Again, negative references to God does nothing to answer the question that I have posed. 

 

 

They are cosmologists.  They work on cosmology.  I am not a cosmologist.  My personal knowledge of their work is very brief.  It doesn't bother me the least that they do not have the answer yet.  Your question has been addressed.  I don't feel the least bit intimidated or shamed in admitting we don't know everything.  Why should we know everything?

 

 

How about you tell me what has been learned in the last 60 years?

 

I'm not google.  I'm just one guy.  I'm not the whole internet.  I'm also not responsible for you deficiency in science education.

 

 

  Why is this so difficult if the answer is so obvious?

 

You are being dishonest.  Admitting we don't know isn't difficult and the true cause of the universe isn't obvious.  We don't know the answer.  It is unknown.  If you don't like it you can ask the question again a hundred times and we still won't know.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"People are working on the origin of the universe."  Who are these people? What are they working on?  Do you know ANY of their theories?  Doesn't that trouble you that you quite literally have no explanation for the origin of the building.  Yes, the paint inside the building may have change, or furniture been moved.  But this is small potatoes compared to where the heck the building came from.  Again, negative references to God does nothing to answer the question that I have posed. 

 

 

They are cosmologists.  They work on cosmology.  I am not a cosmologist.  My personal knowledge of their work is very brief.  It doesn't bother me the least that they do not have the answer yet.  Your question has been addressed.  I don't feel the least bit intimidated or shamed in admitting we don't know everything.  Why should we know everything?

 

 

How about you tell me what has been learned in the last 60 years?

 

I'm not google.  I'm just one guy.  I'm not the whole internet.  I'm also not responsible for you deficiency in science education.

 

 

  Why is this so difficult if the answer is so obvious?

 

You are being dishonest.  Admitting we don't know isn't difficult and the true cause of the universe isn't obvious.  We don't know the answer.  It is unknown.  If you don't like it you can ask the question again a hundred times and we still won't know.

 

 

Your candor is appreciated.  I'm simply trying to point out to anybody that there is no scientific explanation for the biggest event in history.  None.  That should trouble people who believe that science has all the answers, when it doesn't.  I'm not someone who hates science or thinks it's evil.  I'm simply pointing out that science is not a god:  it does not hold all answers.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins wrote the foreward for Krauss's book.  He clearly has more-than a working knowledge of physics.   Regardless, I have yet to hear of any person (physicist or biologist) answer this very basic question. Forget about God.  How do you explain the origins of the universe when there once was nothing? 

 

 

There's your problem right there, Sandie:  You've assumed there was nothing, nothing at all (except for, perhaps, an unexplained god or two sitting around in the middle of all that nothingness and perhaps getting bored because time/space hadn't been invented yet, hence nothing good on the yet-to-be-invented telly).

 

There is currently a physical wall between us and anything that may have preceded the Big Bang.  That wall is our temporal distance from the Big Bang, resulting in a lack of evidence, and as of yet no way to go about finding that evidence.

 

If we had the ability to teleport to the far extremities of the universe, we might be able to collect the light from the Big Bang that is travelling outwards (and perhaps also sample whatever there may be beyond the radius of the Big Bang), and come up with a hypothesis as to what actually happened.  Until and unless that happens, "I don't know" is the most direct and honest response to the question.

 

To "I don't know..." I would add "...and perhaps we'll never know."  So be it.  If our science never reaches that far, that's just the way it is (although I don't think we'll stop trying to reach beyond our current knowledge).

 

To Me it seems juvenile to demand immediate, definitive answers for every question that arises.  What, indeed, is wrong with not having all the answers?  Why jump to an emotion-laden argument from incredulity and insist that if it can't be explained, a god must somehow be responsible?  Indeed, many of the same individuals who insist that an unanswered prayer is just their god saying "Wait" are completely incapable of waiting where scientific discovery is concerned.  *heavy sigh*

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, everytime I see you post it's usually filled with every condescending, expletive-laden response available.  Noticeably, you couldn't answer the same simple question that had Dawkins flummoxed.    In layman's terms, why don't you take a stab at the question that Dawkins couldn't answer:  How does something come out of nothing?  Bonus points if you can answer the question without making reference to God.  

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.... Holy fuck! Does that come well from you! The ULTIMATE question poser, but when addressed to you .. question dodger!

 

 

Still waiting!!!

 

"I want anybody who believes in creationism to tell me five things about creationism that you KNOW are true (i.e., in your own words, and proved OUTSIDE of the bible). Honest discussion."   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 That should trouble people who believe that science has all the answers, when it doesn't.  I'm not someone who hates science or thinks it's evil.  I'm simply pointing out that science is not a god:  it does not hold all answers.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize this. 

 

 

Who believes science has all the answers?  That is juvenile.  But you sure look like somebody who hates science.  It's mind boggling that you think there are people who believe science has all the answers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 How many times can you avoid answering the question?  

 

You are soooo fucking funny!!!! Wendyloser.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you can't answer my question?  

 

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you have no objective evidence that there ever was nothing?

 

 My good man, have you read Einstein and Hubble?  In short, their scientific discoveries conclusively established a starting point for matter and everything in the universe.  This was roughly 13.7 billion years ago.  This is scientific fact.  Yes, actual, physical fact.   Did you honestly not know this?

 

Oh, not this garbage again.  BAA clearly showed you how wrong you were in another of your annoyingly repetitive threads. 

 

By the way, it STILL stinks.

 

 

Quite correct, WarriorPoet.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59459-the-question-that-evolutionists-cant-answer/page-5

 

Specifically, post # 85.

 

SD4M, I'm quite happy to talk cosmology with you, but my one condition still holds.

 

You MUST retract the false information you wrote in that thread.

 

Seeing as the Mods locked it, this thread would be a good place for you to write your retraction.

 

Once you've done that... then you and I can talk cosmology.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your candor is appreciated.  I'm simply trying to point out to anybody that there is no scientific explanation for the biggest event in history.  None.  That should trouble people who believe that science has all the answers, when it doesn't.  I'm not someone who hates science or thinks it's evil.  I'm simply pointing out that science is not a god:  it does not hold all answers.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize this. 

 

 

We don't have all the answers, but when we get a question like this that we can't explain we don't simply say: I don't understand what caused it so it must be god.

 

If we had that attitude then we would still not understand simple things like fire. What is this burning thing! I don't know! It must be god! Let's stop researching lest we anger god!

 

Science does not have all the answers, at this point in time.

 

Come to me with proof that your specific deity (trinity god) created the universe and I will change my mind. That is how science work.

 

Proof or it didn't happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawrence's theory has nothing to do with the subject. The scientific definition of nothing is not the same as the one we commonly use.

Sure sience cant explain EVERYTHING, because science is based on facts and evidence contrary to make belief and fiction.

Why vote for one that makes huge claims and provides no evidence what so ever contrary to one that's honest and doesn't claim to know everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I'm simply pointing out that science is not a god:  it does not hold all answers.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize this. 

 

Nobody with any knowledge of science and the scientific method claims that science is a god or that it has all the answers. I'm sure you already knew that, but still wish to imply that if science doesn't currently have an answer it can prove, then religion must have the real answer which it doesn't have to prove.

 

Science does not have all the answers, and perhaps never will. Religion has no actual answers, only guesses that are made and accepted with no demand for proof.

 

Now stop posing questions you already know the answer to, pay attention to what is posted, and at the very least try to actually understand how a person might honestly reject your particular belief system.

 

You are teetering very close to the edge of the Cliff of Trolls. Be careful you don't fall off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Dawkins answered the question well enough. Christians believe the universe was created by invisible super friends and an imaginary sky fairy, with the use of magic. Any time xtians want to sound imprtant, they make up answers and expect eveyone to 'ooh' and 'awe' over their enlightened explanations. That may work in K-12 but in the real world we just find christian explanations laughable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several candidate hypotheses and they all fall out of quantum mechanics. As stated, it is plausible that our universe could have come from "nothing." Unfortunately, "nothing" is a tricky concept to define. While we do not have a solid theory, current hypotheses are derived from a highly robust framework. A framework of concepts that explains the structure of atoms, the nature of the chemical bond and a framework that ultimately pulled humanity out of the steam age and into the modern (post quantum mechanical) world we know. While ultimate answers have not been solidified, our current thoughts are based upon a framework of robust theoretical work spanning over a century. A framework that makes the most profound, accurate and precise predictions about the world that have ever existed in the billions of years of history regarding our little location in the universe. Numerous people have contributed to this understanding from Planck to Einstein to Bohr to Schrodinger to Feynman and many others. With our current understanding, I can make predictions about molecular interactions and look back to a fraction of a second after the creation of our universe. Not complete by a long shot but what exactly does your god hypothesis do? What predictions does it make? I'm sure knowing how many goats my wife is worth is quite helpful, but I'm having difficulty seeing how that holds up to contemporary quantum field theory. Please feel free to enlighten me however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dude, everytime I see you post it's usually filled with every condescending, expletive-laden response available.  Noticeably, you couldn't answer the same simple question that had Dawkins flummoxed.    In layman's terms, why don't you take a stab at the question that Dawkins couldn't answer:  How does something come out of nothing?  Bonus points if you can answer the question without making reference to God.  

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.... Holy fuck! Does that come well from you! The ULTIMATE question poser but question dodger!

 

 

Still waiting!!!

 

"I want anybody who believes in creationism to tell me five things about creationism that you KNOW are true (i.e., in your own words, and proved OUTSIDE of the bible). Honest discussion."   

 

 

Here are five facts about creation that show that we know are true:

 

1.   The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom.  If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together.  Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.  

 

2.   If the magnetic field within our earth were stronger, electromagnetic storms would be too severe.  If weaker, there would be inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

 

3.  If the oxygen to nitrogen ratio in our atmosphere were larger, advance life functions would proceed too quickly.  If smaller, advanced life functions would proceed to slowly.

 

4.  If the oxygen quantity in the atmosphere was greater, plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.   If less, advanced animals would have too little to breathe.  

 

5.  If the ozone level in the atmosphere was greater, surface temperatures would be too high.  If less, surface temperatures would be too high.  There would be too much uv radiation at the surface.

 

I could go on writing for the next 10 pages about scientific facts that show that the degree of calibration for the creation of the universe are BEYOND scientific possibility.   If it is beyond science, then there can logically only be on explanation:  a being beyond space and time created this universe.

 

If there is anybody who actually wants to read about how science actually materially helps prove creation, read "The Fingerprint of God" by astrophysicist Hugh Ross.   

 

I hope that answers your question.  Now, how about an answer to mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you can't answer my question?  

 

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you have no objective evidence that there ever was nothing?

 

 My good man, have you read Einstein and Hubble?  In short, their scientific discoveries conclusively established a starting point for matter and everything in the universe.  This was roughly 13.7 billion years ago.  This is scientific fact.  Yes, actual, physical fact.   Did you honestly not know this?

 

Oh, not this garbage again.  BAA clearly showed you how wrong you were in another of your annoyingly repetitive threads. 

 

By the way, it STILL stinks.

 

 

Quite correct, WarriorPoet.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59459-the-question-that-evolutionists-cant-answer/page-5

 

Specifically, post # 85.

 

SD4M, I'm quite happy to talk cosmology with you, but my one condition still holds.

 

You MUST retract the false information you wrote in that thread.

 

Seeing as the Mods locked it, this thread would be a good place for you to write your retraction.

 

Once you've done that... then you and I can talk cosmology.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

Your demand for retraction is ill-informed.   Einstein considered his "Cosmological Constant" attempt to be "the biggest blunder of my career."    Don't believe me?   Google it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh nice, the fine tuned argument:

 

 

 

You've answered nothing and you've yet to provide any evidence that your sky daddy exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Science does not have all the answers, and perhaps never will. Religion has no actual answers, only guesses that are made and accepted with no demand for proof.

 

Now stop posing questions you already know the answer to, pay attention to what is posted, and at the very least try to actually understand how a person might honestly reject your particular belief system.

 

You are teetering very close to the edge of the Cliff of Trolls. Be careful you don't fall off.

 

 

So, if you have a contrary view in life you are a threat that must be eliminated?  That hardly seems compatible with a group that consistently calls for tolerance.  I find it even more humorous that folks have posted the most vile, vitriolic responses to me and you have never once asked people to act more civilized.  However, I have been polite and have never used abusive language, but you find my "ideas" so offensive that it is okay to let people behave in ways that are beyond offensive.  

 

I have asked a simple question.  People ask me questions all the time.  I don't flip out and tell them to die.  I simply try to respond.  Why is the contrary so offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

.... Holy fuck! Does that come well from you! The ULTIMATE question poser but question dodger!

 

 

Still waiting!!!

 

"I want anybody who believes in creationism to tell me five things about creationism that you KNOW are true (i.e., in your own words, and proved OUTSIDE of the bible). Honest discussion."   

 

 

Here are five facts about creation that show that we know are true:

 

1.   The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom.  If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together.  Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.  

 

2.   If the magnetic field within our earth were stronger, electromagnetic storms would be too severe.  If weaker, there would be inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

 

3.  If the oxygen to nitrogen ratio in our atmosphere were larger, advance life functions would proceed too quickly.  If smaller, advanced life functions would proceed to slowly.

 

4.  If the oxygen quantity in the atmosphere was greater, plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.   If less, advanced animals would have too little to breathe.  

 

5.  If the ozone level in the atmosphere was greater, surface temperatures would be too high.  If less, surface temperatures would be too high.  There would be too much uv radiation at the surface.

 

I could go on writing for the next 10 pages about scientific facts that show that the degree of calibration for the creation of the universe are BEYOND scientific possibility.   If it is beyond science, then there can logically only be on explanation:  a being beyond space and time created this universe.

 

If there is anybody who actually wants to read about how science actually materially helps prove creation, read "The Fingerprint of God" by astrophysicist Hugh Ross.   

 

I hope that answers your question.  Now, how about an answer to mine?

 

 

Your question was answered immediately and repeatedly.

 

You did not answer the question that was posed to you.  Let me remind you:

 

"I want anybody who believes in creationism to tell me five things about creationism that you KNOW are true (i.e., in your own words, and proved OUTSIDE of the bible). Honest discussion."

 

You listed 5 things but none of them are about creationISM.

 

Are you getting how you dodged the question?

 

When you ask questions we answer immediately.  When we ask you questions you dodge the question over and over again.

 

And in case you forgot the answer to your question (again) is that Richard Dawkins was asked a question that has an unknown answer so the best explanation he could come up with was people are working on it.  There is no shame in a scientist admitting that we don't know because scientists don't claim to be in telepathic communication with the creator of the universe.  As mere mortals scientists are allowed to not have all the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Dawkins answered the question well enough. Christians believe the universe was created by invisible super friends and an imaginary sky fairy, with the use of magic. Any time xtians want to sound imprtant, they make up answers and expect eveyone to 'ooh' and 'awe' over their enlightened explanations. That may work in K-12 but in the real world we just find christian explanations laughable.

 

Dawkins's answer is no less filled with pixey dust and fairly tales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandiego,

 

Got one for you. How can you trust a book effectively put together by a group of gate keepers designed to keep people from thinking? That group whom I speak of is the Council of Nicea.

 

I'm asking you to think at this very moment.   Go ahead.  Give me the scientific explanation.  You can rail on the Bible all you want, but it brings you no closer to the answer for which science has no answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you know it or not, the entire foundation for evolution requires this question to be answered. 

 

You cannot possibly really be this stupid. Please, tell me that you are not and that you are simply trolling. At this point, I would prefer that you were a troll than a complete idiot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Science does not have all the answers, and perhaps never will. Religion has no actual answers, only guesses that are made and accepted with no demand for proof.

 

Now stop posing questions you already know the answer to, pay attention to what is posted, and at the very least try to actually understand how a person might honestly reject your particular belief system.

 

You are teetering very close to the edge of the Cliff of Trolls. Be careful you don't fall off.

 

 

So, if you have a contrary view in life you are a threat that must be eliminated?  That hardly seems compatible with a group that consistently calls for tolerance.  I find it even more humorous that folks have posted the most vile, vitriolic responses to me and you have never once asked people to act more civilized.  However, I have been polite and have never used abusive language, but you find my "ideas" so offensive that it is okay to let people behave in ways that are beyond offensive.  

 

I have asked a simple question.  People ask me questions all the time.  I don't flip out and tell them to die.  I simply try to respond.  Why is the contrary so offensive?

 

 

You have been dishonest from the get go.  As a group we tolerate many things but why should we put up with your lies?  I don't mean your religious beliefs.  I mean when I give you an answer in post 5 and you come back in post 7 and lie about not getting an answer.  And then you come back in multiple posts and lie about how you didn't get an answer.  The answer gets repeated multiple times and then you come back the next day and lie about how you didn't get an answer.

 

Again!  One more time!

Richard Dawkins was asked a question and the answer to it is we don't know so the closest he could come to an explanation is that people are working on it.  

 

From post #5

Science starts with "I don't know" and if we still don't know there is no shame in admitting that.

 

From post #20

People are working on the origin of the universe.  They might make progress.  So far they do not have enough for a definitive answer.  But evolution is a very different story.  We have enough data that we can tell what is going on.

 

Post #26

Your question has been addressed.  I don't feel the least bit intimidated or shamed in admitting we don't know everything.  Why should we know everything?

 

. . . 

 

Admitting we don't know isn't difficult and the true cause of the universe isn't obvious.  We don't know the answer.  It is unknown.  If you don't like it you can ask the question again a hundred times and we still won't know.

 

From post #43

Richard Dawkins was asked a question that has an unknown answer so the best explanation he could come up with was people are working on it.  There is no shame in a scientist admitting that we don't know because scientists don't claim to be in telepathic communication with the creator of the universe.  As mere mortals scientists are allowed to not have all the answers.

 

 

Now SandTroll how many times does your question need to be answered before you will honestly admit your question was answered?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I could go on writing for the next 10 pages about scientific facts that show that the degree of calibration for the creation of the universe are BEYOND scientific possibility.

 

Please don't. It's irrelevant to your base argument. Living things adapt to their environment; anaerobic animals have been found in deep water, so oxygen is not a requirement for life. Nitrogen and phosphorous have the potential to form biochemical molecules. In other words, the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around. Life has adapted to the extremes we have on the planet, and would adapt to even greater extremes if that's what was available. Life uses what it has to work with, and the stuff of life exists throughout the universe; we just are unable to explore it all as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Why is the contrary so offensive?

 

What is offensive is your refusal to listen to the answers provided. Your unwillingness to understand. You don't have to agree, but you need to actually understand the opposing view and then present logical and valid arguments in support of your own position. To say "The Bible says so" and "Science doesn't have all the answers yet, so therefore God" are not substantive arguments.

 

We've covered this ground before. Let's not do it again, okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this guy wonders why we get angry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, guys. I can't explain how the universe began. That means God MUST be out there, and it has to be the Christian God. Damn it, how could I have been so blind? Take me back, Jebus!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.