Weezer

WHERE DID WE (THE UNIVERSE) COME FROM?

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, end3 said:
2 hours ago, florduh said:

I missed something. Who, exactly, would benefit from any particular hypothesis about how the universe "began?" And also, which hypothesis has been presented as irrefutable fact?

 

Alex, who is the entire population that is anti-religion?  To the latter.....by god, if science proclaims it, it's fact.

 

Who, besides religions, has claimed anything on this topic as being irrefutable fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



As a rule, scientists do not proclaim things top be irrefutable facts. This is a gross misconstrual. They do proclaim things to be facts, but in science,  all facts are refutable in principle. And, if they are shown to be incorrect,  they cease to be viewed as facts. That's how science works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

Who, besides religions, has claimed anything on this topic as being irrefutable fact?

You and Jeff quit being so literal.  I think what BO means is the media typically takes an article, a research article, and essentially places it out in front of the people as "a new study has determined".....which sounds pretty convincing that we are all about to hear a new FACT via science.  But if you actually read the research, I doubt it ever comes across with as much certainty as the media places on it.  This is a symptom of a larger issue imo....that I shall reveal after this commercial message. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 8:46 PM, Weezer said:

After years of studying the history of gods and religion, I believe they came from the minds of humans.  And I definitely do not believe any of the creation stories I have heard.  It leaves me with some unanswered questions about where everything came from.

 

So there was a "big bang."  I am not a scientist, but it kinda makes sense.   The question I am still left with is this.  If there was a big bang, where did the matter and energy come from to make the big bang (or what ever process it was) possible??

 

Until someone can answer that question I will continue to be agnostic rather than an atheist.  It just seems like there is some kind of "energy" or "force" out there we have yet to understand.

 

     As far as I know the big bang model does not actually try to answer the question of where any of the stuff came from.  They go back as far as Planck time which is less than a second but not all the way back the start so anything before that before time and physics itself and sort of just unknown and speculation.  It's like that tiny little gap is where most folks draw the line (even though zero is slightly before that first Planck time).  So the math says there was an infinitely hot singularity but this could very well be, and probably is, because general relativity doesn't work here.

 

      So another theory, and model, will be needed for this sort of place (this is why black holes are equally mysterious with general relativity...another theory will come along like general relativity did with Newtonian physics and encapsulate it which will hopefully explain all this and more).  What this means is we're looking at an evolution, not a revolution, of information just like what has happened in the past that will allow us to fill in this missing information even if it means we have to start looking at things in slightly different ways (ie. just like we did when general relativity came along to expand on Newtonian and open up the quantum world).

 

     Anyhow, at this point, it may actually allow researchers enough information to really give informed opinion on what happened prior to Planck time.  Not only that but to even say what happen before time began and what was there and how it got there (ie. not only what "stuff" like energy but what rules so that events could take place).

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, end3 said:

Was thinking about this a little more......in another box is not freedom.

You still don't get it? You're the one calling it a box, and just because you say so, doesn't mean it's so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 8:45 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

It isn't not an argument. It's an observation. Spiritual minded usually argue hard, burn out fast, and then disappear. It's just a trend that's available to observe. What remains are many atheist materialists who then make up a majority. That's how an ex christianity community can eventually consist of a large atheist materialist majority when it may have once been otherwise. 

And that gives you the right to call them thin skinned because they chose to leave? No it doesn't. Nor does characterizing this as "burnout". Seriously Josh, stop talking about materialists as if you guys are the ones with some balls around here. It takes some balls to just leave a situation that you know isn't going to change (and in which the other party will claim you are thin skinned). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

And that gives you the right to call them thin skinned because they chose to leave? No it doesn't. Nor does characterizing this as "burnout". Seriously Josh, stop talking about materialists as if you guys are the ones with some balls around here. It takes some balls to just leave a situation that you know isn't going to change (and in which the other party will claim you are thin skinned). 

 

You guys? As in I'm a materialist? I'm not sure how welcome all of this idealist pantheism is that I've been discussing, among materialists. So far it doesn't seem well received at all. I'm probably somewhere between the two, because I don't think "material" IS what people assume it is. I understand that "space and time" are very likely not what we think, based on philosophical arguments that I've been following. 

 

So pretty much everything we have in terms of the standard model could be off, due to coming at it from the wrong perspective. That's a glaring possibility. 

 

But as to this "balls" argument. I'm not sure I follow. A lot of the people who are now gone, I liked, considered friends, and loath the fact that they are no longer here and that's the point of what I was saying to VC (drawing from context in other conversations between us). This wasn't some cheap shot at spiritual people, just in case you misinterpreted it as such. And I've mentioned this a lot, actually. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You guys? As in I'm a materialist? I'm not sure how welcome all of this idealist pantheism is that I've been discussing, among materialists. So far it doesn't seem well received at all. I'm probably somewhere between the two, because I don't think "material" IS what people assume it is. I understand that "space and time" are very likely not what we think, based on philosophical arguments that I've been following. 

 

So pretty much everything we have in terms of the standard model could be off, due to coming at it from the wrong perspective. That's a glaring possibility. 

 

But as to this "balls" argument. I'm not sure I follow. A lot of the people who are now gone, I liked, considered friends, and loath the fact that they are no longer here and that's the point of what I was saying to VC (drawing from context in other conversations between us). This wasn't some cheap shot at spiritual people, just in case you misinterpreted it as such. And I've mentioned this a lot, actually. 

 

 

 

OK, I'll take your word for it that it wasn't a cheap shot, but I still think that you need to be careful with terms like "burnout", as that can really be construed in a negative manner. And as to if you're a materalist, I don't know -- only you would be able to answer that one, and you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...materialism bad and spirituality good.

 

I learn so much here.

 

Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

You still don't get it? You're the one calling it a box, and just because you say so, doesn't mean it's so.

No, that's not right....the sum of the two would be the whole....escaping one area and calling the other area the entirety is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, end3 said:

No, that's not right....the sum of the two would be the whole....escaping one area and calling the other area the entirety is incorrect.

Who says there's only two? I tend to say people who think there's only two sides to anything think in black and white. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, end3 said:

Alex, who is the entire population that is anti-religion?  To the latter.....by god, if science proclaims it, it's fact.

Clearly you don't understand science then and maybe you're actually swallowing those claims religion likes to make about science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 6:34 AM, end3 said:

I think a good many people would categorize our reality in two "boxes", spiritual and physical.....maybe not.  Verbosity Cat, from what I gathered, was saying that the potential backlash from a swing too far into the spiritual box would result in another far swing into the physical box......i.e. a sellout to science and logic.....leaving less room for adequate input from both boxes.....free thinking.  And, it's pretty much what I have observed here at ExC.  Not a bad thing though....it's reasonable that people, if traumatized from A, would then go camp elsewhere, B.  It is painful sometimes to watch people have to be so measured with their responses....that they are now trapped in the new box....or it at least appears this way to me.    Hope this helps. 

 

Thanks for your answer end3. Now I understand what you guys were saying.

 

As for me, I actually have had great experiences with religions in general and have nothing against them excepting where demands or threats are made on someone contrary to their freewill to choose for themselves. 

 

As for me, religions of all varieties are anachronisms,  out of touch with the "truths" of modern life and times and the obvious validity of the biological sciences.  Christianity, the Abrahamic religions, spiritualism etc. to me are all just like believing in the gods of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, completely ridiculous. But I do respect a person's spiritual beliefs if they have a reasonable knowledge of alternative religions and related scientific explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Clearly you don't understand science then and maybe you're actually swallowing those claims religion likes to make about science. 

I understand it well enough to own a laboratory and make a living at it.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Who says there's only two? I tend to say people who think there's only two sides to anything think in black and white. 

 

If there were two areas the whole would be the some of the two.  If there were more, the concept would be the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, end3 said:

I understand it well enough to own a laboratory and make a living at it.  

 

That doesn't count.  Using science to make a living, especially for profit.  That makes you a capitalist, therefore you must turn in your science card because you are not one of the TRUE BELIEVERS in the fold. You are a dirty filthy capitalist pig. You bad boy.  :fdevil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, florduh said:

I missed something. Who, exactly, would benefit from any particular hypothesis about how the universe "began?" And also, which hypothesis has been presented as irrefutable fact?

 

 

The problem is that science has primarily been built on the prior work of others. Not a bad thing, but about-faces are very difficult in science since that field of science would have to admit that many mistakes have been made and much money has been wrongly spent in that field. This means that once a totally-wrong theory becomes entrenched in the field, countless billions may be spent before it becomes obvious to most that the theory is wrong.

 

For example, I run  an organization called The Pantheory Research Organization and IMO maybe half of the primary theories in modern physics today are seriously flawed or totally wrong, again emphasizing the IMO aspect of it. This is not because anybody necessarily benefits from any particular theory, it is  because most practitioners generally benefit from funding based upon the continuation of mainstream theories whatever they may be, or whether they are right or wrong. There is little funding available from all sources to investigate different scientific possibilities, theories or alternatives.

 

This is a problem with scientific funding being discussed, which relates to a vulnerability of mainstream scientific practices and beliefs to the sometimes misguided business of science. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

That doesn't count.  Using science to make a living, especially for profit.  That makes you a capitalist, therefore you must turn in your science card because you are not one of the TRUE BELIEVERS in the fold. You are a dirty filthy capitalist pig. You bad boy.  :fdevil:

 

... who is it who constantly complains about how science is ruined whenever money is involved? I can't seem to remember. It's on the tip of my tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

... who is it who constantly complains about how science is ruined whenever money is involved? I can't seem to remember. It's on the tip of my tongue.

 

He is not using MY money.  I don't give a shit if it is by private contract and the funds used are by agreement and the person paying is the one who contracted by choice. Many engineering firms do that for private individuals and businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

He is not using MY money.  I don't give a shit if it is by private contract and the funds used are by agreement and the person paying is the one who contracted by choice. Many engineering firms do that for private individuals and businesses.

 

Just a reminder, we're going in a ToT direction with this capitalist commentary. We should stick to science and religion here and leave the political element for a ToT discussion. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 We should stick to science and religion here and leave the political element for a ToT discussion. 

 

(response deleted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a creation of man ~ far as I can see ~                               ~and the big bang ~ what was there to bang big ```

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vartan said:

Evolution is a creation of man ~ far as I can see ~                               ~and the big bang ~ what was there to bang big ```

 

Not sure what the deal with all the tildas is, but if these are actually things you'd like to discuss,  let me know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now