Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Choices yes, indoctrination no. How many deities were they teaching these children that humans had imagined? What objective difference were they offering between these beliefs?

Didn't you learn about many deities in school?why would it be wrong to include Jesus in the list of deities thaT students learn about. ?

I didn't mention Jesus.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well for example the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin was used to test the claim that the universe had a beginning



Its a logical deduction, that could be falsified if you find flaws in such logic.


(Just to be clear the claim is that the KCA is testable and falsifiable)

That only addressed whether or not the universe in is current state had a beginning. At present it's impossible to determine whether or not the universe in its previous form had a beginning or it had always existed.

It's only a logical deduction if you foolishly start off assuming that some god entity exists. It's just as logical to deduce that the cause of the universe in its current form was the inadvertent consequence of a cosmic pixie farting.

 

[leroy]

That only addressed whether or not the universe in is current state had a beginning. At present it's impossible to determine whether or not the universe in its previous form had a beginning or it had always existed. ]

The claim that the universe has always existed requieres 2 asumtions

1 that there was something before the big bang

2 that this something is eternal

So even occams razor by itself makes the proposition that the universe is eternal less likely to be true.

It's only a logical deduction if you foolishly start off assuming that some god entity exists. It's just as logical to deduce that the cause of the universe in its current form was the inadvertent consequence of a cosmic pixie farting.

From the fact that the universe has a cause it follows that the cause is timeless spacless inmaterial and personal weather if you whsnt to label is as God or a a fairy is irrelevant semantics

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am an atheist, thus it is nonsensical to accuse me of "blaming deities" for anything. The second sentence has lost me sorry, you seem to be leaping into non-sequiturs, while making sweeping claims about me, that seem to be based on nothing more than assumption about what I think and why.

You're describing theology as dangerous, and I'm replying it is tied to nationality, that you are missing the origin of said danger. I'm not criticizing you or your character or your existence, nor spreading rumors about you, nor slandering you. I'm not building a case against your character nor making "Sweeping claims" about you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.

No.
It was introduced to bring biblical creationism into the classroom, disguised as science.
It's just plain old creationism dressed up in a lab coat.

This has been exposed as such even in court.
The leaked wedge document from inside the discovery institute pretty much literally states this.

Then there is the hilarious term "cdesign proponentsists", which pretty much says it all. You might want to google that term.

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.

Please show us all a single example of an actual worthwhile effort any of these con-men have engaged in to get any paper about this subject published in actual appropriate peer-reviewed journals.

The fact is that there are no such efforts. It's all just pseudo-science nonsense. Religion disguised in a lab coat. And they KNOW it, which is why they don't even bother to get any of it published.

Go ahead... show us the evidence of the contrary. Show us the evidence that these papers were submitted for review. The fact is that they weren't. They only published them in their own inner circle "journals".

But, sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized. Unlike bisexual activity.

Your homophobia is randomly showing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, the Christianity is the main religion, but due to separation of Church and state, the believers are outlaws. Sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized.

You make zero sense.

Theists aren't "outlaws" in secular societies.
And I'm not aware of any secular democracy where christianity isn't officially recognized as a religion, which makes them eligable for subsidies and tax exemptions.

What on earth are you rambling about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the real issue is not whether science can prove God but rather it cannot explain the reason for our existence.

Why do you assume there is a reason?

I always ask
What started the big bang and why...where did the energy and matter come from?

Physicists ask that question too.
The difference is that they actually look for the answer by studying the universe instead of assuming that 2500 year old ignorant goat herders had the answers handed to them by talking burning bushes and dreams and visions and what-not.

The explanation I'm hearing these days is that nothing, became something for such a tiny amount of time, it basically remained nothing and that doesn't breach the law that energy and matter cannot be created!

I have no idea what you are talking about.
It sounds as if you are trying to repeat some hypothesis you once heard, yet didn't understand at all.

I have to ask, why do people who believe such a statement think Christians are naive and stupid?

I can assure you that not many people will believe such an incoherent statement. Or even understand it.

The truth I think is that most people never even bother to question that fundamental issue about the big bang...it does not even enter their heads!

Let's just cut this short: the origins of the big bang are unknown.
So whatever you heard, it was likely just one of the many hypothesis that are out there and being investigated.

The main point however, is that the origins of the universe / big bang are unknown at this point.

So the only acceptable answer today to the question "what started the big bang?", is "we have a few ideas, but essentially, we don't know".

Even Stephen Hawkings answer to that question is surprising.the real answer from science is "we don't know yet"!

Yes. It's not surprising. It's just intellectually honest.
What is surprising is people believing that ancient ignorant goat herders DID know the answer because some undetectable "angel" or "ghost" or "spirit" or "insert-superstitious-entity" told them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me it sounds like “I wont accept arguments for the existance of God, untill you prove that there is a God” (can´t you note the circularity of that reasoning?)

The way you worded it, it indeed is circular.
It's also a giant strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is easy, most of the arguments for the existence of God are based on premises that are testable

And when tested, they are found wanting.

For example in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

ow dear..............

P1 whatever begins to exist has a cause

What's the cause of the popping into existence of virtual particles?

P2 the universe begun to exist

Did it? How did you determine that it didn't just change form with the big bang?

Therefore the universe has a cause.

Bzzzt.
Causality is a phenomenon that applies within the space time continuum. And it's not even universal at that.
You can't invoke the physics of the universe in a context where the universe doesn't even exist (and thus neither does its physics).

Both of the premises are testable and falsifiable.

The first is false. The second is currently undemonstrable.
And to top it off, the conclusion is fallacious as it attempts to invoke a phenomenon in a setting where said phenomenon doesn't even exist. Essentially a chicken and egg problem.

Not to mention that Evolution* (common ancestry) is not testable nor falsifiable and still scientists consider it a serous and usefull hypothesis

That's preposterously false.
Common ancestry is extremely falsifiable.
Just like it is falsifiable and verifiable to say that you and me share parents.
All you need to do is compare our DNA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is the kind of nonsense that one random atheist made on some random forum, and people started to repeat it without even thinking about the nonsense of that argument.

DNA is only valid to show if someone is your father and with a lower degree of certainty of someone is your grandfather.

Beyond 2 generations DNA tests are not valid to determine relations.

Dude.......................................

Tree of life SVG - Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

That tree is the result of an automated process that graphs out matches of DNA from fully sequenced genomes from a great many species.

Just o to be clear, I agree on that evolution (common ancestry) is probably true, just that it can’t be tested nor falsified. (the lack of testability is not a big of a deal)

Dude....................................................

Phylogenetics.
Fossil record.
Geographic distribution of species.
Comparative anatomy.
Comparative genomics.

Each one of these can easily falsify evolution if evolution is false.

You should read up.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

an unevidenced creation myth.

See now that is false...you have obviously never heard of archaeology, answers in Genesis, Ark encounter...there is a wealth of evidence in support of it.
evolutionary science dates back a century of two and no one has witnessed the major evolutionary changes we are still searching for (the missing link).
Scientists still cannot answer the first question about the big bang...where did the energy and matter come from and what started it?
The answer currently is basically, we don't know yet. (Belief in evolution is based on that answer whilst many who believe in it are at the same time calling Christians naive idiots?)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wonder if you are that "picky " with everything ir just with the stuff with theological implications that you don't like.

ow dear..........

Your fallacious cosmological argument, in truth, has NO theological implications AT ALL.

Even if I grant you the fallacious nonsense in full, it doesn't point to any gods or other theistic stuff AT ALL.
"a cause" could be anything. Like a multi-verse.

.. how can you test if dinosaurs 65M had the hability to reproduce and have offspring?

Here's a nice fossil of a dino egg

I am not denying the claim that evolution (common ancestry) is true. I am just saying that it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Which is wrong / asanine.

For example how can you test/falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor?

DNA.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

ow dear..............

Why do you knock this view? I

According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy".

syllogism:[4]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

1. The universe has a cause.
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
3. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

The kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-mover, introduced by Aristotle, and entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus.[7] Along with much of classical Greek philosophy,
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claim that the universe has always existed requieres 2 asumtions

Actually, it is a fact that the universe has always exist.
Always = for all of time.

Go back through history. Pick any time.
There was a universe then.

From the fact that the universe has a cause it follows that the cause is timeless spacless inmaterial

aka "non-existent".

PS: a cause by definition can't be "timeless" because causality REQUIRES time to occur. Effects happen AFTER causes. Causes happen BEFORE effects.

If the universe is an "effect", it means that the cause would have had to happen in "negative time", which is obvious nonsense.

There is no "before" time.

and personal

Huh? Where did that come from?

weather if you whsnt to label is as God or a a fairy is irrelevant semantics

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you knock this view?

Because it's a PRATT.
So much so that I'm shocked that people still bring it up thinking they bring something original or convincing.

According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy".

Which tells me something about the "sophistication" of "theological philosophy". And not a good thing.

syllogism:[4]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

1. The universe has a cause.
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
3. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

I'm well aware of Craig's fallacious apologetic PRATTs dude.
This is not my first rodeo.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

At the "State of the Universe" conference at Cambridge University in January 2012, Vilenkin discussed problems with various theories that would claim to avoid the need for a cosmological beginning, alleging the untenability of eternal inflation, cyclic and cosmic egg models, eventually concluding: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."[49]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At the "State of the Universe" conference at Cambridge University in January 2012, Vilenkin discussed problems with various theories that would claim to avoid the need for a cosmological beginning, alleging the untenability of eternal inflation, cyclic and cosmic egg models, eventually concluding: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."[49]

Which doesn't do anything at all to support the fallacious nonsense spouted by the likes of Craig.

Off course, I understand how it can be convincing to naive scientifically illiterate people who already have an a priori religious beliefs which will make them handwave away any science that is incompatible while accepting without question anything that seems to confirm their a priori beliefs - regardless of how nonsensical it actually is.

This here, is a prime example of that.

Here's a nice exercise for you to engage in and train your own brain a bit:
Try and spot the assumed conclusion in the second part of your post, where you copy-pasted the nonsense that Craig "adds" to the KCA.

It's actually quite easy if you read it with a speck of attention.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The claim that the universe has always existed requieres 2 asumtions

1 that there was something before the big bang

2 that this something is eternal

So even occams razor by itself makes the proposition that the universe is eternal less likely to be true.




From the fact that the universe has a cause it follows that the cause is timeless spacless inmaterial and personal weather if you whsnt to label is as God or a a fairy is irrelevant semantics

No it's not a claim... it's an acknowledgement that it's possible that the universe existed in a different form prior to the Big Bang, just like it's possible that the universe didn't exists in any form prior to the Big Bang. Unless we figure a way to look and see what was prior to the Big Bang, it's a question that cannot be answered.

And if Occam's Razor applies to the universe it also applies to your proposed god being.

 

[metis]

it's an acknowledgement that it's possible that the universe existed in a different form prior to the Big Bang, just like it's possible that the universe didn't exists in any form prior to the Big Bang.

Based on the mathematics of the BB, going back 13.8 billion years ago our universe was roughly the size of an atom in today's universe, and it would have been immeasurably hot.

What caused it to expand is unknown, but one hypothesis has it that under these conditions this ball would have been unstable and that possibly two or more charges may have repelled, which began to break the bonds that held them together. However, this is only mere speculation, thus not evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

So even occams razor by itself makes the proposition that the universe is eternal less likely to be true.

As opposed to the assumption a deity is eternal? Except wait a minute, we know a universe is possible, we don't know any deity is possible. Now I'm no philosopher it is true, but how is an assumption about something we know exists, existing in a different state, and changing by an as yet unknown natural phenomena, which we also know are possible, less likely than unevidenced assumptions about something no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for, using inexplicable magic? I think you just made Occam cry...