The big bang, something from nothing?

[Subduction Zone]

@The Anointed

I don't have the patience to deal with countless errors in one post.

Do you wish to continue to make yourself look foolish or would you like to learn from your mistakes?

Right now it looks like you are having problems with the quote function. That is two posts in a row. where you messed up.

And you still don't know what a theory is.

 

[The Anointed]

Let's go over what a scientific theory is. @The Anointed should quickly see that most of the so called theories that were in his article were not scientific theories:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

To be a scientific theory the examples that you gave would have to be testable. That is foremost to be a theory. Not only does a theory need to be testable, it also has had to have been tested before it is accepted. What tests would falsify those ideas? If scientists cannot name one then it is not a scientific theory by definition.

Reveal one scientific theory that has been proven beyond all doubt to be factual, and yet still remains "A THEORY?"

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"
   synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition · speculation · postulation · postulate · proposition · premise · surmise · assumption · presumption · presupposition · notion · guess ·
   doctrine · dogma · teaching · principle · ethic · creed · credo · theory · thesis · ideology · idea · ideal · position · belief · tenet · canon · conviction · persuasion · opinion
2. an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
   "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
   synonyms: opinion · point of view · viewpoint · belief · judgment · reckoning · way of thinking · thinking · thought · notion · idea · conviction · persuasion · attitude · feeling · sentiment ·
   [more]
3. mathematics
   a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reveal one scientific theory that has been proven beyond all doubt to be factual, and yet still remains "A THEORY?"

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"
   synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition · speculation · postulation · postulate · proposition · premise · surmise · assumption · presumption · presupposition · notion · guess ·
   doctrine · dogma · teaching · principle · ethic · creed · credo · theory · thesis · ideology · idea · ideal · position · belief · tenet · canon · conviction · persuasion · opinion
2. an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
   "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
   synonyms: opinion · point of view · viewpoint · belief · judgment · reckoning · way of thinking · thinking · thought · notion · idea · conviction · persuasion · attitude · feeling · sentiment ·
   [more]
3. mathematics
   a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

Sorry, you don't use generic sources for technical definitions. I specified a scientific theory for a reason.

Go back and read my source. It is far better than a dictionary definition. Right now you are guilty of making an equivocation fallacy.

 

[The Anointed]

Sorry, you don't use generic sources for technical definitions. I specified a scientific theory for a reason.

Go back and read my source. It is far better than a dictionary definition. Right now you are guilty of making an equivocation fallacy.

Let me here repeat; "Reveal one scientific theory that has been proven beyond all doubt to be factual, and yet still remains "A THEORY?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me here repeat; "Reveal one scientific theory that has been proven beyond all doubt to be factual, and yet still remains "A THEORY?"

The theory of evolution. I can name another with less "proof", the theory of gravity.

 

[The Anointed]

The theory of evolution. I can name another with less "proof", the theory of gravity.

Sorry sunshine, the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation that would prove that theory to be wrong. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science including the theory of gravitation.

If any scientific THEORY has been established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation, it would then be a proven fact and no longer a THEORY.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me here repeat; "Reveal one scientific theory that has been proven beyond all doubt to be factual, and yet still remains "A THEORY?"

Show me one general scientific description that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

BTW, I'm not asking for a simple 'does such a phenomenon exist'?, but an actual description of how that phenomenon works.

NO general scientific theory has *ever* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is *always* the possibility that improved observations will yield differences between the description and reality.

 

[Thief]

Here is a simple example that demonstrates your error. We know that Spanish was a language the developed from Latin. Spain used to be part of the Roman Empire and Latin was the language spoken in those days. Spanish did not exist as a language. Was there a first Spanish speaker? If so where and when?

that was poor.....sorry

when it comes to being First......Someone had to be First

 

[Subduction Zone]

that was poor.....sorry

when it comes to being First......Someone had to be First

Why was it poor? It demonstrates the failure of your argument. That is why there was no "first man". Man is a product of slow evolution and there was no more a first man than there was a first Spanish speaker.

 

[Thief]

.


Why someone? Why not something?

thought and feeling

most 'things' have no thought or feeling
the 'things' that do.....are not the same in nature

unless maybe you think fire is alive
it consumes
it can grow
it dies when consumption plays out
what it seems to lack is procreation

but maybe you don't think of that a line drawn?

and maybe you have not considered?
if substance first....then we are a product of a complex accident

and we have no hope beyond the last breath

and Man is then a mystery with no resolve

 

[Thief]

Why was it poor? It demonstrates the failure of your argument. That is why there was no "first man". Man is a product of slow evolution and there was no more a first man than there was a first Spanish speaker.

so ....we are not the spiritual creature?
and you are just an ape

 

[Subduction Zone]

so ....we are not the spiritual creature?
and you are just an ape

You and I are both apes. Spirituality appears to be an emergent property.

If you want to claim a God, the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[j1i]

i

I look forward to the paper that you will produce explaining all this.

Meanwhile, I'll listen to the likes of Mr Krauss and his hypothesis.

I was try to find this topic
I catch it

^_^

Do you mean "A Universe From Nothing?" I have both read the book and watched the video:

I am not so sure if I agree with your short interpretation, I might have to review it again. One thing that he did show was that a universe from nothing does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore a universe from nothing and a universe with a total energy of zero is not a problem.

thanks

This video shows Einstein's idea of the origin of the universe hand right and left hand


The Prophet Muhammad says that GOD has both hands right
47 We constructed the universe with power (hands), and We are expanding it.
That is, in my imagination, there are no opposite magnets when Existence began

I think about this, sure I will look for Unified field theories
like Higgs boson with Magnetic monopole theory
Imgur
i will select south not north
in Arabic language we call right hand south
and left hand north

 

[ecco]

ecco: which messenger?

All that are of God, see below;

The Messenger (Primal Will) is from our one God. The Messenger is the Mediator between man and God and they are the cause of creation and they are the source of our capacity in knowledge, our capacity in science.

"....The Primal Will is the first and only direct creation of the hidden God .......Everything else including the physical universe and all of its beings were generated through the Primal Will."



It would appear, therefore, that the Primal Will originates with or is present in the Manifestation (Messenger) of God, and in this sense they are identical. We make no difference in their Messages, as they all have but one purpose.

Peace be with you

Well, that makes everything clear.

 

[The Anointed]

Show me one general scientific description that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

BTW, I'm not asking for a simple 'does such a phenomenon exist'?, but an actual description of how that phenomenon works.

NO general scientific theory has *ever* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is *always* the possibility that improved observations will yield differences between the description and reality.

Correct! There hasn't been a single scientific theory yet formulated that hasn't been confronted by anomalies, which eventually point to a better theory.

Many on this forum will be pleased to hear that the theory of evolution has yet to be proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct! There hasn't been a single scientific theory yet formulated that hasn't been confronted by anomalies, which eventually point to a better theory.

Many on this forum will be pleased to hear that the theory of evolution has yet to be proven.

You still do not understand what a theory is. No theory is ever "proven". But by the common use of the term the theory of evolution has been proven. By the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" it has been proven. By the mathematical definition of an absolute proof that has not happened, nor will it ever happen.


You need to be clear which definition of "proof" you are going by. Not even gravity has been "proven" with the mathematical definition.

 

[The Anointed]

You still do not understand what a theory is. No theory is ever "proven". But by the common use of the term the theory of evolution has been proven. By the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" it has been proven. By the mathematical definition of an absolute proof that has not happened, nor will it ever happen.


You need to be clear which definition of "proof" you are going by. Not even gravity has been "proven" with the mathematical definition.

It is a proven fact that the Space station EVOLVED from the wheel through the process of intelligent design and not by mere chance. The evolution of mankind is not a theory to those who believe in the creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a proven fact that the Space station EVOLVED from the wheel through the process of intelligent design and not by mere chance. The evolution of mankind is not a theory to those who believe in the creator.

No, that is merely an equivocation fallacy on your part. And like it or not the theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". It is the only concept that is supported by scientific evidence. "Intelligent design" is not even a scientific hypothesis. In science it is an idea that is worthless, it is "not even wrong".

Try again.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct! There hasn't been a single scientific theory yet formulated that hasn't been confronted by anomalies, which eventually point to a better theory.

Many on this forum will be pleased to hear that the theory of evolution has yet to be proven.

Right, but it is a fact that biological species change over time just like it is a fact that planets orbit the sun. The specific mechanisms and details are still being debated in both cases. The *theory* of evolution deals with the specific mechanisms, just like the *theory* of gravity deals with specifics. But in both cases, the phenomena do occur.

Again, the phenomena can be verified. It is the descriptions of mechanisms and detail that cannot be proved beyond all doubt.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct! There hasn't been a single scientific theory yet formulated that hasn't been confronted by anomalies, which eventually point to a better theory.

Many on this forum will be pleased to hear that the theory of evolution has yet to be proven.

I'd also point out that while the Newtonian description of gravity is 'wrong', it is a very good approximation and can be used without difficulty for sending probes to Mars. The differences between the old Newtonian description of gravity and the new relativistic description are not usually relevant inside the solar system unless you need more than about 8 decimal places of accuracy.

In the same way, when a scientific description *works* to some extent, any *new* theory has to work in those cases to at least that extent. That is why we can say that planets orbit the sun even though there is still debate about the specifics of how quantum gravity works. We can still say that evolution occurred even though we can debate about the specific mechanisms of how it happened.