So then if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it?

[Strange]

Just now, PaulP said:

We've actually tested the Big Bang??

Yes. The Big Bang is a mathematical model about the expanding universe. It makes many detailed predictions, many of which have been tested.

1 minute ago, PaulP said:

They've created galaxies and nebulae inside of science laboratories?

We have simulated it, yes.

As for actually "doing it in a laboratory" that is a silly objection only used by people who don't understand science.

2 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Has science allowed us to witness the creation of a star before our eyes?

Has science allowed us to watch the formation of another galaxy?

Yes. Galaxies and stars in various stages of development have been seen. 

But, again, you are relying on a rather dishonest depiction of how science should work.

3 minutes ago, PaulP said:

You're trying to claim absolute truth on something that occurred so far in the past.

Science NEVER claims absolute truth. (Only religion does that.)

4 minutes ago, PaulP said:

No one observed it, no one recorded it - so even if you conduct millions of experiments and attempt to try to figure it out - you have to admit we'll never know.

We are observing it now. And we do know with a high degree of accuracy.

Your arguments based on your personal ignorance of the subject, and how science works, are not very compelling.

5 minutes ago, PaulP said:

We cannot know 100% - it requires a degree of "faith" to believe in that part of science.

We cannot know 100%, certainly. But it doesn't require "faith" to accept the evidence.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, PaulP said:

What do you mean?

What I mean is that if your mind is made up and you are not willing to consider what others have to say, then it is a waste of time talking about it.

Quote

I can't bring myself to believe it came from nothing by pure chance. It's you who believes it came about by pure chance.
 

I do?!?! Holy shit! When did I come to that conclusion? I have to start paying more attention to what I believe.

Quote

Why would you believe everything came from a singularity that existed in a "nothingness" yet you can't believe that a supreme God was in full control and created all?
 

I can't believe that a supreme god is in full control because Thor has not yet defeated Aditi, and until he does, it seems as if control is divided.

Quote

What is the difference between the singularity and God to you people?

Well,  a singularity is a point at which a function takes on an infinite value, and a god is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. What is the difference between a singularity and god to YOU?

And when you say "you people", do mean us backpackers, or us handsome young men?

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

And when you say "you people", do mean us backpackers, or us handsome young men?

I thought he meant "us old geezers".

Edited April 28, 2018 by Strange

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

And when you say "you people", do mean us backpackers, or us handsome young men?

 

I think he means use wise old men...  

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, PaulP said:

You're trying to claim absolute truth on something that occurred so far in the past.

No one observed it, no one recorded it - so even if you conduct millions of experiments and attempt to try to figure it out - you have to admit we'll never know.

PaulP, can I suggest that before responding you think about what  you say so do not repeat (again) things that you have already been told are not true. For example:

• Science is never 100% certain about anything.
• Science doesn't deal in "truth".
• We don't need to be at the scene of a crime to work out what happened.
• We don't need to reproduce something in a lab to test it.
• We don't need faith to compare mathematical predictions with observations.
• Science doesn't say the universe was created.
• Science doesn't say the universe was created from nothing.
• Science doesn't say anything happens by "pure chance".

And so on.

I hope you are here to learn, rather than just preach at us. I will be very disappointed if you turn out to be yet another Creationist who lies for their religion and refuses to accept corrections to their mistaken ideas. I mean, honestly, is their god proud of them for deliberately lying?

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Strange

[JamesT]

14 minutes ago, PaulP said:

• Has science allowed us to witness the creation of a star before our eyes?

 

 

The creation of a star can be observed through a telescope. You won't see the entire process on a film because it takes very long time, longer that the human life span, longer than the time humans had telescopes that allowed them to observe those events. However, they can see different stars in different phases of their formation. If you had read more books than just the bible, you could have seen some intriguing pictures there.

Here is a link to some devilish speculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

[PaulP]

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

We are observing it now. And we do know with a high degree of accuracy.

We cannot know 100%, certainly. But it doesn't require "faith" to accept the evidence.

 

Before I go because I have had enough with this.

Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.

****

Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen?

Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith.

You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty.

Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of.

AND TO YOU JAMEST,

Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes.

But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made.

Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.

Edited April 28, 2018 by PaulP

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Before I go because I have had enough with this.
 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Before I go because I have had enough with this.

What did you expect? That you would say what you believed and everyone would fall down in awe and follow you like a prophet?

11 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.

So you have, like every other Creationist, simply repeated things that you have been told are false:

• There was no singularity
• We can know things without having to witness them directly.
• Following the evidence is not faith

Didn't your mum ever tell you that repeating things that are not true is called "lying" and it is wrong?

13 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen?

Just like science.

Why repeat another lie? ("100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever") What is wrong with you? Do you belong to The Church of Jesus Christ Compulsive Liar?

14 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence?

Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. (As you have been told several times.)

15 minutes ago, PaulP said:

And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of.

I wish this were true. I really do.

I would love to help you understand the universe (your god's creation) better. But I know you are not interested in learning anything.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, PaulP said:

• We cannot know 100% - it requires a degree of "faith" to believe in that part of science.

Right here, this is where you're the MOST wrong. "That part of science"? Doesn't. Even. Exist. If you take anything away from this site, please understand that science NEVER tries for 100% proof. It's satisfied with the best supported explanations which either become falsified or strengthened over time (the ones that continue to be strengthened become known as theories), as long as those explanations follow a methodology that keeps them as free as possible of wishful thinking and cognitive biases. 

Also, if you go back through the thread, you'll see multiple instances where you're arguing at strawmen perversions of the scientific stance. Many people have called you out on it, but you continue to build your whole argument on positions nobody here holds. If you can be intellectually honest with yourself, you should remove those parts of your rant, and you'd see if falls to nothing.

[Lasse]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

We ARE there to witness the Big Bang. It is happening at this very moment. 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Big Bang describes how the universe began. It does not. It explains the large scale evolution of the universe over time.

While some may offer theories of the 'beginning' of the universe, no scientists claim to 'know' how it began.

I know! I know! I know! 

Information got applied within Nothing!

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Lasse

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I know! I know! I know! 

Information got applied within Nothing!

I've gotten in the bad habit of ignoring the incessant interjections of your bizarre pet quasi-religi-science into everyone else's threads, but occasionally feel the need to ask you to please stop. All the trains can't run on your track, so please stop trying to switch them over.

[Lasse]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I've gotten in the bad habit of ignoring the incessant interjections of your bizarre pet quasi-religi-science into everyone else's threads, but occasionally feel the need to ask you to please stop. All the trains can't run on your track, so please stop trying to switch them over.

Sorry Phi. Not ment to irritate you.

I like cognitive gamification and nudging. 

Nobel prices do not born on online forums... I want the apple from the tree of knowledge... learning is a process and individual for everyone. Why is that so irritating around here?

Edited April 28, 2018 by Lasse

[koti]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

And when you say "you people", do mean us backpackers, or us handsome young men?

 

I’m handsome, young and I like backpacking. Just saying. 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, PaulP said:

Before I go because I have had enough with this.

Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.

****

Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen?

Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith.

You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty.

Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of.

AND TO YOU JAMEST,

Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes.

But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made.

Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.

Don't take your ball and go home just yet PaulP I'm not done, I think we can figure this out. In a court of law, in the US anyway, I'm not familiar with legal systems in other countries, but anyway in a court of law we go by the preponderance of evidence. To do this we'll have to break down your assertions a bit because most of them require differing forms of evidence.  You've made the claim that your evidence for creation is as valid as the evidence science has gathered about the universe. 

#1 Science predicted we would find the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB.

"The predicted CMB has been detected and it was as predicted."

Now, tell me something your holy book predicted and if you or your religion can confirm your holy book's prediction. This should be easy if you have evidence. BTW your holy book cannot be evidence of itself. Your holy book is the claim that needs evidence. So are you game to play? 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, PaulP said:

Before I go because I have had enough with this.

Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.

I have come in late on this one, and there's not much more to be said that others havn't rightly noted. Just let me reiterate that the BB is a model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime from a hotter denser state from t+10-43 seconds. In other words the BB says nothing about the actual t=0 period. In other words our model and GR fail at this quantum level...That is our singularity: So you see there is nothing really supernatural [like your spaghetti monster] about the singularity. In reality it just at this stage expresses a gap in our knowledge. So, sure, if you are still of a mind to shove your spaghetti monster in there as a sort of "god of the gaps"' just as the Catholic church have done, then be my/our guest. But please, stop your apparent evangelistic crusade that so many of you mythical believers, conduct against science. No one twisted your arm to come here.

Edited April 28, 2018 by beecee

[Lasse]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

We don't need faith to compare mathematical predictions with observations

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation.

Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation.

Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

If they do not describe reality accurately they are not valid... 

[Lasse]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If they do not describe reality accurately they are not valid... 

I know... never observable(true), but widely accepted... 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

Why do so many religious people need to belief this? Are they ashamed of their faith? If they are not, why do they project it on those who have none?

[Lasse]

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

Why do so many religious people need to belief this? Are they ashamed of their faith? If they are not, why do they project it on those who have none?

Because the claimed scientific clarity and consistency between theory and observation is failing at some points and can be explained just by believes and faith.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Lasse

[Moontanman]

11 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Because the claimed scientific clarity and consistency between theory and observation is failing at some points and can be explained just by believes and faith.

You do not even know what the word theory means in science. I mean seriously where do you get off trying to tell us what we believe when you don't even know the nomenclature?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation.

Then it’s not science. 

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

Stop posting such stupid comments. 

18 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Because the claimed scientific clarity and consistency between theory and observation is failing at some points and can be explained just by believes and faith.

If this happens then theory is adjusted  or replaced. 

[Lasse]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then it’s not science

It is science until you apply it.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Stop posting such stupid comments

The comment is not stupid. You might not understand it but that not makes it invalid. Specially when you do not reason. 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

If this happens then theory is adjusted  or replaced

I trust this is true. I believe you. 

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Lasse said:

It is science until you apply it.

You said there could not be any observations. Therefore it is not science.

21 minutes ago, Lasse said:

The comment is not stupid.

It has already been explained several times in this thread (and hundreds of times in your own stupid thread) why science does not require faith. If you are incapable of understanding this, I think you should find a more appropriate forum.