Can Science Explain the Existence of the Universe?

[Dennisg]

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere. According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

[Moontanman]

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere. According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

 

Wow, way to cut us to the quick dude, Science isn't able to explain the origin of the universe at this time but there are people working on theories that do indeed explain where it came from and where it is going. Just because science cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it's a miracle. Gravity isn't very well explained but you don't shout miracle every time you fall down do you? Science doesn't make claims that it cannot back up with some kind of evidence. If there is no real evidence to explain something then it remains simply unexplained not miraculous. Science is a work in progress, it will always be a work in progress, that is why science doesn't do miracles, they simply look for evidence. Science has never said it has all the answers now, just that is working on them. The new LHC will be looking into at least part of the problem of where the universe came from. Brane theory also has a few things to say about it but until real evidence shows up science will not make claims about things it has no evidence for.

[Realitycheck]

I like the force of gravity better explained as miracle. Anything and everything is explainable, as long as you know all of the pertinent facts ... but not gravity. It's a miracle

[ydoaPs]

What makes you think it CAME into existence?

[Dennisg]

I like the force of gravity better explained as miracle. Anything and everything is explainable, as long as you know all of the pertinent facts ... but not gravity. It's a miracle

 

Cool. Perhaps gravity is the memory that things have of being once one.

 

Wow, way to cut us to the quick dude, Science isn't able to explain the origin of the universe at this time but there are people working on theories that do indeed explain where it came from and where it is going. Just because science cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it's a miracle. Gravity isn't very well explained but you don't shout miracle every time you fall down do you? Science doesn't make claims that it cannot back up with some kind of evidence. If there is no real evidence to explain something then it remains simply unexplained not miraculous. Science is a work in progress, it will always be a work in progress, that is why science doesn't do miracles, they simply look for evidence. Science has never said it has all the answers now, just that is working on them. The new LHC will be looking into at least part of the problem of where the universe came from. Brane theory also has a few things to say about it but until real evidence shows up science will not make claims about things it has no evidence for.

 

 

Thanks for your reply but I don't think you get the point.

[Sisyphus]

The point being that there's a difference between calling something unexplained and calling it miraculous. The latter assumes that everything knowable is already known, which is an assumption that science never makes.

[john5746]

Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

 

Since science has been such an obvious failure in regards to helping man understand and adapt to his environment, what is the better alternative?

[ParanoiA]

I love these "science can't explain this and that" strawmen positions that creationists use to make themselves feel better about the void in their faith (sorry, but I smell the stench of Kansas dogma in that OP).

 

That's the problem right out the gate. It presupposes that science claims such things or that science should claim such things - instead of realizing that's the distinguishable difference between science and faith based belief systems. Science is absolutely cool with saying "we don't know".

 

It's that simple, Dennisg. Yes, science can't tell you where the universe came from, and don't even claim to. Some folks are working on it, as any responsible life form would ponder and inquire about it's existence, but it's not worth making shit up like we get from "we have all the answers" faith based nonsense.

 

It's the "we have all the answers" faith based agenda that creates the notion that science or any other study of our universe should have "all the answers".

 

Any study that claims such silliness is relegated to the fiction section of the book store. All of the answers is overrated too. What fun would life be if you knew everything?

[YT2095]

1. "science can't explain this and that" strawmen positions that creationists use

 

2. but it's not worth making shit up like we get from "we have all the answers" faith based nonsense.

 

3. It's the "we have all the answers" faith based agenda that creates the notion that science or any other study of our universe should have "all the answers".

 

1) if you`re going to at least Try and be accurate, learn to use the word "SOME"

 

2) see point 1)

 

3) other than just being Wrong, see points 1 and 2.

 

your (and a few others) problem is that you make the exact same mistakes you accuse these others of, and let enthusiasm lead you into falsehood and inaccurate statements, is it any wonder you never convince anyone?

I`m a creationist and never once have done Any of the things you accuse creationists of;)

and for the record I don`t agree with the OP either.

 

 

Think before you type!

[ParanoiA]

1) if you`re going to at least Try and be accurate, learn to use the word "SOME"

 

2) see point 1)

 

3) other than just being Wrong, see points 1 and 2.

 

your (and a few others) problem is that you make the exact same mistakes you accuse these others of, and let enthusiasm lead you into falsehood and inaccurate statements, is it any wonder you never convince anyone?

I`m a creationist and never once have done Any of the things you accuse creationists of;)

and for the record I don`t agree with the OP either.

 

 

Think before you type!

 

Ok, fair enough. Let me rephrase: Every person I've EVER run into in my entire life that challenged science based on "science can't tell you this, or can't explain that" has been a creationist/IDer. Both in electronic forums and physical presence. I've never met an atheist or any other non-religio that made such an assumption.

 

And I believe that is because the apparent method of the brand of creationism that is getting media attention and focus from the public, is to start from that premise: Science can't tell you "X", so they're obviously inferior to our answer to everything "god did it". Or to that effect.

 

The OP sounds straight out of the standard regurgitation. I did take a leap there, so I'll take my licks for it.

 

Also, consider that your brand of creationism is either in the minority or else you're silent. Or hell, maybe it just doesn't come up enough to garner response. But your kind seem to be almost non-existent - until we offend you by lumping you with the rest. I apologize.

 

Also, I did get emotive in that post. It bugs me to no end to hear that same old stupid presumption that science can't tell you everything. And then it bugs me even more when no one challenges that very presumption and instead validates it by responding with a defense of how we're trying to do just that.

[swansont]

I love these "science can't explain this and that" strawmen positions that creationists use to make themselves feel better about the void in their faith (sorry, but I smell the stench of Kansas dogma in that OP).

 

That would be the dogma-doo. Don't step in it.

 

———

 

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere.

 

How do you know this is how the universe came into existence? And why can't we investigate it scientifically?

 

According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

 

I think this is a prime example of Paulis statement: That's not right. It's not even wrong.

[YT2095]

premise: Science can't tell you "X", so they're obviously inferior to our answer to everything "god did it". Or to that effect.

 

Also, consider that your brand of creationism is either in the minority or else you're silent. Or hell, maybe it just doesn't come up enough to garner response. But your kind seem to be almost non-existent

 

Oh I dunno, I`m sure there are others like me out there, I don`t stay particularly silent for any reason and am happy to answer any genuine question I`m asked, it just that it never comes up in chat either here or everyday life.

and I`v no real objection to the "God did it" idea, in fact I believe God DID do it, but the cool part about Science is that you get to find out How!

something that I reckon the OP has overlooked entirely with his unprovoked "attack" on Science.

[waitforufo]

Recently in the politics thread topic "Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court" I stated the following.

 

I would argue that different principals apply in different areas of human thought and action. Below is a list of various principals that could be applied. This list should not be considered all inclusive.

 

Philosophical

Scientific

Religious

Legal

Personal

 

So for example if I say "green beans are bad, because green beans are icky" is this a valid point about green beans? Well, I don't like green beans, I think they are icky, eating them makes me unhappy, so based on my personal principals they are indeed bad, and therefore my statement is a valid point. Scientifically the point is completely wrong.

 

The error, in my opinion, with the OP is that it is attempting to mix religious and scientific principals. They just don't mix. I believe this is at least part of ParanoiA's point. (Forgive me ParanoiA if I am not reading you correctly.) No one in science is seeking a proof to the existence of the universe. Just look around it's there. Yes, scientists are seeking answers to how the universe came about. This knowledge could potentially bring about great benefit to mankind. When a person considers why the universe came about that's a philosophical or religious question. When asking that question science has no interest and will provide no answers.

 

Science for example will never be capable of defining the word "courage." That task is left primarily to philosophers. Philosophers particularly struggle with why we all know courage when we see it.

 

Modern science started at the transition of the middle ages and the enlightenment. Like the similar argument during classical times primarily between philosophy and science, the argument shifted to one between religion and science. Scientist argued that philosophy and religion could have all it's high minded "why" answers and definitions, but they had to hold up to the truth discovered by scientifically measured observations.

 

To be a scientist does not mean you have to be an atheist. It does mean that you have to set aside all your religious principals when trying to explain how things come about in the natural world. The fact that many great scientists were devout religious people proves this can be done. Ask a question like the OP, and people will always be suspect of your science.

 

On the topic of creationism and intelligent design, science owes no burden to religion. The truth found by science stands on its own. It is the burden of religious believers to reconcile their faith to the truth found by science. All the major western religions require their followers to make this reconciliation. To deny scientific truth is an abandonment of both science and religion.

 

On the topic of religion, I don't think you can claim to be a Christian and at the same time deny a belief in creationism and intelligent design. No, I'm not talking about believing that the universe was created 5000 years ago in 6 days. Again, no major Christian Church requires such a belief. They do all however require the following belief.

 

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. - Nicene Creed

 

As I said, it is up to the believers of the above to reconcile all that is known to science with this belief. Science has no interest in how such believers go about this reconciling.

[Realitycheck]

How do you know this is how the universe came into existence? And why can't we investigate it scientifically?

 

If all of the matter in the universe was compressed into the lowest conceivable volume based on what we know today, what are we looking at? Maybe a ball of matter 1 light-year in diameter? 10 light years? I presume that we can all step back from the math and agree that it did not all derive from a conceptual singularity.

 

Therefore, using the Big Bang Model, we start out with this ball of matter 1 ly-10 ly across, as a starting point. Of course, all of the data agrees with this scenario. That's why the Big Bang Theory is still alive and kicking. Excluding all speculation about additional universes and so forth, we come to the conclusion that this ball contains EVERYTHING that will become everything.

 

Why it expands is irrelevant. Depending on who you talk to, it is either exploding outward or growing outward. Nevertheless, it has been unleashed.

 

Why would this ball of matter be arranged in such a manner at the dawn of time? In order for it to be contained in such a manner, it may have had to exist under a considerable amount of pressure, possibly meaning that the universe could not have been any bigger than the matter which it contained, in order to exert so much pressure and contain all of these dynamics. Maybe a seal was broken of some sort which then led to inflation occurring so dramatically fast. (I don't necessarily buy into the specifics of inflation as we think we know it, but that is irrelevant.)

 

Just thinking out loud. Feedback?

Edited November 26, 2008 by agentchange

[The Bear's Key]

It's the "we have all the answers" faith based agenda that creates the notion that science or any other study of our universe should have "all the answers".

You are partially correct. A better perspective is that the people who are assholes yell the loudest, and the people who just mind their business yet disagree with the assholes go unheard precicely because they don't go about huffing and puffing up their righteousness.

 

What fun would life be if you knew everything?

Precisely why faith exists, or is as important as reason, and the likely reason for the Bible having contradictions. A society with a variety of athiests, the faithful and doses of both, is a healthy one. Either way, no science or faith will know everything, much less .00000001% of everything.

 

Science and faith do co-exist perfectly. This post by iNow might shed relevance into why it don't seem like they do. Just change the context from harmful people in power to harmful people abusing faith.

 

Ok, fair enough. Let me rephrase: Every person I've EVER run into in my entire life that challenged science based on "science can't tell you this, or can't explain that" has been a creationist/IDer.

Again only partially correct (see beginning of post). You've undoutedly met plenty who didn't challenge science and were in fact religious and/or creationists, but didn't mention that aspect of themselves. And didn't see a need to.

 

Also, consider that your brand of creationism is either in the minority or else you're silent.

Bingo. Also consider that many believers do appreciate science but know only a little and therefore do question things that go against the Book, however they are open-minded enough to ask questions and open to the possibility that the science is valid. Many even are knowledgeable about the potential for corruption in the church, and take denials of science with a grain of salt.

 

It bugs me to no end to hear that same old stupid presumption that science can't tell you everything. And then it bugs me even more when no one challenges that very presumption....

That is the problem with being the silent majority. The little fringe groups can hold the loudspeakers and proclaim themselves the moral majority, of which they're neither.

 

But I gotta say it has value not to feed the fire either. At first it seemed a bad choice when the scientists had boycotted the I-D conference to present their case. But I saw the wisdom in it then. So use of judgment in letting people vent opinions even if wrong is as valid as when someone pipes in to challenge them.

[iNow]

Faith is antithetical to science. It's really that simple. They cannot coexist. It's like "separate, but equal." They can only co-exist in a mind of cognitive dissonance.

 

Unfortunately, I am one of the drivers of the proverbial wedge on this issue. I'm done "accepting" people who not only have faith in the absence of evidence, but I'm done accepting people who have faith which stands in direct opposition to the evidence. There's no need for iron age thinking in this 21st century world of ours, and fairy tales from tribal ancestors should be positioned as mere mythologies, which they truly are, instead of absolute truths like they are presented to the followers.

 

 

<Sorry YT. Nothing personal. I'm trying to be authentic with my thoughts, not put intelligent people such as yourself on the defensive>

[Royston]

Why would this ball of matter be arranged in such a manner at the dawn of time?

 

I hate to bring up the how/why argument again, but you may as well ask 'why are things the way they are', it's irrelevant which epoch you choose to use that question.

 

EVERYTHING that will become everything.

This statement is meaningless if you accept that some outcomes are inherently unknowable, i.e there's a probability of certain outcomes, or certain outcomes are subject to chaos. To predict the state of the Universe 13.7 billion years from now, via initial conditions is utterly ludicrous. It only takes a basic understanding of current theories to realize that's possibly the case.

 

This certainly isn't ammo for the likes of Mr.g, it's just 'from what we've gathered so far' this is how the Universe operates, and certainly doesn't address his 'something from nothing' argument. Which (as already been covered) has many competing theories. The point being, the origins of the Universe might be inherently unknowable, and that's possibly the nature of the Universe, not our shortcomings.

 

However, I'm in the camp that can't make any solid conclusions based on the data and theories we have, when it comes to the 'where did it all come from' type of questions. Even if we did have a solid model for the primary conditions of the Universe, we can still ask 'why' those conditions are as they are, and it doesn't matter which way you tackle it, science simply doesn't deal with that type of question.

 

I feel that it's the human condition to ponder over such things, and not something that's embedded in some historical context. Sure, as we developed and gained understanding of nature, we have whittled away the absurd from the predicatively correct. That doesn't mean the 'why' questions don't stay intact, so far they have, within this context at least.

[ydoaPs]

Why is everyone assuming that matter/energy isn't eternal?

[Royston]

Why is everyone assuming that matter/energy isn't eternal?

 

There's no reason to believe that the Universe (matter/energy et.c) is not infinite, but you can still ask why it's infinite. I thought I mentioned 'competing theories.' i.e big bang scenarios.

[waitforufo]

I feel that it's the human condition to ponder over such things, and not something that's embedded in some historical context. Sure, as we developed and gained understanding of nature, we have whittled away the absurd from the predicatively correct. That doesn't mean the 'why' questions don't stay intact, so far they have, within this context at least.

 

If a person expects science to answer all their questions, that person will be disappointed or that person in my opinion is rather shallow. That is particularly true when asking the "why" questions. One need not turn to religion or "miracles" as Dennisg did in the OP. There are several different branches of philosophy devoid of a god(s) or a creator that attempt to answer such questions. Many of them are quite good.

 

Within human history, religion however has been a common method to answer such questions. In my opinion, to truly understand the current human condition, one needs to have an honest understanding of religions and how religions have improved and detracted from the human condition. One can study this without becoming a believer.

 

With regard to science however, I will state again, religion has no place in science. Science stands on its own. Belief doesn't play a part in science. In science one ultimately needs measured data.

[nitric]

let me put it this way to simplify everything, science can solve all problems with the proper information, just because we don't have the info at the moment doesn't mean science cant solve it, like if you had to find a buried ball in a 100 M^2 field without a map, with the map you can easily find the ball but without it your not going to get anywhere.

[Realitycheck]

Lol

 

I hate to bring up the how/why argument again, but you may as well ask 'why are things the way they are', it's irrelevant which epoch you choose to use that question.

 

"Why are things the way they are," (now) is perfectly explainable. The difference between epochs is quite different, but you need not answer. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud, because it was on topic and I wanted to see if anybody had any new information to offer.

 

This statement is meaningless if you accept that some outcomes are inherently unknowable, i.e there's a probability of certain outcomes, or certain outcomes are subject to chaos. To predict the state of the Universe 13.7 billion years from now, via initial conditions is utterly ludicrous. It only takes a basic understanding of current theories to realize that's possibly the case.

 

This was obvious.

 

 

Why is everyone assuming that matter/energy isn't eternal?

 

This was really thought-provoking. It suggests that time is infinite, which I can easily agree with, for some reason, and it suggests that all matter will last forever. Conservation dictates an absolute. One thing though. Despite the enormity of it all, it all must be finite, for that is the only thing that is logical. Trying to depict matter as being infinite, especially if it is done solely by using some flimsy math that doesn't really apply to what is real, is comical.

Edited November 27, 2008 by agentchange
multiple post merged

[Royston]

Please excuse my tone with the following...but dear God.

 

Lol

 

Lol ?

 

"Why are things the way they are," (now) is perfectly explainable.

 

Oh really, please go ahead.

 

The difference between epochs is quite different

 

Ya think ?

 

This was obvious

 

Well judging by the quality of your post, it seemed like you needed that explained to you. The school of thought for a long time was far from what you're stating as 'obvious'...read up on Laplace's demon. It wasn't until the likes of Poincare' and Bohr et.c that turned the predictive powers of math and physics on it's head.

 

I have no problem with your sort of reply from somebody who clearly knows what they're talking about, but it's perfectly obvious you don't. As usual, it's more of your meandering airy waffle.

 

Trying to depict matter as being infinite, especially if it is done solely by using some flimsy math that doesn't really apply to what is real, is comical.

 

What ?

 

EDIT: Hmm, a bit strong I guess, I've stuck you on ignore, that'll be best for both of us, eh ?

[Dennisg]

What is of interest to me is that this is a completely negative result – science is in effect denying the possibility of its own existence. There must be some significance to this that goes beyond petty issues.

[Royston]

What is of interest to me is that this is a completely negative result

 

What negative result ? The flaw in your argument was pointed out very early on, and then the thread veered off.

 

science is in effect denying the possibility of its own existence.

 

How ? And why havn't you addressed the responses to your argument e.g

 

How do you know this is how the universe came into existence? And why can't we investigate it scientifically?

 

There must be some significance to this that goes beyond petty issues.

 

No, there's no significance to it, because your original argument is flawed. Then we decided to chat amongst ourselves, it got slightly heated, but that's what usually happens when religion is thrown into the mix...this is a science forum after all.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Snail