Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[John Cuthber]

I use logic, My Transcendence of dimensions? Thread for example, where I stated that the universe, when represented by a single quantum state is a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes.

Which do you want me to do?

I can use logic, or I can read your stuff.

[TJ McCaustland]

 

You seem to have thrown "practical" out of the window there. In favour of the non sequitur.

Just because my thoughts look like a ball of string after Schrodinger's cat before entering the box played with it doesn't mean I don't know what speculation vs. fact means. Fact has been proven (Avogadro's number for example of how many atoms per mole.) Speculation is kind of a Think this works like this but IDK (My speculation on dimensional unity in quantum state for example which is 1) Not supported by anything other than basic, basic logic and reasoning, and 2) Has about 8x10^25 holes in it that need to be patched.)

Which do you want me to do?

I can use logic, or I can read your stuff.

Or you can do both........ You just need to throw the illogical thoughts I produce out the window to get to the tiny juicy bit of "Possible but not probable"

I guess what needs to be said here is that this thread hinges on one thing, Belief. Belief in something, or nothing at all, it all hinges on belief, and I don't think it's very scientific to discuss such a large matter without much evidence, which is why I will be taking my thoughts, interests, and time elsewhere, Gentlemen, thank you for the excellent discussion. Beatus Tractantibus!

Edited December 10, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Phi for All]

I guess what needs to be said here is that this thread hinges on one thing, Belief. Belief in something, or nothing at all, it all hinges on belief, and I don't think it's very scientific to discuss such a large matter without much evidence, which is why I will be taking my thoughts, interests, and time elsewhere,

 

You will be happier at a site where vegetarian science is discussed, but I don't think you'll learn as much. Other word-salad specialists will inflate your ego by telling you what imagination and potential your ideas have, and they'll all talk in circles because nobody is actually listening to your ideas, they're all wanting you to do the work to make THEIR ideas make sense. And since nobody there knows enough real science, you'll either fool yourself that you're making progress, or you'll end up getting frustrated just like here.

 

But for a while, it will feel good to talk some crazy . You are certainly not alone in trying to make up for your lost chance at learning schooled science. But think about this, my friend: you took a shortcut in school that got you here, and now you're looking for another shortcut to get you out. Historically, I think that's a rotten choice for you.

[TJ McCaustland]

 

You will be happier at a site where vegetarian science is discussed, but I don't think you'll learn as much. Other word-salad specialists will inflate your ego by telling you what imagination and potential your ideas have, and they'll all talk in circles because nobody is actually listening to your ideas, they're all wanting you to do the work to make THEIR ideas make sense. And since nobody there knows enough real science, you'll either fool yourself that you're making progress, or you'll end up getting frustrated just like here.

 

But for a while, it will feel good to talk some crazy . You are certainly not alone in trying to make up for your lost chance at learning schooled science. But think about this, my friend: you took a shortcut in school that got you here, and now you're looking for another shortcut to get you out. Historically, I think that's a rotten choice for you.

Not really, because I never really took a shortcut at all, I took a portion of the path, and bunched it up to get to here, working on the rest of it while I speculate wildly, such as here, And BTW I haven't really lost a chance at schooled science at all, I just am working on both things simultaneously. Also, I wouldn't be happy on a vegetarian science forum either, I speculate and cite where I can, and sometimes I get WAY ahead of myself, but I also know a good bit of classical science, just not enough to count for where my thinking goes, My thoughts are the blueprints of a prestigious structure which will take years to build, my knowledge is the current progress on that structure. Now I will vacate this thread.

Edited December 10, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Strange]

Now I will vacate this thread.

 

I think you already did.

[DevilSolution]

 

You will be happier at a site where vegetarian science is discussed, but I don't think you'll learn as much. Other word-salad specialists will inflate your ego by telling you what imagination and potential your ideas have, and they'll all talk in circles because nobody is actually listening to your ideas, they're all wanting you to do the work to make THEIR ideas make sense. And since nobody there knows enough real science, you'll either fool yourself that you're making progress, or you'll end up getting frustrated just like here.

 

But for a while, it will feel good to talk some crazy . You are certainly not alone in trying to make up for your lost chance at learning schooled science. But think about this, my friend: you took a shortcut in school that got you here, and now you're looking for another shortcut to get you out. Historically, I think that's a rotten choice for you.

 

You raised a good point in regards to this thread. Vegetarians generally dont eat meat because they dont like the thought of killing sentient being's, science doesnt account for moralistic effects on the universe. "Some" might argue that morals are divine, they are a form of balance in an otherwise chaotic, non-biased universe that would allow the unjust freedom. I'm not necessarily specifying that god gives us morals, but there is a case to be argued that morals are unique in nature and give some balance to an otherwise unjust universe. Also science can't really account for morality and existentialism. Atleast not yet.

 

(my bowl of word tortilla chips)

[TheGeckomancer]

The problem I have with divinely inspired morals is the human condition overall. I see it breaking down to 2 basic possibilities. Humans are slightly more evolved monkeys, trying our best to not kill each other or masturbate in public. Or we are God's chosen caretakers of this tiny shrine of divinity and natural beauty. If it's the second one......Well.....I really hope God is like the dad who is too embarrassed to ask how we are doing when we visit for holidays.

[puppypower]

If you look at human nature, science/atheism is inferior in terms of allowing humans to optimize socially, with the least amount of resources. Resource usage can be used as an objective measure for comparison. The least resources needed places the least strain on the natural environment and there is closer to the efficiency of nature.

 

For example, many religions define marriage between a man and woman. Let us look at this in terms of the objective standard of resource utilization. This is the most efficient way to procreate and raise children. All the alternatives are far more resource intensive to get the same utility. If it is not a man and a women, procreation needs extra resources. Gay couples can still have a baby but this requires science using extra resources and techniques not found in nature; unnatural.

 

The value of using the less efficient approach is by being less cost effective, this means it is profitable for someone. This brings up another aspect of human nature; greed, which might be maximized . The sales angle brings up another aspect of human nature connected to lying and deception, which further drifts culture from objective reality.

 

 

 

[Strange]

If you look at human nature, science/atheism is inferior in terms of allowing humans to optimize socially, with the least amount of resources.

 

Do you have any evidence for that? Or did you make it up?

 

 

Resource usage can be used as an objective measure for comparison.

 

Good. Then you should be able provide some objective data to support your claim.

 

 

Gay couples can still have a baby but this requires science using extra resources and techniques not found in nature; unnatural.

 

In what way is adoption unnatural? As far as I know all societies have done it since ancient times. Even animals do it.

 

So instead of objective data you rely on lies and misrepresentation. Please keep this sort of vile bigotry out of the forum.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Strange

[Shelagh]

I was always told as a kid that "the universe can't come from nothing" and this proves God exists.

Nothing proves that God exists. Religion is about belief and doesn't require proof. God exists in the mind of the believer. Not content with believing, religious believers want others to believe in the same God to strengthen their own belief. This is taken to extremes and causes conflict, war and death. Love thy neighbour ... but only if he is of the same faith!

 

In your opinion, can Science explain everything without a God. What do you think?

Science can explain everything, but we have a long way to go before we understand everything.

[DevilSolution]

 

Nothing proves that God exists. Religion is about belief and doesn't require proof. God exists in the mind of the believer. Not content with believing, religious believers want others to believe in the same God to strengthen their own belief. This is taken to extremes and causes conflict, war and death. Love thy neighbour ... but only if he is of the same faith!

 

Science can explain everything, but we have a long way to go before we understand everything.

 

What makes you so certain were capable of explaining everything through science? What if there's concepts we'll never be able to comprehend?

 

I dont think religion intends on causing harm any more than science does, strange really, we've been fighting over our beliefs for thousands of years, only now the weapons are bigger. Most people have the right intentions, same as you would expect from a scientist but eventually the morals break down and the science becomes war. In fact alot of scientific breakthroughs have come directly from war, so lets not be hasty.

[Shelagh]

I didn't say that science can explain everything currently. There will be an explanation for everything eventually, but for now, there are many things yet to be explained. I cannot perceive of a time when science will have come up with all the answers; there will always be a thirst for more knowledge.

 

Religions cause wars. It's a statement of fact. That doesn't mean that eradicating all religions would mean an end to war. Without religion to fight over, we would find other excuses to go to war.

[DevilSolution]

There will be an explanation for everything eventually, but for now, there are many things yet to be explained. I cannot perceive of a time when science will have come up with all the answers; there will always be a thirst for more knowledge.

There's a contradiction in terms within your terminology. Will we or wont we know everything?

 

Religions cause wars. It's a statement of fact. That doesn't mean that eradicating all religions would mean an end to war. Without religion to fight over, we would find other excuses to go to war.

Money and power cause wars, religion is usually just the excuse.

[Shelagh]

The primary political cause of war is statism: any social system based on the notion that the state has a right to force individuals to act against their judgment for the sake of some greater good, whether the community (communism), the race (Nazism), the nation (fascism), or God (theocracy).

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/10/causes-war-peace/

[ajb]

I didn't say that science can explain everything currently. There will be an explanation for everything eventually, but for now, there are many things yet to be explained.

I agree with the sentiment in the sense that we do not understand everything, and in principle there should be a description of all physical phenomena. The question is will we find all the necessary formalism and manage to apply it to physics? Gaps are gaps and we should not fill them with the supernatural, rather we have to accept some gaps and work hard at filling them with science.

 

 

I cannot perceive of a time when science will have come up with all the answers; there will always be a thirst for more knowledge.

So, you think we will never actually reach the goal set by your previous statement?

[Shelagh]

I agree with the sentiment in the sense that we do not understand everything, and in principle there should be a description of all physical phenomena. The question is will we find all the necessary formalism and manage to apply it to physics? Gaps are gaps and we should not fill them with the supernatural, rather we have to accept some gaps and work hard at filling them with science.

I agree.

 

So, you think we will never actually reach the goal set by your previous statement?

How long is a piece of string? Predicting the future is impossible; we cannot know what the future holds in terms of complete understanding.

[ajb]

How long is a piece of string? Predicting the future is impossible; we cannot know what the future holds in terms of complete understanding.

Indeed, the best one can do is make an informed guess, for what that is worth!

[DevilSolution]

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/10/causes-war-peace/

 

I don't think america has been at war for 9/10th's of its history because of theocracy, fascism, communism or nazism. They have been at war for so long for self preservation in the form of MONEY and POWER.

 

I wonder what their death toll is? I bet its comparative with any religions. (nuke here, drone there, meh).

[Shelagh]

I don't think america has been at war for 9/10th's of its history because of theocracy, fascism, communism or nazism. They have been at war for so long for self preservation in the form of MONEY and POWER.

 

I wonder what their death toll is? I bet its comparative with any religions. (nuke here, drone there, meh).

?

[Phi for All]

Can we stay on topic, please? Starting new threads is always an option.

[DevilSolution]

Can Science explain everything in the universe? If no then god;

 

If we don't destroy ourselves, why presume we can explain everything in the universe?

 

And if we can explain everything in the universe, then we are gods.

 

Science is the tool. It could destroy us or it could make us divine. I'll edge my bets on the former.

Edited December 20, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Phi for All]

Can Science explain everything in the universe? If no then god;

 

If we don't destroy ourselves, why presume we can explain everything in the universe?

 

And if we can explain everything in the universe, then we are gods.

 

Science is the tool. It could destroy us or it could make us divine. I'll edge my bets on the former.

 

If we're talking about science, then "everything" should be defined as "everything natural". That's all science is interested in.

 

God(s) are supernatural by those standards. So of course we can explain nature without god(s).

 

Can you name something real we are so baffled about that the only explanations are supernatural ones?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Science is the tool. It could destroy us or it could make us divine. I'll edge my bets on the former.

Or we might just carry on being rather bright apes.

[DevilSolution]

If we're talking about science, then "everything" should be defined as "everything natural". That's all science is interested in.

 

God(s) are supernatural by those standards. So of course we can explain nature without god(s).

 

Can you name something real we are so baffled about that the only explanations are supernatural ones?

 

Dark energy.

Dark matter.

What happens in a black hole.

The Big Bang.

Time.

Existence of life.

Boris johnsons hair.

 

The word only is mutually exclusively to all of these "real" things.

 

The word "nature" can be used to extend anything, everything is natural by causality. Otherwise synthetics are supernatural, which we shall dismiss.

If then "nature" can be an extension of anything and everything is natural by causality, then nature is everything. That's shorthand for pantheism.

 

If the causality is not natural, then you have entirely different equation, The first should be suffice?

[Strange]

 

Dark energy.

Dark matter.

What happens in a black hole.

The Big Bang.

Time.

Existence of life.

Boris johnsons hair.

 

 

I'm confused. You were asked to name something real with only supernatural explanations. All of those things are real and (with the possible exception of Boris's hair) have naturalistic explanations. There is nothing supernatural about any of them (not even Boris's tonsure).

 

The word only is mutually exclusively to all of these "real" things.

 

I don't know what that means. How can "only" and dark matter, for example, be mutually exclusive?