The scientific method has always been troublesome trying to prove a negative, i.e. God does not exist.
Just because one can take science and understanding to its ultimate destination, knowing all that is knowable about the physical world, it would still leave the question of a gods existence unanswered.
Yes, survival of the fittest, or in this case the most stubborn. I have faith in God too, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still learn new things. Hey, didn’t you leave a long time ago?
Science doesn’t have an ultimate destination. It’s an ongoing process. It would be arrogance to think we’ll ever learn enough. Oh and email a moderator and get your name fixed. P E S S I M I S T :wally
I did! That’s why I was surprised to see the thread still popping up at the top of the Newest Posts list!
Go buy each other a frogurt, and agree to disagree already.
Okay, but they have to say it first.
That’s because of two unanswered questions
[ul]
[li]God is vaguely defined. God’s interaction with the universe is vaguely defined. What, in concrete terms, are we to test for? [/li][li]If the above query is answered, are the defined interactions within the purview of scientific testing methodology? [/li][/ul]
There is no “ultimate destination” in science, because (to use Rumsfeldspeak), we can’t prove there aren’t “unknown unknowns”. Science is always active.
If people adopted that attitude, there wouldn’t be much debating, if at all. And I don’t think that would be a good thing at all.
If the universe is finite then it is theoretically possible to know all there is to know about its physical properties – given enough time. It is a thought exercise…like Mr. Einstein was so fond of.
Oh and Pess E. Mist is a name, not a description. Although it is Mr. Mist to you.
Well maybe in Ohio, the universe is finite, but probably not other places. Who knows though?
Okaaaay. Master Mist, just guessing you’re too young for Mr. I would much rather be known as Pess than a bad speller???:rolleyes:
It doesn’t matter if the universe is finite or infinite – no system inside the universe can represent it entirely, so no one can ever know everything about it.
Well, geesh. Thanks for making my point for me. If you recall the argument wasn’t about whether or not the universe is capable of being totally understood (it’s not) but that even if it WAS you could still not prove the negative that God does not exist.
You guys go out of your way to be obtuse or what around here?
See below your statement:
This came on the heels of this:
And before that, this:
and this:
That was four totally incorrect statements that left doubt whether you understood evolution, basic science and the universe. You are either having trouble communicating or understanding.
You can’t prove the positive, either – you can never rule out the possibility that you’re mistaken about your belief that you’ve observed something that fits the relevant criteria.
:dubious:
JS_Princeton:
I’m looking at your link, and it doesn’t seem to be spontaneous creation, it seems to be about conversion of pre-existing things into different configurations. Quoting from it:
As an aside, I do recall hearing of such a thing before from someone, but the impression I had gotten then was that the particles in question always destroy one another immediately. (Your link doesn’t say that, but as I said before, your link doesn’t appear to be speaking of spontaneous creation, but rather of mass-energy conversion, which is a different matter (no pun intended) entirely.)
TVAA:
(I know he’s been banned, but I wish to address his points anyway so it doesn’t look like I don’t have an answer for them.)
Thanks, but I’m rather certain my understanding was no deficient. For example, this site appears to agree with me (emphasis mine):
It doesn’t prevent localized, limited decreases, but in sum total, the entropy will end up increasing.
In your model, where only physical entities exist, the First Law (notwithstanding the discussion with JS_Princeton above; I’m merely explaining the position I have been holding subject to further clarification on that matter) requires that everything be made from something pre-existing.
In my model, where a non-physical entity, not subject to the First exists, this entity can a) have itself come from nothing, and b) can create physical matter from nothing.
What part does it look like I don’t understand?
Would that be this “Theory of Eternal Recurrence” that you mentioned a while back? I looked it up, and it’s not a physical law…it’s a philosophical concept originated by Nietzsche that some scientists have felt could be applied to physics. To quote the above link:
In addition, some of the stuff that seems to be part of that theory seems to be a simple inadequacy of language! Probably the most relevant of which is:
In short, the notion that I don’t know my physics because I lacked this is bovine excrement. I’m glad to see that TVAA won’t be doing this:
to other thinking, intelligent posters in the future.
I’m willing to allow for things we don’t understand. It is you who refuse to accept the existence of anything that can’t be completely quantified or defined, remember?
I have pointedly not used the word “G-d” in my posts. I am merely attempting to show that there is a logical…not illusory (remember the original post?)…basis for considering the existence of an entity which does not conform to the (currently-understood) rules of physics…in other words, a non-physical entity.
IWLN:
That’s not true. As far as space is concerned, ever since Hubble discovered the universal expansion, there’s been a clear maximum extent of the universe in space. Even discussions of the universe as being infinite take that into account and posit an endless cycle of expansion and contraction.
As far as time is concerned, since there is a finite amount of space, there is a limit to how much matter and energy there can be (an enormous limit, but a limit nonetheless). Since there must be a finite amount of matter and energy and since it progresses toward a state of total entropy, that indicates movement in time within physical parameters.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Scientifically, I really struggle, so let me put this in lame-man’s(oops lay) terms, so I can understand what I’m saying. Let’s assume there is a maximum extent of the universe which I still don’t agree with, but don’t know why.
What would be after that. I understand that our universe, as in the physical part of it is expanding and I understand how they know. But expanding into what? How can the “Big Universe”, as in all there is and ever was, have boundaries. Okay, I’m bringing up God. Although I have no good definitions of him, I don’t think of him as limited by anything. So if he goes to the maximum extent of the universe, there’s an end? I know we’re eventually, in this life or the next, going to find out that our understanding has been limited due to the way we see the world. Since I see God as limitless, in return it seems like the universe has to be. Am I looking at this too simply?
Explain total entropy. From what I had understood, the amount of matter and energy in the universe remains the same, and only alters or changes form. I’m lost. I tried to read on total entrophy but it didn’t clear it up. Entrophy means that you can’t get back to the previous or original state, but does it mean a loss of matter or energy overall? Total entrophy would mean lost? Okay, I give up. do you have a cite for entrophy?
IWLN:
It is matter and energy expanding outward into vacuum. It’s not a “barrier” in the sense that if you were at this point in space that you couldn’t go further. It’s a “barrier” in the practical sense that it’s as far as something going the speed of light (which is the universal speed limit, according to Einstein) could conceivably have reached, starting travel from the origin point of the Big Bang. The universal expansion continues to push matter and energy beyond that distance, but since someone would (impossibly) have to travel faster than the speed of light to get beyond that point, it’s rightly considered the boundary of the universe.
As above, all physical matter is constrained by the speed-of-light limit.
In a nutshell: The energy would not be lost…you are correct that that cannot happen. What total entropy is is energy becoming homogenized throughout the universe to the point that every push in one direction is countered by a push in the other direction. So the energy is there, but it’s not doing anything.
I think a good cite is Physlink.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m going to take Physics and Astronomy starting in January, so hopefully I won’t always be this confused. Whatever you do, don’t get TVAA with me. I’ve read the thread that SentientMeat did on the universe and it was helpful I know because I don’t understand so much of this topic that some of the questions won’t really make sense. If you have time and can answer these, I’d appreciate it. If it makes you want to run from the room screaming, then don’t answer.
Since all the energy and matter has always been, was the big bang just a form of entropy?
Was the universe a clump in a vacuum and then pow? I realize there are really only theories on most of this, but there must be a favorite one.
Was it really a bang or did it just form the right combination to allow the matter to disperse?
Do they think there are multiple or infinite universes in this vacuum which I would really consider “The Universe”?
Hypothetically our personal universe could run into another expanding universe and it could stop or reverse the expansion?
I have a problem with the boundary thing. I know we only have our point of reference, but having a tough time seeing how that changes infinite to a finite description.
Does the expansion eventually lose momentum or does our universe eventually spread itself so thin that it ceases to exist as something distinguishable and blends with the other universes that also expanded to their physical limits?
Is the expansion a result of the momentum of the BB or is it because matter is filling a void?
Is our personal universe dependent on the expansion. In other words, is the expansion part of what makes time or?
Thank you
The entropy of a system in the case you descrive, cmkeller, actually goes down. That’s the irony of microscopic processes. That’s all I’m saying, which is what allows for spontaneous generation.
One way of looking at the particle production is that they “tunnel” from nonexistence. I know it sounds weird, but that’s the way it works.