Board index ‹ Morality

[Robbie 1]

> Science tells us nothing about before the Big Bang, your assertion here is wrong

Science does tell us that all the energy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang and now, amounts to zero.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

This very neatly fills the hole you have claimed about there being something from nothing.

> Everything is so perfect

If some of the universal constants were different , could your god create human life and have it live and survive similarly to how it has with the set if universal constants we have now?

If yes, then you would mount this argument whatever the universal constants are.

If no, you are placing limitations include the abilities of your omnipotent being.

I asked for your scientific evidence for god but now your saying science is limited and you need theism.

[jimwalton]

> Science does tell us that all the energy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang and now, amounts to zero.

Let me ask you a question. Isn't it correct that the singularity, as defined by science, is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?

> Everything is so perfect

I don't know where this comes from. It's not something I said, nor does it seem to fit with your point.

> If some of the universal constants were different , could your god create human life and have it live and survive similarly to how it has with the set if universal constants we have now?

Speculation doesn't take us much of anywhere. We do know that the constants in the universe are not determined by the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values. But in our universe, we have a very narrow range of values that make life possible.

So there are three possibilities: Physical necessity, chance, or design.

1. It can't be due to physical necessity. String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes with nature's laws.
2. It can't be due to chance. The odds against all of these delicately narrow parameters happening by chance are out the roof. Life-prohibiting universes are far more probable than life-permitting ones.
3. Design offers the best explanation, if, that is, we are inferring the most reasonable explanation.

> I asked for your scientific evidence for god but now your saying science is limited and you need theism.

I gave you the scientific evidence for God.

• When we think about why there is something rather than nothing, science tells us nothing can be self-generating, and that which doesn't exist cannot be the cause of its own existence. The fact that the natural world exists points to the existence of God as the causal mechanism. In other words, all of what we have observed through science teaches us to look beyond nature for the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.
• The large number of delicately balanced, fine-tuned elements of the universe that science has shown to us point us to a universe that was designed rather than one that occurred by chance.
• The immense complexity of all things, on which science continues to elaborate, makes it less and less likely that all this happened by time + matter + chance. Science is giving us evidence of an intelligent, personal, powerful, timeless, purposeful source.

[Robbie 1]

1. Zero energy. I gave the fact and the reference to zero energy universe. You just deny it. That’s not an argument it’s just your head in the sand.

2. Designed universe. You refused to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again. Could your god make human life on earth if there was some change to one of the known universal constants.

3. Complexity : you claim science points beyond science as the basis for your answer to the scientific basis for your theological beliefs. It doesn’t. This is your self serving construct. Science points to more science to discover what we don’t know. Your claiming a theological need as the scientific basis of your god belief. This isn’t science it’s your personal theology and therefore does not answer the question.

[jimwalton]

> Zero energy. I gave the fact and the reference to zero energy universe. You just deny it.

This is an odd claim. I didn't deny anything. And then you accuse me of head in the sand???

> You refused to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again. Could your god make human life on earth if there was some change to one of the known universal constants.

I didn't refuse to answer. I don't know the answer. Speculative questions only take us to speculative answers, which is no way to handle a responsible discussion.

> you claim science points beyond science as the basis for your answer to the scientific basis for your theological beliefs. It doesn’t.

Your voicing an opinion doesn't make for a scientific case. And then you accuse me of being self-serving????

> Science points to more science to discover what we don’t know.

Of course it does, but there are many questions that science can't and will never be able to answer. Science operates in its own realm, but not in every realm.

> Your claiming a theological need as the scientific basis of your god belief.

This is an odd claim. I did no such thing.

> This isn’t science it’s your personal theology and therefore does not answer the question.

This is an odd claim. I talked to you science, and you transferred it to theology. You didn't read me accurately.

I sense a real chip on your shoulder that is preventing you from reading me accurately enough to engage in a civilized discussion. Perhaps there is no value in continuing the discussion. It seems that your bias is coloring your perceptions and reactions. We'll talk again another time.