Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New Debate Coming up
Collapse
X
-
New Debate Coming up
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3sTags: None
-
Thanks for the heads up
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
I do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.
Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Soyeong View PostI do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.
Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
As far as I know, no cosmologist claims 'something can come from nothing.' Carroll made clear physics and cosmology arguments for undermining Craig's claims that the universe necessarily had a beginning. Craig was out of his league, and is not competent arguing physics and cosmology. There is a clear misunderstanding of what scientists call 'nothing.'
Carroll made it clear that you cannot take individual 'sound bits' out of context from speeches, and writings to support the assertion that the greater cosmos had a beginning. At best you can say scientist 'do not know' as he pointed out in a quote from Guth, but the greater cosmos could very well be eternal.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-22-2014, 06:39 AM.
Comment
-
Dr. Carroll described the role of 'models' of the multiverse in a similar way I did when I started the previous thread 'Models and theories about the origins of the universe or greater cosmos.' as follows:
"The development of working models and theories of our universe began with the [the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics] and the 'Big Bang' model, and it is a work in progress as our knowledge of physics and cosmology increases. It was the first where Physics and Cosmology connected to come up with the theory of origins. Since various models have been developed, some have been found flawed or weak in their potential to explain the origins of our physical existence. Others have more explanatory power and at present explain our origins better. All these models represent 'work in progress' and will likely be the basis for improved models in the future. One long standing problem from the layman's perspective is that many believe that one of these models and theories explains the origins, like the 'Big Bang', in a similar way that other scientific discoveries in the macro world explain how things work, such as medical discoveries. The fact is none of the models definitively explain the origins of our universe or the greater cosmos. The following article is a good example of the problem of the limits of the explanatory power of any one model or theory of origins:
Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-22-2014, 06:41 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Soyeong View PostI do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.
Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-22-2014, 09:23 PM.
Comment
Comment