The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[One Bad Pig]

It's been awhile since he's used a "duck, dogde and weave" or whatever it is.

Haven't seen "Airball!" in a while either.

[Cow Poke]

It's been awhile since he's used a "duck, dogde and weave" or whatever it is.

Didn't NRAJeff and/or OtherCheek use that "Duck, Bob and Weave" thing?

[Cerebrum123]

It's been awhile since he's used a "duck, dogde and weave" or whatever it is.

You mean "Duck, Bob, and Weave, the Three Stooges of Ignorance."?

[TheLurch]

No God can't just make things appear out of nothing, that's too hard to believe, but believing things can poof themselves out of nothing, why that's perfectly scientific!

In all seriousness, what would you want scientists to do?

The options seem to be:
Never attempt to look at perhaps the biggest question out there?
Rework the entire scientific method to something out of the 12th century, so that it somehow incorporates evaluations of the probability of miracles?

You're hammering a bunch of scientists for, well, being scientists. Something that you generally have a great deal of respect for otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Recently I asked Tass: Tass, do you believe that things pop into existence without a cause?

His response: Yes! This is “an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory"

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post487255


They will believe anything rather than allow a divine foot in the door...

Incomplete answer concerning how the scientists consider the 'cause' of the universe. It is Natural Laws that are considered the cause.

[Jedidiah]

Incomplete answer concerning how the scientists consider the 'cause' of the universe. It is Natural Laws that are considered the cause.

Where did those natural laws come from?

[One Bad Pig]

In all seriousness, what would you want scientists to do?

The options seem to be:
Never attempt to look at perhaps the biggest question out there?
Rework the entire scientific method to something out of the 12th century, so that it somehow incorporates evaluations of the probability of miracles?

You're hammering a bunch of scientists for, well, being scientists. Something that you generally have a great deal of respect for otherwise.

Good question. Attempting to look is fine. A priori ruling out an extremely long-standing untestable theory in favor of another untestable theory is not so fine.

[shunyadragon]

Where did those natural laws come from?

They simply exist as far as Methodological Naturalism is concerned. If you are a Theist Natural Laws have a Divine origin. If you are a Metaphysical Naturalist the Natural Laws have existed eternally.

[JimL]

Where did those natural laws come from?

Natural laws are not existing things in themselves, so they didn't come from anywhere. Our universe is simply the result of the action, which we define as laws, of the eternal substance from which it was born. Unless of course it was created out of nothing, and in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that to be the case.

[Jedidiah]

Natural laws are not existing things in themselves, so they didn't come from anywhere. Our universe is simply the result of the action, which we define as laws, of the eternal substance from which it was born. Unless of course it was created out of nothing, and in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that to be the case.

If not absolutely nothing then where did that "pregnant nothing" come from.

[JimL]

If not absolutely nothing then where did that "pregnant nothing" come from.

What you are asking is 'where did the eternal cosmos come from?' Surely you don't need me to point out the problem with that question.

[seer]

What you are asking is 'where did the eternal cosmos come from?' Surely you don't need me to point out the problem with that question.

But there is no eternal cosmos Jim that we know of.

[shunyadragon]

But there is no eternal cosmos Jim that we know of.

Are you asking to prove the negative? How would we ever'know' or even demonstrate whether an eternal cosmos exists or not? At present this is an open question without an answer, and likely can never be answered by science. Any argument from this perspective would be an extreme 'argument from ignorance.'

[shunyadragon]

If not absolutely nothing then where did that "pregnant nothing" come from.

Simply the 'observed' nature of our physical existence. The closest we have in science is'Quantum Mechanics' describing where our macro physical existence 'comes from.'

[JimL]

Simply the 'observed' nature of our physical existence. The closest we have in science is'Quantum Mechanics' describing where our macro physical existence 'comes from.'

Exactly. The macro physical existence is just the other side of the coin so to speak of the micro, the micro being the various fields filling all of space and the macro being the vibrations therein, which we observe of as matter. Whether the energy/matter fields are infinite and eternal or not propbably can't be known empirically and so they either are, or they were created out of nothing. The most logical answer in my opinion is that they are eternal and infinite, that there is no such thing as nothing, because the alternative is that they were magically spoken into existence in order to make a place for human beings 14 billion years later into the future.