The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[Jedidiah]

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.

What is the problelm with that question? Beyond the fact that you do not have an answer.

[shunyadragon]

What is the problelm with that question? Beyond the fact that you do not have an answer.

I believe the question was answered the best that it could be, and JimL acknowledged this. To try to go beyond this is the fallacy 'arguing from ignorance' and therefore . . .

[Jedidiah]

I believe the question was answered the best that it could be, and JimL acknowledged this. To try to go beyond this is the fallacy 'arguing from ignorance' and therefore . . .

I do not recall an answer from Jim.

[One Bad Pig]

I do not recall an answer from Jim.

Jim's answer was basically, "I choose to believe X with no evidence because I refuse to believe Y."

[shunyadragon]

I do not recall an answer from Jim.

Jim acknowledged my answer, and it is same science and answer as the question you asked me concerning Natural Laws.

'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.' Natural Laws and physical nature of the Quantum world is where 'things come from.'

There is no 'comes from' that can be falsified concerning Natural Laws and the Quantum world.

[JimL]

What is the problelm with that question? Beyond the fact that you do not have an answer.

The problem with the question Jed, is that it doesn't make sense. Obviously the eternal Cosmos didn't come from anywhere, it's eternal.

[JimL]

Jim's answer was basically, "I choose to believe X with no evidence because I refuse to believe Y."

No, my answer was that Jeds question didn't make sense.

[Jedidiah]

The problem with the question Jed, is that it doesn't make sense. Obviously the eternal Cosmos didn't come from anywhere, it's eternal.

Do you have any falsifiable evidence of an "eternal cosmos?"

[JimL]

Do you have any falsifiable evidence of an "eternal cosmos?"

Jed, your question, speaking about the universe, was basically "if it didn't come from nothing, then where did it come from?" I merely pointed out to you that your question didn't make sense. I never claimed falsifiable evidence that the universe is infinite and eternal, though it is my opinion that it is since, ex nihlo nihil fit.

[shunyadragon]

Do you have any falsifiable evidence of an "eternal cosmos?"

No, an neither is a non-eternal cosmos falsifiable, and this question likely will never be answered by science, nor anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both Natural Laws and the cosmos are simply observed objectively to exist.

[seer]

No, an neither is a non-eternal cosmos falsifiable, and this question likely will never be answered by science, nor anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both Natural Laws and the cosmos are simply observed objectively to exist.

Except there are good reasons to believe that matter and energy are not past eternal:http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

[Sparko]

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.

Just come out and admit that they don't know, that they are guessing and may never know since at this point we can't get any evidence outside of the universe. Or of any other universe. It's OK to admit science can't answer everything at this time.

I have respect for science and I don't begrudge scientists even wondering what created the universe or if there are other universes, but don't arrogantly come off as if what they are "theorizing" about is fact, or that they even have actual evidence when they don't.

"we don't know" is a perfectly good scientific answer to me.

[TheLurch]

Just come out and admit that they don't know, that they are guessing and may never know since at this point we can't get any evidence outside of the universe. Or of any other universe. It's OK to admit science can't answer everything at this time.

I have respect for science and I don't begrudge scientists even wondering what created the universe or if there are other universes, but don't arrogantly come off as if what they are "theorizing" about is fact, or that they even have actual evidence when they don't.

"we don't know" is a perfectly good scientific answer to me.

Two things:

"We don't know yet" is the default answer for any scientific question, and only changes once we get information. So i completely agree with you there.

The whole point of this is that we can get evidence of the physics that would underly the production of other universes in our own. That wouldn't be a conclusive demonstration that they exist, but it would be more than "we don't know yet."

[Sparko]

Two things:

"We don't know yet" is the default answer for any scientific question, and only changes once we get information. So i completely agree with you there.

The whole point of this is that we can get evidence of the physics that would underly the production of other universes in our own. That wouldn't be a conclusive demonstration that they exist, but it would be more than "we don't know yet."

sure. and when they have evidence of our universe producing other universes, then you have that. But you still don't have actual evidence that our universe was created from another one, or from nothing. But until then "we don't know yet"

[shunyadragon]

Except there are good reasons to believe that matter and energy are not past eternal:http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

Again, again, again and again no, because you are selectively citing Vilenkin to justify your agenda. This article refers only to the beginning of our universe, and not whether the greater (multiverse) cosmos is past eternal. Vilenkin proposed that it is possible that the multiverse had a beginning, but again our multiverse may be one of an infinite number of multiverses. but than again you do not believe there is evidence or beginning of our universe and all possible universes in a multiverse from Quantum nothing that Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others support.

Therefore, there is not reason to believe that our physical existence is past eternal, and there is no objective verifiable evidence either way.

Your speculating in the realm of the scieniists Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, and Physics you do not believe there is any evidence for, and Sparko and you have no qualifications to make the judgments you make based on your theist agenda..