Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What explanation for the existence of the universe do you promote?
... to study more seriously the assumptions in the first place and to leave it open for studies and investigation, because some fake explanation of the world may impede some other sustainable theories to break through.

Either you're dodging disingenuously yet again or your grasp of the English language is worse than I thought. That is not even an answer to the question. I'll try to dumb it down even further:

How did the universe get here?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How did the universe get here?

Why do you think that it has gotten here at all ... and hasn't always existed, for example?

1 Reply

@Herald,

You are just dodging the question yet again. How did the universe come to be?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yet once again, no scientist claims that the standard model is perfect or complete.

What makes a a math equation inferred on fuzzy logic assignments 'standard model' ... and how does a non-standard model look like?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Yet once again, no scientist claims that the standard model is perfect or complete.
What makes a a math equation inferred on fuzzy logic assignments 'standard model' ... and how does a non-standard model look like?

I can't tell, because you stubbornly refuse to describe yours. How did the universe come to be?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How did the universe come to be?

Can't you understand that this assumption 'come to be' is without any justification and evidence?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
How did the universe come to be?
Can't you understand that this assumption 'come to be' is without any justification and evidence?

So you're saying that it's eternal?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

So you're saying that it's eternal?

Maybe yes, maybe not. Without knowing for sure the assumptions - whether it has been created or has always existed, whether it has been created out of nothing or into nothing, or out of meta space or into hyperspace - the question of 'how?' is not in the agenda. You cannot explain the creation of an Universe that has always existed, for example, you cannot explain how the Universe has been created out of zero-D space if it has been obtained as a constraint of a 4D space. You are talking all the time about standard theories, but a standard theory needs justified assumptions, in the first place. A standard theory is subject to verification and validation ... unless you show some reference, where a standard can be based on fuzzy logic assumptions and axiomatic truths of the last resort, and can be in contradiction with all the other standards. By sewing up to it an attribute 'standard' does not change its fake nature.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You know, if you're out to spread the gospel, you're doing a **** job of it. You won't even say what it is you're proclaiming. Is it that you're afraid, or ashamed?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You know, if you're out to spread the gospel, you're doing a **** job of it.

I may be spreading the General Theory of Relativity - where do you know from.
Why don't you simply answer to the question: what is your personal understanding of a 'standard' theory? ... and without any references, if you please, to 2-hour videos ... irrelevant to the question.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
You know, if you're out to spread the gospel, you're doing a **** job of it.
I may be spreading the General Theory of Relativity - where do you know from.

You're right; there's no way I could know because you're apparently either too cowardly or ashamed to tell us what your hypothesis is.

Quote:

Why don't you simply answer to the question: what is your personal understanding of a 'standard' theory? ... and without any references, if you please, to 2-hour videos ... irrelevant to the question.

The standard model of the cosmos is described in sufficient detail in freely available media. All you have to do is google it. You have no authority to constrain my means of supplying the relevant information. Google it, Einstein: "standard model."

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The standard model of the cosmos is described in sufficient detail in freely available media.

AND..it doesn't work!

0 Replies

Well, actually it does work.

1 Reply

The importance of observation: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shockwave_findings_set_to_rewrite_scientific_theories_999.html

Quote:

Shockwave findings set to rewrite scientific theories
by Staff Writers
Leicester, UK (SPX) May 02, 2014

Research from an international team of scientists led by the University of Leicester has discovered for the first time that one of the most powerful events in our universe - Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB) - behave differently than previously thought.

The study, published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, uses evidence from observation of a GRB to rule out most of the existing theoretical predictions concerning the afterglow of the explosions.

For Dr Klaas Wiersema, of the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy, it was handy that he was up in the middle of the night tending to his three-year-old son which is when he got the alert that a GRB had occurred.

He said: "When a suitable GRB is detected by a satellite, I get a text message on my phone, and then I have to very quickly tell the observatory in Chile exactly which observations I want them to take, and how.
...
"Different theories for electron acceleration and light emission within the afterglow all predict different levels of linear polarisation, but theories all agreed that there should be no circular polarisation in visible light. This is where we come in: we decided to test this by carefully measuring both the linear and circular polarisation of one afterglow, of GRB 121024A, detected by the Swift satellite.

"Using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, we measured both the linear and circular polarisation of an afterglow with high accuracy. Much to our surprise we clearly detected circular polarisation, while theories predicted we should not see any at all. We believe that the most likely explanation is that the exact way in which electrons are accelerated within the afterglow shockwave is different from what we always thought. It is a very nice example of observations ruling out most of the existing theoretical predictions - exactly why observe[r]s like me are in this game!
...

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Well, actually it does work.

~

Nope, you might think it works , but that doesn't make it work of course.

Because it doesn't work, a lot of people are working on "The Electric Universe"
which explains things much better AND can be replicated in the labaroria.
This last in contrast with the 'scientist who still cling to their religious 'standard model'.

Nope, the standard model is really rubbish, and doesn't work, and will never work because it is deeple deeply flawed.

0 Replies

But aren't we way off topic?

0 Replies

Great question FBM is asking Herald:

How did the universe come to be?

I think Herald comments in reply are pretty much on target. He is inferring that he does not know...but that the universe MAY BE eternal. It also may be the result of a creation event of some sort...which, of course, would merely change the question to "How did whatever created the universe come to be?"

In any case, I'd love to hear FBM's answer to his own question...and see how it differs from Herald's.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll rephrase what I said a couple of days ago: I don't claim to know that the scientific cosmological model is actually true; I only know that it's the better argument with regards to observation and necessary inference. The theological model lacks even observation, much less necessary inference, is fundamentally wedded to a string of logical fallacies and makes no testable predictions. I have also made it clear that if Herod presents a hypothesis that is as robust as the scientific one, I'm willing to jump on board. He simply refuses to state his thesis openly, whether out of fear or embarrassment or whatever. Until he states a clear thesis, it is logically impossible to either agree or disagree with it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'll rephrase what I said a couple of days ago: I don't claim to know that the scientific cosmological model is actually true; I only know that it's the better argument with regards to observation and necessary inference. The theological model lacks even observation, much less necessary inference, is fundamentally wedded to a string of logical fallacies and makes no testable predictions. I have also made it clear that if Herod presents a hypothesis that is as robust as the scientific one, I'm willing to jump on board. He simply refuses to state his thesis openly, whether out of fear or embarrassment or whatever. Until he states a clear thesis, it is logically impossible to either agree or disagree with it.

For the most part, FBM, the "scientific cosmological model" is incoherent. There is no "true" or "false" about it...because it honestly does not answer the question of how "the universe" came into being.

As Herald said..."the universe" MAY not have come into being...it may just always have been...which, to my way of thinking, makes a hell of a lot more sense and seems "more logical" (if that term can even be applied) than some of the speculations coming from science.

Science cannot even competently speculate on whether what we call "the universe" is actually the universe...or just a infinitesimally small piece of it. And science cannot competently speculate on what preceded the "Big Bang" that seems to be a part of the "creation" of what we consider the universe.

Weird as it may seem to those of us who put lots of stock in science and scientific investigation (I am one with you on that)...the bottom line is that "science" is as much in the dark about all the fundamental questions being bandied about between theists and non-theists on the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

We weren't talking about the "true nature of the reality of existence." I, at least, was talking about the comparative strengths of the empirical and logical approach to epistemology vs the mythological one. Observation and necessary inference vs appeals to authority and tradition. I've been asking him to produce a hypothesis to rival the scientific one(s), but he's been stubbornly evasive. This isn't even about ultimate knowledge. For me, anyway. I have no idea what it's about for Herod because he refuses to state a positive thesis.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know