24
   

If the Universe has no beginning?

 
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 12:36 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not qualified to judge the people in the article, or their understanding of the model. I was only responding to the specific comments being presented by the people I'm responding to (you included).


Well, my comments were basically limited to the suggestion that it's not a physics question. I'm assuming you agree with me about that, but perhaps I'm wrong. Initially you seemed to be suggesting that anyone who rejects the big bang model rejects the methodology of physics, but you seem to have retreated from that stance.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:08 pm
@layman,
I think we are just not able to communicate effectively in short posts. There is ambiguity in the language and the points we are trying to make are getting finer and more esoteric as we go.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:14 pm
@layman,
Quote:
It's a philosophical question, that's all
Absolutely disagree, Lay. It's just that both philo and sci are behind just a whole lot. I can 'splain the whole thing myself, by a few simple assumptions based on that neglect, no contradictions, no paradox
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:14 pm
On a more general topic, anyone who demands strict adherence to the "scientific method" in drawing theoretical conclusions should also concede that this method is utterly incapable of establishing fact or truth.

Scientific reasoning takes a form which, if advanced as "proof" or "truth," would require the adoption of a logical fallacy.

Basically, scientific theory (explanation) takes the form of "if my theory is true, then X would happen. X happened, therefore my reasoning it true."

That is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

It could go like this, for example:

1. If god took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. That proves that God just took a big piss.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:26 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

1. If god took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. That proves that God just took a big piss.


To elaborate a little, there are empirical facts involved in this exercise (the ground is wet) which can be established with virtual certainty.

That, however, cannot prove a theory which purports to explain "why" the ground is wet. Scientific theories are the product of imagination, not "the facts."

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:48 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Let me see if I understand this... you are saying that some scientists become big bang deniers because they don't agree with the inherent requirement of science, namely that the supernatural cannot be involved. Is that right?

Layman got my intention right, this is a philosophical question. Maybe you just don't do philosophical, no shame in that.

So to fine tune the explanation of what I meant I'll have to risk sounding insulting which I really, really do not intend. But to put it into black and white terms, I think the 'Big Bang Denier scientists (among others) are driven more by an emotional reaction to any theory or evidence that could remotely infer an 'extra-natural' intelligence, rather than anything resembling science.
0 Replies
 
Som Abhisek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 10:51 am
@edgarblythe,
Yeah there must be some beginning ,otherwise how the universe is expanding now! There must be some point of start from where it all started ,now growing or what we call"expansion of universe".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 12:33 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
dalehileman
1REPLYREPORT Tue 5 Dec, 2017 03:37 pm
@Agneta,
Quote:
What if the theory... is wrong?.. logical and likely that the Universe has always been here ,,,
'zakly Angie, you've hit it on the head precisely

But the idea of forever bothers me. If anything that can happen, will, then by chance every possibility has already happened an infinite number of times, even this present universe with you and me chatting. Then there's an infinite number just like this'n' at this moment, except one iota different. One germ on one of my teeth is out of place by one micron
I trust what scientists are claiming; that this world is over 4.5 billion years old. Add to that, Charles Darwins' evolutionary theory, and we have pretty much some form of understanding of what we are all about. These are theories based on evidence that is currently available to us. That's the best we humans can do with the technology and history of our species.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/21/2019 at 04:40:58