real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:No assumption, rl, an observation consistent with accepted scientific law and theory. And the only "out of nothing" involved is your fixation on the notion that is what science, or I, have described; "nothing" is not the same as "other than currently we understand". The primary difference between the rational, evidence-based, logically consistent scientific explanation of the universe consequent to the singularity and the Genesis myth is that no myth, magic, fear, or superstition are involved in science's explanation. What you, not science or I, have, is nothing ... nothing, that is, apart from preconceived notions, absurd, ignorance-based postulations, and staggering misunderstanding.
It is quite funny to see you talk about science's 'explanation' when nothing has been explained. From hard evidence, not speculation tell us:
What was the 'singularity' you refer to?
The precursor to, the proximate origin for, the source of the universe we currently observe and experience.
Quote:From where did it originate?
From an as yet undefined state or condition of being apart from, other than, the universe we currently observe and experience, the universe consequent to it. In terms of our present sphere of reference, the question essentially is meaningless in the absolute sense, effectively a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. In the abstract, a number of hypothesese have been posed; one I incline toward, for a number of reasons, is the cyclic model, which, though beset by problems, not the least of which being that to current observation the expansion of the universe appears to be accellerating, stands fairly well to logic and experimental math. What presently we term "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", which apparently comprise far and away the bulk of the stuff of the universe we observe an experience, and which only now we are beginning to explore, well may provide, as we come to better understand them, further clues and tools with which to improve our understanding. I'm content to wait for the data to come in - I feel no need to sieze upon a guess predicated on magic.
See the above; "I dunno ... yet" is the only "correct" answer, by the currently available evidence. I dunno, you dunno, nobody knows. You, on the other hand, apparently are compelled to assume you know that "It was magic".
Another meaningless question; "preceded", with its entailed context of cause-and-effect as we understand cause and effect through linear time as we experience what we call time, is a concept entirely dependent upon the universe we observe and experience, the universe, the space and time, the physics and chemistry, which we have determined, to within a degree of probability very closely approaching certainty, to have proceded from the singularity.
Quote:What caused it to produce the result you describe?
It is not I that describes the result, but science which describes the result, through observation and mathematically proveable modeling. Like it or not, the math works, all the way back to the Planck Horizon, some 10^-43 seconds following the emergence of the singularity, providing, for instance, a rational, logical, evidence-based explanation for what we increasingly precisely observe and confirm as the constant of Cosmic Background Radiation, just one of many phenomena the assembled observed congruence, agreement, and correlation of which indicate strongly that science's effort to understand the universe we observe and experience is on the right track.
Quote:The answer is : Dunno.
No, you misrepresent, misconstrue - the answer goes quite a bit further than that; it more correctly is "Dunno ...yet, but we're working on it, and have some intriguing, very promising results. Rather than give up and proclaim a guess which dead-ends into myth, magic, and superstition to be "The Answer", we'll keep you updated as we learn more about the real answers. Stay tuned, as always, there's more to come."
Quote:But you want to puff up about 'science's explanation'.
Science explains only that for which there is concrete evidence, and based on what has been explained offers hypotheses consistent with that which has been explained, been determined, been established, for that which continually it explores with aim and effect of ever more precise understanding. Science consists of determining increasing probabilty, of ruling out the impossible, refining and revising itself on the basis of evidence, not of arbitrarily establishing supposed certainty, embracing the comforting absent evidence apart from preference and assumption in support of that comfort.
rl, its not just funny, but hilarious, to see the desperate need some religionists have to be so convinced of a guessed-at "answer" for something currently beyond humankind's ability to understand. Science is about understanding, religion is about believing. There are no "gaps" in science's map, just areas yet under exploration, areas yet undiscovered, areas marked "Insufficient data" ... nowhere on science's map does it say "Here be dragons".
Demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner, that religious faith, particularly of the sort you endorse, be differentiable from superstition.
