Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Antityranicals]

Why are you being so stubborn? If it is irrelevant, you should be able to very quickly make a fool out of me if I try to use it to demonstrate that the big bang is, in fact, an expansion "outwards."

Friendo, that ship sailed a long time ago.

You cannot demonstrate that the big bang was an outwards expansion because for the universe no such concept exists.

Alright, will you accept the definition of outwards as follows:

Noun: going out or away from a place.

[Necroghastia]

And you are assuming that god had no cause.
And even then, if every point in time is also a point of reality, then that which had cause is also always present.

1. The very definition of the word "God," as all educated monotheists refer to it, is "the uncaused cause." This argument is like accusing me of assuming that a circle is round.

That does nothing to address my point: that you are only assuming such a thing exists.

2. No, none of this applies to things which are not self-explanatory.

Why not?

[Godular]

While I follow you, I also note that simply because the probability is incredibly low does not mean that it is impossible. The chance that our solar system would be situated in such a way as to allow complex life develop is incredibly small, but in an infinitely large universe, it was bound to happen eventually. This does not mean that our presence was the result of direct intent or design.

Imagine that a poker player you were playing against got a royal flush twice in a row. I imagine you'd be suspicious of cheating.

Ah yes, I would indeed be suspicious. If however we were to play an infinitely large number of games, it (and many other statistical aberrations) would inevitably happen.

[Albrenia]

Which letter comes 'before' A in the Alphabet? What positive number preceeds 0? What colour is a song?

You can't define things which literally cannot exist.

No, I'm just asking for the definition of the word "outward." That most certainly exists...

Not in the context of the universe, to our knowledge.

[Godular]

Friendo, that ship sailed a long time ago.

You cannot demonstrate that the big bang was an outwards expansion because for the universe no such concept exists.

Alright, will you accept the definition of outwards as follows:

Noun: going out or away from a place.

Still stuck in 'things that don't apply to the universe', I see.

I'm going to throw two empirical truths at you:
1. The Universe was, is, and always will be infinitely large.
2. The Universe was, is, and always will be expanding.

The first precludes the usage of any reference to an 'outside' or 'outwards' as for the universe, as has been repeated to you, it does not existed. The challenge here is for you to take these two things into account.

[Antityranicals]

These are not opinions, they are facts which I believe to be self-explanatory. If you believe they are wrong, please say so. And no, most logical formulations do not have general consensus. That is why they must be formulated in the first place. So please, tell me one specific thing wrong with what I am saying. The thing is, my points are so self-evident that I doubt any of y'all will have the guts to dispute them. I might be wrong, though...

If they are facts, then there should be peer reviewed paper or academic evidence to back up those claims.

I have stipulated why it is wrong. There is no evidence anything is outside the universe. Prove there is something outside the universe, and that's the first step. Until then, it's just opinions.

There is a general consensus of something being logical. It's the everyday person coming to a conclusion that 1+1=2.
Only you are saying something is outside the universe when there is no evidence to support this claim.

How does the contents of a paper being reviewed by a peer make it more correct or incorrect? That's just a completely silly idea. Every one of my premises, I would argue, is just as fundemental as 1+1=2. If you disagree, point out one, and say: "that is incorrect." Otherwise, I have to assume by your continued attack against the nature of the argument, instead of the argument itself, that you are incapable of disputing what I have said.

[Antityranicals]

Alright, will you accept the definition of outwards as follows:

Noun: going out or away from a place.

Still stuck in 'things that don't apply to the universe', I see.

I'm going to throw two empirical truths at you:
1. The Universe was, is, and always will be infinitely large.
2. The Universe was, is, and always will be expanding.

The first precludes the usage of any reference to an 'outside' or 'outwards' as for the universe, as has been repeated to you, it does not existed. The challenge here is for you to take these two things into account.

You most definitely have no proof for the first of these two points. That's a theory at best.

[Estanglia]

Yes. Although I'd not consider myself at all an expert, I believe I have a solid grasp of it nonetheless.

Alright. You will know, then, that higher levels of entropy are far more probable than lower levels. As it so happens, the universe came into existence in an incredibly low entropy state. According to the mathematician Roger Penrose, using data on the nature of the universe at the point of the end of the cosmic background radiation, the probability of the universe, by sheer chance, given the Big Bang, coming into existence in such a low entropy state as it did was 1/10^(10^123), less than one in a googolplex chance. Let me note that this is not the probability that the universe came into existence in the exact same state as it did. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear the chances of that are so low. You would simply respond that it is not so unlikely after all, because there are probably a googolplex other ways in which the universe could come out and still support life. This is the probability of the universe coming into existence such that it would follow predictable laws of physics at all. Even this required such very low levels of entropy. This is the combined probability of every habitable universe possible. The sheer mind-bogglingly low probability, I believe, is more than enough to conclude that the cause of the universe is sentient, just as the existence of "War and Peace" is more than enough to conclude that the author is sentient. Do you follow me?

So, your argument for the cause of the universe being sentient is the extremely low chance of it occurring as it currently is.

Unless you know the entire history of the universe and know for sure that when the universe was a singularity it was always a singularity (and even if it was, you'd also have to be certain that the chance of the big bang occurring occurred only once or a limited number of times), then for all we know this extremely low chance could've been ran an infinite number of times. If any chance is ran an infinite number of times, it will inevitably occur, making the chance of our universe occurring not that special, since it would basically be guaranteed that it would occur.

[Antityranicals]

No, I'm just asking for the definition of the word "outward." That most certainly exists...

Not in the context of the universe, to our knowledge.

A word has a definition. I hope you're not trying to dispute this...

[Celritannia]

If they are facts, then there should be peer reviewed paper or academic evidence to back up those claims.

I have stipulated why it is wrong. There is no evidence anything is outside the universe. Prove there is something outside the universe, and that's the first step. Until then, it's just opinions.

There is a general consensus of something being logical. It's the everyday person coming to a conclusion that 1+1=2.
Only you are saying something is outside the universe when there is no evidence to support this claim.

How does the contents of a paper being reviewed by a peer make it more correct or incorrect? That's just a completely silly idea. Every one of my premises, I would argue, is just as fundemental as 1+1=2. If you disagree, point out one, and say: "that is incorrect." Otherwise, I have to assume by your continued attack against the nature of the argument, instead of the argument itself, that you are incapable of disputing what I have said.

If your work is peer reviewed, it means it is backed up by evidence. This is how science works.

Erm, no, your opinions are not logical because you are trying to asset to us something exists outside of the universe without having evidence to back up this claim.

So I ask again, provide evidence there is something outside the universe, and we can state it is logical.

[Godular]

Still stuck in 'things that don't apply to the universe', I see.

I'm going to throw two empirical truths at you:
1. The Universe was, is, and always will be infinitely large.
2. The Universe was, is, and always will be expanding.

The first precludes the usage of any reference to an 'outside' or 'outwards' as for the universe, as has been repeated to you, it does not existed. The challenge here is for you to take these two things into account.

You most definitely have no proof for the first of these two points. That's a theory at best.

Indeed! Indeed, it is a scientific theory, which puts it at a substantially higher standing than any of these purportedly logical arguments you keep trying to throw out in the vain hopes it would stick.

[Antityranicals]

Alright. You will know, then, that higher levels of entropy are far more probable than lower levels. As it so happens, the universe came into existence in an incredibly low entropy state. According to the mathematician Roger Penrose, using data on the nature of the universe at the point of the end of the cosmic background radiation, the probability of the universe, by sheer chance, given the Big Bang, coming into existence in such a low entropy state as it did was 1/10^(10^123), less than one in a googolplex chance. Let me note that this is not the probability that the universe came into existence in the exact same state as it did. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear the chances of that are so low. You would simply respond that it is not so unlikely after all, because there are probably a googolplex other ways in which the universe could come out and still support life. This is the probability of the universe coming into existence such that it would follow predictable laws of physics at all. Even this required such very low levels of entropy. This is the combined probability of every habitable universe possible. The sheer mind-bogglingly low probability, I believe, is more than enough to conclude that the cause of the universe is sentient, just as the existence of "War and Peace" is more than enough to conclude that the author is sentient. Do you follow me?

So, your argument for the cause of the universe being sentient is the extremely low chance of it occurring as it currently is.

Unless you know the entire history of the universe and know for sure that when the universe was a singularity it was always a singularity (and even if it was, you'd also have to be certain that the chance of the big bang occurring occurred only once or a limited number of times), then for all we know this extremely low chance could've been ran an infinite number of times. If any chance is ran an infinite number of times, it will inevitably occur, making the chance of our universe occurring not that special, since it would basically be guaranteed that it would occur.

No, because as is, the universe is almost definitely going to die an entropy death. The universe will continue to expand for all eternity, and never return to a singularity. If the universe had more entropy, the only thing that would be different is that the universe would expand quicker, and still never return to a singularity. There could only be one shot. The only conceivable way the universe would be able to "try again" would be if the universe had significantly less entropy than it does today, which would be even less likely.

[Albrenia]

Not in the context of the universe, to our knowledge.

A word has a definition. I hope you're not trying to dispute this...

So does 'beginning', but where is the beginning of a circle?

You're asking for something nonsensical. You're asking what place is outside all places.

[Godular]

Not in the context of the universe, to our knowledge.

A word has a definition. I hope you're not trying to dispute this...

Whether the word has a definition is not in dispute. You keep trying to (poorly) dispute our assertion that it simply does not apply.

[Kowani]

Still stuck in 'things that don't apply to the universe', I see.

I'm going to throw two empirical truths at you:
1. The Universe was, is, and always will be infinitely large.
2. The Universe was, is, and always will be expanding.

The first precludes the usage of any reference to an 'outside' or 'outwards' as for the universe, as has been repeated to you, it does not existed. The challenge here is for you to take these two things into account.

You most definitely have no proof for the first of these two points. That's a theory at best.

Is this one of those days where people don't know what "theory" means?

[Estanglia]

So, your argument for the cause of the universe being sentient is the extremely low chance of it occurring as it currently is.

Unless you know the entire history of the universe and know for sure that when the universe was a singularity it was always a singularity (and even if it was, you'd also have to be certain that the chance of the big bang occurring occurred only once or a limited number of times), then for all we know this extremely low chance could've been ran an infinite number of times. If any chance is ran an infinite number of times, it will inevitably occur, making the chance of our universe occurring not that special, since it would basically be guaranteed that it would occur.

No, because as is, the universe is almost definitely going to die an entropy death. The universe will continue to expand for all eternity, and never return to a singularity. If the universe had more entropy, the only thing that would be different is that the universe would expand quicker, and still never return to a singularity. There could only be one shot. The only conceivable way the universe would be able to "try again" would be if the universe had significantly less entropy than it does today, which would be even less likely.

I'd like to see this evidence that you must have that the universe will die and never ever return to a singularity, and that it had one shot.

[Antityranicals]

How does the contents of a paper being reviewed by a peer make it more correct or incorrect? That's just a completely silly idea. Every one of my premises, I would argue, is just as fundemental as 1+1=2. If you disagree, point out one, and say: "that is incorrect." Otherwise, I have to assume by your continued attack against the nature of the argument, instead of the argument itself, that you are incapable of disputing what I have said.

If your work is peer reviewed, it means it is backed up by evidence. This is how science works.

Erm, no, your opinions are not logical because you are trying to asset to us something exists outside of the universe without having evidence to back up this claim.

So I ask again, provide evidence there is something outside the universe, and we can state it is logical.

No, because the idea that something exists outside the universe is not premise in my logical formulation, but conclusion. As such, if all of my premises are correct, and my logical formulation is valid, that alone is proof by logic. In fact, assuming those premises and that formulation to be correct, it would be definite, indisputable proof, whereas scientific proof is always disputable. So, I request once again that you attack either a premise (none of my premises, by the way, only my conclusion, involves something outside of the universe. So you can't just attack them that way.) or an element of my formulation.

[Godular]

You most definitely have no proof for the first of these two points. That's a theory at best.

Is this one of those days where people don't know what "theory" means?

Just one person, apprently.

[Antityranicals]

You most definitely have no proof for the first of these two points. That's a theory at best.

Is this one of those days where people don't know what "theory" means?

Theory could mean a number of different things, depending on what context. I mean the word "theory" in its context as "an unproven idea," not in its context as a system of ideas intended to explain something scientifically.

[Celritannia]

If your work is peer reviewed, it means it is backed up by evidence. This is how science works.

Erm, no, your opinions are not logical because you are trying to asset to us something exists outside of the universe without having evidence to back up this claim.

So I ask again, provide evidence there is something outside the universe, and we can state it is logical.

No, because the idea that something exists outside the universe is not premise in my logical formulation, but conclusion. As such, if all of my premises are correct, and my logical formulation is valid, that alone is proof by logic. In fact, assuming those premises and that formulation to be correct, it would be definite, indisputable proof, whereas scientific proof is always disputable. So, I request once again that you attack either a premise (none of my premises, by the way, only my conclusion, involves something outside of the universe. So you can't just attack them that way.) or an element of my formulation.

If one aspect of the formula is faulty, then the whole equation is.

Who has said your logical formulation is valid besides yourself?

I've just done that many times over! Do I need to remind you of my proof that the universe had a cause?

No, I am arguing you have not shown any evidence that there is something outside the universe.

This is your assertion that something does exist outside the universe and you have proof.

I am asking, where is that proof? Where is the scientific evidence to back this claim up?
If the Big Bang has a cause, then there must be a space outside of the universe. Where is the evidence something exists outside of the universe?
Where is the evidence something caused the Big Bang?

[Antityranicals]

No, because as is, the universe is almost definitely going to die an entropy death. The universe will continue to expand for all eternity, and never return to a singularity. If the universe had more entropy, the only thing that would be different is that the universe would expand quicker, and still never return to a singularity. There could only be one shot. The only conceivable way the universe would be able to "try again" would be if the universe had significantly less entropy than it does today, which would be even less likely.

I'd like to see this evidence that you must have that the universe will die and never ever return to a singularity, and that it had one shot.

That much comes from your much-adored "scientific consensus." The universe is not only expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. Most astrophysicists as such agree upon the "Big Rip" theory of the end of the universe. The big crunch has very much fallen into disrepute.

[Dothrakia]

They are compatible so long as religion and religious texts aren't taken literally and science allows for slower growth because of ethical questions/issues religious people may have i.e
Religious people can't say the Earth is 5,000 years old when we have monumental evidence that shows it is several billion years old, the same goes for evolution and the idea that climate change isn't real because humans can't change what god created
Scientists have to accept that it will take time for religious folks to come around to the idea of stem cell therapy and other more radical ideas/theories/treatments and they need to understand that they can't just force everyone to accept them immediately
As the Dali Lama once said: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/96/c6 ... fb653c.jpg

[Albrenia]

If your work is peer reviewed, it means it is backed up by evidence. This is how science works.

Erm, no, your opinions are not logical because you are trying to asset to us something exists outside of the universe without having evidence to back up this claim.

So I ask again, provide evidence there is something outside the universe, and we can state it is logical.

No, because the idea that something exists outside the universe is not premise in my logical formulation, but conclusion. As such, if all of my premises are correct, and my logical formulation is valid, that alone is proof by logic. In fact, assuming those premises and that formulation to be correct, it would be definite, indisputable proof, whereas scientific proof is always disputable. So, I request once again that you attack either a premise (none of my premises, by the way, only my conclusion, involves something outside of the universe. So you can't just attack them that way.) or an element of my formulation.

We've already pretty much at least cast adequate doubt on your various premises enough that calling it indisputable is just nonsense.

[Antityranicals]

No, because the idea that something exists outside the universe is not premise in my logical formulation, but conclusion. As such, if all of my premises are correct, and my logical formulation is valid, that alone is proof by logic. In fact, assuming those premises and that formulation to be correct, it would be definite, indisputable proof, whereas scientific proof is always disputable. So, I request once again that you attack either a premise (none of my premises, by the way, only my conclusion, involves something outside of the universe. So you can't just attack them that way.) or an element of my formulation.

We've already pretty much at least cast adequate doubt on your various premises enough that calling it indisputable is just nonsense.

Alright, name and dispute one, please.

[Albrenia]

Is this one of those days where people don't know what "theory" means?

Theory could mean a number of different things, depending on what context. I mean the word "theory" in its context as "an unproven idea," not in its context as a system of ideas intended to explain something scientifically.

Scientific theories are waaaaay different from what the term usually means. If something is a Theory in science, it's pretty much as close to fact as humanly possible to get.