Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Godular]

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.

In this, you would be wrong. We know the universe is infinite as a result of doing a census of galaxies, and found that in every direction one can find the same number of galaxies. This leads us to the conclusion that there is no functional edge of the universe, as it appears to be uniformly spaced on the macro scale.

We also know that as objects are further away from us, they are moving away from us at an increasing rate. This is why galactic redshift is employed as a means of determining distances at what we term 'cosmological distances'. We have been able to show that everything is moving away from everything else on the macro scale.

Infinite. Expanding. Empirically concluded. Scientific theory.

[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.

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

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?

1. This is true. Now, please, what is the one aspect of my formula which is faulty.
2. The whole point of my logical formulation is to demonstrate the logical necessity of something outside of the universe.
3. Not all proof is scientific. The best proof, in fact, isn't. We are far more certain that 5x5=25 than we are of any scientific principle. The best proof is logical. The next best is mathematical. Science is only third best, if that.

[Celritannia]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

[Antityranicals]

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.

In this, you would be wrong. We know the universe is infinite as a result of doing a census of galaxies, and found that in every direction one can find the same number of galaxies. This leads us to the conclusion that there is no functional edge of the universe, as it appears to be uniformly spaced on the macro scale.

We also know that as objects are further away from us, they are moving away from us at an increasing rate. This is why galactic redshift is employed as a means of determining distances at what we term 'cosmological distances'. We have been able to show that everything is moving away from everything else on the macro scale.

Infinite. Expanding. Empirically concluded. Scientific theory.

All that this tells us is that the universe is larger than the observable universe, not that it is infinite.

Also, given the theory of relativity and the redshift, every single celestial object is moving away from every single other celestial object. Thus, the entire universe is moving "outwards," no matter where you stand, because everything is moving away. That is, after all, what "outwards" means...

[Antityranicals]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

I wasn't referring to scientific theory. I was referring to theory as a common term.

[Celritannia]

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



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?

1. This is true. Now, please, what is the one aspect of my formula which is faulty.
2. The whole point of my logical formulation is to demonstrate the logical necessity of something outside of the universe.
3. Not all proof is scientific. The best proof, in fact, isn't. We are far more certain that 5x5=25 than we are of any scientific principle. The best proof is logical. The next best is mathematical. Science is only third best, if that.

1. The fact there is no evidence that something exists outside of the universe, and therefore nothing has caused the big bang.
2. There is nothing logical in your opinions which any of us can assume there is something outside of the universe.
3. Scientific evidence is the best form of evidence there is. It provides proof, establishes logical reasoning and evidence. Your 5x5=25 aspect is based in scientific fact, as mathematics helps science. How do you know 5x5=25? Through study, through it being peer reviewed and accepted. That's how science works.

[Estanglia]

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.

This Big Rip?

In physical cosmology, the Big Rip is a hypothetical cosmological model concerning the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, and even spacetime itself, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future.

I'd like a citation on the "most astrophysicists agree on this theory" bit.

[Albrenia]

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.

That an effect in a timeless state requires a cause from outside or before to occur. We don't know that to be the case.
That an effect with a net zero output requires a cause at all. Does nothing require a cause to happen?
That something existing outside or before the universe is even possible.
That something existing outside our reality and creating the universe is itself a 'Prime Mover' and not just one in a literally endless conga line of effects.

That's just a few.

[Godular]

In this, you would be wrong. We know the universe is infinite as a result of doing a census of galaxies, and found that in every direction one can find the same number of galaxies. This leads us to the conclusion that there is no functional edge of the universe, as it appears to be uniformly spaced on the macro scale.

We also know that as objects are further away from us, they are moving away from us at an increasing rate. This is why galactic redshift is employed as a means of determining distances at what we term 'cosmological distances'. We have been able to show that everything is moving away from everything else on the macro scale.

Infinite. Expanding. Empirically concluded. Scientific theory.

All that this tells us is that the universe is larger than the observable universe, not that it is infinite.

And what we have been able to discern is that on the macro scale it is uniformly arranged. This means that were we to look out from anywhere in the universe we would effectively see the exact same thing when we did the same study. We also see new galaxies coming into visibility all the time, as the opaque wall that generally precludes us from looking further out expands and reveals additional galaxies. The logical conclusion in this case is that the universe is infinitely large as we have no means of determining what its overall boundaries are. If we can see no evidence of a boundary, it is logical to conclude that no such boundary exists.

Also, given the theory of relativity and the redshift, every single celestial object is moving away from every single other celestial object. Thus, the entire universe is moving "outwards," no matter where you stand, because everything is moving away. That is, after all, what "outwards" means...

No, it is not. Everything moving away from each other does not in the case of the universe constitute moving outwards. There is no 'out'. There is no outside.

I wish I could feel surprised at how small-minded you are being about this.

[Antityranicals]

1. This is true. Now, please, what is the one aspect of my formula which is faulty.
2. The whole point of my logical formulation is to demonstrate the logical necessity of something outside of the universe.
3. Not all proof is scientific. The best proof, in fact, isn't. We are far more certain that 5x5=25 than we are of any scientific principle. The best proof is logical. The next best is mathematical. Science is only third best, if that.

1. The fact there is no evidence that something exists outside of the universe, and therefore nothing has caused the big bang.
2. There is nothing logical in your opinions which any of us can assume there is something outside of the universe.
3. Scientific evidence is the best form of evidence there is. IT provides proof, and establishes logical reasoning. You 5x%=s5 aspect is based in scientific fact, as mathematics helps science. How do you know 5x5=25? through study, through it being peer reviewed and accepted. That's how science works.

1. My proof is evidence. Why do you immediately discount it, if you can't actually find fault in it?
2. There is no opinion in that proof. Where-ever I give opinion, I label it as such.
2. Actually, I misspoke. Scientific proof is not only suboptimal, it is actually impossible. Science cannot prove, it can only suggest. All that science can possibly do is infer from observations. This isn't proof. It may be very convincing, but it's not nearly as good as real proof, such as mathematics and logic provide. Mathematics is quite distinct from science, as you ought to know. Your narration on science has almost completely convinced me that you wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit your hand off.

[La Xinga]

Yikes, last time I was in this thread it was a waaaay different discussion, what we talkin' about?

[Albrenia]

Yikes, last time I was in this thread it was a waaaay different discussion, what we talkin' about?

Someone's DESTROYING Atheism with FACTS and LOGIC.

While, y'know, just spouting nonsense.

We're talking about the Big Bang and if it proves God, if one stretches 'God' to mean 'any force which acts outside the universe to make the Big Bang happen'.

[Godular]

Yikes, last time I was in this thread it was a waaaay different discussion, what we talkin' about?

Astrophysics.

[La Xinga]

Yikes, last time I was in this thread it was a waaaay different discussion, what we talkin' about?

Someone's DESTROYING Atheism with FACTS and LOGIC.

While, y'know, just spouting nonsense.

I love doing that! What's the discussion?

[Celritannia]

1. The fact there is no evidence that something exists outside of the universe, and therefore nothing has caused the big bang.
2. There is nothing logical in your opinions which any of us can assume there is something outside of the universe.
3. Scientific evidence is the best form of evidence there is. IT provides proof, and establishes logical reasoning. You 5x%=s5 aspect is based in scientific fact, as mathematics helps science. How do you know 5x5=25? through study, through it being peer reviewed and accepted. That's how science works.

1. My proof is evidence. Why do you immediately discount it, if you can't actually find fault in it?
2. There is no opinion in that proof. Where-ever I give opinion, I label it as such.
2. Actually, I misspoke. Scientific proof is not only suboptimal, it is actually impossible. Science cannot prove, it can only suggest. All that science can possibly do is infer from observations. This isn't proof. It may be very convincing, but it's not nearly as good as real proof, such as mathematics and logic provide. Mathematics is quite distinct from science, as you ought to know. Your narration on science has almost completely convinced me that you wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit your hand off.

1. If your proof is evidence, send it to NASA for confirmation. Allow astrophysicists look over it.
Because the fault is this. There is no evidence something exists outside the universe. Actual science confirms this.

2. You labelling something is an opinion. It does not become fact until it is peer-reviewed and can be tested.

3. Then you fail to understand the scientific principle.

[Godular]

Someone's DESTROYING Atheism with FACTS and LOGIC.

While, y'know, just spouting nonsense.

I love doing that! What's the discussion?

Astrophysics. The religious guy is having a hard time understanding that the universe has no 'outside'.

[Antityranicals]

Alright, name and dispute one, please.

That an effect in a timeless state requires a cause from outside or before to occur. We don't know that to be the case.
That an effect with a net zero output requires a cause at all. Does nothing require a cause to happen?
That something existing outside or before the universe is even possible.
That something existing outside our reality and creating the universe is itself a 'Prime Mover' and not just one in a literally endless conga line of effects.

That's just a few.

1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.

Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:

We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.

[Antityranicals]

1. My proof is evidence. Why do you immediately discount it, if you can't actually find fault in it?
2. There is no opinion in that proof. Where-ever I give opinion, I label it as such.
2. Actually, I misspoke. Scientific proof is not only suboptimal, it is actually impossible. Science cannot prove, it can only suggest. All that science can possibly do is infer from observations. This isn't proof. It may be very convincing, but it's not nearly as good as real proof, such as mathematics and logic provide. Mathematics is quite distinct from science, as you ought to know. Your narration on science has almost completely convinced me that you wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit your hand off.

1. If your proof is evidence, send it to NASA for confirmation. Allow astrophysicists look over it.
Because the fault is this. There is no evidence something exists outside the universe. Actual science confirms this.

2. You labelling something is an opinion. It does not become fact until it is peer-reviewed and can be tested.

3. Then you fail to understand the scientific principle.

1. My proof simply isn't an astrophysical proof. That would be as silly as sending it to the NIH.
2. That's just plain dumb... I don't even know what to say about it...
3. What, O ye wise, I ask of thee, is "THE scientific principle."

[La Xinga]

I love doing that! What's the discussion?

Astrophysics. The religious guy is having a hard time understanding that the universe has no 'outside'.

Well then, I surely should not join, as I believe the uyniverse is made up of 7 skies till heaven and each one takes 500 years to travel form one to the next!

[Celritannia]

That an effect in a timeless state requires a cause from outside or before to occur. We don't know that to be the case.
That an effect with a net zero output requires a cause at all. Does nothing require a cause to happen?
That something existing outside or before the universe is even possible.
That something existing outside our reality and creating the universe is itself a 'Prime Mover' and not just one in a literally endless conga line of effects.

That's just a few.

1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.

Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:

We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.

[Albrenia]

That an effect in a timeless state requires a cause from outside or before to occur. We don't know that to be the case.
That an effect with a net zero output requires a cause at all. Does nothing require a cause to happen?
That something existing outside or before the universe is even possible.
That something existing outside our reality and creating the universe is itself a 'Prime Mover' and not just one in a literally endless conga line of effects.

That's just a few.

1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.

Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:

We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.

The Universe might have changed state from the Big Bang, but that doesn't really mean that is when it was 'Created'. The singularity 'prior' to the Big Bang was never 'created', so it has no 'cause' to our knowledge.

[Antityranicals]

Yikes, last time I was in this thread it was a waaaay different discussion, what we talkin' about?

Astrophysics.

I don't think so...

[Godular]

Astrophysics. The religious guy is having a hard time understanding that the universe has no 'outside'.

Well then, I surely should not join, as I believe the uyniverse is made up of 7 skies till heaven and each one takes 500 years to travel form one to the next!

Wow. You definitely shouldn't, because that manages the surprising feat of being more wrong than should be quantifiable.

[Celritannia]

1. If your proof is evidence, send it to NASA for confirmation. Allow astrophysicists look over it.
Because the fault is this. There is no evidence something exists outside the universe. Actual science confirms this.

2. You labelling something is an opinion. It does not become fact until it is peer-reviewed and can be tested.

3. Then you fail to understand the scientific principle.

1. My proof simply isn't an astrophysical proof. That would be as silly as sending it to the NIH.
2. That's just plain dumb... I don't even know what to say about it...
3. What, O ye wise, I ask of thee, is "THE scientific principle."

1. Something existing outside of the universe is something an astrophysicists would be able to say yes or no to.
2. Well, it is neither a fact, nor proof what you are spouting. So what is it?
3. Well, claiming your own work certainly isn't scientific, nor logical; that's a given.

[Godular]

Astrophysics.

I don't think so...

Oh, it most assuredly is. You brought it there, it went there.