You're thinking too literally. It's the principle that's important. Do we, as a species, have the ability to discover such things? Yes, we do - we've made monumental advances already in that sphere of knowledge, and to simply reach a point where we say "right, that's about enough, I think" is completely counter-intuitive for us as a species.
You mean, the Higgs boson which helps us understand the origins of the universe shortly after the big bang?...
Why should science concentrate on one thing, rather than something else? Why can't it look at everything with a critical eye, furthering our holistic knowledge rather than simply specifics?
The right answer when we reach it is more important than any answer right now.
Do you know is there a "right" answer? I wouldn't be so sure. You seem to imply that you believe there is: "when we reach it", don't you?
Why do you need to invoke belief there? The right answer is the one that explains all the evidence. The right answer in the interim is the one that explains all the available evidence in the way that requires the least (both number and magnitude) assumptions.But Famine, you once said you don't believe in anything. Yet:
Noob616Source?
I do love that you once again state.....Why the sureness that science one day will discover how the universe came into existence from nothing? We have no reason to in my opinion. I know my gap filler to you is "God did it" but why bring that up when it applies to you or any other Atheist as well if you refer to science one day figuring it out? It seems you rest assured that such a process could take place but with the lack of any evidence available you must admit that conclusion is not one you can hang your hat on. Do you believe that their was some eternal quantum state? If so you have to then deal with infinite regression.
The proposed idea in the previous link you sent me on something of this sort seemed like an escape route in all honesty. Just a failed attempt to get away from being bound by the current limitations we have for the universe we live in and the only one we know of. Do you think that we are on a infinite time line? If that's the case I would like to hear what brought you to that considering all the problems that idea brings.
In other worlds you simple get to make stuff up with zero evidence when you find a gap you can't answer (rather than actually trying to find out the reason).Not so fast. With the belief in a supreme eternal omnipotent being you get a few perksThe understanding that miracles could take place (breaking of the natural law) to name one and the get out card that he would not need to be limited to laws and rules he created for us to live under unless he so chose to limit himself but that itself is debatable in the Christian circle. Remember that a transcendent being isn't out in space somewhere fiddling his thumbs bound by these things but removed from such limitations.
A couple of corrections to the above. First I never said purposely distorted it, that was one of two possible reasons.Also please put in laymen terms your understanding of Darwin's quote that you insinuated I purposely distorted. I don't see how the mention of Darwin questioning such things being worth ridicule.
Belief has nothing to do with it. The bible can either be proven to be fact or not, belief has no place in that.well it does depend on whether or not you believe the Bible is fact or not
So science should only concentrate on recent things like the Higgs Boson, despite the fact that its was a hypothetical thing for 50 years? If people hadn't spent 50 years and constructed one of the most expensive and complex experimental facilities ever, we would never have proven its existence. Now that we have we still don't actually know what its impact will be in real world terms. Oh and one of the reasons all of this was done was because it offers a great insight into what happened during the big bang.Now, science should concentrate on things that are close to being proven either true or false like the Supersymmetry theories and recently discovered things like Higgs' boson - whether is it like believed, slightly different or something that has just been thrown as pretty far-fetched hypotheses like a new group of bosons. One step at a time, because leaving open holes may result in years of research completely in vain because of an oversight in proving the facts, if the hypotheses turn out to be false.
There are a lot of things that need be researched on before we can even imagine starting to solve how everything came into existence. If it even is important.
I don't think we can ever find out how the universe came to be.
Think it like that we are a result of a mathematical operation (which, technically we are as all science and existence can be presented mathematically).
Now, let's say the result ("us and our universe and all the being") is two.
2.
The operation is how we (in this example, "2") came to be.
Now what operation results in us, "2"?
1*2?
ln(e^2)?
2/1?
2^1?
√(4)?
1+1?
3-1?
4-2?
5-3?
etc.
There are infinite possible operations that result in two. As in any operation, the result alone isn't adequate to find out what the operation and its operatives were.
Now, we, our universe and the whole existence are just the result, we cannot possibly find out what was "in the beginning".
But is it even necessary to know something like that?
It certainly might answer quite a few questions, so why not look into it?Does the answer to "how everything came into existence in the very beginning" advance our civilisation further? Is it really important?
You have it backwards. Inventions don't lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to inventions. So basically we're on the right track.My main point is that science shouldn't brainlessly be chasing the answer to how everything came into being in the first place. It should be primarily used for inventions and such that widely advance our knowledge in all areas of science.
Of course I think science should progress further, but its primary goal shouldn't be something that isn't even certain it can be reached.
Science for humankind, not for science itself (some things that look like they don't have applications may open up unbelievable possibilities, so there is a point in researching them too, though).
My main point is that science shouldn't brainlessly be chasing the answer to how everything came into being in the first place.
If you give your creations brains, surely you must want them to actually use them?![]()
Why this uhm...."fetish" for thinking that if you don't believe the universe came from (a) god you must think it came from nothing? Many religious people seem to think like that.
Is god or nothing the only two options to you?
Also a question for the Atheists on the forum. How many of you admit you are moral relativists? To the others where do you find your higher ground that has the final say on right and wrong?
I wasn't talking about the stories of genocide, I was referring to how Scaff pointed out that rape, among other things that you would (hopefully) call horrific acts, are in fact encouraged by the Bible, yet you said this to him "Do you think rape is wrong even if the culture thinks it's right and is common practice?". So let me ask you this: do you think rape is right even if the culture thinks it's wrong and is a horrific act? If not, then your morality is just as subjective as us poor atheists.
Oh I'm so glad you asked this, it gives me reason to quote myself.
You still won't face your side of the problem. Typical...
It doesn't even matter if you agree with the moral law of any God in this issue. You can dive into that when comparing religion to religion which I have yet to go into. The point being you can't have any objective for of morality can you. Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.
Nup. An individual's moral code may be subjective, but morality is objective, derived through logic (which is objective) from objective rights - not the pesky codified subjective ones calling themselves "rights". Rape is using force to deny an individual their (objective) right to their own body and thus rape is objectively immoral.Morality is subjective. For everyone.
Myself.To the others where do you find your higher ground that has the final say on right and wrong?
A rather bold statement to make for one who has avoided answering a number if points raised by other members.You still won't face your side of the problem. Typical...
It doesn't even matter if you agree with the moral law of any God in this issue. You can dive into that when comparing religion to religion which I have yet to go into. The point being you can't have any objective for of morality can you. Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.
Nup. An individual's moral code may be subjective, but morality is objective, derived through logic (which is objective) from objective rights - not the pesky codified subjective ones calling themselves "rights". Rape is using force to deny an individual their (objective) right to their own body and thus rape is objectively immoral.
See the Human Rights thread for more. And this also answers the question posed - logic is the "higher power".
Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.
If you spend all day every day in your room home alone 99% of the time, you'll start to believe in SOMETHING.
^ And thanks Kitten, now I have the urge to watch Senna videos all morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izaWlKxVo1A
OK, that has nothing to do with the universe. By the way if we equal 2, and that's all the info we have, then I guess 2 is a constant and there is no equation. But don't look too deeply into that, because again we aren't 2 and your analogy doesn't make much sense.
You're assuming we can't know.
You have it backwards. Inventions don't lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to inventions. So basically we're on the right track.
I literally can't fathom how you could understand that answers to some questions can open up unbelievable possibilities, yet don't see answering how everything that is everything came to be.
My only possible thought is that the concept of god creating everything is a concept so dear to you that you don't want to discover the reality of it. God, creator of the universe, is still one of the very, very few "grey areas" left in explaining how the world works. It's one of the last concepts to cling on to for those who believe we're only here because of God, and not one people seem in a hurry to let go as a result.
So I'm supposed to get my morals from a book that advocates bashing babies' brains out? Riiiigghhttt.
Be it two or anything else, it's the same. As long as we've got only the result in our hands, the universe, we cannot know for sure. We might be able to only assume what was "before" our universe and its laws of physics.
If I could prove that we can know, I would have. I can't, because the answer isn't known, but that's completely fine.Indeed. Prove me wrong - I don't oppose searching the answer if someone wants to do that, but I won't encourage them to do that.
Sure, but 99% of them probably resulted from knowledge gained previously.There is quite a lot of inventions made before they were understood.
Searching for Higgs only to find it doesn't exist is exactly as good as finding it.Searching for something that doesn't exist but is hypothesised by the scientists might turn out to be stupid (imagine if Higgs' wasn't found, the theories would just have made people to seek for nothing).
Even if they discovered nothing, it would have been worthwhile. It could have indicated that quantum mechanics are wrong and we need to revise it.Though, something other might have been found instead. That I mean by new random discoveries, they might surprise us and widen our knowledge.
The meaning of the universe is already zero, can't get much lower. What meaning is there and why is it important?Heh, we and the existence would be even more meaningless if we could just replicate it.
Or maybe it was just always there. Matter and energy were once thought to be different. Maybe there is matter, energy, and pre-Big Bang stuff and they're all the same. Maybe when pre-Big Bang stuff turns into matter and energy it creates time too. We'll only know if we try to find out.Remember, matter/energy from nothing is physically an impossibility - unless it's some sort of immaterial illusion?
Yes, which is why we don't need to stick to old answers like "God did it" or just stop caring. Knowing how everything works could potentially be very helpful.Doesn't this get pretty weird?
Well in our case we have the result, many laws that shape the result, and about 13 billion years of history leading up to the result. You seem to imply that we're hopelessly blind.
If I could prove that we can know, I would have. I can't, because the answer isn't known, but that's completely fine.
Searching for Higgs only to find it doesn't exist is exactly as good as finding it.
Even if they discovered nothing, it would have been worthwhile. It could have indicated that quantum mechanics are wrong and we need to revise it.
The meaning of the universe is already zero, can't get much lower. What meaning is there and why is it important?
Or maybe it was just always there. Matter and energy were once thought to be different. Maybe there is matter, energy, and pre-Big Bang stuff and they're all the same. Maybe when pre-Big Bang stuff turns into matter and energy it creates time too. We'll only know if we try to find out.
Yes, which is why we don't need to stick to old answers like "God did it" or just stop caring. Knowing how everything works could potentially be very helpful.
We are beyond the point at which we can poke in the dirt and discover something out of the blue.