Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science has not proven a singularity, yet. Or explained how it got there. It just begins with the assumption that there was one. That's called "begging the question".
What created the multiverse? I'll patiently await your answer.
It always was. Just like you postulate your god was.
Yes. The origins of the universe. Or the beginning of life. Science is completely unable to answer either one of them.
Sometimes WE DON'T KNOW is the correct answer. Because sometimes, in fact, we do not know.
For certain questions and certain people, this is unsatisfying. Rather than accepting that sometimes the limits of our knowledge is just that - unsatisfying - some people choose to make up answers. Or to embrace ones others have made up. A sort self-administration of a feel-good placebo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves otherwise.
Creationist citing of the second law of thermodynamics is so hopelessly misguided that there are creation-apologist websites [like the one below] that essentially beg creationists NOT to do so because ... well, because it makes creationists look like scientifically illiterate fools. Which, it should be noted, they generally are.
Anyone who pondered it for more than, say, a few seconds would realize that were the second law of thermodynamics a bar to all local decreases in entropy, then snowflakes could not form, nor could a tornado's funnel or the crystalline structure of a diamond or the rings of Jupiter.
Maybe the second-law-of-thermodynamics-citing creationists think God personally manufactures every snowflake?
it had a start. Now lets look at the possibilities.
1-living (natural)
2-Non living (natural)
3-deity
4-deny it all to stop religion
5-lack belief
6-we don't know ... move on to the line of logic.
7-add any other.
lets have a look see. I am inclined to lean on #6 myself for the start up question.
Not surprisingly, in a matter of where religion has a better explanation than science, two of the Big Three gaps for God came up. Cosmic origins and Life.
Also, not surprisingly, the theist side powerfully represented by Bapfun, gets the whole topic completely wrong because the theist argument thinks it is 'can science disprove 100% that God did it?" They really think that Goddunnit is the default explanation until science can prove with hard evidence that it wasn't.
That isn't how it works at all. Cosmic origins is such a puzzle that 'God' seems at least as good an explanation as 'science'. But even with the God -theory, the origins of God are not explained. Just saying 'eternal' explains nothing and makes no sense. How could a complex being like a cosmic mind have no origin? This applies to Mystic imagination thinking everything into existence. Well what thought the imagination into existence? Science, tinkering with the inherent potency of virtual particles in what appears to be nothing (and a devised - man -made- 'nothing', to boot) might be a better 'something from nothing' explanation than an uncreated something. But at best it's neither has any better explanation.
And that's the Best that religion has.
The flaw in BF's case is even more marked with origins of life. There is a lot of indirect evidence, hypothetical explanation and experimental support that makes a 'scientific' explanation for Life better than God waving a magic wand. Theism seems under the impression that, if they can pick a few holes in the theory (f.s.o.a assuming they are valid questions) then it has to be discarded, leaving Goddunnit as the default hypothesis. That is NOT logically how it works. The better theory is the better one and the one that is based on no more than a faith - claim derived from an old book of Myths does not get to be the default.
Consciousness as the third gap for God wasn't mentioned, but it fact it goes with 'Life' as it evolved along with life when chemical reaction became a reproducing compound.
So really religion has nothing other than a questionable 'equal' theory to science on Cosmic origins. But I doubt whether they will ever get their heads around this. The idea that the god -claim has to make a case on an equal standing with 'science' just seems to be something they don't get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Is it a closed system?
Exactly. In an eternally 'open' system there will always be input from outside. Thus entropy doesn't apply.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-22-2021 at 07:06 PM..
Just curious if any theists can answer this. Any claim in science, right or wrong, has religion come up with a BETTER answer to the claim?
THE religion does not cross with science, religionists do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
