The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

[Cypress]

I don't know why bible thumpers are so keen to disprove the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory implies a moment of creation, that metaphysically sorta reflects the Book of Genesis. Until the 1960s, most scientists did not want to accept a Big Bang, because their preferred metaphysical assumption was that the universe was static and infinitely old.

 

[ZenMode]

Okay, We agree that you do not know (with absolute certainty...or KNOW at all) that there are no gods.
Like you, I see no reason to blindly guess (believe, suppose, think, assume, presume) that there is one. There also is not reason to blindly guess (believe, suppose, think, assume, presume) that none exist.

That was the problem I had with your comment that no god exists.

I have as much problem with "no gods exist" as I have with "there is a GOD."

Both comments are absurd...nothing but blind guesses.

I think we differ in one important area....you treat the odds of existence/non-existence of a god equally. I don't any more than I treat the odds of existence/ non-existence of leprechauns equally.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think we differ in one important area....you treat the odds of existence/non-existence of a god equally. I don't any more than I treat the odds of existence/ non-existence of leprechauns equally.

If you want to discuss leprechauns with someone...fine. Start a thread about leprechauns...ands someone will show up.

HERE we are discussing you comment that there are no gods.

Asserting that there is at least one god...or asserting that there are none...are both just guesses.

If you want to suggest that one is more likely than the other...fine. I will be happy to discuss it.

Let's see your math work.

 

[ZenMode]

Okay, We agree that you do not know (with absolute certainty...or KNOW at all) that there are no gods.
Like you, I see no reason to blindly guess (believe, suppose, think, assume, presume) that there is one. There also is not reason to blindly guess (believe, suppose, think, assume, presume) that none exist.

That was the problem I had with your comment that no god exists.

I have as much problem with "no gods exist" as I have with "there is a GOD."

Both comments are absurd...nothing but blind guesses.

I think we differ in one important area....you treat the odds of existence/non-existence of a god equally. I don't any more than I treat the odds of existence/ non-existence of leprechauns as equal.

If you want to discuss leprechauns with someone...fine. Start a thread about leprechauns...ands someone will show up.

HERE we are discussing you comment that there are no gods.

Asserting that there is at least one god...or asserting that there are none...are both just guesses.

If you want to suggest that one is more likely than the other...fine. I will be happy to discuss it.

Let's see your math work.

They aren't both equal guesses. There is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

 

[Hume]

If you want to discuss leprechauns with someone...fine. Start a thread about leprechauns...ands someone will show up.

HERE we are discussing you comment that there are no gods.

Asserting that there is at least one god...or asserting that there are none...are both just guesses.

If you want to suggest that one is more likely than the other...fine. I will be happy to discuss it.

Let's see your math work.

You comments are guesses. Why should anyone care?

 

[Into the Night]

While the jellyfish lacks a centralized brain, it has a visual system nestled within four neuron clusters. Called rhopalia, each cluster has some thousand neurons and six eyes. Besides assisting with visual cues, this rhopalial nervous system has various other functions, including that of a swim pacemaker.

Box jellyfish show surprising ability to learn without a brain - Advanced Science News

Learning from experience was believed to be restricted to more advanced creatures, but in a first, Caribbean jellyfish were shown to learn from past mistakes.

www.advancedsciencenews.com

Box jellyfish have both a brain and a nervous system.

 

[Into the Night]

I just said - and backed with peer reviewed studies, that we DON'T know that the universe is expanding and that there is skepticism in the scientific community.

If the universe is expanding, then you must be able to observe the boundaries of the universe. How are you doing this? The universe has no known boundaries.

So what's expanding?

Observations are mathematical.

Mathematics is not an observation. Redefinition fallacy.

The behaviour of objects in reference to photonic evidence

WTF is "photonic evidence"????

can be explained by the objects moving away from a central location - hence the idea of a "big bang."

Oh...you mean the doppler affect from nearby stars. Well, what about the stars we cannot see?

But that is no the only explanation for the discrepancy

What "discrepancy"?

- distortion caused by curvature - roughly like a fisheye lens view, also explains this - and in fact better explains it.

So a different religion. Gotit.

 

[Into the Night]

Absolutely. There is NO evidence for any gods. We agree on that.

There certainly is. The Bible, nature around us, even the stars in the sky we see at night.

There also is no evidence that there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 20 stars to Sol.

So you consider the small amount of scanning done in the tiny dust speck consisting of the nearest 20 stars. Argument of ignorance fallacy.

I am sure we can agree on that also.



I think it is absurd to blindly guess (believe, suppose, think, assume, presume) that at least one exists.

You are blindly guessing now.

We agree there also.



I have no idea of what that was all about.



The default should be we do not know if any gods exist or not. We do not know the mechanics of how this thing we humans call "the universe" came into being.

Did it come into being? Perhaps it's been here all along and has no beginning and no end.

YOUR actual default has nothing to do with what you are suggesting in the above sentence. YOUR actual default is, "There are no gods."

Are there any sentient beings that exist on any planet circling the nearest 20 stars to Sol?

Unknown.

"I do not know" makes a hell of a lot more sense than "We have no evidence that any do...therefore there are no sentient beings existing on any of those planets."

Correct.

 

[Into the Night]

The universe has been experimentally determined to be geometrically flat

Three dimensions is not 'flat', Sybil.

(no positive or negative curvature) out to the observable cosmic horizon, within the limits of experimental precision.

What horizon?

In theory, any positive or negative curvature to the fabric of the universe would only be noticeable in the larger universe beyond our cosmic horizon and beyond observation.

What boundary?

The only substantial curvature of space at cosmic scales comes locally from gravitational lensing, but that is well understood and can be mitigated for in cosmic experimental measurement.

What measurement?

 

[Into the Night]

I think we differ in one important area....you treat the odds of existence/non-existence of a god equally. I don't any more than I treat the odds of existence/ non-existence of leprechauns as equal.

They aren't both equal guesses. There is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

Yes there is. I have already listed some of it. There is also evidence of the existence of leprechauns.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know why bible thumpers are so keen to disprove the Big Bang.

It is not possible to disprove the Big Bang, nor to prove the Big Bang, Sybil. It is a religion.

The Big Bang theory implies a moment of creation, that metaphysically sorta reflects the Book of Genesis.

Genesis does not describe anything remotely like the Big Bang. They are different religions.

Until the 1960s, most scientists did not want to accept a Big Bang,

The Theory of the Big Bang is not science.

because their preferred metaphysical assumption was that the universe was static and infinitely old.

If something has been here forever, age has no meaning.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes there is. I have already listed some of it. There is also evidence of the existence of leprechauns.

Nothing you listed is reason to believe in God any more than me saying "My front door wasn't locked because leprechauns unlocked it".

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing you listed is reason to believe in God any more than me saying "My front door wasn't locked because leprechauns unlocked it".

Evidence is not a proof, Void. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think we differ in one important area....you treat the odds of existence/non-existence of a god equally. I don't any more than I treat the odds of existence/ non-existence of leprechauns as equal.

If you want to discuss the existence/non-existence of leprechauns...start a thread on that subject. I guarantee there will be participants...including me. I have defined what I mean by "a god"...and I would expect you to define what you mean by "a leprechaun." It will not be as clear-cut as you seem to suppose.

They aren't both equal guesses. There is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

There also is no evidence that this thing we humans call "the universe" was not created by a god entity.

BOTTOM LINE: If you are saying that the odds of existence/non-existence favor the side of non-existence...SHOW ME YOUR MATH. You are suggesting there is a mathematical solution to the problem...a probability equation. SHOW ME YOUR MATH...and we can discuss it.

It is my contention that one cannot (at this moment) determine if any gods exist...or if the existence of gods is more or less likely than the non-existence of gods using science, logic, reason, or math.

 

[ZenMode]

If you want to discuss the existence/non-existence of leprechauns...start a thread on that subject. I guarantee there will be participants...including me. I have defined what I mean by "a god"...and I would expect you to define what you mean by "a leprechaun." It will not be as clear-cut as you seem to suppose.




There also is no evidence that this thing we humans call "the universe" was not created by a god entity.

BOTTOM LINE: If you are saying that the odds of existence/non-existence favor the side of non-existence...SHOW ME YOUR MATH. You are suggesting there is a mathematical solution to the problem...a probability equation. SHOW ME YOUR MATH...and we can discuss it.

It is my contention that one cannot (at this moment) determine if any gods exist...or if the existence of gods is more or less likely than the non-existence of gods using science, logic, reason, or math.

How do you show math for a lack of evidence? Other than man-written books, which we have for Santa Claus and leprechauns, what reason is there to believe gods exist?

If you’re talking about something like life on other planets, you can point to our planet and say “It already happened once, so we know it could possibly happen again.”

 

[ZenMode]

Evidence is not a proof, Void. Redefinition fallacy.

There's no evidence to support the existence of gods. Things happen like the universe existing and Trump being alive because he turned his head. Just because people want to attribute those things to gods doesn't make them evidence for their existence.

 

[Ross Dolan]

How do you show math for a lack of evidence?

One cannot.

Other than man-written books, which we have for Santa Claus and leprechauns, what reason is there to believe gods exist?

None whatever.

What does that have to do with you blindly guessing there are none?

If you’re talking about something like life on other planets, you can point to our planet and say “It already happened once, so we know it could possibly happen again.”

But the question is not "IS IT POSSIBLE THERE IS LIFE ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS?" Of course it is possible.

The question is, "IS THERE LIFE ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS?"

The only reason you are having so much trouble with this "god" issue, Zen...is because you, like the many theists with whom I discuss this, HAVE ALREADY MADE A BLIND GUESS ON THE ISSUE...AND YOU JUST WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR BLIND GUESS MAY BE WRONG. (Or, like the theists, will not acknowledge that it may be wrong without qualifying in an illogical way, that your blind guess is much more likely than the opposite blind guess.)

It is silly. You are too intelligent not to see that it is silly.

We do not know if any gods exist...and there is no way (at this time/maybe never) to be able to determine if there are any or if there are none. We also are not able (logically, scientifically, or mathematically) to determine which is more likely to be the case.

It really is easy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The universe has been experimentally determined to be geometrically flat (no positive or negative curvature) out to the observable cosmic horizon, within the limits of experimental precision.

In theory, any positive or negative curvature to the fabric of the universe would only be noticeable in the larger universe beyond our cosmic horizon and beyond observation.

The only substantial curvature of space at cosmic scales comes locally from gravitational lensing, but that is well understood and can be mitigated for in cosmic experimental measurement.

This is why I linked the source paper, so that you could learn that what you claim and think is not necessarily correct.

 

[Cypress]

This is why I linked the source paper, so that you could learn that what you claim and think is not necessarily correct.

I asked you to explain it in your own words, and the way you explained it doesn't make sense, because the observable universe has been experimentally determined to be flat geometrically.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the universe is expanding, then you must be able to observe the boundaries of the universe. How are you doing this? The universe has no known boundaries.

Again, you are not arguing against what I've stated.

Straw man fallacy.

So what's expanding?

Straw man Fallacy.

Mathematics is not an observation. Redefinition fallacy.

What an ignorant statement.

Cosmological observations are mostly based on mathematics.

WTF is "photonic evidence"????

Light - the behavior of light as it travels the cosmos. This is our time machine, it allows us to see into the past.

Oh...you mean the doppler affect from nearby stars. Well, what about the stars we cannot see?

What about them?

What "discrepancy"?


So a different religion. Gotit.

What religion?

As with everyone who went to college in the 1970's I have accepted the Big Bang as the explanation for the behavior we observe through mathematics of our Universe.

Now we have new evidence and new theories. That's how science works. Those who refuse to entertain new ideas are dogmatic and hence religious.