The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

Hume said:
"1) a. What caused the Big Bang to happen? How exactly does matter and energy spring into existence from nothing?"

Presumption it was caused.
Click to expand...
No one has really explained how you get rational organization and mathmatical precision out of randomness and nothingness. That's the 64 thousand dollar question
 
Cypress said:
No one has really explained how you get rational organization and mathmatical precision out of randomness and nothingness. That's the 64 thousand dollar wirstu6
Click to expand...

I agree 10000000% It IS the $64,000 wirstu6. I could not agree more.
 
Cypress said:
We don't have to explain anything.
Click to expand...

Correct. Like your own position. If you understood it you could explain it.

Probably 98 percent of people don't give a crap about dark energy
Click to expand...

Throwin' in "dark energy" so he can sound erudite some more. Not sure why he didn't go for "quantum fields". But any buzzword that serves the purpose.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think the scientists of an atheist disposition ignore fine tuning. They just can't deal with metaphysics, and attempt to come up with a material explanation. Some of them think the mathmatical constants are not actually constant - they take different values in different parts of the universe or multiverse - and we just happen to live in the part where the mathmatical properties are just right to support complex matter and life.

I always had a vague impression this was an ad hoc solution that was really just sweeping fine tuning under the rug.
Click to expand...
That's precisely what it is.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Ummm, actually NO ONE can. You just imagine you are seeing design because you see complexity. Complexity can and does arise in natural non-living systems all the time.



QED. You think chemistry is random. Your statement here says so. It isn't.




And saying "God did it" is a "real" answer???
Click to expand...
Im "imagining " what I'm seeing? Don't believe my lying eyes huh? I think you're a perfect example of what Cypress was talking about.
 
Yakuda said:
Im "imagining " what I'm seeing? Don't believe my lying eyes huh? I think you're a perfect example of what Cypress was talking about.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that NO ONE can determine design in nature unless one can have a comparative version of that thing which was designed.

What you are probably ACTUALLY seeing is the complexity that develops over millions upon millions of years of change and optimization.

If there's a "designer" he/she/it seems to be of limited competence on some things. There cases where biological systems are suboptimal.

But that's the whole point: you can't really differentiate between a "designed" platypus and one that developed over millions of years of evolution.

This is where the whole "chemistry is not wholly random" bit comes in.
 
Obtenebrator said:
No, I'm saying that NO ONE can determine design in nature unless one can have a comparative version of that thing which was designed.

What you are probably ACTUALLY seeing is the complexity that develops over millions upon millions of years of change and optimization.

If there's a "designer" he/she/it seems to be of limited competence on some things. There cases where biological systems are suboptimal.

But that's the whole point: you can't really differentiate between a "designed" platypus and one that developed over millions of years of evolution.

This is where the whole "chemistry is not wholly random" bit comes in.
Click to expand...
If I never saw a watch but found one on the street id be an idiot to think all the pieces just fell into place by chance to make the watch. This is like the multiverse theory a poor attempt to explain away inconvenient facts.
 
Yakuda said:
If I never saw a watch but found one on the street id be an idiot to think all the pieces just fell into place by chance to make the watch. This is like the multiverse theory a poor attempt to explain away inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...

That's because you know how a watch is put together.

Take a look at the development of the eye as an example.

pjimage+%286%29.jpg


complexEyes.jpg


This happened over hundreds of millions if not nearly a billion years and it makes very good sense. It is how something complex like a human eye can arise from simple structures over time.
 
Obtenebrator said:
That's because you know how a watch is put together.

Take a look at the development of the eye as an example.

pjimage+%286%29.jpg


complexEyes.jpg


This happened over hundreds of millions if not nearly a billion years and it makes very good sense. It is how something complex like a human eye can arise from simple structures over time.
Click to expand...
Right and it wasnt random or chance. You don't need to judge against anything else.
 
Yakuda said:
Right and it wasnt random or chance. You don't need to judge against anything else.
Click to expand...

If I show you a step-by-step illustration of the development of a complex system that forms naturally I would think that would give one pause.
 
Yakuda said:
Attaching the word "naturally" is meaningless but show me.
Click to expand...

The eyes I showed you are one example. The simple to the complex. Are you of the opinion that God designed many different eyes over the space of millions of years? Why design all the eyes at one time? Why does it LOOK for all the world like a steady evolution?
 
Obtenebrator said:
The eyes I showed you are one example. The simple to the complex. Are you of the opinion that God designed many different eyes over the space of millions of years? Why design all the eyes at one time? Why does it LOOK for all the world like a steady evolution?
Click to expand...
Oh I see you in think evolution means God didnt create it. Eyes dont create themselves do they?
 
Yakuda said:
Oh I see you in think evolution means God didnt create it. Eyes dont create themselves do they?
Click to expand...

If one is going by Genesis then God couldn't have created the other eyes, just the first one because Genesis is quite clear that creation happened once not multiple times over millions of years.

BUT, that being said, just "generally" suggesting "God created it" is unnecessary to explain it. So why hypothesize it? You have no evidence for it other than your fascination with the "complexity" but as noted earlier complexity can and does arise spontaneously in a system like this without the need of some intervention.

So why hypothesize "God" if that hypothesis is not needed to explain the data?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top