/sci/ - Science & Math

The reason physicists sound absurd, is they have been trying to find a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event.

It appears as if nothing exploded into everything.
Since they don't want to admit the only way this is possible is if God has done it. i.e. supernatural intervention.
They have tried to explain it away with what I could only call "handwaving" telling us we are just too ignorant to see how everything came from nothing.

The sad part is I think they have managed to convince themselves of their own nonsense, and others along with them.

Hawking has said "spontaneous creation" is why the universe is here. see A Grand Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
Abiogenesis says "spontaneous origination" is why life is here. see A Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

Reminds me of another supposed spontaneous happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The bible has said in Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

i.e. It's obvious that God did it, if you deny that fine, but you are "without excuse".

>>6398248
I have been trying to stay out of this, but considering no one else has said anything, I will give you some of my thoughts on the topic.

>an effect can not be itself's cause.
This is most assuredly true. i.e. Causality

>the universe is exploding and imploding again and again and again

As it turns out the universe is expanding, and speeding up in its expansion, as such most now contend there will be no big crunch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Although there is not enough evidence to completely disprove the notion, as you have said there is still a need for a cause.

As a Christian I have no problem with causality.
God is the uncaused first cause.
God is eternal. Having always been in existence, He has no need of a cause.
God has created the entire universe, and time along with it. He must therefore exist outside of time, and as such is unaffected by causality.

Another explanation I have heard is that that God exists in more than one dimension of time.
Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect.
However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction.
A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

I have no problem with the universe exploding into existence from "apparently nothing" i.e. The Big Bang.
I have a logical reason to believe this could occur. God did it. The bible has said this for ages. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I find it much more logical to say God made something come from nothing, than it is to say no one made something from nothing.
It would also seem more logical than natural law (Gravity) has created something from nothing, as natural law cannot create anything.
The universe has not came from nothing, but from God.

>>6398518
Yes
Belief plays a role in health.
See the placebo effect
also
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128271.700-heal-thyself-think-positive.html

The bible of course agrees.

Proverbs 17:22
"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones."

>>6398072
>then can't we accelerate particles to the speed of light?

http://phys.org/news12084.html

One hundred years of testing have only reinforced what Einstein wrote, said Donald Schneider, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State.
"There is no experiment that has contradicted special relativity.
We have accelerated sub-atomic particles to well over 99 per cent of the speed of light, but not equal to or exceeding the speed of light.


>but not equal to or exceeding the speed of light.

It would appear we cannot.

>>6398087
>Well said. I like you, but may I go off topic and ask if the "way" your name refers to is taoism or buddhism?

Neither.
I have chosen it because of the bible verse John 14:6.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hence the trip Yeshua, as it is the ancient Aramaic version of the name Jesus.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus


>>6398105
I was about to keep going too, but I'm really not talking to myself here. I promise.
I have not posted with out my trip since I started using it. I use it on all boards that allow it.

>>6398119
>defend the word god
>the word of god

I'm glad to see we are in agreement that the bible is the word of God.

>>6398035
Sorry.
You are absolutely correct. I was just too lazy to find an accurate pic.

>>6398051
I would remind you that a tree is something.
The fact that apples come from trees, is not the reason I can't give you an apple.
The reason is I have none to give.

>All apples come from zero apples, because apples come from a tree, not an apple.
And where do apple trees come from?
Apple seeds
And where do apple seeds come from?
Apples
It would appear that apples do come from apples. (nb4 circular reasoning)

>things that are verified through direct application are impossible
My example was direct application, and it is still impossible for me to give you something I do not have to give.

>>6397963

I can agree in that he seems to be discrediting himself, and others along with him.

Nothing isn't nothing anymore man.
Sounds like something a stoner would say.
It reminds me of (pic related)
Hawking does the same.
Dawkins as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA


They were way better off saying we don't know, but we're working on it.
To come out and say Ah Ha nothing has created everything, makes them sound absurd.

Whats funny is seeing people try to defend such nonsense.
Like this guy >>6398009
>Mathematical reasoning demonstrates that something can come from an operation applied to nothing.

Perhaps you have missed my post in the other thread>>6397891
Just because you can have a negative in mathematics does not mean you can have it in reality.
If I have 0 apples I cannot give you one and be left with -1. It don't work like that in the real world.

Just because it looks good on paper does not mean it can happen in the real world.

Believe what ever you like. But rest assured something does not come from nothing. It don't, it won't, and it can't.

>>6397916
I don't care to argue the point further.
I will agree to disagree.

>>6397903
This notion is in disagreement with general relativity.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_condition
"In relativistic classical field theories of gravitation, particularly general relativity, an energy condition is one of various alternative conditions which can be applied to the matter content of the theory, when it is either not possible or desirable to specify this content explicitly."


You know the ones that "negative energy" is in violation of, as seen above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy


As previously demonstrated negative numbers are quite common in math.
In math you can HAVE -1
In reality you can only owe 1 you cannot have -1 as seen in my example.
>If I have 0 apples I cannot give you one and be left with -1.

>>6397861
Second this.

I disagree of course, but it is the best answer if the if is true.

Perhaps they can rewrite the law of conservation of energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can be snatched out of thin air.

>>6397869
> total energy of the universe is still 0
Tell it to the power company. They keep charging me for something that does not exist.

> you are separating positive energy and negative energy
How is this done?
I bet no one knows.
Also what is negative energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
In theoretical physics, negative mass is a hypothetical concept of matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −2 kg. Such matter would violate one or more energy conditions and show some strange properties, stemming from the ambiguity as to whether attraction should refer to force or the oppositely oriented acceleration for negative mass.
>hypothetical
>violate one or more energy conditions

I thought you guys liked science.
Whats whit this hypothetical nonsense that violates what we know to be true?

>but im not sure if that is possible.
I can agree with that.

Just because you can have a negative in mathematics does not mean you can have it in reality.
If I have 0 apples I cannot give you one and be left with -1. It don't work like that in the real world.

>>6397706
I would also have a few questions for you.

>There is nothing right now but its split into something and anti something: 1 + (-1) = 0.
>There is nothing right now
Oh but there is.
>but its split into something and anti something
Oh yeah I forgot about that part.
How do you split up nothing?
Also would you care to tell me just what is Anti-something?
Sounds as if you are trying to divide by zero if you ask me.

>>6397625
Yes.
"If" nothing created something then 0=1.

That is a very big "IF" if you ask me.
PS
It is impossible.

>>6397706
>There is nothing right now but its split into something and anti something: 1 + (-1) = 0.
>anti something
There is no such a thing as "anti-something". There is such a thing as antimatter. However it is still "something"

Think of it like this.

Something (For sure there is a thing) is positive.
Maybe(Certainty of the thing is unknown) is neutral.
Nothing (For sure there is no thing)is the negative.
Something is the opposite of nothing. Nothing is not the neutral between something, and anti-something.
Anti-something as you have use it(perhaps even made it up) means the same as nothing.


Believing that such absurdities causes one to make absurd statements, such as seen with the case of Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." - A Grand Design

Not only does the first sentence contradict its self in multiple ways, the writers have stated that "Spontaneous creation" has happened.

The cause of which is "because there is a law"
As if laws create. Just as doing math does not create money. Likewise having gravity does not cause matter to be.
Utter nonsense if you ask me.
>It is not necessary to invoke God.
Perhaps not, all that is required is that you believe in an impossibility.
Or be satisfied to "not know" how it happened.
Zero does not equal one.That is the mathematical reasoning behind the notion that something cannot come from nothing.
It is one of the many reasons I now believe in God.
Thanks Hawking for giving me yet another good reason to justify my belief, and thanks for demonstrating the great lengths people are willing to go through to discredit the notion of God.

Nope.

Perhaps it would be better said.
Not unless Einstein was wrong about a few things.

In order to stop time you will have to be traveling at the speed of light.
That notion is thought to be impossible, as it would likely take infinite energy.

Perhaps it would be best said.
Not with our current level of understanding.

Sorry I did not mean to reply to anyone.

I was trying to get the quick reply box up, and forgot to delete the post number.

>>6396176
This article explains the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.
Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation.
A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.
Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.
One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law.
Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.
One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.


For some examples check the article.

>>6392975
I realize this is not >>>/lit/ , but I would recommend the book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/880080.The_Power_of_Logical_Thinking

In it Marilyn discusses some of the ways people are bad at math, and how that might affect them.

The thing about probability is, as you have stated, after the fact does not count.

In the book she uses the example of a meter reader who notices a reading that is his phone number.
While it does seem odd that such an occurrence has happened. It was something that was noticed.
You noticing something that has some relation to something else in your life happens all the time.

It would have been completely different if he had said before he left for work.
I'll bet one of these meters will have my phone number in its readings.
Then it would have been astronomical odds.

It is easy to forget that there is a difference.

PS I'm about 90% sure that was the book I had read. It was definitely that author.

>>6396252
"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein.

I do post on other boards, however I also have an interest in science.
Science was founded by religious people. To suggest they have no place in it is absurd.

Sorry for the delayed response.(pic related)
Did anyone miss me?

I'm not angry about the ban. I was defending religion.
Besides that my inability to post here, led me to start a thread in /mu/.
As a result I have a whole bunch of new music to check out.
However I would like to point out a few things.
My posts are not threads in themselves. "Religion vs. science THREADS are not allowed." (If defending religion is the rule, perhaps it should be rewritten.)
It seems to be perfectly fine for you guys to bash religion, but not alright for me to defend it.
(The thread is about Dawkins, whose sole purpose in life is to attack religion)
I have never pitted religion against science. I contend science confirms the bible. (Surely one theory does not count as the entirety of science.)
The only "science" I oppose is the notion of a common ancestor, and the notion that life can just "arise". (The former being assumed, and the latter being in opposition to known science law.)

I would remind you. "Beware the sound of one hand clapping."
If you wont allow opposing views. The discussion turns into a circle jerk, or dies out.

>>6393983
>It would appear that the Mods allow it.
I stand corrected.

>>6394133
>binomial choice

Life has created its self.
God has created life.
One is true the other is a lie. This is literally the only two options. They are not opposites.

>>6394305
>>6395219
>Last edited: March 28, 1996. Version 1.02.

I suppose we should take into account the recent decline in atheism.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/3/20050303-115733-9519r/?page=all

>>6394313
>>6394339
My point was never that I'm smarter, or that religious people are smarter. I do not believe that.
My point was Christians are not necessarily ignorant.

>>6394436
We have free will. God has not "programed" us.
I do not care to argue about it. Believe it, or don't.

>>6394215
>I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite" >>6394027
Should have been
I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite>>6394004

My mistake.

>>6394133
>you either sleep or are awake, there are not more than two choices

Or dead, or in a coma, or in a hypnotic state, or in a meditative state, or in cryogenic stasis.


>You can not argue your point because you have already admitted that you are not using a valid definition of corruption that can be defended.

When was it that I admitted this?

I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite" >>6394027
>lying is not a corruption of truth it is the opposite of truth

I was willing to drop my argument because I do not see it as having been refuted.

If you think that it has. Fine.
If others think that it has. That is fine as well.

You guys are all free to believe what ever you like. In my opinion lies are a corruption of the truth. I stand by that statement.

>>6394199
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Speaking of too dumb. Perhaps you missed this. http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html

Of those willing to say. 49% of Mensa members are Christian.
Are they likewise too dumb to understand the truth?

Now if you will excuse me(or even if you wont) I must get going.

You guys have a nice thread.

>>6392297
Hey guy are you still around.
I have an example concerning "crazy mental gymnastics" for you.
Check out this guys logic >>6394056

Seems to me an attempt to justify his belief.

>>6394056
What ever you have to tell yourself to believe your own nonsense.

> they are not diametrically opposed

Yet your previous examples were >>6394033
Why is that?

Obviously the truth has an opposite validity from a lie.
That was never my point.

Anyways I do not care to argue my point. It should be clearly seen. Believe what ever you like.

We are way off topic anyway.
Perhaps a new video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0

>>6394083
>The key point is that we draw this conclusion from repeated observations.
When have we observed life arising?

Anyways I seem to be causing the thread to get derailed.

So do not expect anymore replies from me.

You guys have a nice thread.

>>6394033
I never said
"sleeping is a corruption of being awake.
Vacation is a corruption of work.
Silence is a corruption of sound.
Up is a corruption of down."

You have said that.

I said lies are a corruption of the truth.

A lie is not necessarily the opposite of the truth.

1+1=2 Truth
1+1=5 Lie
Clearly 5 is not the opposite of 2

The earth is a sphere Truth
The earth is a cube Lie
Is a cube the opposite of a sphere?

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding this concept.

>>6393999
Here is a an observed fact for you.
All that has ever been observed, or demonstrated is life comes from life.

The evolutionist conclusion. Life must have created its self.

If your pic was accurate this conclusion could not have been made.

>>6394004
I completely disagree in that I see lying as a corruption of the truth.
I have no other way to describe it. Believe it or don't. I'm not going to argue the point.

>been by controlled knowledge
Controlled is not the same as free

>>6394007
>He acts on earth and influences man to carry His plan
>influences
Influencing is not the same as controlling.
Did God assume control of these people like they were some sort of puppet?

Let me give you an example.

Suppose someone is about to jump off of a bridge.
Along comes someone and talks them out of it.
Did the "jumper" willfully change his mind?
Clearly it is not the same as if someone just snatched him away from the ledge kicking and screaming.

Likewise God has influenced people, but ultimately the decision was theirs.

>>6393999
A more accurate representation is (pic related)