Energy cannot be created. Then where did it all come from?

[bhobba]

Thanks for the reply. I am not offended, but what I am saying is that if there is something science can not explain, then why try to explain it with science. If there is both theology, and science in the world, then why just go off science and not consider theology?

In science one has hypothesis. If you explain those hypothesis it is always by others. There is always, and always will be things science can't explain by the very nature of science. So seeking ultimate answers in science is a chimera. Some find consolation in religion because of that - and I have no issue with it - two very good friends of my youth became Jesuit priests and I am only too well aware of their heart felt personal relation with God.

If you want to consider theology - be my guest - but here we discuss science so another forum would be more appropriate.

Still, since you are interested in such things you may wish to become acquainted with the deepest revelation of modern physics, and incorporate it in your world view:
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/25/14256.full

Its why I personally believe in the God of Spinoza.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Chronos]

Scientists prefer causal explanations over supernatural ones. A scientific model has more utility than an undefined set of magical rules. Science attempts to impose order on the universe in terms of rules with predictable consequences. God is not bound by rules, hence not a proper subject of investigation by science.

 

[cgreeley]

Thank you for the reply. Thats awesome! Glad to hear, I don't mean to argue or push too much, but I'm still not sure why scientists can't consider that which is outside of science to be the explanation of derivative science, and why hypothesis can't be based off of the premise that God, or something outside of science exists. I suppose my question is, if there is something outside of science that science can not explain, God or not, why ignore it, and explain that which is not explained by science with science, without making the determination as to weather or not something like the big bang can be explained by science? Why does science not take into consideration that which is not science? Or more simply, can science explain the big bang, does it, and are there other agents? For example, I could say there are just quantum fields, but that would be unscientific for me to assert that quantum fields can just exist.

 

[Pebri]

Why is God not even considered? It is a bit closed minded to leave Him out totally. I don't see a reason it could not be God, and every reason for it to be God. Not to be a Christian trolling, just saying, there is no reason to exclude Him from academic and intelligent discussion. If God exists (which I believe He does), and we dance around Him, then we may get possibilities, and may never get an answer, or the truth. So why can't God, who is omnipotent create the universe. Why can't there be a super nature (supernatural) outside the universe instead of nothing? It does not mean it is, or contains God, it could contain "supernatural" particles, abstract objects, or things that can not exist in the natural world, supernatural does not have to have its normal connotations. Furthermore, why can't it be possible for that nature in itself to have a consciousness, like taking a derivative (except in the opposite direction, but not an integral since data would be added) of nature, and yielding a nature with consciousness (which does not have to be the case), if it does why is that not God, or why can it not contain God? Just saying, why do we not consider these things and exclude them simply discrediting people who believe in a God without giving them proper consideration. We can come up with scientific theories of how it could work, but it does not mean it is the truth (it does not mean they aren't either). If by nature we can't understand the creation of the universe, and we can not understand God, don't these two things fall into the same category of thought at times, and deserve consideration? I understand the majority of physics people are atheists and agnostics, but I don't see why a deity, or a super nature can not be considered.I don't mean to troll, I am just wondering why physisits can not consider a super - nature, or a God.

Greetings cgreeley,

I understand your point of view and have long wondered why the scientific academics can't see what we see.

There is Physics, we know that well, but there is also Metaphysics, that is, that which is above physics.

I abhor religion as religion is just the rantings of those who don't really know but pretend they do for their own devious purposes.

I seek the truth and I believe the better physicists will eventually discern it and acknowledge the validity of what you say.

 

[bhobba]

Thank you for the reply. Thats awesome! Glad to hear, I don't mean to argue or push too much, but I'm still not sure why scientists can't consider that which is outside of science to be the explanation of derivative science, and why hypothesis can't be based off of the premise that God, or something outside of science exists.

They can.

The issue is does it have testable predictions. If not then its not really science.

Like I said before no one has been able to figure out how to test it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Thank you both. I am just not sure if such things can be tested, at some point I think we have to go off of not knowing (as a Catholic who belies in an active God, I think it was God), and just test what we can, personally I am in doubt we can comprehend our universe, never the less what is outside it.

 

[bhobba]

can science explain the big bang, does it, and are there other agents? For example, I could say there are just quantum fields, but that would be unscientific for me to assert that quantum fields can just exist.

That assertion is not unscientific.

And we have explanations for the big bang and in principle they are testable - in fact measurements of the CBMR are now testing the inflation model.

God however is another matter. If you don't agree describe, definitively, how you would test for the existence of God?

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

I don't know if you can. Because God is outside of our understanding, and outside the universe, and supernatural, it very well be impossible to test especially with naturalistic tools and methods of thought, all we know is what He tells us, and all we can do is reason with what He tells us. If you prefer the Christian God, He also comes right out and commands that we shall not test Him, so He very well may make it impossible even if we found a way. To comment on the quantum field, even if scientist are able to replicate one, it does not mean it is the explination, for example, I can use the laws of physics to describe an event, or an event that lead to another event, and using the laws of physics I can replicate my theory, but it does not mean it is the truth. Similar to how I can write a computer program to do something using the laws of programming, but it does not mean it described a historical event, such as how a file got on my computer, it just means it is a possible explanation. I could find evidence that it is a historical event, but that does not mean it is either, for example, if I saw a note on a table, theorized it was my friend who left it there, saw them walking away, and thought it was them when it was actually someone else, my explanation seems logical, but is not the truth. Just because we find a method to make a universe with what we have in our universe, does not mean there were external factors in the initial creation of our universe. Like I said again, my point did not have to be God, though I think it was.

 

[bhobba]

I don't know if you can. Because God is outside of our understanding, and outside universe, and supernatural, it very well be impossible to test especially with naturalistic tools and methods of thought, all we know is what He tells us, and all we can do is reason with what He tells us.

That's why its not science.

But I do know for a fact some people have a very personal relationship with God, and we all, believers, non believers, people like Hawking and Dawkings, everyone, needs to be respectful of that.

That all knowledge is provisional, and we must respect others views because they may indeed be correct, is one of the deepest and most profound lessons of science.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

That's why its not science.

But I do know for a fact some people have a very personal relationship with God, and we all, believers, non believers, people like Hawking and Dawkings, everyone, needs to be respectful of that.

That all knowledge is provisional, and we must respect others views because they may indeed be correct, is one of the deepest and most profound lessons of science.

Thanks
Bill

I am glad you see it that way :)

Its true, I am just saying, if non - science happened, or it is not outside the realm of possibility to theorize that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

 

[bhobba]

I am glad you see it that way :)
Its true, I am just saying, if non - science happened, or it is logical the theorized that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

Its a bit tautological. To cut it scientists usually just consider what the scientific method dictates.

Its why I get a chuckle about this evolution taught in schools thing and the too and fro about the issue. If either side was being 'scientific' they would show a bit more tolerence and have classes in evolution talk about why some believe in the hand of god and have religious instruction classes discuss its relation to what science tells us. But its pretty obvious there is more at work than mere education about the issue.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Its a bit tautological. To cut it scientists usually just consider what the scientific method dictates.

Its why I get a chuckle about this evolution taught in schools thing and the too and fro about the issue. If either side was being 'scientific' they would show a bit more tolerence and have classes in evolution talk about why some believe in the hand of god and have religious instruction classes discuss its relation to what science tells us. But its pretty obvious there is more at work than mere education about the issue.

Thanks
Bill

I guess that is where we differ. I agree with you on evolution in the classrooms. Thanks for putting up with my non - physicistness (well first year student) :p :-)

 

[Chronos]

You are failing to see the line that divides science from superstition.

 

[PeterDonis]

if non - science happened, or it is not outside the realm of possibility to theorize that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

It's not really a question of "taking it into account"; it's a question of what science can address vs. what it can't address. As bhobba said, science can only address questions that can be tested by experiment. It's perfectly possible that there are "real" things that can't be tested by experiment; if so, science cannot address those things. But "cannot address" means "cannot address"; there's no way to build such things into a scientific theory, because a scientific theory has to be testable by experiment. So there's no way for science to take into account things that cannot be tested by experiment. Individual scientists can, of course, in their personal beliefs; but science, as a field of study, cannot.

 

[russ_watters]

...if there is something science can not explain, then why try to explain it with science.

Because scientists don't know they can't explain it with science until they've exhausted all possible areas of investigation -- which is to say, they will never reach the point of having investigated and ruled out everything. And history is littered with examples of phenomena that were chalked up to religion or magic until science found the answers.

If there is both theology, and science in the world, then why just go off science and not consider theology?

Because scientists don't study theology and even if they did it wouldn't have any value for them in their investigations. So they leave that to the theologians. But again, when theologians have thought they knew something that science didn't, they've almost always been wrong (and science isn't finished yet...).

 

[Drakkith]

Why is God not even considered?

Which god? And how would we decide which god is the real explanation instead of another god?

 

[Chronos]

It's not about god, it's about science. We cannot experiment on god, so the point is moot. I have no objection to god, i kinda like the guy. But, that does not force god to submit to science.

 

[Ken G]

Still, since you are interested in such things you may wish to become acquainted with the deepest revelation of modern physics, and incorporate it in your world view:
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/25/14256.full

That's a pretty interesting article, thanks for posting it. I think one especially important point is whether we should regard the symmetry as what Gross calls the input ("beauty in") and the broken symmetries the output ("garbage out"), or the opposite. If I had to guess, I'd say that neither is right, because we might take a lesson from all the dualities we are encountering to imagine that when a symmetry at one energy scale is associated with the breaking of that symmetry at the opposite energy scale, we may find that symmetries and their breaking are dual to each other. By that I mean, a symmetry that is completely broken everywhere is indeed garbage, and a symmetry that is completely preserved everywhere is boring and ignorable, so physics rests in the duality between a symmetry and the ways it breaks. In other words, neither is beautiful or garbage, the beauty of a symmetry is that it is sometimes broken, but not always. Does that help us see why symmetries crop up so much lately? Possibly it is just the current way we are looking at things, I see it as a great advance but still not the final perspective-- especially since I doubt there is any final perspective. We might just be saying that at present, we are noticing that the laws of physics can be fruitfully regarded as a study of all the near symmetries, and all the ways they are constrained to break, which together condition reality to be not just an anarchy of randomness, but also not a lock-step march of endless repetition of nothing interesting, neither of which would allow the richness of us being here studying it.

 

[phyti]

The issue involves how science works, which has already been introduced. Science uses measurement for validation of theories.
In the case of something from nothing (before the big bang singularity, or any simiilar theory), there is literally nothing to measure. This is therefore outside the realm of science. Imagine asking science to determine how much love will a liter hold.

 

[Garth]

Why is God not even considered?

I understand the majority of physics people are atheists and agnostics, but I don't see why a deity, or a super nature can not be considered.I don't mean to troll, I am just wondering why physisits can not consider a super - nature, or a God.

If you have a phenomenon in science that you cannot explain and you are a religious person then you might say, "There is no scientific explanation because 'God did it.'"

The problem is that this is both bad science and bad theology.

It is bad science because you then give up seeking a scientific reason for the phenomena and if everybody took this view scientific progress would be halted.

It is bad theology because as soon as somebody else finds a scientific explanation for that phenomena it seems that your god has diminished, or even disappeared.
This 'god-of-the-gaps' (the god used to 'fill in' the gaps in scientific knowledge) is always in retreat from the advance of science. [Note I personally believe in the God of science, the author and guarantor of the laws of science, rather than the god of the gaps in science.]

Garth

 

[Drakkith]

I think I'm going to close this thread. The topic has been pretty well discussed, and unfortunately the thread is attracting crackpots and we've had to delete some posts.