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

[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.