• Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    a year ago

    Green elephants are not a requirement for our existence.

    The beginning of space and time are.

    For that something outside of space-time must exist that created space-time.

    Unless you are denying that we exist I am asking you to present another possible way that our universe has been created. Because according to thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    Yet our universe does seem to contain energy so where did the energy come from? If you say energy can come out of nothing you’re disagreeing with everything we know about physics.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        a year ago

        Disagreeing with our current understanding of physics is certainly a take.

        Do call me when you figure out how to create energy out of nothing. It sounds like you almost figured it out.

        • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          a year ago

          Disagreeing with our current understanding of physics is certainly a take.

          i’m not disagreeing, i’m reiterating that scientific knowledge changes according to evidence. unlike other belief systems, like religion. i’m agnostic, i believe that we can’t know for sure god exists with our current knowledge of reality, but i also believe if god existed he would talk to everyone the same, and he hasn’t spoken to me yet, so organized religion is bullshit, in my humble opinion.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            a year ago

            Scientific knowledge does indeed change according to evidence. The existence of the universe ironically breaks our entire scientific understanding of it.

            As for your second point, there are books which claim to contain the word of God which you can read. Why would God personally need to converse with every human born each 0.2 seconds? 8 billion people at the same time on the God hotline? Do the laws of a country also not apply unless the president personally tells everyone about them?

            From one of the books:

            Those who do not know say, ‘If only God would speak to us, or a sign would come to us.’ Thus said those who were before them. Their hearts are alike. We have made the signs clear for people who are certain.

            • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              a year ago

              breaks our CURRENT scientific understanding of it.

              dam another ftfy.

              also, books don’t make something more believable. after all they were written by men that claim to hear a voice i believe (have faith in organized religious slang) either speaks to everyone or no one.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                a year ago

                I was certainly not referring to our past scientific understanding you are right about that.

                If you are referring to our future scientific understanding, I did not expect you to solve the time problem so soon. Congratulations.

                Now if you could present this future-knowledge to me, of which your faith seems to be unwavering. I would love to see it…

                • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  a year ago

                  until gods talks to everyone he doesn’t exist in my mind. so giving any kind of importance to the concept of god or what comes of it is not really in my personal belief system. hope you respect at least that about me. that my belief is as valid as yours, the same way i accept your beliefs as valid mine in this god subject. after all according to your beliefs my beliefs are the creation of god therefore divine.

                  about the rest, the scientific method is time proofed, as you can see by the lovely tech you are using, created using it. also time-space is a human invention, once you understand that you’ll understand why there will be a time where that concept will lose importance just like the concept of god and all its ramifications.

                  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    a year ago

                    Of course I respect your choice not to adhere to a religion. I was just trying to give you some insight into the theological perspectives.

                    If science manages to change all these laws of physics that have remained virtually unchanged since the 1900s and prove how the universe was created without god I’m sure many theists will leave their religion.

                    Until that moment, having an explanation of how the universe came to be by means of theism remains a preferable option for many.

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      a year ago

      I already disagree with the term “created” here.

      In your world, what brought the “something” outside of space time into existence?

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        a year ago

        That’s the entire point of God. An eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space nor time. Without beginning and without end.

        Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.

        • quarry_coerce248@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          a year ago

          I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          a year ago

          Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.

          Why do you need a scientific explanation for that, but you don’t need a scientific explanation for “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Sounds like you’re just replacing what you believe to be an* unprovable claim with your own unprovable claim, which just seems like a huge cop out.

          Btw, there are tons of hypotheses on how the universe started “from nothing”, including

          • It didn’t, our big bang was the result of a previous universe collapsing
          • the universe was all dark matter, then some yet-to-be discovered reaction started converting the dark matter to “normal” matter
          • Reactions between matter and anti-matter created the energy needed for the big bang

          The point though, is that your base premise is just wrong. Science doesn’t say that the universe started “from nothing”, it says “we don’t know exactly how the universe started, but we’re trying to figure it out”.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            a year ago

            This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist. It just defers the problem. If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.

            If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?

            God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              a year ago

              This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist.

              It doesn’t try to. Science is still trying to figure it out, which is the whole point.

              It just defers the problem.

              You say “defer”, I say “still trying to figure it out”.

              If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.

              We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.

              If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?

              We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.

              God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.

              A solution, but is it the solution? Until demonstrable evidence is presented, it’s just a hypothesis like all the others. The difference is the other hypotheses give us something to test. Yours would have us just throw up our hands and say “idk, must be God I guess”, which doesn’t really fly in the world of science.

              Edit: And you still haven’t answered the question: Why do you need a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time, etc., but you don’t need one for the existence of “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Why hold up scientific rigour in one case, but accept with blind faith in another?