> Vast and complex Universe > Material in nature > This

matter wasn't created. it was always there

>>8170060

isnt that ascribing the powers of a god to the universe?

no matter which way you look at it, it is a miracle.

>>8170066
how did you came to that conclusion ?

>>8170050
So, you're one of those theists who draws a circle, inside another circle and then points to the outer circle and asks: "What could be within, God?" To which I say, 'yes, so could Spiderman.'

>>8170086

Dont make assumptions.

I am asking if science can answer why there is a universe at all or is science principally not the place to ask such questions?

>>8170086
spiderman is real though, I saw him in newyork

>>8170090
Because existence is the default state of matter.

>>8170093

Is matter contingent or can it exist of its own accord?

The answer you gave sounds like a religious one.

>>8170098
Yeah, because religions claim matter was always there and infact not created by a deity...oh wait they don't say that

>>8170102

> The universe exists therefore god exists
> matter exists therefore matter has always existed

>>8170106
yeah matter always existed without a creator. make sure you don't forget to make an actual point in your next post

>>8170107

Is matter not contigent upon an agency and can it exist of its own accord.

I also seem to notice that it is not static.

>>8170115
matter changes . also it exists on its own accord

>>8170116

Im asking for an explanation, not a statement.

I am asking sincerely for answers

>>8170117
What is there to explain ? Do you need explaination for the current existence of the matter and why it keeps existing on its own ? What else do you not understand when you hear it always existed the way it keeps existing on its own now ?

>>8170050
Conservation of mass-energy is fundamentally rooted in time symmetry of physics.

If you assume there exists a special time, like say the beginning of the universe, there's no reason to assume conservation would hold.

>>8170090

Frankly, I don't think anybody is in a position to answer those questions. I can't even imagine what a satisfying answer would look like.

As far as I can tell, either
1. There was a first cause, an unmoved mover
This is unsatisfying, because it leaves unanswered the question of why that particular first cause and why it did what it did. Our universe does not seem derivable from a tautology.
2. There is an infinite regress of causes
Unsatisfying for obvious reasons
3. It's a loop; the universe somehow caused itself.
Really, really unsatisfying, on a fundamental level.

If you're considering cause and effect as a linked chain of elements, these are the only possible structures I can imagine, and I can't imagine how any of them could be satisfying explanations.

>>8170122

You say it has but dont explain how it can.

Material is contigent upon agency in this causal universe.

>>8170128
Tell me which part seems hard to understand for you.

>>8170050
From what I've read, the laws of physics do allow the creation of particles from fluctuations in quantum vacuum states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

You might also find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw

>>8170128
That is technically true, but only if you define "agency" such that unintelligent arrangements of material can have it.

States of the universe lead to other states of the universe according to the transition rule we call "physics", of which we only know an incomplete approximation under particular conditions.

Anon is claiming that if you reverse this transition rule, for any state you will always be able to find a previous state that led to it, ad infinitum. In this view, the Big Bang was just another event and the universe existed in some form before it as well.

Now, you may well ask why that particular transition rule and state space, to which I refer you to my above post about the philosophical problems of the universe's cause. >>8170123

>>8170146
>vacuum states

It still doesnt answer the fundamental question. A vacuum is not the same as nothing.

>>8170150

Im not particuarly convinced that science can answer this question.

It seems to me the more you strip away, the more layers the question has.

I fail to see to how the idea of a God is any less of a miracle than the one that is presented to us.

>>8170166
Because adding a god into the mix creates more assumptions.

>>8170162
A quantum vacuum can also include no space-time itself, if that's what you mean by nothing.

>>8170166
> miracle
You still don't get the basic concept of existence without a creator and you call simple existence is miracle. Seems to me like you won't accept any other answer that doesnt say "god did it".

>>8170181
>Seems to me like you won't accept any other answer that doesnt say "god did it".

What other answer could be given that would not invoke something which wholly changes our view of life and creation itself?

>if √2 were rational we could write it as p/q with p and q coprime integers
>from √2^2 = 2 we therefore find 2q^2 = p^2
>it follows that 2 divides p, i.e., there is an integer k with 2k = p
>from 2q^2 = p^2 = 4k^2 we now find that 2 divides q contradicting the coprimality of p and q
>thus √2 is not rational

Explain.

>>8170188
> creation

Well the very fact that you're entertaining the possibility of god shows that you're biased towards expecting an answer based on creation, meanwhile rejecting the very basic answers that pretty much explains everything.

This discussion is pointless since you've already made up your mind before even coming here.

>>8170201
[eqn]\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1}[/eqn]
it's rational now xxDDDDD!!!

>>8170181
Sure, maybe you need a creator, but You can call it whatever you want. It certainly isn't human-like. It's a creator in the most abstract sense of the word.

It definitely doesn't give a fuck about humans.

>>8170201
Actually you just proved sqrt(2) doesn't exist

>>8170257
he proved it's not in the set of rationals man.

>>8170093
That's stupid, the amount of matter that doesn't exist is much more than the amount that does.

>>8170050
>He doesn't understand virtual particles
>We don't either but don't tell him that

>>8170174
I'll bite.

>>8170201
Explain what? The proof makes sense. You start with the contrapositive and prove a fallacy. That's how it works.

>>8170747
(I'm playing the sarcastic Christian's advocate)

>>8170204
Not that anon, and yes there is a bias, but perhaps it's true that this is an unanswerable question for the time being. He took his side, but so have you. Great, now you will have to agree to disagree unless Jesus comes back or a complete description of the origin of energy without a creator is given.

File: 1442366423199.png (156KB, 549x349px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 549x349px

>>8170257

>>8170050
> The Universe was created in and of itself
Some proper scientists say that. Still, most proper scientists say "We don't know, we're working on it".

>>8170090
>I am asking if science can answer why there is a universe at all or is science principally not the place to ask such questions?
IMHO, science probably will not be able to answer that question.

Regardless, if science cannot answer that question, then nothing can. It's science or bust for this particular topic. Anything else is just making shit up.

>>8170123
<3

>>8170812
>It's science or bust

Let me ask you this.

Why does a kettle boil water? Because someone wants a cup of tea. Agency and effect.

Science can explain how something works under certain conditions, but not the why. I think both answers are suitable.

>>8170825
Science can explain the "why". How did you learn the answer "someone wanted a cup of tea"? Obviously observation of the world around you, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, etc. In other words, discovery of intent of agents is a scientific enterprise.

Now, if you're trying to invoke "intent" in the complete absence of designers, then I literally do not know what you're talking about. You're using words incorrectly. You're not right, and you're not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Yes, I am a positivist of sorts.

>>8170833
>Science can explain the "why"

Im talking in terms of a fundamental question.

Why things are the way they are. Every answer leads to more questions. Science widens the question rather than closes it in my opinion.

>>8170842
A "system of knowledge, beliefs, and justifications" is otherwise known as epistemology.

Protip: All epistemologies are fundamentally presuppositionalist, optionally with some mixture of coherentism (aka circular reasoning) in the foundation.

Science does not alleviate this problem.

What science does do is help construct accurate, useful, predictive models of observable reality.

> Im talking in terms of a fundamental question.

Is probably a meaningless question (in the language of positivism).

>>8170752
No he didn't take his side. There is no god in science. He used all the arguments from science with the exception of god which came from religion.

His side is the bible, meaning all his arguments must come from the bible, meaning he thinks the world is 6000 years old and people can walk on water, which only then he can talk about the possibility of god and creation.

>>8170844

Your attitude towards this could also lead to circular reasoning. What you ignore could be what leads you to better answers.

Existence is a big question mark. I dont see how this is a meanlingless question.

>>8170857
If you cannot give an answer to that question based on reasons and evidence, how is the answer not the same from just making shit up? How could you tell the difference? I'm interested in justifiable belief, not things pulled out of someone's ass.

>>8170857
> better answers
There is no "better answer", there is the answer that makes most sense and supported by scientific evidence, which you've been given from the start of the thread but you refuse to accept it because it doesn't involve the creation meme

>>8170050
there is no resting mass only momentum, only energy.

>>8170050
Uninstall your web browser.

>>8170852
He took his own side is what I meant, turkey.

>There is no god in science
Classical fedora tier unfalsifiable statement.

>Your whole second paragraph
Nice strawman.

>>8170842
Who is a bachelor married to? The question doesn't make sense. Unless you presuppose an intelligence behind the universe. There is no why if there is no agent and there is no evidence of such an agent. Your argument is nothing but circular reasoning.

>>8171761

> this universe exists just cause
> accept it or you're stupid

ok

Who made god?

>>8171769
There is nothing to accept. The positive claim here is that there is intelligence behind the universe. Without evidence for such a claim there is no reason to consider it. Yet you take it for granted and then demand that others argue as if it is true. >>8171805

>>8170050

Do you actually want to know?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've convinced myself that I've always existed. Space-time has always been there. The common presumption is that there was nothing before you were born. I think it was like sleep; a great fundamental void/vacuum of space-time. The universe is like a server in this respect. And I am an observer.

>>8171769
> I can accept that god came into existence just like that
> I can't accept that universe came into existence just like that
you are stupid. I hope you can see why.

>>8172210
I noticed my existence was stretched upon the fabric of the universe infinitely, and I was like a sheet, in terms of area. I was depleted, until I manifested in the intermediate of the personality that I am today.

File: freedom.jpg (11KB, 170x244px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 170x244px

>>8172220
>>8171805
Is it too simple to suggest god developed itself 1st? An awareness that exploded to manifest an environment in which it can continue developing itself? Which probably too a long mudda time. Can you tell I only slightly know what I'm talking about?
Anyway some of you might find this book an interesting read...

http://thefreedomofchoice.com/

File: 12x2ky.jpg (775KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 2048x2048px

>>8172277
I can't tell if english is your first language.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/string-theory-co-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

>>8172277
your logical fallacy comes from the fact that you cannot accept the universe came on by itself, but you can accept that something much more complex did, which later on created the universe., with zero evidence ofcourse.

File: 10847855_994682230542218_6966985898363572949_n.jpg (128KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 640x640px

>>8172294
God created itself? The evidence is everywhere bruh. Look at the number zero? Also I just had to google what a logical fallacy was so don't bother arguing with me. .

http://thefreedomforum.com/topics/everything-god/

>>8172313
> forum
:^)

>>8172313
b8

>>8172277
>An awareness that exploded to manifest an environment in which it can continue developing itself?
Yet the universe doing exactly that is absurd, apparently.

File: 1455034400941.jpg (63KB, 500x624px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x624px

>>8172633
You forgot to finish your process of thought? I can't tell if your arguing for or against, because so far I don't see anything you've said disagreeing with the post you're replying too? 2nd time to happen to that poster.

File: 10922567_10203597800487972_7985477163157351593_n.jpg (14KB, 228x212px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 228x212px

>>8172781
I think the the poster is saying that since god creating itself-then the universe- in order to develop and evolve.... is an acceptable idea/theory; then why is the universe doing the same thing seen as absurd?

>>8170122
>What is there to explain ?
Posts on a science board.
Science which is dedicated to explaining and understanding the world around us.
Thinks that the existence of matter does not need an explanation or that everything has already been explained by simply removing a God from the equation.

10/10 troll. Fucking unbelievable.

>>8172633
Aha Lol. It appears scientism is somewhat on the back foot.

>Eh, eh, eh, butchu belieb in God so why c-c-can't aye belieb my own brand of stupood nonsence?

>>8172797

> a non contingent being is somehow equivalent to a contingent material universe

>>8172972
I don't subscribe to either idea, I just wonder why people think only the god option is feasible

>>8173402
Because there's more in religion for them than the alternative. Religion gives them peace that they are desperate for. It's childish.

>>8172965
This is a fundamental question. Things don't need a reason to exist, especially when they are NOT created. You're still thinking there must be an intelligent decision behind why they exist so you're expecting an answer that includes a creator, which obviously is the wrong answer.

So I ask again, what is there to explain ?

>>8170060
Where was it before the expansion of the universe?

>>8173428
packed inside the particles that collided in the big bang

>>8170825
>Why does a kettle boil water
a kettle does not boil water. The fire under the kettle boils the water, and the kettle holds it in place near the fire so that the heat may be transferred effectively.

A retard can make a kettle out of soft plastic and fail to boil water. A bigger retard can make a kettle out of paper and fail to even hold water.

a kettle does not possess agency, you fucking mong

File: 68568.jpg (95KB, 795x724px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 795x724px

Nominalism

All that truly exists are the smallest pieces of matter. These smallest pieces of matter have always existed and they will continue to always exist. The same can't be said for the larger objects that these smallest pieces of matter come together to create. These smallest pieces of matter do not have constituents - if they did, they wouldn't be the smallest pieces of matter. So, if these smallest pieces of matter do not have constituents, how could they ever possibly decay into composite parts? They can't. And they can't just enter some imaginary magical place of 'non-existence'. Non-existence, by definition, does not exist. Therefore, they will always exist. Which means that an infinity of time exists. Which means that the universe has always existed.

Fundamental material has always existed
The universe, at a fundamental level (the only level that truly exists) is not complex at all
The universe is existence. Existence is the only state that exists.

>>8173453
well said, gorillaposter

>>8170090
Science is a method. And it is the best method we came up with to ask and get answers from natural phenomena. We shouldnt ask it to deliver answers to our "whys", its a question that presumes there is reason behind certain events and somehow that reason is linked to us. Of apparent complexity we re nothing more then a possible outcome from physical rules. The why doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view, and neither does t come sense from a natural one. We give sense to our actions because we wish to do so, they do not have sense on their own.

>>8173432
How can there be a collision before space and time exist?

Isnt a Universe that has always existed beyond the reckoning of science. How could a scientist study that which has no bounds?

File: d98.jpg (20KB, 563x601px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 563x601px

>>8170678

>>8173411
>It is too difficult to explain, so just won't bother and pretend that was the explanation all along.
Silly humans, don't try to understand and explain your environment, just have another beer and a shut the fuck up while I collect my grant for doing sweet fuck all.

Also
>especially when they are NOT created.
proofs?
>includes a creator, which obviously is the wrong answer.
again, where's your evidence for making that ascertain

>>8173280
>The universe is contingent because this leads to my preferred conclusion.
Do you not realize how hard you are begging the question?

>>8173992
Who says space and time did not exist?

>>8174433
We're studying it right now. Doesn't seem to be an issue.

>>8173402
At what point has anyone ever said that it is the only option? We are discussing all the options. That is the way science works. Everything is possible until proven otherwise.

File: The_Holy_Bible.jpg (52KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x450px

>>8170050
>> This material apparently self generated

[[[citation needed]]]

File: 22397_994682213875553_3474836167732419454_n.jpg (96KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x640px

>>8173280
? Correct.

Does god exist? Perhaps that is like asking if your wife cheats on your...if you have to ask...well there's your answer. Perhaps the question is why.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/god-necessary-or-noncontingent.html

Apparently science is moving toward the whole new age thing of "Everything is God"

>>8172180
Evidence... You utter fool.

>>8174892
Seriously - this.

Further, the whole notions of "contingent" and "not contingent" in this context are pure bullshit. They only serve to slightly obscure very-obvious question-begging like this.

>>8173407
The Christians who are in it for "muh feels" get fucked over EVERY time when shit hits the fan. It is possibly that they have in fact questioned their own beliefs and their religion still came out on top. Do you really think Christianity would have stuck around for the last 2 millennia if it had no historical backing or could have easily been debunked? Holy shit anon for someone that whores the scientific method you sure aren't using it properly. p.s. if your handicap keeps you from acquiring sources I will get them for you.

>>8170050

>ctrl + f 'inflation'
>ctrl + f 'quantum energy density fluctuation'

>phrase not found

I give up on /sci/.

ITS OFFICIAL

/SCI/ FAILED TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

>>8176378
as well as the existence of flying pink unicorns. now I have to choose which one to believe in :(