What's up blades I hope everything is going well for you. I would like to discuss something I feel to be a major flaw in modern mainstream science. I was browsing a science forum the other day and came upon an interesting question asked by one of the members and thought I would share this with grasscity and see what you had to say. I shall share as a quote, feel free to discuss how you feel about this topic.
Well to start we need to clarify what "science" is Science is the study of nature. It is what we observe. Science is not the study of truth. It is the study of what we can study. "Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of a God" Science doesn't claim the universe came from nothing. The observation is that the "visible" universe once existed at a single point and expanded is science. The idea that something came from nothing is not science. We can see the remnants of the big bang and the expansion of space. Which is why its science. We can't test origions. We can't prove something can come from nothing. That exists outside the realm of testable hypothesis. An example of why science cannot talk of origions. Lets say a scientist does an experiment to prove you can get something from nothing. He has an empty vacuum container. After however long it takes to randomly happen matter/energy "appears" in the jar. The scientist concludes something came from nothing. That is a false conclusion. He cannot prove that it didn't come from somewhere oustide reality. He can only prove that there is more we don't know. Science supports the big bang theory because we can observe it. It does not support the something from nothing theory, because we can't prove it. So does that mean something can't come ffrom nothing? No it just means you can't prove it. Logic and philosophy are a different thing entirely. I can write a logical "proof" of how something can come from nothing. I made a thread on it. It doesn't scientifically prove anything though
Hume ousted science's "infallibility" with his ever so simple induction fallacy... And, science is inherently flawed; they can't 100% posit that the world is a logical place, but all of their knowledge is rooted in, and validated by, the axiom of logic... smh.
To say the world exits independently of perception is outside of the realm of testable hypotheses! But, it doesn't stop scientist from positing it, arbitrarily, as an axiom.
Isn't it an accepted theory that there is no actual beginning? As in everything always was, and the big bang was just an occurence that set the universe as we know it now... Ive always liked the idea of there being no beginning to time. As hard as it is to fathom, i believe it makes more sense for things to have always existed than to have not existed at one point, and then suddenly came into existence. - I dont think the truth can contradict itself, and science is essentially the search for truth
It can somewhat make sense if you consider "something" as a plane of existence. And instead of thinking of nothing as being nothing more than the literal in-the-box definition, think of "nothing" as being yet another plane of existence, or dimensional space. Zero is a number. Simply because it lacks value doesn't mean it lacks existence or purpose. Yes, that does contradict what scientists have come to define what "matter" is, but again, if matter is merely one plane of existence, then anti-matter exists on a different plane or dimension. Black holes...dark matter...there are many unexplained events that could be better explained by realizing there are likely other planes of existence we have not discovered yet.
WOW... PLEASE tell me how the artificial concept know as zero is a reality? Scientists can't even posit that there is technically "one" thing out there -- atoms are not one thing, and even beyond that, quarks aren't one thing. So, please tell me from where 0 gets it reality??? Math can't even posit the axiom known as 1, without it being artificial and arbitrary, and this guy is positing 0 as a reality...
I think the only time zero could be considered reality is the time between the Big Crunch and Big Bang.
We differ in sentiment, but to each's own, brethren. And, if ur point was to be taken, it still wouldn't be a reality to me, i.e., a human. No human has ever experienced "the time between the big crunch and the big bang"... so, it would still only be a theory and theorem.--Meaning, not a FACT, but a convenient fiction .
I like how creationists use the "something from nothing" argument, but their own fucking book says god created everything from nothing. Fucking bullshit, this thread is.
There is way too much we don't understand and most of this stuff is still labelled as theory and not considered a fact so you really can't call it bullshit because it is just a widely accepted possibility. What happens right in front of your eyes and the world as you know it could be perceived differently by others and we would be stupid to not to realize we have only minor pieces of the puzzle and we may never understand it in the lifetime of our species. This Higgs Boson particle may change science as we know it now as well because it is another piece to the puzzle.
Yeah like when those creationists say, "shit first there was no universe, then there was a big bang, then there was something". I am not a creationist, but I am an amateur logician. Help me out here.
I am certainly not a creationist my friend nor was this thread made to propagate and justify creationist theory. Just to make that clear haha. There has been some great discussion in this thread and I've loved reading over your responses! Some very interesting points put forward.
lol please define "nothing"? This realm was not "created"; in the phenomenal and conceptual idea we know as "creation"... for the realm of dependency is inter-connected and potentially infinite, like math (and this is why quantum physics denies the reality of causality, precisely because there isn't ONE cause for a given event, i.e., it's all interconnected and rooted in the One source, for all there is.--But, there is a transcendental cause, enabler is a better word, for this world of eternal, relative, inter-connected phenomenon. And I use phenomenal and phenomenon in the Kantian sense of the word. Kantianism: a. an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience. b. a thing as it appears to and is constructed by the mind.