There is no way possible for us to be here apart from the supernatural.
No matter how much you talk of bangs and holes and multi-wavy-whatever's, eventually you have to arrive at the absolute fact that before there was something, there was nothing. And something can't create itself and even if it could (🤣) it couldn't create itself out of nothing.
The natural has to originate in the supernatural. There is no way around it.
I ultimately agree with you, but I can't prove it; certainly not in any "absolute fact" sense. So, in fairness, and in the interests of being academically honest, we have to admit that. I also agree that something can't come from nothing, but many atheists also recognize this and accept that there must be an initial uncaused, cause. However, instead of God, they posit an uncaused, eternally existent multiverse. I don't personally believe that, but what "absolute proof" can you give against such a view? Can you prove as an "absolute fact" that such a multiverse does not exist?
That nothing that originates within a system can be the creator of that system. I forget the name of that law (just a high school educated construction worker).
If you reach for a multiverse explanation you've only kicked the can a little farther down the road.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found. No, simple logic does.
I'm reasonably good at simple logic and it doesn't say that to me at all. Do you mean to suggest that in any case where we can't readily understand the intricacies of some natural process, that we should reach instead for a non-natural explanation?
You are so far away from being in a position where you simply "can't readily understand the intricacies" that this post is laughable.
You (not personally, but science in general) cannot even begin to build the skeleton of an explanation of why there is something (as opposed to nothing), much less put any meat on the bones (readily understand the intricacies).
May I ask how many phD's you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable.
Please remember that we've only known of the existence of other galaxies, the Big Bang and a host of other phenomena for a matter of decades. We're at the beginning of the process of unpicking the way the Universe was formed and how it's developed.
What is truly 'laughable' is that we have to be able to answer all questions this very minute, else no (natural) answers exist.
One thing I've come to realise over the years is that if a person claims to believe 'X' as fact but can't actually define or even describe what 'X' is, they can't be said to believe it.
That's to say, if this thing called 'God' actually exists some defintion of its nature, its beginning and its powers/attributes needs to be given, otherwise what precisely are we being called upon to believe?
The funny thing is that normally I'd agree with you on what seems at face value a common sense assertion, but personal experience has taught me otherwise that this isn't necessarily so. Case in point, scientists don't know how to define life, but surely that doesn't entail the conclusion therefore "they can't be said to believe it."
That strikes me as a poor analogy. I'm not a trained Biologist but I'm pretty sure that if you asked one they'd be able to draw up a long list of characteristics that help to define what is or isn't alive. Only living creatures have cells, reproduce and undergo a number of living processes.
It's any detail of that kind that's lacking from those who insist on the existence of this thing they call 'God'.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found. No, simple logic does.
I'm reasonably good at simple logic and it doesn't say that to me at all. Do you mean to suggest that in any case where we can't readily understand the intricacies of some natural process, that we should reach instead for a non-natural explanation?
You are so far away from being in a position where you simply "can't readily understand the intricacies" that this post is laughable.
You (not personally, but science in general) cannot even begin to build the skeleton of an explanation of why there is something (as opposed to nothing), much less put any meat on the bones (readily understand the intricacies).
May I ask how many phD's you possess? How many do you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable. Then you should be able to give one plausible theory as to why there is something rather than nothing.
Please remember that we've only known of the existence of other galaxies, the Big Bang and a host of other phenomena for a matter of decades. We're at the beginning of the process of unpicking the way the Universe was formed and how it's developed.
What is truly 'laughable' is that we have to be able to answer all questions this very minute, else no (natural) answers exist.
The current state of things....
...
2. Science has no natural explanation for the existence of the physical laws and constants that govern our universe, and why they are the way that they are. [I have modified this based on constructive feedback from @stephen_33]
....
But before Einstein we had no idea that time is relative, so what point is being made? The knowledge gained from scientific research is a process of revealing the underlying mechanics of the Universe.
We've barely started on this process of discovery, so let's not even attempt to set limits on what can or cannot be understood?
What discoveries have we made that complete defy the laws of logic to which we will add Spontaneous Generation when you discover it?
I ultimately agree with you, but I can't prove it; certainly not in any "absolute fact" sense. So, in fairness, and in the interests of being academically honest, we have to admit that. I also agree that something can't come from nothing, but many atheists also recognize this and accept that there must be an initial uncaused, cause. However, instead of God, they posit an uncaused, eternally existent multiverse. I don't personally believe that, but what "absolute proof" can you give against such a view? Can you prove as an "absolute fact" that such a multiverse does not exist?
But if time is an attribute of our three-dimensional Universe, it began at the point of the Big Bang. Prior to that point there was no 'before' and referring to 'eternally existent' is largely meaningless.
Even 'cause and effect' may no longer have the meaning we normally attach to it. It's the point at which we disappear down the rabbit hole of theory.
May I ask how many phD's you possess? How many do you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable. Then you should be able to give one plausible theory as to why there is something rather than nothing.
I don't have any but I do spend time listening very carefully to people who have many and dedicate their lives to understanding the various mechanisms by which the Universe functions.
On the hackneyed question of "why there is something rather than nothing", it's a meaningless question to ask because 'nothing' is never (/cannot be) defined.
One thing I've come to realise over the years is that if a person claims to believe 'X' as fact but can't actually define or even describe what 'X' is, they can't be said to believe it.
That's to say, if this thing called 'God' actually exists some defintion of its nature, its beginning and its powers/attributes needs to be given, otherwise what precisely are we being called upon to believe?
The funny thing is that normally I'd agree with you on what seems at face value a common sense assertion, but personal experience has taught me otherwise that this isn't necessarily so. Case in point, scientists don't know how to define life, but surely that doesn't entail the conclusion therefore "they can't be said to believe it."
That strikes me as a poor analogy. I'm not a trained Biologist but I'm pretty sure that if you asked one they'd be able to draw up a long list of characteristics that help to define what is or isn't alive. Only living creatures have cells, reproduce and undergo a number of living processes.
It's any detail of that kind that's lacking from those who insist on the existence of this thing they call 'God'.
No one disputes that life is incredible; the way it is put together is amazing, but that does not show how the incredible nature of life got here and is the same with the universe itself. We cannot find any explanation that suggests the universe created itself out of nothing, so unless you can come up with a way for that to occur, we have to reject that; there had to be a cause that didn't originate with the universe itself it cannot create itself. Can we agree on that?
May I ask how many phD's you possess? How many do you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable. Then you should be able to give one plausible theory as to why there is something rather than nothing.
I don't have any but I do spend time listening very carefully to people who have many and dedicate their lives to understanding the various mechanisms by which the Universe functions. And yet for all your listening you haven't heard a plausible answer to how something could have come from nothing.
On the hackneyed question of "why there is something rather than nothing", it's a meaningless question to ask because 'nothing' is never (/cannot be) defined. It is the absence of everything. What do I win?
No one disputes that life is incredible; the way it is put together is amazing, but that does not show how the incredible nature of life got here and is the same with the universe itself. We cannot find any explanation that suggests the universe created itself out of nothing, so unless you can come up with a way for that to occur, we have to reject that; there had to be a cause that didn't originate with the universe itself it cannot create itself. Can we agree on that?
There're a few theories that posit a natural cause for the existence of the Universe.
And no serious theoretical physicist or cosmologist has ever suggested our Universe emerged from 'nothing'. You won't hear any informed person claim such a thing.
Anyway, what exactly do people mean by 'nothing'? Why should we even think that there's a binary choice between 'something' and 'nothing'?
May I ask how many phD's you possess? How many do you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable. Then you should be able to give one plausible theory as to why there is something rather than nothing.
On the hackneyed question of "why there is something rather than nothing", it's a meaningless question to ask because 'nothing' is never (/cannot be) defined. It is the absence of everything. What do I win?
Would you care to try to define what 'everything' is?
We have no idea (yet) what everything might encompass, so how do we define what its absence is? But why should we even believe that the absence of all and anything is one of two binary possibilities? I used to but I don't anymore.
One thing I've come to realise over the years is that if a person claims to believe 'X' as fact but can't actually define or even describe what 'X' is, they can't be said to believe it.
That's to say, if this thing called 'God' actually exists some defintion of its nature, its beginning and its powers/attributes needs to be given, otherwise what precisely are we being called upon to believe?
The funny thing is that normally I'd agree with you on what seems at face value a common sense assertion, but personal experience has taught me otherwise that this isn't necessarily so. Case in point, scientists don't know how to define life, but surely that doesn't entail the conclusion therefore "they can't be said to believe it."
That strikes me as a poor analogy. I'm not a trained Biologist but I'm pretty sure that if you asked one they'd be able to draw up a long list of characteristics that help to define what is or isn't alive. Only living creatures have cells, reproduce and undergo a number of living processes.
It's any detail of that kind that's lacking from those who insist on the existence of this thing they call 'God'.
Well then let me be direct: The word 'God' has been defined and attributes described in serious academic work by Swinburne, Conway, Flew and others in respected publications like the Oxford Press.
The current state of things....
...
2. Science has no natural explanation for the existence of the physical laws and constants that govern our universe, and why they are the way that they are. [I have modified this based on constructive feedback from @stephen_33]
....
But before Einstein we had no idea that time is relative, so what point is being made? The knowledge gained from scientific research is a process of revealing the underlying mechanics of the Universe. The issue is not with what has yet to be revealed, but with what we already know and still have no explanation for. Why is the G constant for gravity set at the value it is? Why does the Strong Nuclear Force have the value that it does? Etc., etc., etc.
We've barely started on this process of discovery, so let's not even attempt to set limits on what can or cannot be understood?
All completely irrelevant to a list on "The current state of things..."
I ultimately agree with you, but I can't prove it; certainly not in any "absolute fact" sense. So, in fairness, and in the interests of being academically honest, we have to admit that. I also agree that something can't come from nothing, but many atheists also recognize this and accept that there must be an initial uncaused, cause. However, instead of God, they posit an uncaused, eternally existent multiverse. I don't personally believe that, but what "absolute proof" can you give against such a view? Can you prove as an "absolute fact" that such a multiverse does not exist?
But if time is an attribute of our three-dimensional Universe, it began at the point of the Big Bang. Prior to that point there was no 'before' and referring to 'eternally existent' is largely meaningless.
Even 'cause and effect' may no longer have the meaning we normally attach to it. It's the point at which we disappear down the rabbit hole of theory.
No, that's just a semantic game that simply means there was no 'before' in our universe. It doesn't apply external to our universe. Ironically, it also reaffirms the point that our universe has not always existed (as your statement simply means the spacetime fabric of the universe that is our universe has not always existed), and therefore is contingent, and therefore requires a cause external to itself.
May I ask how many phD's you possess? How many do you possess? I've watched interviews with professionals in the field, theoretical physicists and cosmologists on this very question and not one has ever suggested that an entirely natural explanation for our Universe is unattainable. Then you should be able to give one plausible theory as to why there is something rather than nothing.
On the hackneyed question of "why there is something rather than nothing", it's a meaningless question to ask because 'nothing' is never (/cannot be) defined. It is the absence of everything. What do I win?
Would you care to try to define what 'everything' is?
We have no idea (yet) what everything might encompass, so how do we define what its absence is? But why should we even believe that the absence of all and anything is one of two binary possibilities? I used to but I don't anymore.
This really is just jibberish.
Everything simply is the descriptor for all things.
To imagine the absence of all things is not difficult. To imagine how something can come from that is impossible.
I ultimately agree with you, but I can't prove it; certainly not in any "absolute fact" sense. So, in fairness, and in the interests of being academically honest, we have to admit that. I also agree that something can't come from nothing, but many atheists also recognize this and accept that there must be an initial uncaused, cause. However, instead of God, they posit an uncaused, eternally existent multiverse. I don't personally believe that, but what "absolute proof" can you give against such a view? Can you prove as an "absolute fact" that such a multiverse does not exist?
But if time is an attribute of our three-dimensional Universe, it began at the point of the Big Bang. Prior to that point there was no 'before' and referring to 'eternally existent' is largely meaningless.
Even 'cause and effect' may no longer have the meaning we normally attach to it. It's the point at which we disappear down the rabbit hole of theory.
No, that's just a semantic game that simply means there was no 'before' in our universe. It doesn't apply external to our universe. Ironically, it also reaffirms the point that our universe has not always existed (as your statement simply means the spacetime fabric of the universe that is our universe has not always existed), and therefore is contingent, and therefore requires a cause external to itself.
Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as "outside our universe". By definition the universe is all encompassing.
Science can never eliminate the possibility of the supernatural, but neither can it empirically demonstrate the supernatural