We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know • Hacker News Board

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#211

Post by al_mandi » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #205

al_mandi wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're straw manning when you say things like "cares about the sexual life of humans". I highly recommend you watch this to broaden your horizons: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

There is a great deal of evidence, philosophically and rationally, for the existence of God. The Big Bang, first theorized by theoretical physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lamaitre, states the universe sprang into existence 13.7b years ago; it was not eternal as previously thought. And we know from observation that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. This suggests that the universe was…

I think you're responding to the wrong poster, I accept that God exists :-)

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#212

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

al_mandi wrote: post #172

eis wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt) > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. W…

Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence otherwise it would by definition just be a type of science. It would be the study of God via experimentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical extrapolation. There are religious folks that are big on logical deduction and extrapolation but they all start with terribly unlikely axioms pulled straight out of their ass or equally made up fictions rendered sacred somehow by the passage of time.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#213

Post by al_mandi » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #194

al_mandi wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religions are based on a lot of completely made up stuff Did you survey all religions to make such claim? And it's not like you don't need axiomatic bases that need to be accepted as is to base science on. There's a lot of "I think" and assumptions in your post that are not backed up by evidence, and some even contrary to reality. This is a good starting point to expand your horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

> Did you survey all religions to make such claim? That is the definition of religion. They are believes that relate to supernatural beings and sprituality. They cannot be proven or disproven. > And it's not like you don't need axiomatic bases that need to be accepted as is to base science on. Correct, there are axioms - assumptions - which the rest of the logical system is based upon. Same as for example in Mathemat…

> They are believes that relate to supernatural beings and sprituality. They cannot be proven or disproven.

That's not 100% true. There can (and is) proof and evidence for validating religious claims. You're conflating belief in the unseen (with evidence) with blind faith without evidence, those are two different things.

> I am not a religious person but I do have morals.

He mentions that non-religious people can have morals later in the lecture.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#214

Post by wruza » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

al_mandi wrote: post #172

eis wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt) > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. W…

I’m only 10:33 into this video and already facepalming so much. The guy starts with explaining logic basics, which is cool, then goes to blaming some people “leading the atheist movement” (whom I never really listened to and agree that they devote too many of their attention to fight religion, but hey everyone chooses their own way) and then summarizes “if you don’t have any moral authority then what’s your moral anchor” backing it by some citation of classics lacking any context. Right after talking about logic and how these atheist leaders manipulate it. Then goes to repeat some worship nonsense.

Don’t expect many people to watch this hour long blah blah blah.

Edit: beared with it to 19:18 and stopped, sorry, this guy is full of populistic bullshit he tries to refute. Does god exist or not, we will not know ftom this. But you are literally following a fanatic.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#215

Post by throwoutway » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #210

IAmGraydon wrote: post #178

“We will never know” is such a contradictory statement. On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future. Add it to your list of things to never write.

Someone wrote an article so people can waste hours debating this, accomplishing nothing. When will people learn?

Well there are some who claim to know, and will argue that “it happened this way” when in reality it’s a guess, based on some assumptions, and measurements, fit to a model. We don’t know everything, and it’s worth the contradiction to point out the fallacy of those who postulate

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#216

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#217

Post by coldtea » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

IAmGraydon wrote: post #178

“We will never know” is such a contradictory statement. On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future. Add it to your list of things to never write.

>On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future

That's no contradiction though.

A contradiction would be "I know everything about X" and at the same time "There's a limit to our knowledge of X".

It's no contradiction to claim that there are limits to our knowledge but still claim to absolutely know Y about Z.

In other words, the idea that "there are limits to our knowledge" is not incompatible with the idea that we fully know this or that. You just mean that those limits only apply to other things.

(Heck, in math we can even prove that some things can never be proven, thus both implying limits to our knowledge and that we know something with 100% certainty).

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#218

Post by al_mandi » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #212

al_mandi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt) > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. W…

Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence otherwise it would by definition just be a type of science. It would be the study of God via experimentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical extrapolation. There are religious folks that are big on logical deduction and extrapolation but they all start with terribly unlikely axioms pulled straight out of their ass or equally made up fictions r…

> Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence

There is evidence backed belief in the unseen, and there is blind faith. So your claim that by definition faith is without evidence is not correct.

Secondly, even science needs to accept certain axioms as a given so that we can build upon them.

Scientism is believing that the only way to arrive at truth is through experimentation, which is a false view. There are many things we accept, even though we cannot prove them through experimentation.

Watch the lecture I posted to broaden your horizons.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#219

Post by folsom » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

I am sure all pot smokers know the answer. The observable universe is in a much larger universe with many like itself. Sometimes universes collide and form a new universe. There is an infinite stack of these much larger and much smaller universes (more like a fractal tree actually); some are hot and some are cold but even cold universes can collide make a hot universe.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#220

Post by tresqotheq » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #162

ratsmack wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>religious babble Why is religion held in such contempt when there is so much science that is just as much "babble", but held in high regard?

I think the ratio of babble to sound reasoning is much better in science than in religion. That being said, there is also a lot of science babble and we should call it out and try to keep it at a as low amount as possible. The core tenets of science are pretty sound. Religions are based on a lot of completely made up stuff. They are not 100% bad of course. But we seriously can do much much better than that. I think t…

>But they are very very old tools and I don't think we need them anymore.

The societial problems that once solved by religion is worse than ever. It is true that current religions cannot solve it, because they have been "fact checked" out by the new religion of "science" with scientists as the new holymen, but that is a separate discussion.

The point is, we need a solution to those problems more than ever, but we truly cannot hope to find one.