Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 610 posts

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

#581

Post by eis »

barrysteve wrote: post #572
xabotage wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith is not commitment to "truth," but rather commitment to a belief regardless of its veracity. Science has nothing to do with "believing" something - its a process for determining what actually is true based on evidence. Historically, science has only been allowed to flourish as long as it tiptoed around the religious powers-that-be. If you really think science boils down to a "minor variation on what has come bef…

Faith is commitment to truth in Christianity and science has a lot to do with believing. People choose which of their hunches and theories at the edge of their individual knowledge with a leap of faith. I said the Scientist operates on a minor variation on old ideas, not all of science. Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. These co…

Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true.

Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to try to experimentaly verify the idea or to for example mathematicaly prove it. It's not about believing something is true and then stopping there.

  >  Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them.
What's wrong with that? Not every idea can be completely fresh. I am not sure what your point is.

  > These conversations aren't really possible anymore, people aren't interested in the meaning of words or meaning at all. They just want to relate to whatever goofball idea their tribe agrees with.
Sounds a lot like religion?

  > Oh so you want me to summarize the history of ideas after all -.-
I don't see the connection between your answer and his question.

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

#582

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #460
al_mandi wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? I was referring to what you wrote. You said that there's no reason that there weren't multiple tries to get the universe just right to support life. I'm saying that's a metaphysical claim you just made, which is outside the realm of science, which is the point the presenter was making.

I can actually use his own logic to prove the opposite point of his claim. Since his reasoning only works if there was one (or very few) tries wouldn't it be very unlikely to have had few tries compared to a much high number of possibly inifite tries? That means his case is in fact the unlikely case (few tries and hence likely design). What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for AN…

> What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries

Who made the tries?

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

#583

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #573
al_mandi wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Honest news" is hearsay. I can't go and verify any of it. I cannot logically explain any of it even. You are asking me to just believe it is true what someone a millenia ago said, something (miracles) that goes against any real life obvervation I can do. Sorry, not happening. Look up the Islamic Isnad system. Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. O…

> Look up the Islamic Isnad system. I did but I didn't see anything that convinced me. It really is hearsay. > Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. Obviously that is not wise or rational. No, you keep on making wrong conclusions. I accept there are historical texts and I can with rational thought come up with rough estimates how likely those events h…

> It really is hearsay.

No it's not. Even non Muslims admitted that we Muslims have the right to be proud of it. There's nothing else anywhere like it, secular or non secular texts.

> Historians are usually honest

Our Muslim historians even more so.

> And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge

Or that God bent the laws of our reality to make a point. Not everything is explainable by logic, especially when we see such events take place thousands of years later in our lifetimes today.

> So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no?

No, because his claim is that there is a creator, whereas you're just making a claim that has no basis in your secular materialistic world view.

> Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions

We exist, so there had to be a starting point. We have evidence that people came and claimed to be sent from God, and we proved their claims based on many things (their character, miracles, etc). The Quran to this day stands as a living miracle, and its challenge is up for anyone to take (many centuries after everyone tried and failed).

These things remind me of how new atheists are flimsy with their arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7n-gff-0c

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

#584

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #549
al_mandi wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> same time claim that god does not follow logic and that we should not try to apply our logic to understand him and his rules. This makes no sense. It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. > But there is more than one version o…

> It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. If something is not testable then I need to be sceptical. Maybe the ancient battle happened. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it happened but the written texts are full of inaccuracies. I can't t…

> The more evidence the better. Historical records from a thousand years ago are many times highly inaccurate

The Islamic Isanad system addresses this issue.

> And why is there still no final resolution which one is the true one?

The differences are mostly political. There is a resolution, it's just that people stick to their desires in the face of evidence.

> It does not leave room for future knowledge to improve our understanding of the past and adjust accordingly.

Islam does leave things open to adjust as we further our knowledge. The foundations do not change. This does not have anything to do with whether it is true.

> And why does god need you to worship him?

Because He said so: https://quran.com/21/23

> Is it bad for god if you don't worship him? If I don't pray, am I somehow hurting him?

Of course not. He doesn't need us.

> Do you know the future?

God told us the future (it's in the Quran).

I'm quite curious, we Muslims believe that Jesus Prayer of God be upon him will return. If you are alive at that time, is that sufficient evidence for you to accept?

> All religions are man made.

Yet you present no evidence. I presented proof (e.g. provingislam.com) about very detailed prophecies made thousands of years ago and came true. Just because you want something doesn't make it so.

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

#585

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #478
tsol wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Any religion who claims there is a God does not have proof of such. Anyone who claims God does not exist does not have proof of such.

Correct. We can't prove the existance and we can't disprove the existance. Either side would be wrong. Religion claims there is a god. Science says just we don't know. It is pointless to be on the side of religion because as we agreed one cannot prove or disprove it and therefor it becomes indestinguishable from any other claim that can't be falsified. Christianity says there is a god. I say there's a funny pink mach…

> It is pointless to be on the side of religion because as we agreed one cannot prove or disprove

You agreed, not everyone. Just because you want something doesn't make it real. The evidence is overwhelming. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsEZXx8kRg

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

#586

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #550
al_mandi wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We apply logic where it applies, and we use other sources of evidence for where it doesn't apply. This is the same as we were talking about regarding science. Science and logic have their limitations, they are good at what they do within their realm of operation, but outside of it, we have to use other tools.

> We apply logic where it applies, and we use other sources of evidence for where it doesn't apply If you leave the realm of logic then really anything can be claimed. I claim there is a pink machine outside our universe which is printing universes. How do you know this not to be the case?

> If you leave the realm of logic then really anything can be claimed

God is outside the realm of logic. Think about it, if you create a game or simulation, are you bound by its laws? You can make a simulation where 1 + 1 = 5

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

#587

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #547
al_mandi wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. My first post here was about scientism, which is the religion that science can explain everything.

No you didn't. The specific thread here of the conversation is not about scientism anymore. But if you want to go back, the original discussion was about science vs religion and not scientism. Nobody in here claimed they adhere to blind faith in science and that science can explain everything. The opposite was stated.

Obviously people have blind faith in what is claimed to be science. The last few years demonstrated it quite well.

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

#588

Post by al_mandi »

craftsman wrote: post #490
al_mandi wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inside our observable universe? Yea most likely. We can't deduce that the same hold true outside the universe. Which is why we rely on the honest news. Prophets like Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses Prayers of God be upon them all proved that they came with a message. They performed miracles, and their character is well known. It's basically an inductive proof.

The claims that they performed miracles and various testaments to their good character are hearsay, not evidence. If one man claims that god said to him “such and such”, he may think that god has spoken to him, but I’m not obliged to. All I can say with certainty is that he is a person who thinks god spoke to him and subsequently told me about it.

> not evidence

Of course it's evidence. We have prophecies made thousands of years ago and they're coming true in our very lifetimes. E.g. http://www.provingislam.com

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

#589

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #477
al_mandi wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inside our observable universe? Yea most likely. We can't deduce that the same hold true outside the universe. Which is why we rely on the honest news. Prophets like Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses Prayers of God be upon them all proved that they came with a message. They performed miracles, and their character is well known. It's basically an inductive proof.

No, it's just complete bullshit. Zero reasoning, just wild claims. Your argument with me started out not that bad and I tried to use sound logic to see who might be right. But as the argument went on you drifted more into babble, left the realm of logic and gave up addressing my arguments. Now we're in full tilt nonsense territory it seems.

Again, just because you deny honest news doesn't make it the way you want.

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

#590

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #575
al_mandi wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. And it's not someone else thinking for me. I went through a phase of agnosticism myself before coming back to my senses. I did my own research, standing on the mountains of knowledge of scholars that came before and dedicated their lives to the religion. There are good summaries like provingislam.com (which did not exist when I did my research) for people who want it. And also elaborate explanations like htt…

Another video with wrong conclusions. It boils down to claiming "there is something written in the book which could not have been known at that time and place" which is just a claim with zero proof. We have no way of telling that. The rest of the video he goes on a tangent about how the bible and egyptian beliefs were wrong. That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct nor does it show it came from god…

> which is just a claim with zero proof

We have proof. We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more. Even English author and historian Tom Holland had to admit that the Quran had too much nuanced knowledge about Jewish and Christian texts that, instead of submitting, he had to come up with a completely illogical and provably wrong story that Makkah was not in present day Saudi Arabia, but on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

Even the non Muslims admit and are in awe of what happened.

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some...

> That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct

He proved that what's written in the Quran correct, discoveries made just a couple of hundred years ago.

Post reply on HN