Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

It starts with a mystery, an unknown, you can even call it god as long as it's not the god of the bible and the biblical 6-day creation. Now if you believe, have faith and pray to the unknown in churches, things will gradually start to not make sense for us.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi Bluejay,I don't believe there is such a concept as "sin" at all, nothing can convince me otherwise, there is no clue(not even a part of clue) that something is forbidden in this world.Anyway, here is a short rundown on my situation.I feel under pressure because of the infinitely dense wall that the singularity poses. There is a limit to our knowledge, we are bounded or caged in a way and I don't think this will EVER change. I feel like a soul that's looking for a way out to the ultimate truth of reality, that meets a fence that no human can ever cross. Yes, the cage is pretty big by any human standards, but it's a cage there is no way to the truth. You either have to accept that everything is a chance(whatever chance means) or accept the possibility that this dream(real or not) might be caused by a greater force than us, that did not want us to find the ultimate truth of reality. Coming down from an ape-like creature, we may not even understand this truth of reality(if there is one and we are presented with it), so maybe the wall is there for a reason.IMO, the new "religion" - that of Michio Kaku, A.Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. which i share so adamantly, is the melting pot of science, atheism and creationism. It's the best description of reality that fits both science, the good points that atheims raises and the fundamentally unanswerable questions that creationsm covers. It also kind of gives you a new look on reality, you can't take life and what happens in it too seriously when you share those views.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Sorry for pounding atheism for the umpteenth time, but how can anyone believe that DUMB energy can construct an universe, an Earth, living organisms and the computers you're using, by CHANCE??? Does energy have a mind of its own?Are you all serious or is this just a silly joke that i don't comprehend? Atheists are supposed to be smart, right?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Well see, science tells us there was a singularity that was unstable(supposedly it existed in the uncreated between t=0 and t=10^-44 sec.). Then the energy contained in its zero volume burst all the energy out into the uncreated(or rather started expanding very rapidly, FTL). Then if you wind the clock forward you'll notice that that the energy of the Big Bang created an undescribably by any human means complexity, a fully functional infinitely intricate and complex universe with stars and planets and life. How could you believe this? How does it make sense to you when you read atheistic fairy-tales of the sort - it was inevitable, it was random, there are other universes without life, it was a coincidence or luck that energy managed to construct a universe for us.In the end the question remains open - does DUMB energy possess the greatest mind and intelligence that anyone could ever imagine?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

You don't want to answer because you'll have to assume intelligence and so you wipe the uncofortable question under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. Why is there no need for the assumption that only energy cannot create the universe we are in? Because it's against the atheistic dogma? Where did the gravity emerge from after the BB? Did energy set the four fundamental forces by itself within itself just after the BB, so that matter could somehow later arise and exist? Or was it a coincidence that such forces would arise at all? Why would the early universe be homogeneous at all? So that galaxies could form? No everything is random, right?All the theories of elementary particles predict that all protons and neutrons will eventually decay making life impossible. But as extreme luck would have it, the decay of protons is so slow that it has not yet been observed.
But that's not all.
Then particles, being formed by energy and the lucky coincidence of the fundamental forces, somehow spontaneously organised into RNA and later into people and other incredible beings, while still being nothing but an infinitely complex arrangement of energy. All this governed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle that emerged from somewhere(maybe it was again luck) that allowed the formation of all the elements in the Periodic Table from energy.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

So what? Since when are religions right about creation or what God truly is? It was not the point why I claimed that energy constructed the Universe. The point was that i was expecting someone from the atheists lot to come up and say - "Hey, it was not just energy, it was energy plus the laws of physics that constructed the universe".How would energy just after the Big Bang obey laws? Where did they come from? Did the singularity contain the laws within it in a package? What split the energy into electrons, quarks, etc.? How would energy know how to do this? If electrons were already present in the singularity, what put them there? Was the energy within the singularity infinitely highly pre-ordered and structured? If it appears so, how is this possible from the POV of an atheist?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

The only thing i can state for sure and can prove is that just energy residing into the uncreated between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. cannot form matter, space, the universe and life on our planet. There is much more to that energy, and at the very least it contained all the laws of physcis within it(and the question is how and why). I will not go so far as to claim that a creator directed the process but then the fact that there was much more than pure energy within the singularity, in the form of laws, correlations and maths that made possible the emergence of our universe - like the speed of light C, the number P=3.141529..., E=mc^2, etc. surely raises all kinds of philosophical questions to us - the non-religious non-atheists . Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Oh yes, I am more than sure that JUST(I said JUST in the quoted paragraph) energy cannot produce an universe. In the sense that ONLY energy is not enough, you need information, physical laws, physical constants, etc at the very least. Are you sure you want to argue agaist that? That's exactly what I am saying, the universe follows those laws that allow its existence. They allow our existence as well and the existence of your computer that you use to communicate with me. Those set of laws emerged from the singularity, unless you want to believe they were sent down from Jesus or Buddah seconds after the Big Bang. Sorry, i disn't get that, could you rephrase?

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

A non existent universe. Without physical and mathematical laws even a singularity is impossible to exist, if the singularity ever existed it was governed by laws and forces(albeit unknown to us). How could we imagine something to exist without being subject to laws? Isn't that the realm of the omni-potent Biblical god?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Maybe it's me, but i prefer everything to make sense. Every process of the universe is governed by laws that we can comprehend(so far at least), why should I suspect that certain aspects of the universe should not make sense and resort to zero and infinity? What eternal, infinite or nothingness have we ever observed outside of theoretical models?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Mathematics is the description of the universe. What do you mean by invent?

If intelligence is not required, how did the energy of the singularity know how to create a universe without having the four forces + the laws of physics? How would energy create a universe without a blueprint? If intelligence did not place those laws in the zero-volume bundle of Sinularity, what did? Where did they come form in such a fine tuned form to create a universe? You have to explain that if you want to make a point that everything is a natural process. And isn't the cause of a natural process another natural process of another natural process that will lead to trillions of singularities and universes(aka the Big Crunch Big Bang model) and so as you say the nonsensical conclusion that the natural process predates natural process? You can choose the nonsense you want to believe, there is plenty to choose from these days.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Sure, Einstein said it best:"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Yes the laws and constants must have been integrated into the singularity but I believe your interpretation of this fact is a gross over-simplification. On what basis can one claim those laws and constants were not there for a reason? How can all this(and I list just a small part of what's needed) that caused our existence and the universe's existence be uncaused, for no reason, out of luck, a coincidence in the singularity:The Planck constant
The speed of light in vacuum
Proton mass
Elementary charge
Fermi coupling constant
Boltzmann constant
Bohr radius
Newtonian constant of gravitation
Dirac's constant
Faraday constant
Bohr magneton
von Klitzing constant
Nuclear magneton
Wien displacement law constant
Magnetic flux quantumNewton's laws of motion
Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion
Newton’s law of universal gravitation
The four laws of thermodynamics
Law of conservation of energy
Joule’s first and second law
Newton’s law of cooling
Conservation of momentum law
Boyle’s law
Conservation of angular momentum law
Charge conservation law
Special Relativity with its Mass-energy equivalence
General Relativity
Law of heat conduction
General law of gravitation
Ohm's Law
Kirchhoff's circuit laws
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation
Maxwell's equations
Faraday's law of induction:
Schrdinger equationEtc., etc....A universe that could support life couldn't create itself by itself from energy without most of these laws and constants, JUST energy is worthless, these laws and constants must have been intergal to the singularity, i don't believe they were sent from Jesus or Allah and i am not content with the "we don't know yet, we might know in the future" bit.I view these laws and constants as the DNA of the singularity, a blueprint of sorts, that allowed the development of the universe to its present state. And I have listed a small part of all laws that mankind has discovered that govern the universe and every process in it, even the functioning of your body.A sequence of events MUST have been the result of physical laws and mathematics that govern them. We as human beings cannot understand completely uncaused events. Let's not place religious beliefs in science, science is doing everything it can to remove such UNcaused possibility notions. Whereever it can't, philosophy takes over and often religion, but that's too offtopic.But creating a universe that could harbour life is by VERY FAR, in fact by infinite far, the hardest thing any human being can ever possibly imagine. First inside the singularity you must have laws that govern its behaviour between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. Then you must have another set of laws inside it that we also don't know what they were the fundamental initial physical laws under which our Universe unfolded, then you must also have inside of it, the laws that i listed above. Quite possibly(this is just speculation) transition laws are also mandatory that could govern the universe in going from one state to the other. Anyway, all those laws are the blueprint, the DNA of the singularity that emerged with the Big Bang and made our existence possible. Do you believe all this was a coincidence? You can go ahead and invoke a multiverse with trillions of different laws and constants, however that is just religious belief, incredulity into the logical conclusion that a greater intelligence must have set all those laws and constants into the sigularity along with the infinite amount of energy.Here is Stephen Hawking's say on the balance that's needed and that must have been caused by physical laws which we are unaware of:"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollasped before it reached its present size."Hawk On the otherhand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form. The expansion rate itself depends on many factors, such as the initial explosive energy, the mass of the universe, and the strength of gravitational forces.'Stephen Hawking's say on the physical laws emerging with the singularity in his book "Brief History of Time" is quite simple and he simply feels such questions should be the job of philosophy. Energy is worthless, it can't even have meaning without physical laws that would govern its behaviour. It can't "go along" without physical laws, so how did these laws, constants and correlations get there inside the singularity along with the infinite energy in a zero-volume dot?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I meant the maths that is important to us is the maths that describes reality. So the maths that i had in mind describes the physical laws that were present in the singularity and that "took over" shortly after the Big Bang. I didn't mean mathematics is only a description of the actual world, maths can be a construct of the mind in the sense that it can describe fictional events as imaginary time. Maths is just a kind of script for very complicated logics and correlations, which are very hard to describe by words. I am not a matematician, maybe someone will chime in, although i don't know how this has any bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't think mathematical laws are truly laws. They are theoretical depictions of underlying order created by physical laws that arrived in a bundle with the energy of the singularity. These physical laws cannot be described with words and language, so we use maths. BTW, we are just beginning to amass all the laws that govern the universe, we may never collect all of them, we could well go extinct in a few centuries.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein