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

Hi Bluejay, I don't need a degree in physics to find out that a singularity must have contained in it all the physical laws and constants that made possible the unfolding and existence of the Universe for billions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out as it doesn't take a genius to figure out that just raw energy cannot construct a universe. And if you want to be logical and make sense you have to admit that all those laws and constants couldn't have entered the singularity by chance. If they did, where did they come from? This fact just screams "Designers!". I think secularism in our countries is going into severe OVER-drive mode at times, it's almost like in Yemen and Iran towards Allah and quite frankly it's a shame. People(and some scientists) find utterly unacceptable the idea that intelligent entities must have set everything in motion. I'd be ashamed of my country if such a stance be adopted officially on a governmental level toward the evidence of design of the universe. I am not making anything up, you are pretending that you don't understand what made possible the unfolding and existence of the universe from raw energy. I am not going to bury my head in the sand, I have no fundamentalist belief in atheism and what i believe is directed only by deductive logic based on scientific findings. Any dogma, whether it's religious or atheistic is still dogma.What solutions can be shown by science concerning pre-Big Bang? Exotic theoretical hypotesises? Why would you need solutions for pre-Big Bang when you haven't resolved the issue with the physical laws entering and emerging from the sinularity with the raws energy(by chance)? How would anyone ever possibly explain this in any way other than design? If the total energy of the universe can be sqeezed into a dimensionless dot, then all the forces, physical laws
and constants must be also there within that zero-volume dot. You think science will explain that in an atheistically friendly way? Think again. In the meantime you can ask Stephen Hawking at S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk but he'll probably respond "It's a philosphical question" as he did in "History of Time". I meant trillions of laws and constants in trillions of different universes. But you are right, I wasn't puntcual - it's much more than trillions, it's many Quadrillions and more(as in the infinity of universes of a Multiverse).

---

"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

And where are all those universes?And who created them with their different laws and constants that somehow penetrated their singularities and made their unfolding from raw energy possible? Let me guess, it'd be luck + chance + coincidence. They created themselves but how???Think about it...Pure energy is bogus, you need something else, can you guess what? Where did it come from?

---

"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 said a universe, or a multitude of universes cannot construct themselves from pure energy without the guidance of physical laws and constants residing in the singularities(at the very least). And as you say, with all those laws that we have in our universe, you could make a good case that our universe was in fact quite inevitable. So I'll need evidence that energy without physical laws to govern it is impossible. Should i pack my stuff up and head for the uncreated where the laws of our universe don't have effect? Wouldn't the NBP steer my spaceship in a circle?You said: to which i replied: Then you said: You proposed that other universes might exist and then you went to say "Which other universes?"What is so scary about being designed? We may well have free will and completely free lives undecided by fate.

---

"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 i have. I wrote about a similar scenario in "What is matter" and got a suspension from the mods on that idea because they misunderstood what i wrote and i didn't use exponents. Anyway, how would that change anything about the creation of the universe? It all started via a singularity(this time the singularity is a quantum fluctuation). How would a quantum fluctuation create a universe if it didn't carry within itself the laws of physics and the constants? OK, the quantum fluctuation does seem uncaused(for now), but a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. How would this energy point know how to construct an universe? It needs the laws of physics and the constants(at the very least). Where would they come from? I am not aware of quantum fluctuations producing laws of physics and constants.Bottomline - all theoretical models of physics require a universe to be produced from energy. To do so by itself, an energy point needs the guidance of physical laws and constants to be integrated into that energy point. A belief that raw energy without physical laws and constants can create a universe is nonsense approaching infinity(I know you haven't claimed that). 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

+ and -, that's all there is to us, our lives, your house, reality, the Earth, the whole near infinite Universe. Only a god can do this, think of god as an architect, aliens, creator, whatever... just don't think of god as randomness, luck, chance or coincidence. To do otherwise would be blind faith, take Einstein's word for it:"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."Take all of the above from someone who is embarassed for having been an atheist towards all gods, personal or impersonal.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 point is - you can't tell who are more ignorant, atheists or theists. As a matter of fact, i'd say that the current level of scientific knowledge slightly tips the scales towards the conclusion that atheists are the ignorant/less informed(generally speaking, no particular religion in mind).

In here lies the rub. The "outside" reality that is generally taken for granted in the Western world is not supported by the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There is an underlying reality and science has been reaching this reality through physics for some time now. This reality is called Consciousness and it is the essence of everything -- everything in the known universe.
Immanuel Kant has the correct descrption of what we are - we are "the thing-in-itself". This is very hard to picture but this is how the whole universe is structured - it's also a "thing-in-itself", and it's growing.
And since Einstein was the father of SR and one of the fathers of QM, he had the earliest knowledge that this reality was ultimatelly an illusion(He was always ahead of his time).Take this from the bright side - our ultimate essense is probably immortal. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi onifre,I took this quote from another thread, as the original thread is now closed. I just wanted to say that i kind of believe you, what you felt is dubbed OBE(out of body experience) and if i wasn't dissuaded not to try it, i'd be now sharing my personal experiences myself(I am a family man and a friend warned me of the possibility that i might go nuts - maybe one day...). The net is literally flooded with similar stories like yours on LSD, DMT, mushrooms and meditation and i am one of those who are aware that the body and consciousness are not one and the same. Moreso, it's not the body that's fundamental but consciousness. I have no explanation how this works - how consciousness paints reality, and it may never get explained, but i am increasingly feeling like giving some of those substances a try.I am with Roger Penrose on this - I think it will be centuries before people come up with a full theory of everything. And i believe any theory of everything that doesn't include consciousness will be a theory of almost everything(just a theory of unification of the fundamental forces). As he says:"Understanding is something that requires awareness. If you believe consciousness is some kind of a feature of a brain activity which is probing what nature is, we have to have a revolution in physics first (before we can fully understand it)."http://www.indianexpress.com/oldstory.php?storyid=16533Consciousness is still lying somewhere between "very poorly understood" and "totally unknowable". I believe it's totally foreign to human body, and in the end it will consciousness that will explain how the elementary particles that form the universe and exist under certain conditions but not in others in something that's not really something which we call spacetime, are able to "see" and be aware of what they are. It's mind-boggling and radical but that's what Einstein brought us at the beginning of the previous century by destroying our orderly and predictable Newtonian world with his theory of relativity and QM. I wached on Discovery that after he finished his General Relativity, he said something to the effect of - "Excuse me Newton, I am sorry"(I am translating this from Bulgarian, this may not be the accurate word for word - Einstein had always admired Newton). Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.