The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

Yes, we have observed the core of Mars. For just one example, Mars’s core has been measured — and it’s surprisingly large.You seem unaware of how insipid your argument is. Everywhere we've looked throughout the universe the laws of nature appear the same, yet you're hoping that the places we haven't yet looked could contain different laws. Good luck with that. The one who's demonstrated the least knowledge is you. You never seem able to muster an argument of the form, "The world is this way because..." The best you can do is, "The world is this way because I say so."So how did you arrive at this truth? Evidence-based arguments only, please, if you don't mind.--Percy

quote:

---

There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.

​

Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.

​

Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.

​

--Percy

---

Then what is stopping the universe from suddenly changing into an elephant?

quote:

---

There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.
Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.

​

Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.

​

--Percy

---

Obviously all you believe in is space, time, matter and energy, all physical, that's it

Your "this is all a dream" argument would invalidate your own position and says you don't believe that, so why would you say it?You're obviously avoiding the topic. Stile explained that we can see natural laws being followed everywhere we look, and his phrasing was tentative, so why would you ask, "How do you know the laws of physics never changed?" when he very carefully explained our knowledge is consistent with observation yet still tentative.You're also responding to detailed arguments with single sentences that tend toward the cryptic. Please stop approaching the discussion this way and participate in good faith. There are people here interested in discussing the topic, but you seem to be trying your best to stymie them. Will you discuss in good faith or just prove you're still the same messed up kid inside?--Percy

If everything is made of physical energy, then there should be no consciousness. Is a hand a hand because at some level it is a hand, or because the constituting elements behave together as a hand. The whole is not more than the sum of its parts, rather, its behavior emerges from the contribution of its parts. And since the parts of a brain are physical, there can be no mental reality in a purely materialistic universe.

quote:

---

Your "this is all a dream" argument would invalidate your own position and says you don't believe that, so why would you say it?

​

You're obviously avoiding the topic. Stile explained that we can see natural laws being followed everywhere we look, and his phrasing was tentative, so why would you ask, "How do you know the laws of physics never changed?" when he very carefully explained our knowledge is consistent with observation yet still tentative.

​

You're also responding to detailed arguments with single sentences that tend toward the cryptic. Please stop approaching the discussion this way and participate in good faith. There are people here interested in discussing the topic, but you seem to be trying your best to stymie them. Will you discuss in good faith or just prove you're still the same messed up kid inside?

---

I did not avoid the topic, but used an argument to respond to an argument. I dealt with the topic.If our knowledge that the laws of physics never changed is tentative, and all scientific knowledge is tentative, and nothing is proven, how can you make any claim about the universe, contrary to my "assertions", and be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong? And if you cannot be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong, but are merely confident, there should be doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm. And if there is no doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm, then you are trusting in propositions, having faith in those propositions, seeing you know that the truth cannot be otherwise, as there is no proof that it is not. And this is evident, because all scientific knowledge is tentative, and can therefore be revised, even rejected, by future scientific findings.I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying. I did nothing to thwart discussion of the topic at hand. I engaged in discussion with everyone that responded to my posts as far as I was able to, and I responded to their arguments with arguments and explanations. If I responded with a single sentence, it is because I was getting tired, as it was late last night when I was on the forum. Perhaps I should not be debating when I am tired.

And you believe this why? What is your evidence that God didn't change? Giving something a label isn't evidence. The OT God or the NT God? For the OT God I think Job all by himself is a sufficient example. For the NT God there's the cursed fig tree and the death of Ananias and Sapphira. It's all in the Bible, as you like to say as if it settles anything. Oh, I guess those poor OT people deserved the anger and retribution, had it coming. Too bad they didn't live in the NT era of greater love and compassion. Ah, so much love. That's as good an argument as, "It's in The Hobbit." Your argument that "there is no possibility that God in caprice would violate nature's Laws" is still a bald declaration without evidence. You don't even have evidence that God exists, yet you're claiming he's the cause of everything.--Percy

It's hilarious when folks like Guido point to the Pharaoh without admitting that that story shows God to be capricious, evil, and cruel beyond any possible redemption.

You appear to have lost the thread of your own argument. You argued that everything has a cause. My language that you're pointing to only indicates that we have no evidence of any cause for certain things. Therefore, how do you know they have a cause? You don't say. So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making? I don't believe there's anything to understand. It's that you don't understand that your internal religious mumbo jumbo is nonsense to others. That was very clarifying in showing hopelessly confused you are. No, the laws of physics are not constrained by logic and math. Logic and math are human constructs. They are used to model reality and can in no way constrain it. Many of our mathematical models are highly accurate and can be used to predict what will happen, such as the time and affected area of an eclipse, but they don't control reality. You're confused again. It was AZPaul3 who called you a pessimist, when you said that whatever caused the cosmos might also cause its destruction. How is "I believe in a loving God" in any way a response about the universe's eventual demise, which you yourself postulated. It seems that in your thinking there's both physical reality and non-physical reality. If that's correct then how could we inhabitants of physical reality become aware of things in non-physical reality? Please describe this process in detail. Not impossible, I suppose, but you're way out on a speculative limb, and to what purpose? The sun could go nova tomorrow and wipe us all out, but how is that speculation an argument for anything? Nobody here has said anything that would support this conclusion. You say this not because you have any support for it but because your religious mindset needs it to be true. It's based upon nothing.What people have actually said is that we accept that for which we have evidence. Provide the evidence that caused you to accept what you think true about reality and we might accept it, too, depending upon the quality of the evidence. "The Bible says so," is not evidence. True. Are you implying that unlike us you *have* made observations of non-physical reality? No one here has provided any support for this statement. Where we lack knowledge we say we don't know. Saying that all evidence we have supports the constancy of physical laws across time and space is not the same thing as saying that we know physical laws are constant across time and space. We're saying the former, not the latter, and you are continually confusing the two. Since your premise was wrong, so are your conclusions. What we've observed of you so far is that you reject evidence from "the physical world, which this God has created," when it conflicts with your personal beliefs about God.--Percy

The amount and quality of the evidence.Don't have to prove anything. Just the preponderance of the data available is all that is necessary for a tentative conclusion. In the case of our models, we have no evidence that these models violate any of the conservation laws and ample observation from the far reaches of the cosmos that show such processes being conserved.On the other hand your assertions that our models are position dependant is without any evidence. You have nothing to show on your side. It's all made up in your head trying to justify an untenable desire for your god.All laws of physics operate the same everywhere in space. Until you can show cause that they do not then your assertions are void.You are trying to tilt at the edifice of science because the reality of this universe doesn't show your favorite flavor of god. You think that if you can dent science your god will miraculously appear. It won't. Merely confident? How about confident to the 5σ level? That's a hell of a lot of assurance that the model is right, especially in light of your having nothing to counter that reality. Just because all science is tentative does not automatically mean your fantasies are viable. You are missing that one vital ingredient absolutely necessary to hold ANY position -- evidence.You want to dispute the science? Show your evidence.

You had a couple replies to this already, but I'm a sucker for nonsense posts and can't resist. Your original statement was, "Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it."? Jar called this nonsense, and in response you argue that your God has no beginning and no end. How is that even relevant, let alone a rebuttal? We accept that the universe had a beginning because the evidence tells us it had a beginning, not because it is animate. Until Hubble's evidence of an expanding universe it was thought eternal. You're using "non-physical reality" in two different ways. Sometimes you use it to refer to God and his realm, and other times, like now, you use it to refer to conceptual ideas like logic and math. God and heaven are not the same kind of thing as logic and math. I don't think you should use the same term for both. Do you think you maybe left out a few steps of logic and argument there? You're just declaring things true without evidence. You're preaching, not discussing. We are not congregants in your church but equals in a discussion. You keep forgetting that and revert to making baseless declarations in the manner of fanatical street corner preacher. This is word salad, signifying nothing. If you think that was logic then you are very confused.--Percy

God, over and over. Christian, no, the universe is not limited by logic and math. Claiming it is over and over and over again will not change that.Your post is the same nonsense word salad you've been repeating for a while now. People have tried to explain that it is filled with gaps in reasoning and logic and isn't based on anything we actually know, but you ignore all that and just say it again. Would you please stop repeating yourself and attempt to engage with what people are telling you?--Percy

This thread accelerated since I posted yesterday afternoon and I don't think I'll be replying to most posts, but this caught my attention: You're like a chess player who can't see more than one move ahead. When a response demands that you recall the conversation back more than one post, you get lost. How is the universe limited by logic and math? Please tell us. The world wants to know.In other words, your answer (and many of your answers) completely misses the point.--Percy

You're following the dictum, "Always change a losing strategy," which is one of the few signs of rational thought you've demonstrated in this thread. But abandoning irrational declarations to instead engage in misrepresentations of what people say probably isn't advisable. Go back to irrational declarations until you can think of something better.AZPaul3 never said minds are not required for the universe to make sense. He said the universe exists regardless whether our minds are present or not. "It was here before us. It will be here after us." That's pretty clear.I don't understand why you persist in arguing. It isn't that we disagree with you. It's that you're not even making any sense. You've expressed no rational position that people can assess, especially given your preference for bald declarations lacking any evidence. You have made a number of statements that can clearly be identified as wrong, but that's about it.--Percy

You're in essence asking, "How do I click on the help link that appears next to 'dBCodes On' to the left of the text box where I'm typing my reply?"I'm addressing your question in as direct a fashion as you are ours.--Percy