No it did not prove your point because you said theories are proven which is not true. They are just a best guess. Like all of science at the end of the day.
There is no myth to creation. The universe had a beginning, the universe did not always exist, it did not create itself, then what else is left? You are left with only one option that an outside force/entity created the universe. You can label that force whatever you want but you’re just playing mental gymnastics which will inevitablty lead to the acceptance of a creator.
if someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean “they’ve convinced themselves that this thing is true,” or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range.
Your own quote.
the universe had a beginning. the universe did not always exist
Then why is this the mainstream scientific consensus? Do you have any evidence that the unuverse was created by any god at all, let alone your specific god?
The universe is all that is. It doesn’t make any logical sense to say it had a beginning. Nothing came before the universe, because there universe includes all of time, and the idea of “before time” is absolutely nonsensical.
You are left with only one option that an outside force/entity created the universe.
Ya the quote is saying you’ve convinced yourself that something is true, not necessarily that it is. What is your overwhelming evidence that the universe always existed? If you actually open the article, it explains how theories are just a best guess. Not that they can be considered a fact or proven. Nothing in science can be proven.
“… (Referring to theories) Except that’s a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren’t proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.”
“…(Referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Big Bang Theory) But as validating as that is — and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives — it’s completely impossible to prove anything in science.”
“Proof are mathematical entities: … In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.”
“It’s a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren’t applicable to the system you’re dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that’s why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.”
“Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our “proofs” aren’t on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory’s range of validity — we’ll “prove” something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean “they’ve convinced themselves that this thing is true,” or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It’s always subject to revision.”
Then why is this the mainstream scientific consensus? Do you have any evidence that the unuverse was created by any god at all, let alone your specific god?
Who said it was? You’re making stuff up at this point. There is no consensus. Not everyone agrees on that. In fact, if you are talking majority and not consensus, the strongest theory is the Big Bang theory. Which says that the universe does have a beginning.
The universe is all that is. It doesn’t make any logical sense to say it had a beginning. Nothing came before the universe, because there universe includes all of time, and the idea of “before time” is absolutely nonsensical.
How is it illogical to say there was a beginning? It’s the other way around. It’s illogical to say the universe always existed. You run into all sorts of problems with an infinite past. It would mean that the universe will always stay a vacuum which clearly isn’t the case because planets, systems, and galaxies exist. Also if the universe started as a vacuum, how did energy and matter begin? From nothing? Again, this “universe has always existed” statement makes no sense and has zero evidence. This is exactly why it is not propogated by any scientist worth his salt.
Explain how you make this logical leap.
It isn’t a logical leap. It is the only logical explanation left. Name anything else that can explain the beginning of the universe.
No it did not prove your point because you said theories are proven which is not true. They are just a best guess. Like all of science at the end of the day.
There is no myth to creation. The universe had a beginning, the universe did not always exist, it did not create itself, then what else is left? You are left with only one option that an outside force/entity created the universe. You can label that force whatever you want but you’re just playing mental gymnastics which will inevitablty lead to the acceptance of a creator.
Your own quote.
Then why is this the mainstream scientific consensus? Do you have any evidence that the unuverse was created by any god at all, let alone your specific god?
The universe is all that is. It doesn’t make any logical sense to say it had a beginning. Nothing came before the universe, because there universe includes all of time, and the idea of “before time” is absolutely nonsensical.
Explain how you make this logical leap.
Ya the quote is saying you’ve convinced yourself that something is true, not necessarily that it is. What is your overwhelming evidence that the universe always existed? If you actually open the article, it explains how theories are just a best guess. Not that they can be considered a fact or proven. Nothing in science can be proven.
“… (Referring to theories) Except that’s a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren’t proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.”
“…(Referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Big Bang Theory) But as validating as that is — and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives — it’s completely impossible to prove anything in science.”
“Proof are mathematical entities: … In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.”
“It’s a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren’t applicable to the system you’re dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that’s why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.”
“Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our “proofs” aren’t on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory’s range of validity — we’ll “prove” something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean “they’ve convinced themselves that this thing is true,” or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It’s always subject to revision.”
Who said it was? You’re making stuff up at this point. There is no consensus. Not everyone agrees on that. In fact, if you are talking majority and not consensus, the strongest theory is the Big Bang theory. Which says that the universe does have a beginning.
How is it illogical to say there was a beginning? It’s the other way around. It’s illogical to say the universe always existed. You run into all sorts of problems with an infinite past. It would mean that the universe will always stay a vacuum which clearly isn’t the case because planets, systems, and galaxies exist. Also if the universe started as a vacuum, how did energy and matter begin? From nothing? Again, this “universe has always existed” statement makes no sense and has zero evidence. This is exactly why it is not propogated by any scientist worth his salt.
It isn’t a logical leap. It is the only logical explanation left. Name anything else that can explain the beginning of the universe.