Could It Be?

[Theland]

Could it be that in trying to discover the origins of the universe, science has compromised its search for the truth, in favour of a strict adherence to naturalism?

[Old_Geezer]

I don't see one needs such a belief. Merely insist that what is conjectured can be tested before acceptance, which tends to keep it in the natural laws. By definition if something naturally happens, it's natural.

[woofgang]

no. next question

[Theland]

OG - I have tried to look extensively for a long time to understand how some scientists can say that the universe came from nothing.

Every single one I have looked at is found wanting.

There has been some consideration in the scientific community towards a theory that there is intelligent design, but these lines of thoughts are quickly shut down from peer pressure.

I continue to look.

[Old_Geezer]

You need to be deeply au fait with quantum physics to get near to truly understanding.

[Old_Geezer]

Intelligent Design is merely the discredited Creation myth with a scientific looking gloss.

[Tilly2]

What's naturalism, Theland?

[10ClarionSt]

Dunno. Still trying to figure out why I've got an electric bill when it aint due for another 3 weeks. And it says my payment is overdue. It must be Eons' strict adherence to naturalism.

[Theland]

OG - I am interested in how Intelligent Design has been discredited.

Of course I am not au fait with Quantum Mechanics, but the scientists at the Discovery Institute are, so I continue my search.

[Theland]

Tilly2 - Naturalism is an insistence that there is nothing outside of the universe, and therefore the answer to the question about the cause of the universe must be found within it.

[Nical]

By 'science' do you mean that thousands and thousands of scientists, from all across the globe have opted for the same thing, the same thought (adherence to naturalism) at the same time? That seems most unlikely.

[Old_Geezer]

It doesn't need to be discredited. It's obviously just Creationism which is clearly a myth from the minds of primitive folk who, having no access to information or knowledge that would allow them to do more than make wild guesses and then claim divine inspiration, did just that.

[Old_Geezer]

Plenty of scientists hold various differing beliefs. But they work on this physical realm.

[Theland]

It doesn't need to be discredited?
That doesn't sound very scientific if you don't mind me saying.

[Old_Geezer]

It's perfectly fine. Scientifically or otherwise. If, as it is, it's simply a rehash of a previous nonsense but using willful disbelief to justify it, it's already beyond the Pale. It needs no further discrediting.

[MallyJ]

It makes me chuckle...you have looked carefully at what scientists say is the origins, read the physical evidence that backs their conclusions and found their theories wanting and yet you believe some god, who appeared from nowhere, who does not have any form of physical presence and for whom there is no evidence of existence whatsoever created the universe ..probably in 6 days......... !!! Bonkers!

[Canary42]

Spot on, Mally.

[naomi24]

Mally, a very fair assessment.

[Ellipsis]

Read Chapter 1 of this book:

Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation

It sums things up quite nicely.

[Theland]

(Can't read it - still problems with my i pad).

I am well acquainted with Hawkings work.

"As long as there is such a thing as gravity, the universe will create itself."

This is similar to Krauss, and I disagree with them both.

[Ellipsis]

Have you read chapter one of that book? It lays out a case from beginning to end that nobody here could improve on.