Ah yes, Pascal's wager. You forgot one outcome though, what if you have been worshiping the wrong God? What if the Muslim's have been right the whole time and we both end up in Hell? What if the Hindus and Buddhists have been right and we end up reincarnated as cockroaches? One of the problems with Pascal's wager is that it assumes a binary, that there are only two answers, the God of the Bible exists or that the atheists are correct, but there are many other possibilities. As for you having nothing to lose, well... you are right, however society has a lot to lose because you could be helping it stop denying science and believing in ancient myths and instead, embrace science and become an enlightened civilization that solves most of the problems that plague humankind creating a near utopia.
1. Theories cannot be "proven" 2. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation is actually not a part of string theory at all, but rather quantum theory. 3. The paper shows mathematical proof.
So basically....your God is unknowable but YOU somehow know it? Science knows almost nothing but YOU teach it? Your version of God does not fit into a box but you just placed it in one you created. You claim to teach science yet do not understand it very well....Please do not teach in public schools and focus on religious institutions. Actually I suggest you start your own school to teach the religion and God you have created.
Correct. However, you may wish to use a phrase other than "creation of life", as it is a bit toxic because it can imply intelligent design. In the future, perhaps you could use the terms "origin of life" or "formation of life", as they are more neutral. Correct. Again, however, use of the word "creation" is a bit toxic. Can you rewrite your sentence to be less so? This is a non-sequitur, with a strawman fallacy side salad. None of the current abiogenesis hypotheses assume the origin of carbon based life on Earth came from nothing. Indeed, all of these hypotheses involve testing and researching chemical reactions involving many different atomic elements. These are not "nothing". They are "something". In addition, the creation mythology from the Abrahamic religions claims life came from something too, e.g, male humans from dirt, female humans from a rib, etc. Your sentence also is a non-sequitur. There is no logical or reasonable basis to conclude that "we have to assume that there was another factor", particularly since your premise is false to begin with. Please spend some time studying (i) non-sequitur and (ii) strawman fallacy. Another strawman fallacy. No scientific theory predicts carbon based life arose from a glass jar composed mostly of silicon and oxygen and devoid of hydrogen.
Yet another strawman fallacy. First, the Big Bang hypothesis/theory predicts that the universe's expansion and subsequent formation of matter, energy, elements, etc. began with a singularity. A singularity is a "something", not a "nothing". Second, the Big Bang hypothesis/theory does not claim to explain how or why the changes occured, and certainly does not predict it was due to "randomness". You should actually study the Big Bang hypothesis/theory so that you don't make these, or similar, mistakes in the future.
The Big Bang is simply the most comprehensive and rational theory of how this universe began and what defines the physical nature we observe. It generally fits with what we know of Physics and cosmology but does not delve into how life began in any way beyond chemical manufacture. The data that supports and led to the concept of Abiogenesis is a completely separate matter but carries compelling evidence of likelihood in both meteor composition containing amino acids and laboratory experiments. Creation has NO, ZERO,ZIP data beyond an old book and fantasy super beings and is thus dismissed by those who dwell in reality and science.
If they know how it happened then why haven't they recreated it? What you are saying is that they actually don't know, they are speculating. Yes, God created it. So add some hydrogen and wait. How long do you think it will take before life springs up in the jar?
Almost a good question. Science doesn't have an answer for the singularity. It's pretty hard to investigate, though there have been some interesting ideas. Adding "out of nothing" doesn't change anything.
That singularity sounds an awful lot like God to me. Nobody can explain how it was there and it created the universe and life.
I don't know, and neither do you. That being said, Big Bang and Inflationary cosmology predicts time did not/does not/will not exist for the singularity and thus any temporal inquiry concerning it is meaningless. Without time no cause and effect occurs, no beginnings or endings occur, etc. I suspect your basic question is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" You should explore this question. There are many interesting writings about this question. I suggest you find them and read them. Back to your statement, you assume the singularity came from nothing. Why do you assume such a premise?
They predict that because they can't answer the question. Saying time doesn't exist is a cop out. And see my above post, what you are defining is God down to the detail. Yet this singularity can exist but God can't even though Christians use the same exact examples of how.
Well, each black hole contains a singularity at its center. Are you polytheistic? You assume a singularity "created" the universe and life. Why do you assume these two premises?
I believe it would explain much, certainly on our planet with all the different religions. There is a theory that is emerging in popularity that all Gods are actually the same God who is simply appealing to different cultures in ways they can more easily relate to. Therefore it isn't what God you pray to, what matters is that you do pray and worship. Do I think singularities are Gods? No, they show no sign of intelligence. My argument there was that the way you define a singularity is the exact same way you define God and they both did the same things. Its unreasonable to believe one is possible and the other is not. As a Christian I can say that maybe God isn't real for discussion purposes but the other side is not capable of that. That is hypocritical to me.
Scientific theories (and scientific hypotheses which become scientific theories) provide explanations and predictions concerning natural phenomena. I suspect you do not understand the philosophy of science or the scientific method, at least not enough to hold a rational conversation. Again, study hard. Says you. The referenced science explains and predicts what it explains and predicts. I'm doing no such thing. You are the one consistently bringing your theism into a science discussion. Wishful thinking and alternative reality is a bad combination. Try to stay on topic. You are confused. I said no such thing.
If your religion were that god made the big bang and stepped back from there, I'd probably be fine. In general, there is a lot to talk about that would be easier without having the impediment of having the bible be considered literal on creation, Adam/Eve, Noah, etc. I don't believe that the theory of evolution is antiChrist. In general, let's remember that when we don't have an answer, it is NOT evidence of god. It's evidence of being human.
To you, perhaps. To others, not so much. Yes, you have identified a monotheistic apologetic which has recently become popular among some theists, along with certain religious dogma. Why do you raise these items on a science forum? How are they relevant to the scientific discussion? Of course not. Singularities are singularities, nothing more, nothing less and nothing different. And yes, singularities exhibit no signs of intelligence. I provided no definition, explanation or identifying characteristics of any god, including your God. I also did not claim that any god is not possible. Again, you appear quite confused. I do not understand what you are trying to say, other than I do understand that you incessantly attempt to interject your personal theism into a science discussion. Why do you do this?
You asked me about it so I answered then you asked why I was talking about it and now you won't admit it and instead resort to 4th grade trolling. I think that says far more about you than I.
