I want to thank everyone for an interesting discussion. My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. The corollary is that atheism is fundamentally irrational.
I feel that I need to move on as I do not quite fit in. There is a lot of sparring in the discussion that indicates a young crowd. It reminds me of young bulls testing their strength (applies to both women and men). This is not a negative just an observation.
Have fun....

Gregory

"the world could have any shape, size, qualities, anything you can imagine" In fact, that is not true unless one does not care about the consequences. The restrictions are extremely tight if one wants to have a world that can support life. It that requirement is not necessary then yes, there are many possibilities but there are still restrictions. For example, it is impossible to make a coffee cup the size of Earth. Gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball-like structure. By the way, one can calculate the size of the largest living organism that could exist on the surface of the Earth just based of the strength of interaction between atoms. (I cannot do that but I've read the paper that reported the calculation).
On another subject, you asked, can God be made of energy? I would say no, at least energy as we know it. God cannot be made of anything created because He existed before creation.

Gregory

"the world could have any shape, size, qualities, anything you can imagine" In fact, that is not true unless one does not care about the consequences. The restrictions are extremely tight if one wants to have a world that can support life. It that requirement is not necessary then yes, there are many possibilities but there are still restrictions. For example, it is impossible to make a coffee cup the size of Earth. Gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball-like structure. By the way, one can calculate the size of the largest living organism that could exist on the surface of the Earth just based of the strength of interaction between atoms. (I cannot do that but I've read the paper that reported the calculation).
On another subject, you asked, can God be made of energy? I would say no, at least energy as we know it. God cannot be made of anything created because He existed before creation.

Leiton Baynes

Your expressed opinion that God is used to explain away natural phenomena that are not yet understood, is a frequently held opinion. Yet, if one reads the Bible one does not see that at all. Nowhere does it try to explain natural phenomena by appealing to God. It is true that Genesis describes the beginning with acts of God but that story is a way of telling us that God created the universe but in a way that could be understood both by primitive peoples and more sophisticated ones. Note that the Bible says that light came before the Sun and the stars. That notion could be ridiculed up to about 100 years ago. Now we know that it is true. Separation of light from darkness is what we now believe happened early in the expansion of the universe...interesting. Otherwise, the Bible is a story about the relationship between God and man. It is not a science book.
As to our knowledge of the way the universe works from present-day Physics, yes, you are correct that there aspects that are not understood (dark matter, wave-particle duality). Given that, what is known and understood is truly amazing. Yes, it is limited to the material world which is probably not all that exists. I think one can say with confidence that based on what we know collectively, what we know to be quite solid science, certain events (e.g. beginning of the universe) are not possible based on the properties of the universe. Perhaps in 100 years that statement will prove false but I doubt it very much.

EnPassant

I actually agree with most of what you said. Outside of one's area of expertise one can be rather ordinary in skill and insight. One should never put anyone on a pedestal, accepting statements without making one's own judgement.
I don't particularly like opera, despite being Italian by birth. Given a choice, I'd much rather be tinkering with a mechanical device. A great deal of creativity goes into probing the mechanism of action of a novel cellular protein...exploring the unknown. This is not base or primitive. This is merely a part of a constellation of human interests and activities.

substantivalism

Light isn't pure energy that's sort of a misnomer. substantivalism
Well, I disagree. Light is electromagnetic radiation in a particular range of frequencies. It is pure energy. For example, when matter and antimatter collide and totally annihilate each other converting all matter into energy, the only things that are produced are two photons of energy. Nothing else is produced. There is no contaminant. It is pure energy. Please explain why you think that light is not pure energy.

Here you're are using the word universe which I'm assuming you mean as what we can see through telescopes as the greater cosmos (existing stuff beyond our sight or disconnected from our spacetime) is not accessible to us and we have not reason to rule it out or in. substantivalism
One can never rule out what one does not know.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it unless you think that the intelligence we possess allows us to walk through walls. We can manipulate loosely the reality that surrounds us as well as makes us up but creating it extends this analogy so far that you would have to specify how you know an extremely intelligent being could do so. substantivalism
As I said, intelligence is essential to determine the exact conditions that will result in the universe self-assembling in a way that will produce life. As an analogy, imagine you have a totally automated car assembly factory and your job is to program all the robots to assemble the car without human interference. You would need to be very intelligent to write the correct programs. That does not mean that having that intelligence will suffice to build the assembly plant. Someone else built the robots and purchased all the needed parts. Intelligence alone does not generate matter from nothing. That is a separate issue. Suppose that some weird process devoid of any intelligence suddenly generated an enormous amount of energy, unless the proper rules of were also present, that energy could simply dissipate as it expanded and nothing world form…or only hydrogen would form…or whatever.

You also haven't defined god so we can't investigate whether it's or is not successful in better explaining our observations or in other terms better describing them. substantivalism
All one can deduce from our scientific knowledge is the existence of an intelligent being capable of generating a universe consisting of an amount of matter/energy equivalent to 10 to the power 24 stars…more or less. (including dark matter etc.). At the same time to generate space/time and to determine all the laws governing all the interactions. One can surmise that this being exist without space and time and is not composed of matter and energy. Does that help?
If my trash can, capped with a tight lid, is raided at night, I do not need to define what animal did that to know that the animal existed and did the deed. I might be able to estimate the strength of the animal and find other clues, but those are superfluous to the conclusion that the animal exists. The animal could have been a racoon, a human, a bigfoot…irrelevant.

Well matter is just an umbrella term for stuff which isn't a measure and the mass or inertia of objects isn't something that is conserved. Energy, even in our universe, due to general relativity isn't much conserved since energy requires time translation symmetry. substantivalism
Under the conditions in which the vast majority of processes take place in our universe, matter+energy is conserved. Name one significant process that has been observed to take place in which matter+energy is not conserved. By significant you can consider any process that affects this sum by at least 1 part in 10 to the power 20 of all the processes in the universe.

With regard to your comments about physics, they are trivial and do not consider the context in which I made the statements. Ok so E=mc^2 does not include the kinetic energy present in the motion of the particle in question. So what? That is not why I introduced that piece of information. Other assertions you make are actually opinions and/or selective interpretations. You are welcome to your point of view.

TheMadFool

“You correctly pointed to the fact that science evolves - its theories adapt as more and more disparate observations are made. Part of this adaptive process probably involves making new assumptions. Do you see a point in the distant future when one of these new assumptions is "there's a God"?” The Mad Fool

The word assumption is not quite correct. Science advances as a result of new observations that do not fit within existing paradigms or new theories that better, more inclusively, explain the observations or processes of interest. One tries to avoid making assumptions. I also don’t like the work “evolves” in this context because I like to think of it as a combination of chance and natural selection, although the word, evolution is widely used synonymously with simple change regardless of the process. To answer your question: no. Science as understood today is not merely knowledge of any kind but limited to the material world.

“The way you've approached the issue is just one of the many ways available - you've taken the path of miracles where you rely on the scientifically inexplicable as evidence for God. However, if you look at the scientific community the way some of them strengthen their belief in God is through discovering, understanding the laws which govern the universe i.e. the scientist's route to God is built of the scientifically explicable.” TheMadFool

Indeed, the “truly” scientifically inexplicable is prima facie evidence for the existence of God. I understand that some argue for the direct action by God in producing life on Earth based on extremely complex systems whose components have no apparent function (e.g. the ATP synthase rotary motor). Even the formation of the first living cell from non-living matter seems totally impossible without some help. In a way one could label those as miraculous. I do not subscribe to that because it is possible, however unlikely, that these did form spontaneously. Other events, such as the birth of the universe, the getting water out of solid rock, generating bread from nothing, are truly scientifically impossible.

EnPassant

"As I see it, science is concerned with primitive realities. Matter is primitive and so is much of mathematics. It is naive to think that the science of the primitive could answer questions concerning higher things: art, religion, consciousness, God, creativity, emotion, music, literature... these things are far beyond science. Trying to reduce these things to scientific 'proofs' is like trying to reduce oil painting to the chemistry of pigments or reduce music to an analysis of the sine wave."
EmPassant
This is an interesting point of view. Not that I agree with it but it's interesting to see a different perspective and wonder why someone would hold such an opinion. I don't see science and mathematics to be primitive but rather to be solid and reliable tools to understand everything. I see art, music, literature, and emotion as being soft, malleable, unreliable, and thus rather useless tools if one wants to know anything with any confidence. (the other items mentioned do not belong) These soft things are all susceptible to subjective interpretation and thus mainly useful as sources of pleasure. I do agree that none of the things listed above as "higher things" are subject to any proofs. These all obviously exist (for respect let's not include God) just as water exists and the Moon exists. To assert that art, music and literature are higher in any way than science and mathematics is merely a personal opinion to which anyone is entitled to have or not to have. As to primitive, I think archeology would indicate that art preceded mathematics and thus is more primitive based on the depictions on the walls of caves. I do not recall seeing any numbers written on the oldest cave paintings. Science, on the other hand, may have come before art as someone needed to identify a pigment. Of course the pigment may have just been observed without any truly scientific thought process.

substantivalism

Thank you very much for your extensive analysis. It is much appreciated.

"The nature of reality or the nature of anything is inherently unknowable as the only things we have access to are our sensory perceptions and the pragmatic epistemological idealism we would use to then analyze said perceptions or abstract from them.” substantivalism
It seems to me that being so strict about what it means to know is counterproductive. Despite our limitations it is very useful to arrive at an understanding of any process knowing that that understanding may need to be modified as more information becomes available. To simply say that something is unknowable is to abandon the search for truth. Although truth is absolute, knowledge is graded.
.” I'll also note that energy is obviously a purely mathematical entity especially since (via Noether's theorem) we only get energy conservation from our laws if the laws in question are mathematically time translation invariant, energy here being some mathematical entity that is conserved.” substantivalism
The problem with mathematical models of real systems is that they often do not include all aspects of the system. Noether's theorem does not apply to dissipative systems and that aspect of dissipation is a critical property of the universe. I must disagree that energy is a purely mathematical entity as this statement seems to me to imply that it is theoretical and not real.
“H3: Physics (nor any other philosophical speculation) falls by the wayside if it seeks to establish or explain the nature of our experiences (an issue in its own right) and rather physics creates predictable models upon which to map reality.” substantivalism
It seems to me that H3 has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Please enlighten me.
“Yes, these explanations are in the realm of science fiction just as much as this interpretation (the ex nihilo one) of the big bang theory is. Every scientist/physicists who are atheist/theist have regarded the description that general relativity gives of reality as incomplete and in need of amending meaning any interpretation of spacetime/matter beginning 13.8 billion years ago….” substantivalism
Regardless of the incompleteness of existing theories when applied to the extreme conditions present in the very early universe, the evidence for the extreme conditions in that early universe is extremely strong. The backward extrapolation leads to a singularity beyond which is unknown territory. The logical conclusions are either the moment of creation or some process totally outside known science. Creation from nothing by God is not a problem…not science fiction.
“There is no reason these fundamental constants should be the way they are as far as were aware (we haven't discovered it yet if there is one) but there also isn't any reason that such fundamental constants could have been one of infinitely many others/a finite set or this is the only truly possible universe to exist (speaking about metaphysical/nomological possibilities and not conceptual ones)……” substantivalism
If a fundamental constant, such as the gravitational constant, could have a continuum of values then there can be an infinite number of possible values. If the correct value is to be obtained at random, without any intelligence, one needs to propose an infinite number of universes each with a different value of G for one of these to have the correct value. Since there are many fundamental constants, to generate by random chance the correct set of values (as these are interdependent in terms of overall outcome) again we need an infinite number of trials. Our universe would have to be one of a very very small number with one of the correct set of values that would result in a universe that would produce intelligent life. All the failed universes would need to somehow exist. These are all undetectable and unverifiable parameters in a rather unattractive theory.
“Well in my eyes physics nor philosophy where ever "explain" (define this term) these aspects of our world if at best we only ever know that they exist and all other bridges of investigation have burned down you have to be realistic or become comfortable with not knowing.” substantivalism
I am using “explain” in the sense of common usage…to state why things are as they are. Why is the universe so finely tuned to result in the formation of intelligent life and yet it will not reach some steady state where life can exist but rather end up totally dead. In my mind the best explanation is that God created it as such because this is our temporary home. Of course, that is an explanation that strict materialistic science cannot convey.
“Though, when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics and then intermix that with quantum mechanics you can get momentary as well as unlikely but not impossible reversals of thermodynamics. Under certain quantum theories given an un-ending future no matter how unlikely the possibility sooner or later you could have a spontaneous reversal of thermodynamics resulting in, yes, a new big bang. If you wanted to get at what the best descriptions of how our universe works we would need to incorporate quantum mechanics which does possess such violations on smaller scales as well as theoretical ones (via the same model) on much larger scales.” substantivalism
In fact, only very small scale “reversals” are possible. It’s more that individual elements in the system can probabilistically move to higher energy states transiently even though the overall population must follow the thermodynamically determined direction. Clearly the universe is a very large population of fundamental particles and it continues to proceed as determined by thermodynamics. In this universe entropy must increase. There is no new big bang in reality.
“You have a burden of proof and now you must respect such a burden by first defining what a god is and how you know this particular being exists. Then go into how this god concept can give us a predictively successful model of reality that is better than any given previous.” substantivalism
Materialistic science alone cannot go any further. Because of our severe limitations in our ability to gain knowledge (as you as so well stated) we cannot have any information about God except what is revealed by God.
“Also, on the "thousands of skeptical observers" if you are talking about the miracle of Fatima no other person/scientist on earth noticed any changes in the suns positions (especially gravitationally) nor did anyone else report it as such doing rather strange behaviors but if you are talking about Jesus performing miracles to thousands in the bible note that the central claim here is that there were thousands (no second hand reports were given) so we cannot know that thousands actually say such an action performed (or that these thousands actually existed).” substantivalism
To be fair and unbiased, the bible is a collection of books. Some are historical, others poetic, others share words of wisdom… The historical books should be treated as any other historical books. They described the events that happened. To discount events that are scientifically impossible is to be biased against the possibility that such events can take place. The descriptions are highly credible as is the skeptical nature of those present. These extraordinary events had such an impact on the culture that some of those are still celebrated today (e.g. Passover). If scientific study leads to the conclusion that the best hypothesis is the existence of God as creator of the universe then one might expect revelation of His existence and actions to influence the social progress. Setting the correct initial conditions and properties of the universe were very likely sufficient to eventually produce intelligent life but then knowledge of God and of the purpose of existence had to be revealed.

Tim Wood

You can look at gamma as just a term in an equation separate from mass. Alternatively the equation embodies reality and gamma expresses how speed changes gravity. I prefer the latter because it makes mechanistic sense.
As to light following "world lines", that is too simplistic...sorry to say. Despite having zero mass, photons are still attracted to matter by gravity. Yes, gravity can be understood as a distortion in space but that distortion (or strength of attraction) depends on the mass of the massive object and the "mass equivalent" of the photon, which depends on the energy of the photon. Thus a microwave photon, a light photon, and a gamma ray photon will be affected to different extents. Are they each following different "world lines"?
By the way, everyone has knowledge that they can share and I hope to learn for these discussions as much as I share of my knowledge.

Gregory

Tim Wood

All scientific doctoral degrees are Ph.D. degrees. My degree is in Biochemistry. If you are interested you can find me in Google Scholar. I'm the one with over 14,000 citations of my research.
My point was that a scientific degree is historically a degree in philosophy. Ph.D. is doctor of philosophy in a particular sub-area. I was just bemoaning the separation between science and philosophy. Both seek to understand our world.

Augustusea

You raise interesting points...
My use of the term usable and non-usable energy actually applies not only to human activity but all activity by both animate and inanimate objects. The technical term is entropy and that always increases overall, although living organisms decease it locally (for themselves) only to increase it in the environment by a greater amount. A simple, perhaps too simple, example is a wind-up toy. Energy is put into the toy by winding up the spring. What happens to it...motion, sound...but eventually it all becomes heat. All the energy becomes unusable. Fresh energy is needed to wind the spring up again.
The universe started as a giant wind-up toy...enormous energy. That energy allowed the universe to self-assemble and allowed life to form. The usable energy is being converted into non-usable energy. Stars will run out of fuel. That will not be replaced.
There is a bottleneck in the formation of elements. The simultaneous fusion of 3 He atoms is needed to for carbon. There are no other pathways. If the energy levels are not quite right this reaction will not occur and further formation of elements will not take place. No matter what science fiction says, no life can exist with only two gases, or two liquids it the temperature were low enough.
Well, in my humble opinion, AI is not and will never be alive. It is very useful but is not life. It is an imitation of life. Silicon-based life has been speculated but there are many mechanistic problems with silicon. One obvious problem is that oxidation of silicon produces a solid that is difficult to eliminate if that is an end product of an energy-generating reaction.
I do not understand why the death of any individual would mean the death of the universe. A dead universe is one in which there is no life anywhere.
One can imagine many things, most of which do not exist.
By building a car I was referring to a complex object that requires high levels of technology and expertise to produce....just replace car by a fully functional Tesla or a fully functional 747 jetliner.
Dark matter, dark energy, string theory are all hypothetical proposals to try to explain observations or advance scientific theory. These were not predicted but proposed. In my opinion, the first 2 are likely to be valid. I have reservations regarding string theory...but that is not my area of expertise.

Gregory

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). The separation in recent times is unfortunate. I apologize for not addressing your concerns but I'd like to keep the focus elsewhere.

3017amen

...thanks, I was not aware of the quote button

Tim Wood...Ok, the person on the video is very reputable. Yes indeed relativistic mass is what increases. Now that becomes a semantic argument. What is that gamma term? The gamma term is the way speed affects the mass of the object. Thus factoring out that part it just leaves you with the rest mass. It's a bit of deception in my opinion. In scientific publications physicists talk about rest mass and measured mass of a particle at a particular speed. Clearly not everyone likes this. The author of the video to which you refer has a valid argument. Relativistic speed cannot be used to determine gravitational attraction. Well gravity, according to Einstein is the distortion of space. Mass distorts space thus causing objects to move together. A rapidly moving particle may distort space asymmetrically so that the distortion in the direction of a passing planet is not the same as the distortion in the direction of motion. Alternatively, the property that causes space to distort is proportional to the mass but unrelated to it. Photons are attracted to a massive objects even though they have no mass. This is the famous experiment in which a solar eclipse is used to observe that the position of stars whose light is passing close to the Sun look as if they have shifted in position because the light is bent just slightly. The bending is proportional to the energy of the photon or the "mass equivalent". Note that the classical gravitation equation does not work in this case either because the real mass is zero for the photon. The bottom line to which everyone can agree is that no particle with any mass can travel at the speed of light because it would require infinite energy. Thus photons have no mass but still exist...otherwise you could not see.

Ciceronianus the White, I hate to get into the topic of aliens. However, I propose that a civilization that is limited in technology to the use of stones without any mortar or cement would have been smart enough to be creative about the use of stones. To me it shows that these ancients were very intelligent and able to employ methods that we have not thought of because we use other materials.

3017 Amen...thanks. Regarding consciousness, I don't know what is consciousness. My speculation is that it is the soul that is using the brain as an interface into this reality. This is obviously not science.

Tim Wood, that the mass of a particle increases with speed is a well established fact. You can pick up any good physics textbook. There is much misinformation on the web.

Tim Wood...point well taken regarding correct and better. Semantics is so imprecise. All measurements have errors and thus the time sent from the GPS satellite is "correct" withing some error value. One can argue that the value is merely better. However the use of relativistic physics allows one to obtain values of time as close to exact as possible with the limitations of the errors present in real systems. Given the presence of error one cannot be certain that the theory is indeed a perfect description of reality. However, it is my understanding that within the degree of accuracy achievable, the theory shows no sign of having built-in error.
On further thought, I want to state that non-relativistic physics gives approximate answers that are as accurate as possible under "normal" conditions but is fundamentally wrong for high precision. It is wrong because it does not embody all the necessary properties of the universe. Based on all tests of which I am aware, relativistic physics gives not just better values but actually correct values withing the accuracy that can be achieved. If there is something missing in this theory, there is no sign of it.
There is another aspect to emphasize. There are models that merely mimic the behavior in real life. For example, models of the changes in the stock market try to predict future changes based on the shape of the curve. The relativistic equations were derived to embody quantitatively a property of the universe. That is true quantitative physics as opposed to curve fitting without actually modeling the underlying processes.

Hippyhead, something does not need to have mass to exist. Photons have no mass. That allows them to travel at the speed of light. If they had mass then they could not travel at the speed of light because at that speed anything with mass would have an infinite mass and thus require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. If the definition of existence includes having mass then the definition is wrong.
How do we know that the mass of a particle increases with speed? Well, when charged particles are accelerated, the mass increases as described by Einstein's equations. In particle accelerators that increase in mass must be considered in order to control the motion of the particle and reach speeds close to that of light.
By the way, mass is not permanent. The collision of a particle and an antiparticle (e.g. electron and a positron) results in total annihilation producing gamma rays that have no mass. Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it.

Tim Wood, yes it is true that all of our understanding arises from models of reality. The models are generally incomplete descriptions of reality especially in the biological area. Yet these are necessary and quantitative models are extremely useful both to understand the past and predict the future of any process. We rely on these models to understand our universe. That is reasonable otherwise we can just decide not to even attempt to understand all we see. Our understanding of space/time, yes a model, describes reality rather well. An interesting example of how our understanding of space/time is practical. The original satellites that were launched into orbit to produce the global positioning system were designed to work in 2 ways, one using classical physics and the other using relativistic physics. The engineers were not quite sure that moving clocks away from the Earth's gravitational field would cause time to slow down. Guess what happened... relativistic physics was (is) correct. Without that correct model our GPS system would not work properly.

180 Proof, the identification of an event that is unexplanable by settled science is not a gap but a big deal. For example changes with time of fundamental constants is a big concern. The fine structure constant of matter may be changing by as much as one part in 10 to the power 17 per year. That is the level of accuracy one worries about. It's not a matter of filling in gaps as is discussed in philosophy but rather of having an understanding of reality that best fits all observations and current knowledge.

Hippyhead, in science, something either exists or does not. There no intermediate. In philosophy there seems to be an intermediate and I cannot conceive of such and thus cannot comment. As a scientist the question is legitimate. As you know, the mind can conceive of many things, most of which do not exist and cannot exist.
Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. Indeed, one dimension of space is time. As you know, we exist in 4 dimensions (there may be more). The location of everything in space/time can be defined by providing 4 dimensional measurements. If one wants to find someone or something, the location needs to be given in 4 dimensions. On Earth, the information may be provided in a simpler and cruder fashion.

3017amen, indeed, both views are held by persons interested in understanding the universe and our existence. These are two hypotheses of the nature of our reality. The difference is that one view is far better supported by all available information and the other is not. Some scientists I have known actively ignore information contrary to their hypothesis because they become so wedded to it. These can be very intelligent and capable scientists. It is quire sad especially if one knows the person. It is a human weakness. It is most difficult to put aside one's deeply held views and just take a hard look at all the information and come to the logical conclusion. I think that any atheist who does the very difficult task of considering all evidence dispassionately will realize that the existence of God is most likely to be the correct answer.

unenlightened, granted that some things are discovered by accident and the underlying mechanism is not understood, at least at that time. Fire, for instance, was most likely not understood but just accepted. That is not true of jets and computers. They were not found and used without understanding. Quite the opposite. Much understanding of Physics was needed to come up with these objects. There is no magic here expect perhaps for most who use them not knowing how they work...although I hope everyone knows that these are remarkable feats of science and engineering.
We have confidence in the Physics and so design jets capable of flying. It is true that the complexity of the process of flying means that we cannot be certain that the jet will fly properly without testing. In any case, the science came first.
Sometimes what is constructed teaches us new aspects of science but that is very rare. The science generally comes first.

Hippyhead, clearly your example is nonsense and not worth considering. That is not so for the quest to understand all aspects of nature. Much progress has been made in this understanding. Limiting our thoughts only to observations that can be explained by current settled science is insufficient. One should seek to understand all observations and not reject those that are serious outliers, as long as the observations are reliable. There was much resistance to accepting the conclusion that the universe had a beginning because it resembled too much the story of Genesis. However, the evidence mounted so that only fringe elements refused to accept it. It's far more than a philosophical question. It is the need to know, understand... Most people are happy with the fantasy, fundamental unimportance, that is everyday life.

Proof, this is a reasonable deduction to explain events that are incompatible with our understanding of how substances in the universe behave. The alternative that there is something wrong with our understanding of the universe is very unlikely because such events are so radically incompatible. Yes indeed, this is not proof but the best hypothesis to understand reality.

TheMadFool...and yet there is ample evidence that early humans were very intelligent, discriminating, critical, all the human abilities but devoid of out technology. A visit to see the truly ancient constructions in Peru, for instance, should convince any skeptic of the great intelligence of those people. With our current level of technology it would be extremely difficult to assemble very large stones of different shapes with extreme precision. Also cutting perfect square holes into hard stone is virtually impossible without modern tools and indeed would be even difficult today. Hollywood generated caricatures of primitive peoples are worthless.

Unenlightened, much of what we see and do can be explained by our collective and well settled science. (motivations, emotions are excluded). From the subatomic to the biological to the galactic, all this is understood or largely understood on the basis on relatively few fundamental principles. Thus we can safely fly on a jet or operate a computer. The science underlying our modern society works well. It does not work well at all when considering how the universe came to be. It does not work well when considering certain historical events. The fact is that it is incomplete because reality is more that our universe.

Augustusea, let me start by dealing with energy becoming unavailable and the universe eventually becoming dead as far as living organisms are concerned. I focus on living organisms because of their importance but, in fact, all activity will eventually cease. Every action requires that matter and energy are conserved. However, energy exists in two parts, usable and non-usable energy. Every action converts more energy from the usable to the non-usable form. Eventually all the energy will become non-usable and thus no action can take place.
Is the Universe hostile to life? Yes in a sense it is. However, the fundamental conditions for life to form at all are very difficult to achieve and our science only understands these in a very limited way. For example, if all there was in the Universe is Hydrogen and Helium, life could not possibly exist. A small change in the fundamental constants of the Universe would have that result. If there were no carbon atoms, there would be no life as we know it. Again, it is well understood that the amount of carbon is critically dependent on the energetics of subatomic particles. A small change would not allow sufficient carbon to exist for life to form. Even the simplest cell is extremely complicated, relying for survival on the exact amount of interaction energy between its molecular components. In short, it is very easy to get the wrong conditions and have a dead universe. For a poor analogy, consider that it is very easy to assemble something that looks like a car but does not function...anyone could do that. Whereas it is very difficult to produce a working car if one is stranded in an uninhabited island. The information and skills required are enormous.
It is very easy to misuse logic because, unlike mathematics, words and meanings are not precise. The fact is that the Universe exists and did not exist. Did it come from nothing? All we know is the matter/energy with which we are familiar. Is there other "stuff"? Our senses can only detect our matter/energy so we cannot detect any other stuff.

Philosophim, it is very true that hypotheses are tested by trying to disprove them. Hypotheses are formulated by making observations and trying to understand these by generating an hypothesis. One could come up with several hypotheses to explain the same observations. Then one would try to find the correct hypothesis by trying to disprove each one. If one's ability to experimentally disprove each of these is limited, one then selects the best hypothesis as the most reliable until more information is available. The inability to disprove a hypothesis does not make it incorrect. With regard to the existence of God, my H1 hypothesis is disproved leaving H2. One could say, there is no hypothesis because H2 cannot be falsified. However, there is much evidence in favor of H2. With H2 many jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together into a coherent picture. In science the ability of a hypothesis to explain much indicates a correct hypothesis.

Gregory, it depends on how we define a person. God needs to be extremely intelligent to not only provide the right amount of matter/energy but also exactly the right parameters for the Universe to self-assemble as it did. Obviously it is an extremely complex problem to solve. Consider what one would need to do, based on our scientific knowledge just to adjust the values of the fundamental constants so that when elements formed the right amount of carbon would form from helium atoms but not be all converted to oxygen leaving no carbon for life to originate. Consider what values would allow the formation of the compounds necessary for life? How strong should be the electrostatic interaction? How strong should gravity be. If too weak, our Earth would not retain its atmosphere. If too strong, large animals could not exist. As to science, yes there is speculation but settled science is strongly supported by experiments. There is hard and soft science. Hard science is highly unlikely to change. The properties of the elements are very well categorized. The structures and properties of many biological macromolecules (DNA, proteins, etc) are well known. ...and so on. True, in Physics there is far more speculation but that is followed by experimental testing to eliminate incorrect ideas. The events in the past that were scientifically impossible are still so today and could only be caused by the same God that created the Universe.
Are there many Gods? The only information on that matter comes not from science but from statements attributed to God.

turkeyMan, thanks for your comment. All science can say with confidence is that shortly after time zero the energy level was so great that all matter/energy (these are the substance in different firms) existed only as energy...i.e. light ...extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation. Matter only formed later when the energy became more reasonable. Our whole understanding of the beginning of the Universe comes from a backward extrapolation. It's somewhat like extrapolating an explosion backward except that space and time are also extrapolated backward. Unlike an explosion that would require some initial substance to explode, just think of all the matter/energy of the Universe crammed into a point...all 10 to the power 22 stars packed into a point. That is such a truly insane energy level that it is impossible to comprehend. There is obviously nothing in this Universe that could cause such an event...hence the instant of creation.