Home > Science & Mathematics

Science & Mathematics

  • Two things atheists/science can't seem to answer.?

    Best answer: Science is capable of explaining everything, we just aren't at the stage where we are capable of doing that due to lack of technology and inability to test beyond the realms of our solar system.

    I would want to talk about the "origins of god" before the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

    The Vikings were feared of the unknown making them believe in supernatural beings to make sense of natural phenomenon, the god they feared the most was called "Skoll" who sometimes would eat "Sol" (the sun) causing the dreadful moment when day turned to night which we now called the solar eclipse.

    And in about 300 BC a philosopher named Aristarchus was fascinated by eclipses, who was brave enough to question whether they really were caused by gods. he later realized the Eclipse was actually the shadow of the earth passing over the moon and not a divine event. on understanding the eclipses he deduced that the earth was not the center of the universe as everyone has thought, but the sun was.

    Adonis Thomas took it even further,
    he suggested the stars were not chinks in the floor of heaven as his contemporaries believed. But that stars were other Suns like ours only a very long way away.

    Then comes Galileo Galilei the founder of modern-day science, he observed Jupiter night after night from his telescope and made a wonderful discovery, he saw three tiny dots very close to the giant planet, after watching a few nights he realized they had to be moons circling the vast planet, here he was convinced that at least some objects do not orbit the Earth. By this discovery, Galileo went on to prove that the earth orbits the Sun. Aristarchus have been right all along. Galileo's discovery has triggered a revolution in thought that would ultimately loosen the grip of religion but the church in the 17th century confined him to house arrest.

    As each century passed, each new discovery further removed the need for a god. If humans didn't have existed, god would not have existed, Humans created god with fear due to ignorance. Let alone modern humans, if the early humans feared the unknown, they would have never left the cave. give science enough time, and it will demystify god until he ultimately recedes.

    And that will only happen with boundless curiosity, just because we don't know something at the moment, we shouldn't say, "God did it". Take Isaac Newton. He discovered how much of our physics works on at least a basic level (revolutionary for his time), as well as single-handedly inventing Calculus simply to understand these physics. And yet, when he reached something he couldn't figure out, he 1) gave up (quite unscientific) and 2) told that only God--the Christian god (a being who is demonstrably fictional)--could answer the questions he could not, which was promptly proven false when later physicists and mathematicians when farther than he did. Someone can be a genius yet still wrong.

    Now coming to the origins of universe or the origins of life,
    Science can't seem to *prove* the answer to your two questions, yet.
    the answer is already out there, we are in the process of unraveling it.

    The origin of the universe,

    Scientific hypotheses which can be proven are laws. If they cannot be proven, then the evidence for them can be theorized.

    The big bang itself cannot be proven, and that is why it is a theory, you can't test it in a lab or go back in time to witness it. But it's not wrong just because it's a "theory". we cannot prove it yet since our technology is very limited and not advanced enough to literally prove it. However, technology is rapidly improving. it's only a matter of time.
    As you understand evolution, It's been about 200,000 years since us modern humans have existed. Meanwhile, science has made educated theories while religions made books which kill curiosity.

    And, "How can something come from nothing?", is an argument from ignorance. You believe that you can't create something from nothing, but you exclude god from that rule. If you believe god didn't need a creator, then you believe nothing created your god. How is that any more plausible than to believe that the Universe came from nothing?

    We have pairs of everything in the universe, our planet is not alone, there are 7 other planets in our solar system, our solar system isn't either, there are billions of others, our galaxy is not the only one out there, In the observable universe there are billions of galaxies, so why stop there? maybe there is more than one universe, there could be multi-universes. So If another big bang happened, how would we even know? it, of course, will not happen here. It may have happened before somewhere, and it may have already happened again somewhere, Maybe we're just one of those many other big bangs, so why do we consider ourselves so significant that there must be an omnipotent to create us? and I think you are aware that the universe is continuously expanding, in other words, the big bang didn't stop there, It's continuously banging, it's not just the beginning when it banged from nothing into something but it is still banging, it is expanding into itself, it is always happening, even while you are reading this.

    If you believe that god is eternal then it would be much more rational to believe that the Universe itself is eternal.

    The origin of life,

    Humans aren't significant either, we're made by the one of the most abundant elements in the universe, carbon. it's everywhere.

    We're not perfect, the earth isn't perfect, our solar system isn't perfect. the universe as a whole is not perfect, the universe and everything in it are not as organized as we think they are. The universe is HUGE. We are one small planet in a universe that is immeasurably large and filled with quintillions upon quintillions of other planets. Let's say we assigned random traits to each and every planet, for example: how far it is from the nearest star, what elements are in the atmosphere, what its mass is etc. Eventually, if we keep assigning random traits, we are bound to get a planet which has the perfect conditions to harbor life. That is the Earth. We are a coincidence among innumerable others, That way, we don't need to say that life was designed because in a universe so expansive, there is BOUND to be life at some point or another.

    Murphy's 1st Law: Anything that can happen will happen.

    Anything that is possible, will happen given enough chances (time), No matter how many odds against it.

    Let's apply that law to early earth,

    Given an early earth rich in organic compounds + a reducing atmosphere of the early earth + energy from the earth's core + energy from the sun, early life is a thermodynamic certainty.

    Self-replicating RNA has already been made under those conditions.

    When science can explain the universe without the need of a god,
    then the God is more of an incompetent than an omnipotent.

    God does not exist, we don't need one.
    113 answers 4 days ago Taiwan
  • What's the biggest universe on earth?

    106 answers 5 days ago Horses
  • Could an exotic form of life have existed in the first seconds after the big bang?

    Best answer: Well, fast forward a few minutes. By about three minutes, even though very hot, the necleus of atoms began to form. It was still another 300,000 years before the universe cooled that electrons could stabilize themselves into orbits.

    The first few seconds wouldl have seen the creation of quarks. We don't have any evidence of quarks combining themselves into large enough 'molecules' to be conisdered life, a long string DNA or RNA for exampe.

    HOWEVER, if you look a that early field of energy, is it possible that wave interference could have created something very exotic? Imagine trillions of guitar strings in a trillion different directions all vibrating at different frequencies, all in a tiny space, and you just might have a complex enough soup to create something if even for a very short.

    Very original theory, so I vote YES its possible, if even the entire 'thing/civilizations' passed in miliseconds what what seem to us like millions of years.
    40 answers 4 days ago Birds
  • Could you drive a car in space?

    51 answers 4 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • Do we have aliens from other galaxies already here on earth? Walking amongst us????

    42 answers 5 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • Does the past vanish or is it stored somewhere?

    35 answers 5 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • How can we stop the black hole from further deepening in Antarctica?

    20 answers 4 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • Why has it been almost 50 years since we went to the moon? Why haven't we gone back?

    Looking at what humans have done in history, it makes no sense! In 1492 when someone sailed across the ocean and found the 'new world', by 1542, 50 years later, visits to the new world were growing exponentially. In mid 1800s the automobile was created, and by the 1900's they were common and growing exponentially. In 1909 the first plane made its first flight and by 1959 flight had grown exponentially and was quite common! In 1946 the first computer was made, and by 1996 computers had grown exponentially to the point where they were connected worldwide through the Internet! All of these endeavors cost a lot of time and money at the time, and costs continued to drop over time! But why is it that in 1969 we supposedly went to the moon (i say supposedly because there are valid arguments against it that would be foolish to dismiss), but here, just 2 years shy of 2019, the trips stalled after 3 years, did not grow exponentially, and in fact seemed to REVERT to no further than low earth orbit? Wouldn't it be logical, based on the enthusiasm of all humankind's history, to expect that we would have had a moon base on the moon by now, farthing scientific exploration? Why has this not happened? Please don't cite cost as it's been estimated that it would cost 90 percent less to go there than what it cost us to go there (again supposedly), back in 1969?
    37 answers 6 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • How can an atmosphere exist next to a vacuum?

    24 answers 5 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • If Robots eventually annihilate all species on Earth including humans, would other planets see Planet Earth as containing life?

    Technically robots aren't alive... Yet they would be able to function, build, create, and develop. They are a trace of former life. But... Would that matter to other planets? I suppose it would if the robots start to threaten them, but how would textbooks refer to the robots?
    10 answers 4 days ago Other - Science
  • In scientific method, isn't it OK to question anything? Like if religion is right or if evolution is right?

    32 answers 4 days ago Biology
  • Black holes as cellular automata?

    I know what's inside black holes. They're filled with tori stacked on top of each other pointing to the singularity. What happens is a string of light enters the BH and flows through the tori lighting the toruses that it flows through and the other ones remain dark. If the light flows in a plane it forms a random cellular automata as the string flows down. And the BH actually develops human intelligence eventually (more on that later).
    12 answers 4 days ago Physics
  • Earth is flat, why can't people accept it?

    I mean evidence is everywhere. We're. Trapped in a dome controlled by a higher power or being. Look at airplanes, is it a coeincindence that southern hemisphere trips only have to fly into the northern hemisphere of the "globe" to get to their southern hemisphere desinstion? No. Its because it makes sence on a flat earth map a trip from south africa to austrilia is logical to fly over the land than straight across the indian ocean.
    31 answers 4 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • Is 23 miles a long way to drive?

    72 answers 6 days ago Mathematics
  • Evolutionists, why haven't any animals evolved to fly around in space?

    Best answer: ahhh, because it provides no advantage to surviving ON the planet. In many ways, evolution by natural selections takes the path of least resistance....space is incredibly hostile to life as we know it...better alternatives have always existed.
    26 answers 4 days ago Yahoo Answers
  • What could the shrinking of Jupiter's giant red spot mean to the rest of our solar system?

    Best answer: It won't mean much, other than a familiar structure we've known for 300 years may no longer be there... there would be no physical effect, any more than how Earth's storms affect the other planets.
    11 answers 5 days ago Astronomy & Space
  • Is evolution real?

    30 answers 4 days ago Biology
  • Maths help?

    Here are the first five terms of a number sequence 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 (a) Work out the 8th term of the number sequence
    24 answers 4 days ago Mathematics
  • How many miles up is the sun?

    21 answers 5 days ago Astronomy & Space