"That violates the Conservation of Mass Law."

Energy can be converted into matter, so that's incorrect. The total amount of energy in the universe is zero, so the universe is exactly as would be expected if it came from nothing.

It does feel like theists are hoping physicists can't find the answers, and are generally hoping there are limits to what we can know. And then based on that they can content themselves with this idea that both sides don't know things, so they can go ahead and believe in their magic sky being.

No, you're trying to justify your faith with science. And it doesn't work, because we do logically ask "If creation requires a creator, where did the creator come from?" Its still a God of the Gaps. You can't figure out how the universe came to be, so you do a "goddidit". On the other hand, I'm sitting here thinking "Well, I can't figure it out, but I'm going to assume there IS a reason, and that we can figure it out someday". One point of view involves a complete stoppage in thinking "God did this, so I don't have to worry about it anymore. Oh look... a Mars bar" (the last part was a Izzard reference and not serious).

I said this before in this thread, but it bears repeating: The rational worldview makes no claim to HAVE all the answers. The only claim that we make is that we're trying to figure this thing out, whatever it is. We don't even claim that we CAN, only that collectively we're TRYING to move from ignorance to understanding. That is the breadth and limit of what is going on here.

I really dislike "goddidits" because it simply is an excuse to not even try to understand things. It enables laziness and lack of thinking. Why bother trying to probe the mysteries of the world around us? God did it! We have all the answers! Just say God did it, and you can go back to blissful peace!

I am being quite bitingly sarcastic here, but its a point that I think needs to be made.

"Black holes are something that we are pretty sure exists yet no one has ever seen the surface of one, we calibrate them by their effects. This of course is just the arguement that a religious person would make for God.

The size of the universe can only be measured if we qualify it with the word ''observable'' and even then only approximately. I do hope that it is not being said that there all the constituents of the universe are onbservable that would reveal a gross misunderstanding."

Right so naturally you'll continue to move the goalposts and declare that some arbitrary measurement standard of yours hasn't been met. Because we can't quite measure every inch and every aspect of the universe yet that somehow means we're at the same level as we are with the "god" hypothesis, which we can't measure at all. The fact that we can measure more and more of the universe all the time doesn't impress you.

And please do come up with the equivalent of intense gravitational heat for god.

Actually, "goddidits" as you call them don't have to be the excuse you lay at our feet. But then, the only "goddidit" I lend any credence to is the defining force behind the laws of physics and the forces that make this universe. Science can discover them and explain them through discoveries of other more basic building block particles and/or forces, but science can never explain why or the root source because there will always be something befoire whatever science discovers. I look forward to the continual discovery knowing that there will always be more to discover and understand. So to me, "goddidit" is just the ultimate source (God) we are striving to find through science and, while we may (and honestly can't) ever discover the root of all, the path of discovery is worth it for what we will learn about ourselves and the universe around us.

Actually, "goddidits" as you call them don't have to be the excuse you lay at our feet. But then, the only "goddidit" I lend any credence to is the defining force behind the laws of physics and the forces that make this universe. Science can discover them and explain them through discoveries of other more basic building block particles and/or forces, but science can never explain why or the root source because there will always be something befoire whatever science discovers. I look forward to the continual discovery knowing that there will always be more to discover and understand. So to me, "goddidit" is just the ultimate source (God) we are striving to find through science and, while we may (and honestly can't) ever discover the root of all, the path of discovery is worth it for what we will learn about ourselves and the universe around us.

Actually, "goddidits" as you call them don't have to be the excuse you lay at our feet. But then, the only "goddidit" I lend any credence to is the defining force behind the laws of physics and the forces that make this universe. Science can discover them and explain them through discoveries of other more basic building block particles and/or forces, but science can never explain why or the root source because there will always be something befoire whatever science discovers. I look forward to the continual discovery knowing that there will always be more to discover and understand. So to me, "goddidit" is just the ultimate source (God) we are striving to find through science and, while we may (and honestly can't) ever discover the root of all, the path of discovery is worth it for what we will learn about ourselves and the universe around us.

stupid error 500 reposts.

"The only "goddidit" I lend any credence to is the defining force behind the laws of physics and the forces that make this universe."

And I don't think anyone would take exception to this. I don't want to talk for others but the major objection, I believe, is using "godidits" as an explanation for why God exists. If you believe in gods, then surely they must have some force in shaping the Universe as we know it.

However, saying that modern physics has no explanation for the creation of the universe before the big bang and, therefore, goddidit is not an acceptable line of reasoning.

And, Putin, not to nitpick but "The size of the universe can only be measured if we qualify it with the word ''observable'" is not entirely correct. Because the edges of the universe are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light the observable universe is smaller than the entire universe. At least, that's my very rudimentary understanding of it.

What is beyond the edge of the universe? It's vacuum which is more universe. The *observable* universe is exapnding, but it is exapnding into a vacuum that is part of the inifinity that we perceive as being the true universe. That is infinite and, therefore, not expanding.

This prompted me to go check the wiki page and I just got a huge mindfuck:
"If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe."

^Draug. No.

The observable universe is bounded by the event horizon that presents the furthest place that light can reach us. Beyond that, Universe exactly the same as observable universe may exist.

Yonni, I thought that was only true with specific geometries of the universe, and since our is flat, we don't have that problem.

One must understand something about this: Our theories can only been as good as our data. We're observing the visible universe from effectively a single point. We can learn a lot, but I doubt if any astronomer would make the case that what we understand is absolutely correct. Our observations are limited, but they're all we have to go on right now. Are there still questions out there? Of course. But we guess as best we can with the data we have. A lot of the questions raised in the last few posts fall under the category of "Well, this is what we think... but its a bit thin".

I mean, imagine if you were observing Pharonic Egypt from orbit with a decent commercial telescope. You could definitely see something is going on down there, and I'm sure the theories would make sense, but you could also see how an incomplete picture would be formed.

And that is expected, and that is fine. Inconsistencies in the theory vs practice aren't even a problem... they're expected. And they're certainly not gaps for a Abrahamic God to sneak back in.