Cosmology and the Laws of Science.

As posted by myself at dreamsforsale.net

Cosmology and the Laws of Science.

The universe is defined as all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. The desk you are sitting at, the earth you stand on, the solar system we are a part of, and every solar system beyond it.

“Scientists have traditionally rejected the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause. Now science has proven that the universe exploded into existence at a specific moment. It asks, “What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the mater and energy into our universe?” And science does not answer these questions.” - Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, and a proclaimed agnostic.

Nothing can come about unless caused by something. We see this proven time and time again in everyday life; a picture hangs on the wall because someone put it there; the grass grows because there is sunlight. Everything has this matter of “because”, also known as the Law of Cause and Effect.

Then again, what makes a law? If a scientific law is defined as a generalization based on consistent experiences or results, who’s to say that such a thing didn’t evolve? We simply assume that science now was the same at the beginning of the universe, and will be the same at its end.

It is because of this, that I dare say science is blind. We do not know that our laws are scientific truths, only that at this point in time, at this location in the universe, such a thing cannot be disproved.

It is not my intentions that this thread raises the question of creationism and evolution (We have a thread for that at the moment), or whether or not there is a God. It is a given that either way – whether the universe is an effect without a cause, or if it came about through divine intervention – both options evade commonly accepted laws of science.

Expounding on such an idea, if both options evade scientific law, then isn’t that at least one infringement of the commonly accepted laws? The only way(s) this universe could have ever come about, is if it had broken the laws of science as we know it today. Isn’t that enough of an exception to at least bring doubt to our so called “Absolute” laws of science? Why do we, as humanity, judge everything according to these laws, even the law’s exceptions! How foolish are we to hold the exceptions to the standards of our laws!

Science is intentionally blind; shedding light on its laws, which by their very existence reveal the repudiations, all the while covering its eyes to those very same exceptions, which beg to challenge long-acknowledged prevarications.

Nos.

That’s more of a statement than anything else. So we can’t prove induction, we’ve know that since Hume pointed it out, what is your point? That we should all stop getting into cars and trains? That we should shut down all the hospitals, turn off all the power stations?

While many have “talked the talk” of scientific skepticism I’ve never seen any “walk the walk”. Are you walking the walk?

Evolution generally doesn’t stop happening, the laws seemed pretty fixed, but then again it could be just our perception that doesn’t notice the change, but that highly unlikely as we have evidence of a stable set of laws throughout most of history coming to us all the time (i.e. data from other stars).

Also the newest theories of the universe postulate that the laws wern’t the same at the beginning of the universe, even cause and effect didn’t apply, so we actually don’t assume the universe popped into existence with a consistent set of laws. There is also evidence that the speed of light was different at the start of the universe, though i can’t remember my source for that off the top of my head.

Well seeing as we define scientific and truth, we can pretty much say what we want. :wink:

LOL. The point I think that needs to be made here is that we can only speculate at the beginning of the universe i.e. what set all things into motion. Was it God or a god or nothing? We CANNOT physically prove or disprove any idea. (Techinically, if something cannot be disproved scientifically, it is proven inductively. Not to say that since you can’t disprove God exists he must or vice-versa). Science hates to be branded with the word “religion”, and scientists scoff at the very idea, but there is a ceratin amount of faith involved in science. You have to accept in good faith - as there is no proof - that all matter and energy in the universe has existed forever, has no beginning or end. Christians belive that God has existed forever, he always was and always will be. So where do you put your faith? Did everything put itself in motin or did a higher conciousness?

i read in a scientific america awhile back that some scientists belive that the laws of the universe are NOT constant. and in fact have changed over billions and billions of years. i do not have any proof to back this up and this is jus tsomething i heard.