Not sure why universe creation has to be made into a "science vs God" thing. How are scientists coming along with the questions of why (not how) the universe was created, or what was there before it?

Conversly when and if we do find the definitive answers to these questions, I wonder how and where mankind will be.

Will it be AI that finds the answers, if so will AI need us.

Indeed - scientists know so little right now about everything there is, yet it's so easy to fall into a trap thinking science has all the answers.

So did god create all this stuff at the weekend after creating this planet ? What would some people do without their fairy stories

Err, pretty well - that's the point.

You bought gods into it, so I retorted, in the vein of the thread in the first place, about just how mindnumbingly big and truly awe inspiring it all is.

I get you don't like to be reminded how the BIG picture makes all the mumbo jumbo seem so silly - but the reality is your 'god of the gaps' idea that "God did such a great job when creating the universe that scientists still only know a tiny amount about it" really doesn't cut it when you are looking at the eternal verities. It's science that thinks big, and answers the big questions - those gaps are looking mighty small ... sorry if that punctures some illusions.

PS suggest you look up 'm-theory' and 'branes' if you want to make progress with your "why" and "what before" questions. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but at least it's making progress beyond "its wot my ancestor myth says".

>>PS suggest you look up 'm-theory' and 'branes' if you want to make progress with your "why" and "what before" questions. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but at least it's making progress beyond "its wot my ancestor myth says".<<

Of course, that also leads logically to Boltzman brains, at which point it all gets a little silly.

Nah, boltmann brains ignores natural selection and the requirement for an organised environment for that to occur - it has roughly the same logical mistake as the creationist 'arguments'.

Nah (sic) it uses the infinity of nfinities argument: nothing to do with natural selection, just the logic of infinity producing an infinite number of any particular arrangement of particles, as I understand it.

Nobody argues that mathematicians are sane.

IIRC it goes something like "in an infinity of infinities is much more likely for a disembodied intelligence to arise than the bunch of 6 foot tall ape descendants in such an interesting universe as ours".

Problem is, it does the same thing as the creationist apologists do - assumes intelligence is a random fluctuation event. Reality is it's a reaction to having to compete in a complex yet structured environment.

It's like the creationists' "the eye is too complex to randomly occur, the probability would be well on the way into infinity". To which those that understand evolution slap them about the head and point out that natural selection creates eye by gradually climbing Mount Improbable - and makes the infinite-against probability a near certainty once you reach a certain level of complexity and 'need'.

In short our kind of life is massively more probable than the boltzmann brain, because it ISN'T random.

Most people tend to stick them away in a broom cupboard and tell them to put together a paper if they come up with anything; with an emphasis on 'so what?' They then put a lock on the door.

So where did this big space come from?

It's always been there, you probably just didnt notice it before.

My head hurts

Actually I didn't - Post 7 contains first mention in this thread.

How do you know for sure?


Drink water!

Did I mention the world is flat?

It simplifies life you know.