On 25.07.22 20:13, Peter W. wrote:
> Yikes!!
>
> a) What is known of the Universe may be extrapolated backwards in time. All a telescope does, whatever type of radiation it observes, is look backward in time.
Well, yes and no. A Telescope does indeed see a situation as it was when
the light (or radiation) started it's travel towords it. This does not
mean that what we know of the unviverse can be extrapolated backwards in
time. Or at least it's not the same things: if it can be done, it needs
much more than a telescope.
> b) It is a pretty linear extrapolation based on the data observed to follow distributed energy back to a (probably) single point.
It may be a non linear extrapolation: we don't know. We are still trying
to find out.
> c) And, this really is basic, established science based on direct observation of specific evidence that also is repeatable.
The observations are repeatable, the conclusions are only based on
"best" models of which we are not certain at all.
> d) CERN has told us a great deal on how matter is formed, how it holds together, how it behaves and more.
CERN cannot tell us anything, it doesn't speak. The results of the
experiments done at CERN have shown us what basic building blocks matter
has and how they interact with one another, but these are far from being
complete and telling us "more" than that. They even raise more questions
than ansqers and this is the beauty of physical research: there's work
to be done tonorrow too.
> e) It turns out that even this is predictable and repeatable. Making it also basic science.
What is?
> f) However, we still do not know what we do not know.
Exactly.
> g) Clarke's Third Law: Science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.
Was, is no longer.
>
> William of Occam suggests that one should not needlessly multiply entities.
>
> See this as a multiple choice problem:
>
> 1. There is a "GOD" in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish model, complete/replete with all the various trappings assigned thereto.
> 2. There is a Prime Mover that is self-aware.
> 3. There is/are forces that is/are responsible/resulted in the 'big bang'. Said force/forces need not be self-aware, intelligent, self-directed, nor anything else other than (a) Force/Forces.
>
> Which is the simplest explanation?
I am not advocating the existence of a God nor his non-existence. I am
with ohg who says you just can't prove either way, so this whole
discussion is just repeating your own conviction and nothing else. It is
futile to try to convince other people of your convictions, especially
with "evidence" you can't have because there is just none. A lot of
people have tried before and it hasn't worked yet.
What I am saying is that you clearly never studied any physics at a
University. Had you done that, you would have remembered very well the
moment the professor told you "We don't know if the "Big Bang" ever
really occurred. It's a theory, but as of right now it's the best theory
we have" (and that was about 15 years ago, when the neutrino didn't have
a mass).
In other words ohg is right when he writes "scientists don't know for
sure, they think it is this way".