For a very broad understanding of “falsified” not all that dissimilar from “2+2=5 for very large values of 2”.
1 Like
You’re the psychiatrist, what do you think? My take is that when you become convinced that you are the repository of God’s absolute truth, nothing is beyond your ken… LOL
1 Like
Is it? Please show me a spacetime with no matter, energy, or radiation.
When and where was that established?
Dude you’re just asserting this stuff. It’s literally nothing more than your say-so. None of these claims have been shown true anywhere. In fact it’s disputed that you can have truly empty space, given the uncertainty principle.
2 Likes
Hey Andy!
I’m sorry if I offended you. I was simply trying not to put you on the spot. I’m sorry if my phrasing was offputting. I was simply thinking that you are not a university professor.
You write: “I’ll reiterate the point that the current cohort of regular posters skew strongly towards expertise in biology rather than physics. You might get more traction if you want to discuss protein evolution or the evolution of sexual reproduction rather than cosmology.”
I was under the impression the forum attracted scientists from all fields. I’m glad to hear that Paul Rimmer contributes here and I’m sorry there are not more like him.
Good to see you, Andy!
It seems some conclude that because, say., string theory and the multiverse a) do not currently lend themselves to empirical testing and b) are weird, anyone can therefore cobble together some whacky “theory” and expect it to be taken seriously as a scientific idea. Here is Sean Carroll trying patiently to explain to one such crackpot why it doesn’t work like that:
3 Likes
No harm done. I knew you were trying not to ‘out’ me. But I saw an opportunity to reveal that I’m not anonymous here with a self-deprecating humblebrag, so I took it.
And that’s true, up to some level of coarse-graining of scientific inquiry. But among frequent posters, not all fields are equally represented. So I thought I’d give you some pointers towards topics where the probability of striking mutual interest is higher.
1 Like
You neither posted nor cited any scientific evidence.
No one attacked you personally.
Right here! When are you planning to present some actual science?
How can they be? They don’t exist.
I think that we have very different definitions of science. Yours appears to be closer to my definition of high-school debate.
This is a great idea. What do you think, Ronald?
Does this describe your approach?Why don’t you present the paper you cited in a new thread, focusing on the actual scientific evidence, with zero quotes?
Evidence only. Whaddaya think?
Let’s lower the bar. Have you ever really read one as real scientists do, focusing on the evidence? I hypothesize that you have not.
1 Like
Hi Mercer!
I did clearly cite the paper by Wills and Carter in the conversation. In some cases, such as when I was discussing Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and BGV theorem, I did not think it necessary to cite the paper. Grok is fully aware of the science and I thought scientists would be also.
See Einstein, Albert. “Cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity.” Cosmological Constants (1915): 16.
When Einstein wrote that paper, Hubble had not yet discovered the “red shift” and the Big Bang model had not been developed.
In 1982 Vilenkin published his paper that clearly explained the fact that a beginning of spacetime requires that the initial conditions prior to the Big Bang to be “no spacetime.”
Vilenkin, Alexander. “Birth of inflationary universes.” Physical Review D 27.12 (1983): 2848.
This paper is not readily available and so I will provide you with a short video clip in which Vilenkin describes the initial conditions and his proposal on how the universe can still be viewed as Naturalistic. This is important background since I spent a little space explaining why his proposal is not scientific (it cannot be observed or tested). While I reject his proposal as unscientific, I congratulate him for clearly explaining the initial conditions of “no matter, no space and no time.”
Regarding BGV theorem, here’s the full citation:
Borde, Arvind, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin. “Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions.” Physical review letters 90.15 (2003): 151301.
While Guth and Vilenkin have tried to walk back the implications of BGV theorem, they have both published peer reviewed papers saying the theorem implies the universe had a beginning and that the theorem is difficult to evade.
Regarding the fact the RNA World hypothesis has been falsified, I also cited this paper by my friend Charlie Carter and gave the full citation.
Wills, Peter R., and Charles W. Carter Jr. “Insuperable problems of the genetic code initially emerging in an RNA world.” Biosystems 164 (2018): 155-166.
I don’t believe any of those articles either state or demonstrate that God created the universe. Correct me if I’m wrong.
4 Likes
The science papers I cited are data points within the argument. Science cannot directly detect dark matter and yet it is part of our standard cosmology because we can detect its effects in the universe. In the same way, science cannot directly detect a Creator God, but we can detect his effects in the universe.
Could you provide the mathematical equations that delineate your model in which God is now included as part of cosmology?
2 Likes
O you poor victimised victim! 
You have been arrogant, presumptuous, cocksure and careless throughout your interaction, and are suprised that you are met with a high degree of skepticism?
Your OP was you telling us you were right, not asking questions, or even offering specifics (detailed arguments, citations, etc). Yet you expected it to provoke “discussion” of the science underlying your proclamations?
Why would anybody bother when you give every appearance of believing that you already know all the answers – to the extent that you seem all-too-willing to coronate viewpoints within some of the most complex fields in science (cosmology and abiogenesis) as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’?
Your attitude appears to reinforce many of the worst stereotypes I have about apologists (and I don’t think I’m alone in this on this thread).
Speaking of arrogant carelessness, did you even read Forrington’s paper before you inflicted it on us? It took me almost no time at all to work out that it was balderdash (and most of that time was stunned “WTF?” at its contents).
3 Likes
By copy-pasting the names of papers you’re not really showing the evidence itself.
I think the point is you need to explain the contents of the papers, the data they deal with, and then explain how you think the data supports your contention.
For example, what is it about the Wills and Carter paper, it’s actual contents, the model they use, that you think supports your case? Explain yourself. Don’t just wave your hands in the direction of titles of papers.
What does the Wills and Carter paper say, why do you think that supports your case? Does that paper have any shortcomings? If so, what are they?
This pathetic appeal to Grok agrees with me has to stop. For good reason nobody finds that convincing. They shouldn’t.
4 Likes
Grok does not seem to grok logic. A view that is philosophically problematic but cannot be shown to be false is certainly not a logical fallacy:
Is an infinite regress of causes a logical fallacy?
Yes, an infinite regress of causes is widely considered problematic in philosophy. If every event requires a prior cause, and this chain goes back infinitely, we never reach a starting point. Without a first cause, it’s hard to explain how anything exists now. Aristotle himself rejected this in favor of something eternal, as you noted, to avoid this fallacy.
2 Likes
Hi Cram! Why are you being rude by addressing me by my last name? Are we 14-year-olds now?
You didn’t cite any evidence. A paper is not evidence. Some papers contain evidence, but you haven’t mentioned a single datum. Why is that?
Papers are not evidence. Please review the title you chose. It clearly is objectively false.
Grok is not aware of anything. Are you really not aware of evidence? Hypothesis testing, the essence of science? You have provided zero evidence of your own awareness to date.
I don’t see any evidence in that paper. Do you?
Any evidence there? Explanations are not evidence.
Any evidence in the video?
Any evidence in that paper?
“Peer reviewed” does not mean that it includes evidence. Scientific evidence is observations or measurements.
So what? You cited zero evidence from the paper. I’d also bet that you are incapable of simply stating the hypothesis mechanistically (no quotes) and the empirical prediction that was allegedly tested (if any, without quotes).
I note that you have ignored my proposal that you present the paper with no quotes.
So my statement that you have not cited any evidence remains unchallenged and supported by everything you have written here.
1 Like
That makes no sense. Papers are not data points. They may contain data points (many in physics don’t), but the two are not even close to being equivalent.
How can you “discuss” scientific evidence with Grok or any real people (see the title you chose) if you can’t identify any data or evidence?
I’m sorry, but there’s zero evidence in that paper. Less than zero, because the second sentence is just howlingly false:
Only one fact concerning the RNA World can be established by direct observation: if it ever existed, it ended without leaving any unambiguous trace of itself.
We still live in a partial RNA World. That’s why the ribosomes assembling every protein in your body are ribozymes. This unabmiguous “trace” was predicted by the RNA World hypothesis.
The prediction was confirmed in a spectacular way when structural biologists showed that the entire reaction center of peptidyl transferase is RNA, with not a single ribosomal protein intruding. The prediction would have been confirmed without that second aspect.
I’ve never encountered a single IDcreationist who can coherently explain that with a design hypothesis after the fact. Can you?
Please notice that the bolded text is a citation of actual evidence without quoting anyone’s words. It’s pretty easy to do.
An infinite regress of causes is widely considered to be a logical fallacy.
" An infinite regress or homunculus fallacy is when an argument relies on a series of never-ending propositions, where the validity of one proposition depends on the validity of the one which follows and/or precedes it.
That’s a pretty confused page. Nowhere does it show a real fallacy. Indeed, given an infinite past there obviously could be an infinite series of causes. Which of course leads to the whole idea of Eternity. What do you mean when you talk about an “Eternal Universe” if not that it has an infinite past, unlike ours?
1 Like
I got a complaint that I did not cite any of the science papers discussed in the conversation with Grok. I have updated the conversation but now I cannot edit the original post to share the new Grok conversation URL. Here it is.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_ee920f31-0aa5-4a0a-9122-3ea9ec068173