What if God is weak?

[TimeSeeker]

All this is perfectly acceptable and is actually how every scientist should think and act when it comes to testing any hypothesis

Then how do you reconcile it with:

Your behaviour outside of the rigorous application of the scientific method is therefore of zero importance

Some would say that there no such thing as "THE scientific method" there are MANY methods. Many tools. I would agree with them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

According to constructivists there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself

[Belinda]

God who needs to be nurtured like a baby needs care is what we need so that we can be good. We would need also a God who is the pancreator and this God would actually be Nature.

[surreptitious57]

How do you get to absolute certainty with imperfect knowledge ?

As I demonstrated falsification has disproportionate weight in science

And so what is sufficient to disprove your claim is to provide a counter example

1 + 1 = 2 Why not 1 + 1 = 10 ?

Everything alive dies ?
The universe exists ?

Neither of the above meet the criteria for reproducibility . They are unscientific claims !

They do ( hypothetically ) meet the falsifiability criterion

An undying alive thing would be sufficient to falsify your claim
A non existing universe would falsify your claim

Since they are both YOUR claims then you MUST know where you would find the evidence to falsify your own claims ?

So where would YOU look for a undying alive thing ?
Where would YOU look for a non existing Universe ?

Falsification is absolute certainty that a hypothesis is demonstrably not true
Science does not deal in proof but does in disproof which is just as rigorous

One and one is two is true for base ten and absolutely so as all true mathematical statements are also deductive

Nothing can exist for ever because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics so even
the Universe will suffer heat death when its entropy has reached a maximum state

The Universe must exist because the atoms I am made from were created by it so no Universe no me
A non existing Universe would not exist so why go look for something for which there is zero evidence

[TimeSeeker]

Falsification is absolute certainty that a hypothesis is demonstrably not true
Science does not deal in proof but does in disproof which is just as rigorous

Yes. That is what I am saying. Every positive claim about MUST be falsifiable. Else it's unscientific!

It is an empirical law of epistemology

One and one is true for base ten and absolutely so too because all true mathematical statements are also deductive

And 1+1 = 10 is true for base 2 also. Which base is "more" true?

Nothing can exist for ever because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics so even
the Universe will suffer heat death when its entropy has reached a maximum state

OK, so you are saying that the universe is alive and then it will die?

Which (in respect to time) would be an equivocation of: everything that has a beginning has an end.
Which is a tautology

Time itself has a beginning and an end.

The Universe must exist because the atoms I am made from were created by it so no Universe no me
A non existing Universe would not exist so why go look for something for which there is zero evidence

OK, so you have evidence for atoms existing? And you have evidence for your own existence?

How do you get from there to "universe existing"?

[surreptitious57]

so you have evidence for atoms existing ? And you have evidence for your own existence ?

How do you get from there to universe existing ?

Biology is applied chemistry and chemistry is applied physics and so if I exist as a biological being then
the Universe must also exist too because that is the domain of physics that existed before biology did

A Universe was required to create atoms that formed elements such as carbon and hydrogen that came from dead stars that I am made from
I cannot exist in a non Universe because that could not create any atoms or elements so logically and empirically the Universe must exist too

[TimeSeeker]

Biology is applied chemistry and chemistry is applied physics and so if I exist as a biological being then
the Universe must also exist too because that is the domain of physics that existed before biology did

OK.. That IS going too far. Physics is applied quantum physics and what quantum physics tells us is that we have quarks, leptons and electrons.
We have quantum fields. Those are the things we have evidence for.

I am not even disputing that. Show me evidence for this "universe" thing?

A Universe was required to create atoms that formed elements such as carbon and hydrogen that came from dead stars that I am made from

No, atoms are made of quarks, leptons and electrons.

And so some quantum state exists.

I cannot exist in a non Universe because that could not create any atoms or elements so logically and empirically the Universe must exist too

But you can exist as a quantum state. So you don't need a "universe"

[surreptitious57]

But you can exist as a quantum state So you dont need a universe

But the Universe is quantum since it is made of protons and neutrons and electrons
And so take away the quantum and you are then left with absolutely nothing at all

[TimeSeeker]

But the Universe is quantum since it is made of protons and neutrons and electrons

This violates the law of identity. Quantum is quantum. One thing is not another.

And so take away the quantum and you are then left with absolutely nothing at all

If you take away the protons and neutrons and electrons you are left with the quantum fields.

So. quantum fields exist. How do you get from there to "the universe exists" ?

[surreptitious57]

If you take away the protons and neutrons and electrons you are left with the quantum fields

Then take away absolutely everything that exists below the atomic level so there is nothing left at all

No protons / neutrons / electrons / photons / quarks / leptons / neutrinos

No weak nuclear / strong nuclear / electromagnetism / quantum gravity

No strings / no branes / no quantum foam / no extra dimensions

A point of zero density compressed into a volume of zero mass

A space so small it cannot exist since it is actually non physical

[TimeSeeker]

Then take away absolutely everything that exists below the atomic level so there is nothing left at all

Then you can say that the quantum does not exist.

No protons / neutrons / electrons / photons / quarks / leptons / neutrinos

Then you can say that protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, quarks, leptopns and neutrinos don't exist.

No weak nuclear / strong nuclear / electromagnetism / quantum gravity

Then you can say that weak nuclear / strong nuclear / electromagnetism / quantum gravity don't exist.

No strings / no branes / no quantum foam / no extra dimensions

Then you can say that strings/branes/quantum foam/extra dimensions don't exist

A point of zero density compressed into a volume of zero mass
A space so small it cannot exist since it is actually non physical

A point-particle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle ?
Although point-particles have mass.

What you've described is wrong by definition. There are no such phenomena.
There is a phenomenon with zero volume and infinite mass. The Big Bang.

[surreptitious57]

There is a phenomenon with zero volume and infinite mass

Zero volume and infinite mass cannot exist and the Big Bang did not come from this
Such a point as described above cannot exist it is forbidden by quantum mechanics

Also the singularity is asymptotic which means it cannot have originated from a point of infinite density and zero volume
The Big Bang came instead from an incredibly finite point of density compressed into a very infinitesimal point of volume

It is also possible that time actually existed before the Big Bang but the singularity did not actually experience it as such

[TimeSeeker]

Zero volume and infinite mass cannot exist and the Big Bang did not come from this
Such a point as described above cannot exist it is forbidden by quantum mechanics

Right. I had settled in the classical world of physics. In the quantum world zero volume and infinite density is allowed. But it is a mathematical artifact. As you say - asymptotic.

Also the singularity is asymptotic which means it cannot have originated from a point of infinite density and zero volume
The Big Bang came instead from an incredibly finite point of density compressed into a very infinitesimal point of volume

Speculative. We have no measurement standards for this. All our SI units are grounded in classical physics.

It is also possible that time actually existed before the Big Bang but the singularity did not actually experience it as such

That is undetermined. At least the way we measure time at the moment. It's grounded in mass. "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"

Correct or otherwise, observe that we aren't talking about a thing called "Universe"

We are talking about time and mass. Or if you want a quantum conception - entanglement.

[surreptitious57]

Correct or otherwise observe that we arent talking about a thing called Universe

The definition of Universe is ALL THAT IS so whatever exists at any time is that regardless of anything else
Logically and empirically it cannot be anything else and while you may want to question this it is still true

[TimeSeeker]

The definition of Universe is ALL THAT IS so whatever exists at any time is that regardless of anything else
Logically and empirically it cannot be anything else and while you may want to question this it is still true

So the existence of the universe is axiomatic? E.g it's a tautology!

You could have said that right at the beginning

[surreptitious57]

We are talking about time and mass . Or if you want a quantum conception - entanglement

You still need a Universe for any quantum conception to occur in no matter how empty or small that may actually be
Entanglement between two particles can occur instantaneously over any space so a Universe would be useful for this