Have you ever felt an invisible presence

[hemioiler]

I’m not going to get into because you can go do your own homework and read about it yourself. The moment someone invokes the “something from nothing argument”, I stop listening, because I know I’m dealing with an intellectually lazy person who has done no reading or thinking about this. Which theory is the something from nothing theory?

The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the universe, only what has happened at T=some time after zero. You are out of your depth but you think you can discredit something you don’t understands with your 0+0=0 logic. Lol…

I love that almost universally those who try to discredit science know nothing about it.

That's not an answer. Nobody is discrediting science. I asked you how you think we got here.

I didn't say the big bang says anything about the origins of life. I asked you "where did the 'material' for the big bang come from?" The origins of life is a separate problem which happens before the big bang.

I asked you a question, respectfully. Please reply in kind or just say you'd like to move on if that's your preference.

 

[vpr5703]

That's not an answer. Nobody is discrediting science. I asked you how you think we got here.

I didn't say the big bang says anything about the origins of life. I asked you "where did the 'material' for the big bang come from?" The origins of life is a separate problem which happens before the big bang.

I asked you a question, respectfully. Please reply in kind or just say you'd like to move on if that's your preference.

I think the appropriate answer here is "We don't know." And that's an ok answer to have. Beyond the Big Bang, our knowledge breaks down because our current understanding of the laws of physics starts breaking down before we get to the Big Bang (if you're going backwards in time towards the event.)

Where religion and science start to differ is what is done about the lack of knowledge. Religion is comfortable with "I don't know" because that easily translates to "Gods will." And this has been the case for thousands of years. It's 100% faith based.

Science wants to advance knowledge about our surroundings, the universe, and the workings thereof. It wants to answer the questions. What came before us? How did it occur? Why did it occur? Will changing small variables affect larger outcomes? Science is evidence based. Ideally peer reviewed and accepted by peers. But it depends on evidence, theory (scientific theory, not the "I have a theory" type that most people use it as) and the acceptance of that theory via the scientific process.

There is a fundamental disconnect between faith and science. Reconciling that disconnect is challenging for most people, because it often involves accepting that some beliefs held by faith fall apart when scrutinized through a scientific process

 

[MolaKule]

I’m not going to get into because you can go do your own homework and read about it yourself. The moment someone invokes the “something from nothing argument”, I stop listening, because I know I’m dealing with an intellectually lazy person who has done no reading or thinking about this. Which theory is the something from nothing theory?

The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the universe, only what has happened at T=some time after zero. You are out of your depth but you think you can discredit something you don’t understands with your 0+0=0 logic. Lol…

I love that almost universally those who try to discredit science know nothing about it.

Apparently this response is not congruent with one of your earlier statements:

"Everything is explainable and if you believe it’s not it simply means you just don’t understand it."

No one is discrediting science. The question posed was: "How can the big bang occur if there is nothing before that?" This is a valid scientific question. Does this mean "you just don’t understand it."

It is true the current BB Hypothesis says nothing about T < 0, but this doesn't answer the question and you stated that, "Everything is explainable."

 

[Malo83]

We had an old cat that liked to walk on the bed when you are sleeping, she passed away years ago and to this day I still feel her walking on the bed ever so lightly, really loved that cat.

 

[PWMDMD]

Apparently this response is not congruent with one of your earlier statements:

"Everything is explainable and if you believe it’s not it simply means you just don’t understand it."

No one is discrediting science. The question posed was: "How can the big bang occur if there is nothing before that?" This is a valid scientific question. Does this mean "you just don’t understand it."

It is true the current BB Hypothesis says nothing about T < 0, but this doesn't answer the question and you stated that, "Everything is explainable."

Explainable does not equal explained. I’m not saying we know everything there is to know. I’m saying everything in our universe should be able to be explained, at some point in the future, without the need for the supernatural.

 

[hemioiler]

I think the appropriate answer here is "We don't know." And that's an ok answer to have. Beyond the Big Bang, our knowledge breaks down because our current understanding of the laws of physics starts breaking down before we get to the Big Bang (if you're going backwards in time towards the event.)

Many atheists go out of their way to mock those who believe in the existance of a "supreme being". Yet when you ask them how we got there, they don't have an answer. Worse for them, there will never be an answer. That is a mathematical certainty, as I mentioned, 0 + 0 = 0. That's not simply a lack of knowledge that we can overcome, it's a beautiful unchangeable rule that exists in our universe. The math is proof, by the very rules of our universe (eg: 0 + 0 = 0, or, energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed etc) the only explanation is that something/someone exists outside of it.

I find it odd that almost any theory proposed receives more credit to atheists, each more bizarre than the next (many of them just kicking the can/question down the road, such as the simulation theory); but never will they accept a supreme being as a possibility because that is too unbelievable to them.

Where religion and science start to differ is what is done about the lack of knowledge. Religion is comfortable with "I don't know" because that easily translates to "Gods will." And this has been the case for thousands of years. It's 100% faith based.

Science wants to advance knowledge about our surroundings, the universe, and the workings thereof. It wants to answer the questions. What came before us? How did it occur? Why did it occur? Will changing small variables affect larger outcomes? Science is evidence based. Ideally peer reviewed and accepted by peers. But it depends on evidence, theory (scientific theory, not the "I have a theory" type that most people use it as) and the acceptance of that theory via the scientific process.

There is a fundamental disconnect between faith and science. Reconciling that disconnect is challenging for most people, because it often involves accepting that some beliefs held by faith fall apart when scrutinized through a scientific process

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of many people's faith. There are many scientists (or people with scientific backgrounds) who also have a faith of one sort or another. I'm trying to avoid this discussion getting into religion as I believe the forum considers this topic outlawed, but it's a mistake on your part to assume that only atheists understand the scientific process.

 

[nomas]

I don't really know what I believe . Some of the things that my wife has experienced over the years are quite compelling and even some of the children in the family have apparently experienced things .

 

[CarDoc66]

While we can debate this all day and get nowhere, I can confidently say I have witnessed and felt some type presence at different times in my life. I am a religious person, perhaps that affects my perception, but I certainly would not condescend on someone who doesn't believe in another life or dimension after we leave this earth. My best friend thinks that there are other "dimensions" that exist simultaneously. I find it fascinating to hear other peoples experiences.

 

[MolaKule]

...Where religion and science start to differ is what is done about the lack of knowledge. Religion is comfortable with "I don't know" because that easily translates to "Gods will." And this has been the case for thousands of years. It's 100% faith based...

...There is a fundamental disconnect between faith and science. Reconciling that disconnect is challenging for most people, because it often involves accepting that some beliefs held by faith fall apart when scrutinized through a scientific process.

Considering that the modern Scientific Method was developed and honed by men of faith, this is not true, and illustrates a lack of knowledge on your part regarding the History of Science and the development of the Scientific Method.

 

[MolaKule]

Explainable does not equal explained. I’m not saying we know everything there is to know. I’m saying everything in our universe should be able to be explained, at some point in the future, without the need for the supernatural.

I never mentioned anything about the supernatural.

The question was posed in the context of science explaining everything but you have just proven that it cannot.

And then saying, "at some point in the future..." is saying you know with 100% certainty that science in the future will be able to explain all scientific phenomenon but you can't know that, unless of course, you have some connection to an all knowing being that we don't know about.

 

[MolaKule]

Check out the earlier NewScientist articles in Jan. 11, 2012

"Why physicists can't avoid a creation event​

The big bang may not have been the beginning of everything – but new calculations suggest we still need a cosmic starter gun

By Lisa Grossman, 11 January 2012

Editorial: “The Genesis problem“

YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday – loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.

One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see “Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension“). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos …"

The basic discussion here was: "...physicists must answer the problem: 'How do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing?' "

The question was asked in a scientific context, not in a philosophical context.

 

[Toy4x4]

Only when I'm beside my self with anger or frustration.

 

[svtrit]

We had an entity that lived in our old farmhouse, from the 20’s. We bought the acreage from the original family, and the lady told us the spirits were friendly when we moved in. We blew that off.

However, we had a pipe break the next day, flooding the basement. The plumber said he never saw a pipe break in the way this one did.

I never saw Dude, as we named him, but he would wake my wife up, who would proceed to scream. He would fade away as I woke up.

He messed with my kids too, but never me. Our dog was conscious of something as well.

I didn’t believe in ghosts. I asked one of my religious friends his thoughts, hoping to get something simple, and he told me stored from his childhood barn. It’s was legit.

We moved out within two years. My son wrote a fictional book based on our experience.

 

[MolaKule]

...because it often involves accepting that some beliefs held by faith fall apart when scrutinized through a scientific process.

I think there is a serious, basic misunderstanding of science.

Take a tool from the garage, put it on a piece of paper and take a pencil and outline that tool.

The outline of that tool is purely descriptive, not causative. The outline of the tool did not cause the tool to exist, it only describes the tool.

The same with the “laws of physics and the laws of chemistry” in that they are descriptive rather than causative. In reality, the laws describe (not cause) what things are observed to happen in a regular, repeatable fashion.

Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of “following the laws of physics and chemistry”, to use the common parlance, even though this phrase is misleading; why, because the laws of physics and chemistry are descriptive, not causative.

Our universe does not follow anything; its operation can be described by the laws of physics and chemistry, but those laws do not “cause” any natural phenomenon.

There is also the matter of unreasonable assumptions about initial conditions. With the big bang, many experts will say: “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.”

Physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, are engaged in the relatively new field of Quantum Gravity in order to develop a new theory of Gravity. Fine, but if the BB model of Gravity is already correct (as has been claimed by prominent physicists), then why look for a new theory of gravity?

​

 

[leadcounsel]

I certainly believe in the supernatural. Our energy must go somewhere when we die. From a religious perspective, I also believe in good, evil, spirits, angels, etc.

I have had undescriptive sensations of presences, and a couple noteworthy experiences. The first, about 2 decades ago I had a cat that liked to come and jump on my bed at bedtime after I got settled. Shortly after he died, I was laying down for bed, and felt a very distinctive rustling on the bed not unlike a housecat jumping on the foot of the bed. Obviously nothing was there, but it was not a fictional feeling.

Another instance(s) I will share, is that while I am not easily spooked, I bought a really old house a couple years ago. An old lady last lived here before moving out to assisted living and passing on. My first week sleeping here, I felt very uneasy. I have been to war, slept in unsafe areas traveling all around the world, youth hostiles while traveling, lived in dangerous cities/areas, etc. I have never felt as uneasy, as my first few nights here. It was a feeling of being watched and unusually cold, like a empty coldness. Hard to describe. I could only sleep because I was completely exhausted from moving stress and exertion. My dog was also clearly stressed a bit.

One of my first nights here, I entered the house at night and heard a woman's voice from the back bedroom politely ask/say, "Hello??" I was so creeped out I left the house for a few moments, then went back in and searched the entire house and did my own brief Christian prayers of release throughout the home. I have repeatedly found the basement light on, when I have been fairly confident I had turned it off. In fairness, the light being on, could entirely be my doing, and forgetfullness. But the woman's voice was not my imagination. I absolutely heard that. After I went around and gave blessings in the house, my feelings of uneasiness dissipated.

 

[leadcounsel]

According to my older siblings, the house we grew up in had entities in it. I never directly experienced anything but I know our basement was very frightening and I hated going into it. It was an unfinished 1/2 basement, concrete floors and field stone and concrete walls, with a 1/2 crawl spaced that was just dark, cold and spooky.

According to my brother, while in his late teens his friend stopped over. Living in a safe area our doors were always unlocked. His friend, expecting my brother to be home (he was not, nobody was home), let himself in. My brother came home shortly after, and found his friend sitting outside in our front yard and refused to go back into the house, having heard or seen things that terrified him.

Many years later we sold that house. My sister was shown a picture by the new owners, who asked if the house had spirits. The new family was apparently taking family photos or some such, and when they looked though them there was a levitating broom in the background of one picture, with literally no explanation.

 

[fisher83]

Growing up, my stepdad used to believe he was being possessed by the spirit of some lady. My mom fully bought into it despite knowing full well that he consumed 12 to 24 beers every night. He never had these experiences in the middle of the day. Only late evening/nighttime. Even as a kid, I felt it was pretty silly to not recognize that he was just drunk. It's quite possible that other substances were at play also (perhaps for both of them).

 

[vavavroom]

This thread needs an exorcism.

 

[nomas]

One incident that I can share is that right after my first grandson was born , he was here at our house and asleep in one of the bedrooms . My wife had put a baby monitor in the room and had one of the two receivers with her in the kitchen . My youngest son had taken the other one and was in his own room . My wife very distinctly heard her mother's voice on the receiver say " Well , hey there .." . My son heard it too and was standing in the hallway outside the room and was obviously kind of freaked out . My wife's mother had passed away a few years prior to that .

 

[Malo83]

This thread needs an exorcism.

Never knew we had so many scientific experts on this subject.