What do those Nobel people know anyway?

[shunyadragon]

You really are dense Shuny - and I and not selectively citing Vilenkin - you are lying again. His theory has the creation event happening in the absence of any prior space, matter and time. With only the laws of physics.

Regardless of how you word it, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is sufficient evidence to support the spontaneous origin of our universe from nothing due to the natural laws.

[seer]

Regardless of how you word it, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is sufficient evidence to support the spontaneous origin of our universe from nothing due to the natural laws.

Really? To quote Vilenkin: I cannot really claim that I understand the beginning of the universe. We have a picture which kind of makes sense, which I think is an achievement.

And Shuny, it is not how I word it, but how Vilenkin states it. There is no preexisting space, therefore there is no place for your "quantum nothing" to exist prior to the creation event.

[Sparko]

False, an appeal to scientific references to support an argument is not a fallacy.

Source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

© Copyright Original Source

You basically said, "I have no idea what I am talking about and neither do you, but these experts over here are right, because they are experts so there!"

[Jedidiah]

Regardless of how you word it, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is sufficient evidence to support the spontaneous origin of our universe from nothing due to the natural laws.

From a false nothing, what one person (I do not recall who it was) called a "pregnant nothing." This so-called nothing is part of creation, if it exists.

[shunyadragon]

You basically said, "I have no idea what I am talking about and neither do you, but these experts over here are right, because they are experts so there!"

Not a coherent response, in fact, it is jibrish.

False, an appeal to scientific references to support an argument is not a fallacy.

Source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

False, an appeal to scientific references to support an argument is not a fallacy.

Source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

© Copyright Original Source

We're not talking about science based on empirical evidence here, however, but unverifiable speculation couched in science-y language. Sparko's observation yet stands.

[Sparko]

Not a coherent response, in fact, it is jibrish.

If you are going to play condescension, at least learn how to spell gibberish.

False, an appeal to scientific references to support an argument is not a fallacy.

You didn't.

[shunyadragon]

We're not talking about science based on empirical evidence here, however, but unverifiable speculation couched in science-y language. Sparko's observation yet stands.

First, you are not remotely qualified as a scientist to make that judgement. Second, you presenting your view from a highly biased religious agenda. Third, The reference does not make that judgement, you are from a biased perspective.

The reference is specific . . . It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

It is the scientists cited that support sufficient evidence for the origin of our universe. What are your qualifications to object.

[Sparko]

First, you are not remotely qualified as a scientist to make that judgement. Second, you presenting your view from a highly biased religious agenda. Third, The reference does not make that judgement, you are from a biased perspective.

The reference is specific . . . It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

It is the scientists cited that support sufficient evidence for the origin of our universe. What are your qualifications to object.

You just did it again!

[One Bad Pig]

First, you are not remotely qualified as a scientist to make that judgement.

You're not either. I at least have some training in the relevant field, since I have a minor in Astrophysics.

Second, you presenting your view from a highly biased religious agenda.

This is worse than a highly biased anti-religious agenda ...why, exactly?

The reference is specific . . . It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

It is the scientists cited that support sufficient evidence for the origin of our universe. What are your qualifications to object.

The scientific consensus is that the universe originated in the Big Bang. There is no consensus, however, in how exactly that started.
fig3.jpeg
There are many versions of inflationary theory. Once we get beyond what is observable, even Ph.Ds are spitballing, no matter how clever the math.

[shunyadragon]

You're not either. I at least have some training in the relevant field, since I have a minor in Astrophysics.

This is worse than a highly biased anti-religious agenda ...why, exactly?

The scientific consensus is that the universe originated in the Big Bang. There is no consensus, however, in how exactly that started.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]24713[/ATTACH]
There are many versions of inflationary theory. Once we get beyond what is observable, even Ph.Ds are spitballing, no matter how clever the math.

Yes there is consensus among enough scientists to make my references valid. My references are from a consensus of four qualified scientists. I did not propose that there were not alternate views among scientists. This is adequate. Sparko's challenge of the fallacy fails by definition. Neither Sparko nor you have presented an alternate scenario with a consensus with references. Still waiting . . .

[TheLurch]

My references are from a consensus of four qualified scientists.

Four scientists are not a scientific consensus. A consensus emerges when a supermajority of all people working in an entire field looks at the evidence and agrees that it consistently and thoroughly points in a single direction.

[shunyadragon]

Four scientists are not a scientific consensus. A consensus emerges when a supermajority of all people working in an entire field looks at the evidence and agrees that it consistently and thoroughly points in a single direction.

I did not claim it was a super majority, but a consensus among a group of scientists, and there are far more that that agree with Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. Consensus can also mean 'general agreement,; and a super majority is not necessary.

I asked for a consensus of a view that disagrees, and have received NO RESPONSE.

I believe the present consensus is that our universe began as a singularity and the singularity originated from the quantum existence in one way or another. Of course there are variations in the hypotheis of origins among physicists and cosmologists.

There are of course some hypothesis that are still viable that still claim a cyclic universe without a big bang.

The ball is in your court.

[seer]

There are of course some hypothesis that are still viable that still claim a cyclic universe without a big bang.

Not according to Vilenkin:

A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

[Sparko]

Well this is my theory of the universe:

girl-blowing-bubble-gum-bubble-web__oPt.jpg