Religion Channel Off Topic Thread for October 30, 2017!!
headerWelcome to the Religion Channel Off Topic thread where you can discuss anything you wish. 
Please remember that our Community Guidelines for decorum still apply.Enjoy!
headerAfter 10 years of research at CERN, scientists says the universe shouldn't exist.But the universe does exist, we think.
To me, this simply continues to mean they are a long way from understanding the conditions of the young universe to have any idea what happened. 
When I saw this article flash up on my Google feed a few days ago, I honestly reflected on whether @ TFCC will see it and produce a related OP for our enjoyment, as it's the epitome of fodder for confirmation bias.
I suggest staying away from clickbait popular science writing spins, focus on the research behind the fluff, and don't imply an answer unless you have some equally rigorous evidence to support it.
# headerBreaking News: The title of this OP and the article it is taken from is breathtakingly dishonest and / or intentionally sensationalist.
Scientists have not in fact drawn this conclusion.Some scientists who are involved in this chain of inquiry are stating that the data they do not yet understand the issue in its entirety. # headerThis is obvious when you read the following quote from a scientist interviewed for the article.
"An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand
where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"
Certainly it’s sensationalized, to get people to read and consider the implications of negative experimental results.
headerThat asymmetry or difference is crucial to how the universe came about, and we can’t find the source of it. It’s interesting.
Yes its interesting, but titles like these are symptomatic of a larger problem in the way that science is reported by the media and the way that people online deal with media in general.
>quote Also, to be honest, I would have less of a problem with it if sensationalist titles like these tended to lead to further reading, but studies are showing that only a minority of people actually read an online article beyond the title. 
)
Articles get shared and re-shared based on the shock value of the title alone, and when the title is disingenuous, as this one is, it leads that large majority of people who have not read the article or are.
Occasionally, we talk about fine-tuned creation of the universe here in the RC.However, every time I (all caps for emphasis) say the universe shouldn't exist when discussing the fine-tuning possibility, I get Douglas Adam's puddle analogies regurgitated by copy/paste at me as an end-all-be-all response.(Again, Douglas Adam's puddle analogy would be more accurate if it were about the puddle waking up and being amazed that there is a hole for the puddle to be in at all rather than it "fits" the hole, because that's where Science is still. )
headerDoes evidence show the universe should not exist, or is it more about a lack of evidence and/or observation and measurement for why it exists?
Will we ever be able to figure it out from here on Earth
headerWill you copy/paste/email Douglas Adam's puddle analogy to CERN scientists to show them why the hole is here at all
A lot of people describe miracles as events we cannot explain by what we understand of the natural world.Is the origin of the universe a "miracle" for the same reason?
quote
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the Universe should not actually exist," says one of the researchers, Christian Smorra.
The title and article is sensationalised, but to be fair that sensationalisation seems to be an accurate reflection of what some of the people involved said. Pretty sure he was just using hyperbolic language for effect - noone really thinks the universe shouldn't exist - but it's accurate reporting. I don't entirely disagree with you, though I think the term "accurate" is a very optimistic interpretation of the title. It seems very likely that Smorra was being intentionally hyperbolic, and it is possible that this was the intent of article's author.
However, it also seems a rather large distortion of what Smorra actually said. The word "concluded" is a loaded word. 
It implies closure with regards to this line of inquiry, which is not anywhere near what he says or anywhere near the reality of this line of inquiry, and my objection to the title hangs heavily upon the use of that word.
quote
Yes, "concluded" was a bad choice of words.And I agree that "accurate" was probably overstating it.I'll downgrade it to "not disingenuous".
headerTotally agree that the press rarely reports scientific stories well.
Of course, die-hard cosmos pietists and Creatorists will "inform" you that so much wordly suffering comes from we ourselves. Surely a naive, Pollyanna kind of view. The world is nothing but an amalgam of mindless cycles of force that birth us, age us, injure us, sicken us and kill us (as well as entire species). No "miracle" is involved except the dogged stamina of the human spirit. without tripping over a sense of wonder at how everything fits together.
quote
People talk about witnessing the miracle of birth - and the fact that we came in to being through our parents and then produce our own offspring seems pretty mind-blowing to me. You keep tracing that back and life starts at some point. That is amazing. At some point the observable universe began - if that doesn't qualify as miraculous, then you are not easily impressed.
The fact that I can reproduce some of this in the lab isn't the point. It's the fact that I can make it happen and that all the math lines up - why should it be like that? I can't pull science apart from philosophy and art and imagination and hold it off to the side. Science has implications that inspire imagination.
quote
Here we have an example of where the abstract math does not line up with evidence.Hmmm... mystery to be solved. I love a good mystery. What is inside that gap? What can bridge it?What is it that we don't know?
For me, life is better when I am reminded that I don't know everything and I don't have all the answers.I have some answers - but there are gaps. And when something jumps over the gap it is miraculous - because it works but I don't understand it. But I have to accept it because it works even though I can't explain it.
quote
headerThe reason you get the Douglas Adams puddle analogy is simply this:
The "fine-tuning" argument is backwards.The universe isn't fine-tuned for life. Life is fine-tuned for the universe. The article simply says that "we don't know what caused the beginning of the universe".
https://steemit.com
https://steemit.com/religion/@gavvet/the-evolution-of-adam-a-debt-of-blood-and-ghosts
I agree with your position that the universe simply is and that in time the conditions changed from the original basic simplicity and as energies and matter cooled , dissipated, condensed, elements blended and mixed repeatedly and matter gradually became more complex in space/ time. Eventually compounds formed amino acids, proteins and such and simple life was established where it could adapt and flourish and thrive. 
)
At least once more complex life becsme self aware life which questions it’s own existence. I can imagine or intuit the sequence..
What I cannot grasp is the idea that before there was time and space and a cosmos a most complex entity created everything.
header I stick with my own ideas as I don’t think the ancient patriarchs had a clue about cosmology, only ideas of super men or gods.
. Suffering is good for you!(or if you're lucky you could go out in style) # headerThere does need to be some kind of control on euthanasia because it can be abused, but on the issue of the suffering I agree with Ronald Salter.
1. item *italic*Thank you for visiting my wall. 
)
If you like it please upvote, esteem and follow me @alfa-good
nice post friend
@steem-marketing has voted on behalf of @minnowpond.
If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowponds team on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond.