Reply With Quote
Anyways, I'm off to the gym...
GOD created all matter, all energy, and set time in motion in a void that had no existence...
There is no naturalistic equivalent to this concept... and the reason why the dilemma is such a big freaking deal... (the big elephant in the room)...
"Something" had to operate from outside of the Universe in order to create it. It had to be Supernatural event... I'm telling you that this very ledge is what drove Einstein towards a Deist position. There is no other answer once you get to that point... particularly because the Big Bang theory is largely supported by vast arrays of cosmic data... Ironically, what was proposed as a 'viable' alternative to the creation of the Universe (devoid of GOD) back in the '30's, is what has driven many astrophysicists to the brink of faith today.
the "nothing... nothing... nothing... poof... EVERYTHING!!!" word illustration was meant to elicit an epiphany of the realization that the Big Bang event defies every single known rule about nature's behavior, and its processes (observable, postulated or otherwise).
So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or suggesting GOD was 'nothing'.. you're just electing to harp on a semantical difference that is largely being created by our divergent perspectives...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-15-2009 at 06:37 PM.
Anyways, I'm off to the gym...
Its not harping its just that you refuse to acknowledge the key point that what you accuse others of doing you yourself do but under the guise that its OK because its "supernatural". scientists don't claim to have the answers to everything and sometimes for them the notion that we don't know is actually OK.GOD created all matter, all energy, and set time in motion in a void that had no existence...
There is no naturalistic equivalent to this concept... and the reason why the dilemma is such a big freaking deal... (the big elephant in the room)...
"Something" had to operate from outside of the Universe in order to create it. It had to be Supernatural event... I'm telling you that this very ledge is what drove Einstein towards a Deist position. There is no other answer once you get to that point... particularly because the Big Bang theory is largely supported by vast arrays of cosmic data... Ironically, what was proposed as a 'viable' alternative to the creation of the Universe (devoid of GOD) back in the '30's, is what has driven many astrophysicists to the brink of faith today.
the "nothing... nothing... nothing... poof... EVERYTHING!!!" word illustration was meant to elicit an epiphany of the realization that the Big Bang event defies every single known rule about nature's behavior, and its processes (observable, postulated or otherwise).
So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or suggesting GOD was 'nothing'.. you're just electing to harp on a semantical difference that is largely being created by our divergent perspectives...
Its so blatantly obvious and simple I'm not sure how much more to elaborate on it. You cannot explain how things work and therefor you fall back upon the notion that it MUST have been something supernatural (which is a silly word that simply expresses a lack of understanding - not some incredible process that is somehow special or spectacular)
The reason people are driven to faith is because there's no other way to explain things but there is no way a lack of information somehow gives credibility to faith based beliefs. Saying the big bang theory drove anyone to a faith based belief is simply foolish. The fact that the big bang theory cannot explain everything (which I'm fairly certain no one has every claimed it has - don't you think the first scientists to consider this scenario ever had the notion of what came before ever occur to them?) is what drives people back into the safe and secure arms of faith.
Have you ever considered the Universe may have simply appeared one day with no outside influence at all? That it was simply there one day and not the day prior? Of course not. Why? Because you operate under the framework of certain assumptions (that it must have been created by an outside force). Just because you like your assumptions better doesn't make your position any different.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 10-15-2009 at 07:14 PM.
First of all your responses could legitimately be construed as harping... secondly, I know what science is, how it works, and what claims can be made by its methods... The difference between us is that your worldview precludes any understanding outside of that box... but that's by your choice, not mine.
And no, I'm not using the word supernatural as a cop out... I happen to believe in the existence of realms that are not quantifiable by naturalistic means and hence my use of the word. You believe it's a gimmick on my part, a guise? Nothing could be further from the truth. I gain nothing by trying to convince you of my worldview. I'm simply trying to defend why I believe what I do...
Again, you've firmly chosen a position of disbelief concerning those things that 'potentially exist' outside of the scientific realm... by that premise I wouldn't expect you to consider contrary beliefs as anything other than nonsense. Your glasses are different than mine... but at least I'm willing to admit that we're all wearing different glasses that filter the world around us. I constantly get the impression around here that you all feel I'm trying to be conniving and disingenous. I simply expound my point of view... what's bewildering is that people take exception to the fact that I understand the intricacies of many of the subjects at play and worse, to their dismay, that I actually earned degrees in those fields (see mookie crowd and their obsession with my academic background).
I don't need the support of scientific principles to solidify my spiritual beliefs. My convictions are largely born out of my own personal relationship with GOD. And my worldview follows from the special revelation of His Word. That's always been my position... You don't have to agree with me, but that's the beauty of the free will that I believe we were endowed with.
As for my statement concerning the implications of the Big Bang theory, I was simply relaying what many of my astrophysicist and astronomer friends described to me as they pondered on those very questions... Also, Albert Einstein's biography is readily available... I'm sorry that it doesn't jive with how you expect scientists to behave around such philosophical crossroads. Am I to lie and say that it poses no serious dilemma to their understanding of the cosmos?
Besides for me, the scientific evidence for the creation of the universe is merely confirmation of a conclusion already arrived at on the basis of philosophical reasoning. You may forget that not long ago the idea that the universe began to exist at a specific point in the past would have been met with much skepticism. The assumption ever since the time of the ancient Greeks was that the matrerial world was eternal. Christians denied this notion on the basis of biblical revelation, but secular science at the time assumed the universe's eternality. Christians just had to say, well, even though the universe appears static, nevertheless it did have a beginning when GOD created it. So the discovery last century that the universe is not an unchanging, eternal en y was a complete shock to secular minds. It was utterly unanticipated. BTW it wasn't until the discovery of scientific confirmation for the beginning of the universe that people began to say, well, "maybe the universe just came from nothing."
That's the very question many can't wrap their minds around. It's been one of history's oldest riddles and men have been contemplating it since times of old...
As for why I wouldn't suscribe to such a notion... first off, is not supported by any naturalistic process that we've ever observed and sounds as ridiculous to me as my belief in GOD sounds ridiculous to you... There is no sense of purpose in that hypothesis... You seriously would have us believe that nature created itself? It seems metaphysically necessary that anything which begins to exist has to have a cause that brings it into being. Things don't just pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing (ex nihilo). This is a principle that is constantly confirmed and never falsified. We never see things coming into being uncaused out of nothing. Nobody worries that while they're away at work, say, a cow might pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing in their living room and begin defilling the floor. We don't worry about those kinds of things because they never happen. So other than the world of 'quantum weirdness' where the logical foundations of classical science are violated do we see such behavior but even there sub-atomic molecules only skip from place to place; they never come into being ex nihilo. Fundamentally speaking, if quantum physcial laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question.
As for the Big Bang itself, you do realize the magnitude of the event... right? The Physical laws of our Universe that came into existence microseconds after the Big Bang are a language in and of themselves... How would that type of directive, that framework, that information come into existence without outside influences??? Furthermore, the 30 or so universal constants that govern the behavior of the universe were set that very moment in such a way as to allow the creation of matter, and ultimately cater to life... Our minds really can't comprehend the precision behind some of these constants and physical parameters... For example, if the cosmological constant (the energy density of empty space) were altered by 1*10^-53 the results would be catastrophic. In fact the unexpected, counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today. There are similar sensitivities for some of the other constants such as the weak, strong and gravitational forces... either way the impression of design, in such light, is overwhelming...
It's a good thing I don't have to work tomorrow... but it lends weight towards my aprehension at entering these threads in the first place... they consume way too much of my time...
Matter can not exceed the speed of light. What you're refering to is the space between galaxies expanding at FTL speeds. The galaxies don't actually move anywhere close to light speed.
Who's harping on semantics now Secondly, You have no idea what my world view or my belief on any of this is so how can you know what it precludes? , I am not even sure what my world view is so maybe you can explain it to me.
You don't need to defend it. I don't want you to change your views on anything. My entrance into this thread had nothing to do with your view on anything but the hypocrisy and inconsistency of what you posted above on critiquing science.And no, I'm not using the word supernatural as a cop out... I happen to believe in the existence of realms that are not quantifiable by naturalistic means and hence my use of the word. You believe it's a gimmick on my part, a guise? Nothing could be further from the truth. I gain nothing by trying to convince you of my worldview. I'm simply trying to defend why I believe what I do...
I don't think you're being disingenuous at all. I think in your rush to give your view more legitimacy you attack other views unfairly. You point out their flaws while ignoring or justifying the flaws in your view.Again, you've firmly chosen a position of disbelief concerning those things that 'potentially exist' outside of the scientific realm... by that premise I wouldn't expect you to consider contrary beliefs as anything other than nonsense. Your glasses are different than mine... but at least I'm willing to admit that we're all wearing different glasses that filter the world around us. I constantly get the impression around here that you all feel I'm trying to be conniving and disingenous. I simply expound my point of view... what's bewildering is that people take exception to the fact that I understand the intricacies of many of the subjects at play and worse, to their dismay, that I actually earned degrees in those fields (see mookie crowd and their obsession with my academic background).
The reason the mookie crew gives you about that is because of the way you wave them around as some sort of legitimacy. You're on Spurstalk and you're not trying to get a paper published in a journal. Know your audience.
If your position is only made clear to you based upon things no one else can see how are you ever going to prove your position or even defend it as you chose to do? You say you don't care but the mere engagement in a "defense" (your words) says you actually do care.I don't need the support of scientific principles to solidify my spiritual beliefs. My convictions are largely born out of my own personal relationship with GOD. And my worldview follows from the special revelation of His Word. That's always been my position... You don't have to agree with me, but that's the beauty of the free will that I believe we were endowed with.
Its so funny that you keep seeing what you want to see out of what others post. What exactly are my expectations on how these people should "behave" and how have the been exceeded or not met? I don't have a problem with them having faith. I simply maintain it is not because of any particular theory. Great minds had faith long before the big bang theory and they will have it long after it is gone. Why is that? At best the big bang theory was simply a catalyst for them to realize what others have realized before and what others will realize after wards: Science cannot currently explain it all.As for my statement concerning the implications of the Big Bang theory, I was simply relaying what many of my astrophysicist and astronomer friends described to me as they pondered on those very questions... Also, Albert Einstein's biography is readily available... I'm sorry that it doesn't jive with how you expect scientists to behave around such philosophical crossroads. Am I to lie and say that it poses no serious dilemma to their understanding of the cosmos?
My question was completely rhetorical.Besides for me, the scientific evidence for the creation of the universe is merely confirmation of a conclusion already arrived at on the basis of philosophical reasoning. You may forget that not long ago the idea that the universe began to exist at a specific point in the past would have been met with much skepticism. The assumption ever since the time of the ancient Greeks was that the matrerial world was eternal. Christians denied this notion on the basis of biblical revelation, but secular science at the time assumed the universe's eternality. Christians just had to say, well, even though the universe appears static, nevertheless it did have a beginning when GOD created it. So the discovery last century that the universe is not an unchanging, eternal en y was a complete shock to secular minds. It was utterly unanticipated. BTW it wasn't until the discovery of scientific confirmation for the beginning of the universe that people began to say, well, "maybe the universe just came from nothing."
That's the very question many can't wrap their minds around. It's been one of history's oldest riddles and men have been contemplating it since times of old...
As for why I wouldn't suscribe to such a notion... first off, is not supported by any naturalistic process that we've ever observed and sounds as ridiculous to me as my belief in GOD sounds ridiculous to you... There is no sense of purpose in that hypothesis... You seriously would have us believe that nature created itself? It seems metaphysically necessary that anything which begins to exist has to have a cause that brings it into being. Things don't just pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing (ex nihilo). This is a principle that is constantly confirmed and never falsified. We never see things coming into being uncaused out of nothing. Nobody worries that while they're away at work, say, a cow might pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing in their living room and begin defilling the floor. We don't worry about those kinds of things because they never happen. So other than the world of 'quantum weirdness' where the logical foundations of classical science are violated do we see such behavior but even there sub-atomic molecules only skip from place to place; they never come into being ex nihilo. Fundamentally speaking, if quantum physcial laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question.
As for the Big Bang itself, you do realize the magnitude of the event... right? The Physical laws of our Universe that came into existence microseconds after the Big Bang are a language in and of themselves... How would that type of directive, that framework, that information come into existence without outside influences??? Furthermore, the 30 or so universal constants that govern the behavior of the universe were set that very moment in such a way as to allow the creation of matter, and ultimately cater to life... Our minds really can't comprehend the precision behind some of these constants and physical parameters... For example, if the cosmological constant (the energy density of empty space) were altered by 1*10^-53 the results would be catastrophic. In fact the unexpected, counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today. There are similar sensitivities for some of the other constants such as the weak, strong and gravitational forces... either way the impression of design, in such light, is overwhelming...
I have no reason to doubt published experts in the field. I have good reason to doubt you though.
great, you claim you're an expert with degrees in this field; show the work you've done.Ah yes, I forget that for the purposes of these debates you lean heavily on others' work... If they say the Universe is 14 billion years old, then gosh darnet! it must be true. They would never lie or have a motive to do so... Yeah I get it... it's one massive circular jerk-off.
You will never 'win' a debate by calling the scientific community at large a bunch of circle jerkers with motives.Unlike some of you however, I question everything around me and don't have to rely on others to do my thinking for me... I've chosen to walk down the harder path instead of coasting along the lazy one. I've studied the topics at hand extensively instead of relying on internet/copy&paste lolapaloozas... Tactics that only seem to demonstrate that people can't defend their own position (otherwise they would pen down their arguments in manner which demonstrated they grasp the concepts at play). Sadly enough, most of these people feel they can 'win' a debate simply by 'slapping' someone else's work into the argument... as if such articles were the end-all of discussion.
you claim you're an expert with degrees in this field; show your work.
You fail because you would rather trash the common idea that the universe is 14 billion years old than to show your workBTW I see that your fixation with the word 'fail' has not changed. You continue to overuse it (and yes, I say this, knowing fully well that you'll come back with some snide remark about why you feel compelled to use that word). Whatever, I don't care at this point.
We are able to observe that the universe is expanding with constant acceleration.Look at the facts, not those things you perceive as being fact... What do we really know? What are we really able to observe when we look out into space? Into the far reaches of the Universe? No guessing... what can we actually see?
What is your source that scientists never want to address the 'everything from nothing' concept?As I said earlier, we can see that the Universe is expanding with constant acceleration, while its energy is being depleted. None of our universal models predicted that combination, why? Because most of them started off with a framework that biasly eliminated one of the potential solutions. Yeah that's right, no atheistically-biased scientist wanted to address the 'EVERYTHING from nothing' concept and so this assumption was eliminated from the very framework of their postulates. Not considered. Unfortunately for them, their theories broke-down (or failed to predict our current cosmic state) without that crucial premise. Yeah... no dilemma whatsoever, except in my eyes.... right.
Of course, it really has little to do with the observed age of the universe.
again no source, just incoherent babble.Not surprisingly though, more and more people have come to accept a Universal model that establishes a finite beginning, as it has less glitches than trying to justify otherwise. What they don't realize is that the implication of that reality is far reaching from a philosophical standpoint. Since contemplation of that question, however, doesn't fall under the scope of their assessments - they leave it alone. Case in point would be to refer you to your own response earlier in which you suggested that I leave that question alone... separate in its own arena.
vacuum catastrophe will probably not be solved in our lifetime, but it still plausible to predict a 14 billion year old universe.Explanations that incorporate the use of dark energy, and a rekindling of a half-century old cosmological constant, or even the sci-fi like 'phantom energy' concept are all in their incipient phase at this point in trying to address our current cosmic state. Dark energy, which has become very popular of late, is a catch-all term for any hypothesised field with negative pressure and variable cosmic density. Based on that 'flexible' definition its use in this matter is highly convenient given that it may produce several solutions. Unfortunately, we don't currently have the means of working with 'dark energy' much less conducting experiments with it. Not to mention, problems such as the well do ented 'Vacuum catastrophe,' become a significant hurdle toward that goal.
from "ask an astronomer"Aside from that pursuit, one seemingly innocuous question has lingered in the shadows, one that carries serious weight when held against the established world-view. Had the Universe expanded at its current acceleration rate for billions of years (a rate which has been verified constant over the last ten years, to the 12th decimal place no less) wouldn't all cosmic mass be moving faster than the speed of light today?? Wouldn't all matter have turned to pure energy by now.... Think about that for a second...
lolIf the universe is 15 billion years old, how can it be larger than 15 billion light years across?
Well, the answer is general relativity. I take it that you're starting out in SR.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=68
so what you are saying is that since it defies logic, then God did it.Another question that arises, deals with the acceleration itself... How can the universe be expanding faster now than it did during the initial Big Bang??? The concept simply defies logic... For that matter, the red shift we observe today among the background radiation in the heavens simply cannot be explained by a multi-billion year Universe model, not at a constantly accelerated expansion... Oddly enough, it was an observation of the red shift around a supernovae which initially led us to the discovery that the universe was indeed expanding. But let's ignore these tidbits... everybody seems to want to do so already...
you're lazy.
Last edited by Blake; 10-16-2009 at 03:32 AM.
If we can't scientifically explain nothing from nothing then how do you explain "God" from nothing who then creates additional something from nothing?
If the lack of evidence always leads you back to a designer then who designed him/her/it?
There's a fundamental difference in the comparison...
That's not the classic idea of GOD. Time and space are creations of GOD that began at the Big Bang. If you go back beyond the beginning of time itself, there is simply eternity. By that, I mean eternity in the sense of timelessness. GOD, the eternal, is timeless in his being. GOD did not endure through an infinite amount of time up to the moment of creation; that would be absurd (due to principles from transfinite math particularly the Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite). GOD transcends time. He's beyond time. Once GOD created the universe, however, He could enter time at any moment, but that's a different topic altogether.
From the Kalam argument I quoted before; "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." I didn't imply that, "everything has a cause." I don't know of any reputable philospher who would argue that everything has a cause. And this is not special pleading in the case of GOD. After all, athiests long maintained that the universe didn't need a cause, because it was believed to be eternal. But now that we know that the universe had a finite beginning, how could they maintain that the universe was eternal and uncaused then, yet refuse to believe that GOD is timeless and uncaused?
Since the shoe is on the other foot, we half expected them to take the position that denied the Creator his due. In trying to build models that eliminate the need for an origin of time, space, matter, and energy, we know that those particular scientists are not really seeking answers... they're simply trying to eliminate that cosmologic truth that bothers them to no end. And no MannyIsGod, I'm not suggesting all scientists do that. But many times we don't even have speculate who has those motives... they'll come right out and say it. See Fred Hoyle, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Arthur Eddington, Phillip Morrison, Jastrow, Carl Sagan, among others...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-16-2009 at 12:53 PM.
Reading your responses I know you are not trying to see the other perspective. You're simply here to mock it... You show a belligerent, sarcastic, smug at ude every step of the way.... You'll just have to follow along as I converse with MannyIsGod and B2B. I don't owe you anything.
Blake is such an idiot
Fair enough, my apologies.
I critique certain agendas pushed, largely and by prominent athiests in the scientific community. There's no hipocrisy there.
I also critique the use of science to validate one's philosophical worldview... I mean, even I can make scientific arguments to validate my own all I want, but ultimately as I stated before, my spiritual beliefs grow out of a personal relationship with GOD. My convictions about GOD don't arise from what I believe about nature, and vice versa.
How does pointing out flaws in others' conclusions necessarily need to be construed as an attack? Unfairly even?
As for my own view, the one major flaw is that there is no physical proof of GOD's existence. By scientific standards you all have that one in the bag. All Deists can do then is point out how different facets of creation indicate that some exterior force had input. But ultimately we know that the observations in and of themselves don't prove "GOD did it!" What they should do however, is compel people to do is ask themselves how all of these design-laced attributes can be ignored or attributed to chance alone. When that question is asked, and genuinely contemplated... at least we know they are being honest with themselves.
The ridiculous sensitivity of the cosmological constant I mentioned earlier (originally proposed by Einstein), which stands on a razor's edge of impossibility, also stands at the forefront of observations that indicate design. That constant which could have taken any value between -1 and 1, 'happened' to lock on a value that made the creation of universe possible. It would be akin to throwing a dart from space and trying to target one specific atom on Earth's surface. Cosmologists and astronomers who are aware of this discovery find themselves in stupefied amazement. And yet, the scientific community at large would have us believe that the creation of the universe was a chance event. Many of them aren't even aware that these hurdles exist in fields outside of their own.
I've been a SpursTalk member for approximately five years... I've only listed my degrees once in that span... after people like the Blake's of today felt I had no voice in the matter. As if that were a definitive way of silencing what I had to say...
Furthermore, those degrees don't tell the full story. Nor am I validated by them... Some of the smartest men throughout history didn't even have formal schooling... humans were made to think, to question their existence, their place in this world... The moment someone tries to silence that process his or her motives should be the ones in question.
At the time certain posters tried to discredit my line of reasoning by suggesting I wasn't allowed to criticize science from the outside in, that I didn't know what I was talking about... When I responded by saying that I was a scientist they thought I was lying and so tried to silence my opinion... that post was how I responded at the time... today I probably would react differently.
That's the catch... others do see it. I'm not alone on an island even though it may appear that way on this forum. Many other scientists question the purposeless processes which supposedly gave rise to the creation of the universe and then the creation of life.
And yes, I may actually care about how that view is constantly villified. But that's because the "common Joe", feels they have all the impetus in the world to do so... they couldn't be further from the truth. All the mountains of scientific evidence don't necessarily paint the picture they thought they were looking at. When they venture out to call me a liar, or lambast me for my supposed use of pseudoscience, all I can do is point them to those hurdles that had to be traversed to get to where we are today. Creation was not some chance event; the signs are there for those who care to see them.
But how can you claim that to be the case??? People's arrival to faith comes via many different paths. That's all I was pointing out when you scoffed at the possibility that the contemplation of an ex nihilo Big Bang could actually bring people to faith... I expounded with the precedent that this actually occurs... with people such as Einstein being included in that list.
In the words of renowned agnostic scientist Robert Jastrow, in his book "God and the Astronomers;"
"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of 'ignorance;' he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians and philosophers who have been sitting there for centuries."
Well, hopefully my response showed why such a notion has been discounted by many.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-17-2009 at 12:47 PM.
I watched it and I enjoyed it.
I'm not mocking anybody's perspective. I'm mocking you thinking that you are smarter than the scientific community at large.
Reading your responses I know you are not trying to see the other perspective. You're simply here to mock it... You show a belligerent, sarcastic, smug at ude every step of the way.... You'll just have to follow along as I converse with MannyIsGod and B2B. I don't owe you anything.
You say that you have multiple degrees in this field. I'm just asking you to show your work.
You owe it to yourself to do so to avoid looking even more foolish.
which agendas?
I'll be sure to copy this for future reference when you get butthurt.How does pointing out flaws in others' conclusions necessarily need to be construed as an attack? Unfairly even?
Good stuff for philosophy class, not science class.As for my own view, the one major flaw is that there is no physical proof of GOD's existence. By scientific standards you all have that one in the bag. All Deists can do then is point out how different facets of creation indicate that some exterior force had input. But ultimately we know that the observations in and of themselves don't prove "GOD did it!" What they should do however, is compel people to do is ask themselves how all of these design-laced attributes can be ignored or attributed to chance alone. When that question is asked, and genuinely contemplated... at least we know they are being honest with themselves.
how does that prove that the universe is less than 14 billion years old?The ridiculous sensitivity of the cosmological constant I mentioned earlier (originally proposed by Einstein), which stands on a razor's edge of impossibility, also stands at the forefront of observations that indicate design. That constant which could have taken any value between -1 and 1, 'happened' to lock on a value that made the creation of universe possible. It would be akin to throwing a dart from space and trying to target one specific atom on Earth's surface. Cosmologists and astronomers who are aware of this discovery find themselves in stupefied amazement. And yet, the scientific community at large would have us believe that the creation of the universe was a chance event. Many of them aren't even aware that these hurdles exist in fields outside of their own.
you have yet to show your work
you are a scientist that can't seem to show your work. You seem more intent to just ramble on about scaling mountains of 'ignorance'.I've been a SpursTalk member for approximately five years... I've only listed my degrees once in that span... after people like the Blake's of today felt I had no voice in the matter. As if that were a definitive way of silencing what I had to say...
Furthermore, those degrees don't tell the full story. Nor am I validated by them... Some of the smartest men throughout history didn't even have formal schooling... humans were made to think, to question their existence, their place in this world... The moment someone tries to silence that process his or her motives should be the ones in question.
At the time certain posters tried to discredit my line of reasoning by suggesting I wasn't allowed to criticize science from the outside in, that I didn't know what I was talking about... When I responded by saying that I was a scientist they thought I was lying and so tried to silence my opinion... that post was how I responded at the time... today I probably would react differently.
That's the catch... others do see it. I'm not alone on an island even though it may appear that way on this forum. Many other scientists question the purposeless processes which supposedly gave rise to the creation of the universe and then the creation of life.
And yes, I may actually care about how that view is constantly villified. But that's because the "common Joe", feels they have all the impetus in the world to do so... they couldn't be further from the truth. All the mountains of scientific evidence don't necessarily paint the picture they thought they were looking at. When they venture out to call me a liar, or lambast me for my supposed use of pseudoscience, all I can do is point them to those hurdles that had to be traversed to get to where we are today. Creation was not some chance event; the signs are there for those who care to see them.
But how can you claim that to be the case??? People's arrival to faith comes via many different paths. That's all I was pointing out when you scoffed at the possibility that the contemplation of an ex nihilo Big Bang could actually bring people to faith... I expounded with the precedent that this actually occurs... with people such as Einstein being included in that list.
In the words of renowned agnostic scientist Robert Jastrow, in his book "God and the Astronomers;"
"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of 'ignorance;' he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians and philosophers who have been sitting there for centuries."
Well, hopefully my response showed why such a notion has been discounted by many.
Either you are lying and are not really a scientist..... or you are and you are getting your ass kicked in thread by a "common joe".
sucks for you.
You lecture others on telling the truth then you make fake quotes? You proved to be a lier!
me >>>>> blake
since the real post is seen by simply scrolling up the page added to the fact that I did not post anything, it is clear that I am just decoding the hidden message in posts like yours.
If by definition you see that as lying, so be it.....
in regards to facts about evolution, 9/11 and any other topic, I don't pull arguments out of my ass and twist them around as fact like yourself.....which in effect is lying.
butthurt=====>you
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Albert Einstein, 1954
Scientific observation and human philosophy is all we have to explain our world. The philosophy deals with only our emotions and thoughts, but science has no limit into what it can explain. It is the -only- logical method to do this.
Criticizing this is so absurd, only a man stuck in a children's fairytale about ressurecting humans and invisible all-powerful beings in the sky would do.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 10-18-2009 at 05:15 PM.
Theologians waste their time and will never produce anything of value because mankind invented Gods. They are an idea. You cannot explain away creation with fairytales.
Philosophers will also waste their time, and will never produce the mystery of creation either. They can only participate in the playground of human behavior and thought.
Scientists, on the other hand, actually CAN produce results. It is only a matter of time, if the evidence is there to be found, it will be found and we will know all we want to know.
Your quote sucks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
