OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 9 of 13  
Mark & Juanita wrote: ...

Well, that is precisely what it appears is the case w/ quantum fluctuation (as mind-boggling as it is).
I'll again suggest reading Greene as a starting place. From there you can delve as deeply as you choose...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not so in a relativistic big bang model.

Why not?

Wrong.
The conservation of Matter and energy is not merely consistent with the big bang model, it is a fundamental assumption upon which the model depends.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure.
How is the notion of an eternal God less in conflict with the concept of first cause than is the notion of an eternal Universe.

No need. The big bang model follows from the math, not vice versa.
Which is more logical, a Universe that conforms to the laws of mathematics in defiance of common sense, or a Universe that conforms to common sense in defiance of mathematics?

Wrong. That is a straw man argument. To be sure, the straw man was not invented by you. It was invented by proponents of the big bang model who either didn't understand it, or 'dumbed it down' for their audience.
The big bang model depends on conservation of mass and energy. Add to that the observed expansion of the Universe and the big bang model follows.
There are a number of counterintuitive conclusions that follow on in short order. Among them, every point in the Universe is, and always was, the center of the Universe.
In the relativistic big bang model, the Universe always existed, has always been expanding, and has always had the same sum of mass and energy. There is no time before the universe for the same reason that there is no space outside of the universe.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

But if it isn't empirically observable, what is it and on what basis is there to judge whether an answer is or is not "right"?
It simply is one argument as opposed to another at that point with no inherent way to determine which is "better" in some sense.
...

You really should read more in modern physics and cosmology. :)
That is actually the direction in which things seem to be progressing -- that the universe in essence "created itself". I repeat, read Greene for a rudimentary introduction.
If the hints in this direction bear fruit (and while it's quite likely there are many wondrous side paths and detours yet to be traveled on the way, I think it quite likely that the end result will be so although not likely in my lifetime so I'll have to count on the "glass darkly" route if I'm ever going to actually know), the answer will be that the universe simply sprang into being, evolved to an end and may or may not do so repetitively--right now that is a big question.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This guy has more lives than a cat.
Put him in the kill file, you guys keep dragging him back.
Give me a break.
As long as you keep playing with crap, you're going to get some on you.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

And you can't help but keep reading...

Smaller words, simpler sentences, more references to pop culture, what would it take?

Nice - you can't add any value, but you can pee in everyone else's cereal...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Since when is "right" the only metric of interest? What if the metric is, "is it real to me at that moment in time?" There are lots of things that are existential in nature, and cannot be shared with the class - they are personal, transcendent, and not possible to share correctly/completely with anyone else. I have one of these moments every time my cat goes to sleep in my lap purring. There isn't an empirical method you could define - even in principle - that could measure what the *means to _me_* yet is is quite real.

Yes I should. But it would not fundamentally change my contention that science is correct where it applies but not remotely complete.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Then you're as absolutist in approach as those you castigate for the same sin (of course, we knew that already) :(
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Why, because I admit more than one single way to know things? I am "absolutist" only in the sense that I accept that systems have limits, therefore you need more than one system to learn the maximum possible number of True Things.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

It's what "knowing" means in this context I'm questioning...

For a suitable definition of "True"...my only contention all along has been in how to ascertain this truth from a purely intellectual, non-empirical methodology.
As we learned from the early Greeks, that didn't work so well when it came to understanding how stuff actually works.
OTOH, folks have continued to toss around "big ideas" since before Aristotle and we still bandy around one vs another w/ no way to ever reach a conclusion (sorta' like usenet :) ).
Interesting, entertaining, sometimes even stimulating; but hardly reaching the level of some inviolate or even demonstrable "truth"...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

And that's because emiricist/Rationalists as a group insist that you can only "know" something if it can be measured and demonstrated by their method of epistemology. It's entirely self-referential. (Not that this is bad thing, it's just unnecessarily narrow, IMHO.)

If you stipulate that: A) There is a set of True Things and B) Empiricism can only apprehend a subset of these.
Then ... It follows that there are True Things not open to the empirical method. The fact that any attempt to understand these must by non-empirical means - i.e., Non-objective, cannot be conveyed to others necessarily - doesn't mean that these are not worth pursuing or trying to understand even on just a personal/existential basis.

Once again for completeness sake: What is "demonstrable" rests entirely on your starting axioms. Science never "proves" anything, it merely demonstrates: A) Consistency with its starting points (or not) and/or B) Utility value (or not).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Well, DOH!
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

LOL
I _like_ it and wish I'd thought of it first...consider it stolen for later use. :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:20:28 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

Since no one has ever demonstrated a reason to accept that there is anything beyond the empirically observable physical universe, what's your point? The reality is, having faith in mumbo-jumbo magical bullshit doesn't make it so. Science is the only way we currently have of evaluating the world around us in a rational, logical and objective manner. Just because science cannot currently answer a question is no reason to just make up an answer like religion does. There is no reason to take anything religion says seriously, it's just invented out of whole cloth and makes claims based on nothing but wishful thinking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I intended to address your Turtle theory, but forgot to come back. It is an ridiculous theory, one that most people would have trouble swallowing.
This is what I call a 'QUICK FIX" to the blunder that is the "first cause" argument.
It is more plausible to me that mass-energy always existed. Matter in some form or another, always existed (needed no supernatural creator).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GarageWoodworks wrote:

The bottom line on this is that sooner or later either science will be backed into a corner where some phenomenon is observed that requires the existence of a deity, or it won't ever be backed into such a corner.
In science the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. So a scientist won't accept such existence as proven until there is evidence that allows no other explanation. This makes many religious types angry--they don't seem to understand that the result of this approach may some day be incontrovertible proof that their deity exists.
Further, they don't seem to grasp that a method that one uses in one's work may have little to do with one's personal beliefs. One can be quite convinced that there is a deity without accepting any particular piece of evidence as proof of the existence of that deity.
If there is an all knowing and all powerful deity who created the universe and that deity wants us to find proof of his existence, we'll find it. If there is and it doesn't, then maybe we should just leave it the Hell alone lest we piss it off. And if there is no such deity then why worry about it?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:21:20 -0500, "J. Clarke"

When that actually happens, fine. Until then, assuming it will happen is foolish. To date, there's no reason to think that a deity exists at all, therefore making assumptions based upon the existence of a deity is silly.

No, there isn't a single shred of objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, therefore there is no reason to posit one. The same is true of dragons. Science has no belief that there are no dragons, it simply sees no reason to think that there are.
Come up with evidence for God and science will accept God and not until.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Henderson wrote:

There isn't a shred of "objective evidence" that *you* or *I* exist. "Objective" facts are a consequence of the *unprovable* starting points of logic, upon which science is based. You object to religion being made up out of whole cloth. But *every* system that claims to bring us knowledge has this problem. You have absolutely no way of telling whether we're in some virtual reality like "The Matrix" or whether we actually exist as it seems. The truth is that science got tractions because it brings us practical results. But it is not inherently free of the constraints that haunt all epistemologies. In short, something is "objectively true" based entirely on what you believe (but cannot prove) in the first place ... no different that the most ardent religious believers...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:07 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

Sure there is. I'd be happy to whack you in the head with a tack hammer until you admit that I exist. You and I have tangible effects on the world around us, this "God" delusion doesn't. If you can convince God to hit me with a tack hammer, I'll accept he's real.

It doesn't much matter whether we're in the Matrix or not, we can only study the world around us whether it's real or digital. Theorizing invisible puppet-masters is ludicrous until we have evidence to back it up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.