OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Actually, Mark, I think if you read through all the various responses by those defending the Rational/empiricist method their argument (if I understand it) boils down to this:

1) R-E cannot completely answer questions of First Cause, so our answer will always be "I don't know". 2) No other system that might posit a different approach is valid because it does not fit into our R-E method of confirmation. That is, we R-E devotees refuse to even consider another means of acquiring knowledge absent a way to confirm it via our R-E methods ... which would make such a system R-E in any case. 3) Anyone who accepts the possibility of an answer via a system of type 2) above is inherently: "irrational" and an "idiot" (both of those terms were used specifically in this thread along with some other fairly lowbrow invective).

This line of thinking is - as you point out - far more religious than its adherents here will admit. But ... the good news is that they are not particularly representatives of all or even most practitioners of the R-E disciplines. There are a goodly number of serious practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers,et al - people whose very work is grounded in R-E methods of doing things - that happen to also happily be theists or people of faith in some form. I count myself among them and have met a great many more, and read even still more over the years.

Now, majority or minority rule on this matter is irrelevant. Reality is what it is, whatever we may think about it. But I find it telling that this harsh, abrasive stand from the R-E defenders we've witnessed here is a relatively new thing. It has come about (this is an

*opinion*) at the same time as we've seen an ascendancy of very vocal radical atheism poking its head up in the culture at large. Methinks they protest too much ... perhaps they're worried we theists may end up being right at some level, I dunno. What I do know is that secure thinker don't need the level of vitriol displayed here (and other places) of late.

Notice that at no point in this thread did I describe my personal belief system in any detail, nor did I try to "convert" people to theism. I merely suggested that the snotty condescension directed at people of faith from literally the first post onward was unwarranted and bad manners and tried to lay examples of how thoughtful people could be led to theistic conclusions. This alone invoked shrieks of "irrational idiot" or words to that effect. Religious indeed ...

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk
Loading thread data ...

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...

--

Reply to
dpb

But even here you are describing phenomena in the existent universe, not the condition prior to the postulated origin of the universe. Even in this case, you have a problem in that you have no way that a pre-universal singularity could have existed in stasis for an infinite amount of time prior to the big bang.

No, not at all. You have created an even greater problem for yourself because now your cosmic egg could not exist in stasis. If it could not exist in stasis it had to have an origin. If it had an origin, you have no modern theory of cosmology.

By your commentary above, you have not addressed the issue of origin at all.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

If you can't be bothered to restate it in a paragraph, I'm certainly not going to read a whole book to find out.

ditto

todd

Reply to
todd

Certainly not all of it, but they did set up the Noachian Flood as an explanation for geology and a timeline of 6000 years, both of which are certainly open to evaluation and both of which fail miserably.

That's why the new incarnation of creationism, so-called Intelligent Design, doesn't bother trying to explain anything, it just says "something did it" and leaves it at that. Of course, since "something did it" isn't testable, ID cannot be a scientific concept and, as we saw in the Dover trial, it gets thrown out quite handily.

Reply to
Brian Henderson

And who is getting laughed at here, Tim? Oh wait, that was you.

Reply to
Brian Henderson

Go ahead then, pick out your arguments. Let's see your quotes, but make sure you're providing the WHOLE quote, not taking things out of context like so many God-Squaders do.

In other words, put up or shut up.

Reply to
Brian Henderson

Then by definition, you did *not* "remove all the energy from [that] space", thus contradicting the initial assumption, and hence invalidating the entire argument.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Mark & Juanita wrote: ...

Au contraire, good buddy...rather than not addressing the subject it appears you haven't read the literature (or at least followed where present research seems to be heading)...

It's really worth reading simply because it makes an incredibly amazing story far beyond the science fiction writers' imaginations.

--

Reply to
dpb

Poorly worded, not precisely what Hawking says. There is positive and negative energy which cancel except for the quantum fluctuations...as I said before, it's truly mind-boggling but seemingly the wave of the future :) direction on the way towards a "theory of everything"...

Try Greene for an approachable introduction before tackling Hawking.

Reply to
dpb

Again, by definition, it wasn't *all* removed, contradicting the initial assumption that it was.

Reply to
Doug Miller

That's why I said it's not what Hawking has written. Zero is zero and the resulting is actually an intrinsic part of the "fabric" of space. There's nothing more to take out, yet there's "something" there anyway in a _very_ rough transliteration. As I said before, the world of the quantum is so far removed in behavior from the macroscopic world in which our senses operate that it is simply not possible to extrapolate on the basis of what one "knows".

Have you read any of the suggested works or even seen the PBS Nova series "The Elegant Universe" that scans over Greene's book? The concepts are novel but as noted before, seeming to get closer to the underlying way things really are w/ yet a long way to go. But, so far, there's been no need to invoke the man behind the curtain. Maybe we'll end up there, maybe not, but to invoke cloture on the subject is premature at best.

Reply to
dpb

.. an obvious contradiction.

Reply to
Doug Miller

No, it's not a contradiction in the strange world of quantum theory. It only appears that way by trying (as did the NASA blurb) to state the situation in a brief nontechnical form as best as one can. To try to present the argument in detail is simply too much to even attempt on a usenet posting.

One simply must read at least a popularization (which is why I keep harping on Greene) in order to have any clue of what the state of affairs currently is, but it's not possible to apply macro-scale concepts on the scale of quantum effects, particularly when systems are massive enough yet on those scales such that gravitational effects can't be ignored.

It's that separation of modern physics in particular from what "seems" normal that I believe is much of the basis for the lack of communication between the current philosophers and scientists--the one simply doesn't understand the realm of the other sufficiently in depth to make meaningful contributions any longer whereas at one time the two were inseparable.

Reply to
dpb

"Not a contradiction... only appears that way..."

Pretty much the same language used by the theists, no?

Reply to
Doug Miller

:) touche (sorta')

Only when trying to verbalize it, though, which is a fundamental difference.

For physics we have a language that expresses things quite precisely. It's the task of trying to turn that language into everyday English where the translations fail because the results are so foreign to everyday experience.

(It's hard enough to come to grip w/ the "wave-particle duality" conundrum and these kinds of effects are even more mind-boggling. At the risk of repeating myself, reading about this stuff is more entertaining than any science fiction ever thought of being at their most audacious.)

Reply to
dpb

I had the reverse problem when trying to understand Einstein's universal speed limit - the speed of light. The everyday experience of say two cars racing toward each other tells us that the combined speed is the total of the two speeds of the cars or:

vt = v1 + v2

So, if the two cars are traveling each at the speed of light or C, the combined velocity should be C + C or two times the speed of light.

Old Einstein corrected this when he added the relativity factor to the equation so that the more precise formula is:

vt = ( v1 + v2) / ( 1 + (v1 x v2) / ( C x C) )

Say the two cars are hurtling toward one another, each at the speed of light. What's the combined speed? - The speed of light!

The math takes the mystery out of it.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

Where the math is simple enough for most folks to follow, it really helps (_IF_, of course, one can ever get any of the folks one runs into to actually look at it :( ) as in your example. But, stuff has gotten so complex it's not many that have the mathematical sophistry to be able to read it, what more comprehend so we're left w/ trying to make words take the place which is difficult at best. As noted earlier, that's mostly what's left the philosophers behind, unfortunately.

--

Reply to
dpb

When Washington invoked spiritual belief in his speeches he used the term 'Providence' rather than even any Deist term. That's about as PC as one could get in those days.

Jefferson wrote whatever he thought would influence his audience du jour. It was not unusual for him to privately contradict, by word or action, his public pronouncements. Contrast, for example, his scathing attack on the English Monarch's support of the slave trade with his own ownership of upward to 1000 slaves. That's like a crack house operator damning the Columbian cocaine cartels.

Patrick Henry, OTOH, was not hesitant to invoke religion and Christianity in his speeches.

It is also instructive to read the last paragraph of the Articles of Confederation.

Reply to
Fred the Red Shirt

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.

Reply to
Fred the Red Shirt

HomeOwnersHub website 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.