Cosmology is one of the studies of classical philosophy

[hildegaard]

I’ve had a feeling that something is happening behind the scenes when I’ve gone to Griffith Park Observatory lately. There is an ‘atmosphere’ (sorry) a ‘climate’ (uhhh…) a, how shall we say, an ambiance of uncertainty hanging heavy in the air all around the place. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but it seems there is some kind of lurking disturbance afoot that nobody wants to talk about.

One thing I’ve found curious is that when they set up the Foucault pendulum dominoes, then stand back and watch them fall over one at a time, the docent seems to be ill-at-ease whenever a visitor asks certain questions. One time, the docent actually excused himself and said he had to go answer an important phone call. It seemed like he was trying to escape an uncomfortable situation because he was not able to satisfactorily reply to one particular question. After he left, a discussion ensued among the visitors and some walked away seemingly disgusted at what was being said, but others stayed to listen, and I was among those. It was pretty interesting, because it seems that the docents and astronomers are only willing to go so far, and then they want to change topic. But other visitors are having a free discussion that is in some ways more interesting than the “official” presentation.

Now, I just watched the “trailer” in your link above, hildegaard. But I had to use a search engine to make it open. Here is a link that actually opens the trailer page:

…

I must say, thinking back perhaps those I spoke to at the Observatory had also seen this trailer. But I have no idea, because they weren’t talking about it. Now, I’ll have to go back and find out, because I have more information to go on. Do you know where I can read more about this new movie coming up? When is it going to be released?

.

Great story about Griffith Observatory. Every time I go to science museums (including Griffith), I see the same propaganda on the Foucalt pendulums. I can only think that they mean ‘we know the earth rotates on its axis, and this is a demonstration of it’. Of course that is not what the little plaque on the display typically states.

I have a feeling that the premature announcement of the BICEP2 results, and consequent premature champagne toast (the only true big bang in the entire affair) may have been prompted by The Principle. ( youtu.be/ZlfIVEy_YOA )

BTW- my original link works for me, so maybe it is a browser issue for you?

Have you read this article yet?

 

[Pancras]

Your explanation seems correct, I will take your word for it, since I couldn’t make heads or tails out of article 83. One would have to be somewhat of a historian on councilear teachings to interpret it correctly.

Linus2nd

Thanks, but I’m not claiming to be ‘authoritative’ – I just can’t help but wonder if this little page of history and perhaps others, have been somehow overlooked. It is an authoritative teaching from a bishops’ synod that has never been identified as erroneous, and it’s 800 years old. So there has been plenty of time to point out where it’s wrong. It wasn’t the pope defining, true, but the local bishops do have a lot of authority, and when a synod gets together and draws up a syllabus of errors, it shouldn’t be utterly ignored.

What this Proposition 83 says doesn’t look good at all for saying that there could have been a ‘big bang’ and that there could have been other ‘big bangs’ that had happened before that one, and that there might even be another ‘big bang’ some time in the distant future. Again,

Quote: Condemned Proposition 83 safeguarded the doctrine of creation:

“That the world, although it was made from nothing, was not newly-made, and although it passed from non-being to being, the non-being did not precede in duration but only in nature.”

Notice, for non-being to precede in duration means that time itself had its own beginning with the creation of the universe, for prior to that creation, duration (time) was non-existent.

Likewise, this condemnation means that the same non-being that the nature of matter had before its creation was also had by the duration of created existence (that is, time).

Consequently, without there having been any time before creation of the universe, there could not have been any space either, for time and space are interdependent on each other, for we cannot conceive of one existing without the other too. For time to exist without space would be a useless nothingness in itself, and so too, for space to exist without time would be a useless nothingness as well.

.

 

[Pancras]

Great story about Griffith Observatory. Every time I go to science museums (including Griffith), I see the same propaganda on the Foucalt pendulums. I can only think that they mean ‘we know the earth rotates on its axis, and this is a demonstration of it’. Of course that is not what the little plaque on the display typically states.

I have a feeling that the premature announcement of the BICEP2 results, and consequent premature champagne toast (the only true big bang in the entire affair) may have been prompted by The Principle. ( youtu.be/ZlfIVEy_YOA )

BTW- my original link works for me, so maybe it is a browser issue for you?

Have you read this article yet?

Okay, it took a while but this time it loaded okay (the youtube video). The professor’s wife seemed more eager to thank the student than her husband did. (He must talk about this at home a lot, like around the breakfast table.)

Then, in the linked article, I found this noteworthy:

As explained in the previous article, and explained in more depth in these linked articles, the Planck results packed a significant and unexpected blow to the Copernican Principle, practically a dogma to mainstream cosmology.

I still don’t feel like I understand how the Copernican principle became “dogma” to ‘mainstream cosmology’ – do you have a firm grasp on this? I mean, we came out of an age when it was a common experience of man to see the hand of God in all creation, even into the mysterious stars that were so hard to understand. Then along came telescopes and prideful attitudes, and suddenly it started to become popular to question that erstwhile common experience of man.

But then furthermore, the greater man’s knowledge of the cosmos expanded, the more too his pride did, to the effect that the more vast his concept of the immensity of the sky, the “heavens,” the less man was willing to call it “the heavens.” How did that happen? It seems to be backwards to me. Do you know what I’m saying?
.

 

[Pancras]

.
Even in the 20th century, the faith of Christians had been holding fast despite all the attacks from ‘mainstream cosmology’, as is indicated by the sheer popularity of this protestant hymn that has a curious history. It grew from a Scandinavian poem that was later set to music and then translated into English:

How Great Thou Art​

O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands hath made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed;

Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

When through the woods and forest glade I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;
When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,
And hear the brook and feel the gentle breeze;

Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

This seems to be an expression of enormous anxiety, a crying out of man saying that he knows he can see the effects of God everywhere he looks and yet he is told by ‘mainstream cosmologists’ that what he sees is not what he thinks he sees at all, and it had been 300 years since Galileo when this song became popular – it had been 300 years of torment for the souls of those who dared to still believe in God and His word.
.

 

[wanstronian]

When Christians tell me I should not confront the atheists, I remind them that confrontation has been going on since the dawn of human history

Perhaps they are begging you to stop because your arguments do no favours to your religion’s attempts to have rational discourse. With comments like:

“While the Big Bang posited a start to the universe, a Creation moment, atheists have been seeking a way to stop that interpretation of the Big Bang. Since the universe was created, you would think logic would allow a Creator. But no. For the atheist, this is impossible. Anything but a Creator. So now we get the universe creating itself.”

You demonstrate that you are far better at building straw men than you are at actually debating the issues.

1. Your spurious use of the word “atheist” instead of “scientist” with regard to the Big Bang theory is just poisoning the well.
2. Your assertion that atheists will do anything to avoid having a Creator involved is an ad hominem.

Your entire argument is built upon fallacy, so if I were a theist I’d want you to shut up too.

The fact of the matter is that a “Creator” is undefined, untestable, unfalsifiable (and let’s not forget, it’s you theists that have made it that way). So it provides no explanatory power, and science is purely about building models that attempt to explain the phenomenon under investigation. Building a model that needs a big “God did it” in the middle is ridiculous.

Science is a search for knowledge and truth. If a Creator was shown to exist, and it could be demonstrated that it was key to the creation of the Universe, then the model would include it. But science is not in the business of making stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge. That’s what theology is for.

Let me remind you that no scientific theory to date has required any element of the supernatural. And yet science has been extraordinarily successful in explaining what happens around us and within us. By contrast, “God did it” hasn’t resulted in any new knowledge in the last 4,000 years.

Would you accept a theory of gravity that included invisible pixies pushing stuff downwards? I suspect not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps you would be interested to hear about the condemnations of 1277, of which some had to do with cosmological principles. These were disseminated by the bishop of Paris for his faithful to observe in their work on studying Scripture. Note: this was 400 years before Galileo – as long as it has been from Galileo to our own time.

Of the nearly 100 condemned propositions or concepts was this one, #83, which caught my attention:

What does this mean for the ‘big bang’? It condemns the notion that the universe (at the time they used to say “the world”) was not newly-made (as in the big bang), and it condemns the notion that when the universe came into being it was only its nature that began (as in the big bang), while in time it had a prior existence if in a different nature (as in the big bang).

Proposition 83 therefore, precludes the possibility of any “big bang” that occurred in time, because that would constitute a precedence of being, from non-being “in nature,” but not “in duration.” Consequently, on this basis (#83) the Catholics of Paris in 1277 were forbidden to believe in any kind of ‘big bang’, even if it were construed as a “creation event,” because according to this legitimate bishop’s synod, Catholics must believe that when God created the universe, He did so *ex-nihilo, *and that there was nothing previous in time, nor previous in nature, which He used in His act of creation.

As we understand this principle today, it means that time itself was created, such that light could be created (light cannot exist without a framework of time – a principle that even modern skeptics would not argue against), and after light came the earth, and then the rest of creation built around the earth.
.

I have to disagree with your analysis. There is noting in the " condemnation " which would preclude a Big Bang as long as it was understood as a creation event, in time, out of nothing. I don’t see any conflict.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Okay, it took a while but this time it loaded okay (the youtube video). The professor’s wife seemed more eager to thank the student than her husband did. (He must talk about this at home a lot, like around the breakfast table.)

Then, in the linked article, I found this noteworthy:

I still don’t feel like I understand how the Copernican principle became “dogma” to ‘mainstream cosmology’ – do you have a firm grasp on this? I mean, we came out of an age when it was a common experience of man to see the hand of God in all creation, even into the mysterious stars that were so hard to understand. Then along came telescopes and prideful attitudes, and suddenly it started to become popular to question that erstwhile common experience of man.

But then furthermore, the greater man’s knowledge of the cosmos expanded, the more too his pride did, to the effect that the more vast his concept of the immensity of the sky, the “heavens,” the less man was willing to call it “the heavens.” How did that happen? It seems to be backwards to me. Do you know what I’m saying?
.

It was Newton who provided the scientific " proof " of the Copernicus theory. This occurred
during the age of Enlightenment when men were looking for an excuse to jettison God. And Newton provided them a plausible excuse.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps they are begging you to stop because your arguments do no favours to your religion’s attempts to have rational discourse. With comments like:

You demonstrate that you are far better at building straw men than you are at actually debating the issues.

1. Your spurious use of the word “atheist” instead of “scientist” with regard to the Big Bang theory is just poisoning the well.
2. Your assertion that atheists will do anything to avoid having a Creator involved is an ad hominem.

Your entire argument is built upon fallacy, so if I were a theist I’d want you to shut up too.

The fact of the matter is that a “Creator” is undefined, untestable, unfalsifiable (and let’s not forget, it’s you theists that have made it that way). So it provides no explanatory power, and science is purely about building models that attempt to explain the phenomenon under investigation. Building a model that needs a big “God did it” in the middle is ridiculous.

Science is a search for knowledge and truth. If a Creator was shown to exist, and it could be demonstrated that it was key to the creation of the Universe, then the model would include it. But science is not in the business of making stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge. That’s what theology is for.

Let me remind you that no scientific theory to date has required any element of the supernatural. And yet science has been extraordinarily successful in explaining what happens around us and within us. By contrast, “God did it” hasn’t resulted in any new knowledge in the last 4,000 years.

Would you accept a theory of gravity that included invisible pixies pushing stuff downwards? I suspect not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps they are begging you to stop because your arguments do no favours to your religion’s attempts to have rational discourse. With comments like:

I think you are trying to " white wash " the situation. Since the Age of Enlightenment, it has been Atheists who have been trying to silence Theists, and in the last several decades they have been adopting Alinski tactics. And do I need to mention all the indoctrination and bullying that has been going on in University classrooms for the past sixty years or so, and in our High Schools for about the last forty years, and is now being introduced into Grammar schools?

Yes, we should be polite. But, given the assault Christianity is under, a certain about of sharpness is to be expected. We aren’t Angels yet .

You demonstrate that you are far better at building straw men than you are at actually debating the issues.

1. Your spurious use of the word “atheist” instead of “scientist” with regard to the Big Bang theory is just poisoning the well.

I think it is important to highlight the fact that these " scientists " have an agenda not related to science.

1. Your assertion that atheists will do anything to avoid having a Creator involved is an ad hominem.

Well, let’s say it is an over generalization. Look Wane, you have been around here a long time now, are you blind to the excesses certain Atheists take here. Talk about ad hominems!!!

Your entire argument is built upon fallacy, so if I were a theist I’d want you to shut up too.

The fact of the matter is that a “Creator” is undefined, untestable, unfalsifiable (and let’s not forget, it’s you theists that have made it that way).

By the scientific method, yes. But it is rather presumptious of a scientist to say that the scientific method is the only source of truth. Casting aspersions upon Philosophy and Divine Revelation is unjustified.

So it provides no explanatory power,

Sure it does. If the universe exists, it does not exist through its own causality. If that were possible then we can expect flying Spagetty Monsters to pop up any where. And if the material world created itself, how could mind exist?

and science is purely about building models that attempt to explain the phenomenon under investigation. Building a model that needs a big “God did it” in the middle is ridiculous.

Yeeks, an ad hominem! Yes, it is inappropriate for scientists to do so, it is also inappropriate for them to say, " God does not exist, " or Thiests or Philosophers are " fools, " or that the world created itself or could have created itself ( a philosophical, not a scientific statement ), or to intimidate, insult, and bully their students.

Science is a search for knowledge and truth. If a Creator was shown to exist, and it could be demonstrated that it was key to the creation of the Universe, then the model would include it. But science is not in the business of making stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge. That’s what theology is for.

Well Wane, I guess we don’t need any more lectures about ad hominems, since you just can’t reatrain yourself. Once again, it is presumptious of any scientist to say that science has a corner on discovering the truth. A rather boorish comment that does science no good.

Let me remind you that no scientific theory to date has required any element of the supernatural. And yet science has been extraordinarily successful in explaining what happens around us and within us.

Of course, we only object when science and certain boorish individuals claiming to represent science, or who teach science step over the line and criticize Theists and Philosophers or claim ( or intimate as truth ) things which are basically philosophical assumptions.

By contrast, “God did it” hasn’t resulted in any new knowledge in the last 4,000 years.

Sure it has, it has let man know where the universe came from and what our purpose in life is… Certainly that is worth knowing.

Would you accept a theory of gravity that included invisible pixies pushing stuff downwards? I suspect not.

By golly, another ad hominem!!! It is interesting you should bring up gravity. Perhaps it is the " hand of God " directing the universe .

Linus2nd

 

[Pancras]

I have to disagree with your analysis. There is [nothing] in the “condemnation” which would preclude a Big Bang as long as it was understood as a creation event, in time, out of nothing. I don’t see any conflict.

Linus2nd

It seems to me your “as long as” isn’t reasonable, as the promoters of the ‘big bang’ want nothing to do with any such limitation. They HATE to see their pet theory morph into any kind of support for ‘creationism’, as if it would thereby support some kind of* ‘heresy’. *

This is evidenced by their penchant to leap right into the theme of* big-bangism going on indefinitely*, that is, one after another, a collapsing universe ‘big bangs’ all over again into another cycle of successive universes. And that is just what this condemned proposition #83 is referring to: non-being in nature, but not in duration.

Note: if you quote this, all my italics will be wiped out because the system makes quotes entirely italicized, eradicating the intended emphasis.
.

 

[Pancras]

Dear wanstronian,

you said…

The fact of the matter is that a “Creator” is undefined, untestable, unfalsifiable (and let’s not forget, it’s you theists that have made it that way). So it provides no explanatory power, and science is purely about building models that attempt to explain the phenomenon under investigation. Building a model that needs a big “God did it” in the middle is ridiculous.

How would you respond to the following, speaking of “science is purely about building models”?

There are cosmological models which show that space and time retrospectively create themselves such as the Hartle Hawkings model, or that the arrow of time begins in both directions, forwards and backwards, giving the appearance of an eternal universe, such as the Aguirre Gratton model. These are naturalistic models for the existence of the universe which do not rely on external causes but contain all their causes within them.

Cosmologists use these arguments to demonstrate that a first cause outside of space and time, which materially kick starts the universe into existence, is not necessary. However, even though these models may exclude an external prime mover, they do not dismiss the existence of a Creator.

.

 

[Pancras]

.
I’m surprised no one responded to this post yet:

.
Even in the 20th century, the faith of Christians had been holding fast despite all the attacks from ‘mainstream cosmology’, as is indicated by the sheer popularity of this protestant hymn that has a curious history. It grew from a Scandinavian poem that was later set to music and then translated into English:

How Great Thou Art​

O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands hath made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed;

Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

When through the woods and forest glade I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;
When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,
And hear the brook and feel the gentle breeze;

Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

This seems to be an expression of enormous anxiety, (especially in view of the song’s spontaneous popularity) a crying out of man saying that he knows he can see the effects of God everywhere he looks and yet he is told by ‘mainstream cosmologists’ that what he sees is not what he thinks he sees at all, and it had been 300 years since Galileo when this song became popular – it had been 300 years of torment for the souls of those who dared to still believe in God and His word.
.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me your “as long as” isn’t reasonable, as the promoters of the ‘big bang’ want nothing to do with any such limitation. They HATE to see their pet theory morph into any kind of support for ‘creationism’, as if it would thereby support some kind of* ‘heresy’. *

This is evidenced by their penchant to leap right into the theme of* big-bangism going on indefinitely*, that is, one after another, a collapsing universe ‘big bangs’ all over again into another cycle of successive universes. And that is just what this condemned proposition #83 is referring to: non-being in nature, but not in duration.

Note: if you quote this, all my italics will be wiped out because the system makes quotes entirely italicized, eradicating the intended emphasis.
.

The reason I said " as long as " is because there are just as many on our side who claim that the Big Bang is the " touch point " of God’s creation, in time, out of nothing. God’s creation has to have a first moment and they see this as the first moment and there is no-being prior and no time. I never, personally, advocate this because I see the obvious problems.But there are many who see it otherwise.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Pancras]

While I appreciate your noticing that “there are many who see it otherwise,” I can’t help but step up to the next level to say something about the whole idea of a ‘big bang’ explanation of the beginnings of the universe, at all.

Since when does the explosion of anything result in an orderly arrangement of consequent parts? It is the very nature of explosions to render the material exploded into chaos, destruction and ugliness, not beauty, order and harmony. And to top it off, these theorists with experience in physics dare to presume that their own ‘rules’ can be broken by the entire universe in the first moments after their mythical big bang, by having ALL the material of the universe traveling in all directions at far greater speeds than the speed of light. Oh, but wait, that isn’t possible. Yeah, right. Impossible.

Therefore, even if there are some who “see it otherwise,” I can’t help but surmise that they’re only doing so in order to appease the promoters of this ridiculous hypothesis in the first place. (Like with ‘evolution’, they call ‘the big bang’ a “theory” when it’s nothing more than a hypothesis, and a laughable one, at that!) They think they can achieve some manner of respectability by burning incense to the false gods of big-bangism, basically.

 

[yppop]

While I appreciate your noticing that “there are many who see it otherwise,” I can’t help but step up to the next level to say something about the whole idea of a ‘big bang’ explanation of the beginnings of the universe, at all.

Since when does the explosion of anything result in an orderly arrangement of consequent parts? It is the very nature of explosions to render the material exploded into chaos, destruction and ugliness, not beauty, order and harmony. And to top it off, these theorists with experience in physics dare to presume that their own ‘rules’ can be broken by the entire universe in the first moments after their mythical big bang, by having ALL the material of the universe traveling in all directions at far greater speeds than the speed of light. Oh, but wait, that isn’t possible. Yeah, right. Impossible.

The big bang is not an explosion.However, even though it was an explosion it certainly could result in an orderly arrangement of constituent parts if God wanted it to. The big bang does not contend that material is traveling in all directions faster than the speed of light; it is space that can expand faster than the speed of light.

Therefore, even if there are some who “see it otherwise,” I can’t help but surmise that they’re only doing so in order to appease the promoters of this ridiculous hypothesis in the first place. (Like with ‘evolution’, they call ‘the big bang’ a “theory” when it’s nothing more than a hypothesis, and a laughable one, at that!) They think they can achieve some manner of respectability by burning incense to the false gods of big-bangism, basically.

As one who “sees it otherwise”, I am not appeasing anyone, just applying reason to the set of observations to accept what I consider a very plausible theory that describes a “creation event” that I attribute to God. I am not burning incense to false gods. I am a devout Catholic.
Yppop

 

[hildegaard]

I still don’t feel like I understand how the Copernican principle became “dogma” to ‘mainstream cosmology’ – do you have a firm grasp on this? I mean, we came out of an age when it was a common experience of man to see the hand of God in all creation, even into the mysterious stars that were so hard to understand. Then along came telescopes and prideful attitudes, and suddenly it started to become popular to question that erstwhile common experience of man.

But then furthermore, the greater man’s knowledge of the cosmos expanded, the more too his pride did, to the effect that the more vast his concept of the immensity of the sky, the “heavens,” the less man was willing to call it “the heavens.” How did that happen? It seems to be backwards to me. Do you know what I’m saying?
.

I think a lot of it changed with Newton. All people really thought Newton figured out the science of planetary movement, and to be fair, Newtonian physics was able to make predictions about planetary motions, and really enabled engineers to do great things. The truth is that Newtonian physics did start to break down, especially when applied to the cosmos, but this took 100-150 years for enough people to realize to have an effect, and most people (lay-people) still do not fully understand that today.

Basically, the popular view of Newton formed a picture of the cosmos in the 19th century. That picture was extended in the 20th century by Einstein. The picture that we have today is on that continuum (though there were major hiccups internally along the way, most lay people really were not that aware). The picture we have is just that- a picture or image from the imagination of the scientists (sort of like the NASA paintings of other worlds). It is similar to what might have been in the imagination of the leaders in Plato’s cave. The people saw shadows, but the leaders expressed complete images to others in the cave.

When the image started breaking down the science establishment reacted. First they jettisoned aether when Michelson-Morley indicated the earth was not traveling around the sun. They created dark matter when Newton’s gravity could not explain galaxy rotation. They created dark energy when they thought they were seeing the universe expand super-nominally. Now they have invented the multiverse to maintain the Copernican Principle in a multiverse while starting to admit that OUR universe may not be Copernican (i.e., we may be in a special place).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While I appreciate your noticing that “there are many who see it otherwise,” I can’t help but step up to the next level to say something about the whole idea of a ‘big bang’ explanation of the beginnings of the universe, at all.

Since when does the explosion of anything result in an orderly arrangement of consequent parts? It is the very nature of explosions to render the material exploded into chaos, destruction and ugliness, not beauty, order and harmony. And to top it off, these theorists with experience in physics dare to presume that their own ‘rules’ can be broken by the entire universe in the first moments after their mythical big bang, by having ALL the material of the universe traveling in all directions at far greater speeds than the speed of light. Oh, but wait, that isn’t possible. Yeah, right. Impossible.

Therefore, even if there are some who “see it otherwise,” I can’t help but surmise that they’re only doing so in order to appease the promoters of this ridiculous hypothesis in the first place. (Like with ‘evolution’, they call ‘the big bang’ a “theory” when it’s nothing more than a hypothesis, and a laughable one, at that!) They think they can achieve some manner of respectability by burning incense to the false gods of big-bangism, basically.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. For example, I know of one Catholic apologist, who has recently written a book, and his view is that the Big Bang is God’s creative moment. But in this case he is saying that the Big Bang was the act of God, creating the universe, in time, out of nothing, out of no being. This conforms to Catholic Dogma and Divine Revelation. The point I was making is that the Big Bang has been interpreted by both sides to prove their particular point. Personally, I don’t think it proves anything for either side, how could we possibly know?

Linus2nd

 

[wanstronian]

I think you are trying to " white wash " the situation. Since the Age of Enlightenment, it has been Atheists who have been trying to silence Theists, and in the last several decades they have been adopting Alinski tactics. And do I need to mention all the indoctrination and bullying that has been going on in University classrooms for the past sixty years or so, and in our High Schools for about the last forty years, and is now being introduced into Grammar schools?

What indoctrination? I fear you are talking about the attempt by rationalists to prevent the indoctrination of children and young adults with the myth of Christianity, or the regular violation of the First Amendment. It’s interesting that you see this as “bullying,” it highlights the persecution complex that Christians feel when they’re not permitted to force their beliefs on others.

Yes, we should be polite. But, given the assault Christianity is under, a certain about of sharpness is to be expected. We aren’t Angels yet .

Again - what assault? Nobody is even trying to prevent you believing whatever you want. What we are trying to do is to prevent you forcing others to live by your arbitrary rules. If you truly consider that to be an assault, consider how you would feel if you lived in a Muslim theocracy and were forced to pray to Allah several times a day?

I think it is important to highlight the fact that these " scientists " have an agenda not related to science.

That’s disingenuous. There is no hidden agenda behind the Big Bang theory.

Well, let’s say it is an over generalization. Look Wane, you have been around here a long time now, are you blind to the excesses certain Atheists take here. Talk about ad hominems!!!

To Quoque is not a valid defence to an accusation of fallacy. Yes, many people on this forum (and others) engage in ad hominem. Saying “everybody does it” doesn’t make it a valid argument.

By the scientific method, yes. But it is rather presumptious of a scientist to say that the scientific method is the only source of truth. Casting aspersions upon Philosophy and Divine Revelation is unjustified.

It’s the only method that produces reliable, repeatable, testable, independent results. It’s the only method we can rely on. Neither Philosophy nor Revelation have ever produced anything we can hang our hat on. Airplanes don’t stay up due to philosophy. The internal combustion engine doesn’t rely on Divine Revelation.

Sure it does. If the universe exists, it does not exist through its own causality. If that were possible then we can expect flying Spagetty Monsters to pop up any where. And if the material world created itself, how could mind exist?

That’s a “god of the gaps” argument. “The universe does not exist through its own causality, ergo God.” How does that provide an explanation? It provides an answer, yes - of the same calibre as “it just does, okay?” Just-so stories are not good enough for the rational mind.

Yeeks, an ad hominem! Yes, it is inappropriate for scientists to do so, it is also inappropriate for them to say, " God does not exist, " or Thiests or Philosophers are " fools, " or that the world created itself or could have created itself ( a philosophical, not a scientific statement ), or to intimidate, insult, and bully their students.

Well, firstly you need to read up on what an ad hominem is. I haven’t made one.

Secondly, scientists do not make models that say, ‘God does not exist,’ or ‘Thiests [sic] or Philosophers are “fools”’ - they make models that describe a phenomenon. Having need of neither God nor philosophy within those models should not be interpreted as an active statement against either. It’s like saying that a recipe for ham and eggs is denouncing pasta.

Saying that scientists “bully their students” is a red herring. Lots of people bully lots of other people, scientists and atheists do it no more than any other group of people. Another fallacious argument.

Well Wane, I guess we don’t need any more lectures about ad hominems, since you just can’t reatrain yourself. Once again, it is presumptious of any scientist to say that science has a corner on discovering the truth. A rather boorish comment that does science no good.

Please find out what ad hominem means, you’re making yourself look a bit silly. And no, that comment is not an ad hominem.

Of course, we only object when science and certain boorish individuals claiming to represent science, or who teach science step over the line and criticize Theists and Philosophers or claim ( or intimate as truth ) things which are basically philosophical assumptions.

And you should object when that happens.

Sure it has, it has let man know where the universe came from and what our purpose in life is… Certainly that is worth knowing.

No - there’s a difference between “knowing” and “really really hoping it’s true.” “God” is an unproven hypothesis - those who believe it don’t “know where the universe came from and what our purpose in life is,” they’re just willing to believe what they wish to be true. (That would be an ad hominem if it hadn’t been demonstrated conclusively by experiments in other types of belief. But it has, so it isn’t)

By golly, another ad hominem!!!

Yet again, I implore you to discover what an ad hominem fallacy is.

It is interesting you should bring up gravity. Perhaps it is the " hand of God " directing the universe .

Linus2nd

Perhaps it is! theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

 

[wanstronian]

Dear wanstronian,

How would you respond to the following, speaking of “science is purely about building models”?

.

I’m not sure - how would you expect me to respond?

These models exist, that’s fine. The way science works is that models are tested against new observations and other evidence as it becomes available. As a result, some models are discarded, and others become more and more robust until they are beyond rational dispute.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is an example of this latter. Its first iteration was largely correct but had errors; those errors have been rectified. There are still gaps in the model, but all the evidence gathered to date enforce and consolidate the model. There really is very little chance at this stage of some new discovery that would completely overturn the theory. Modify it, no doubt. That’s the beauty of science - it’s self-correcting.

But I’m not really sure what you’re asking when you say “how would you respond?”