Is It Logically Possible That Science Will Answer all The Great Metaphysical Questions Concerning Existence?

[hugh_miller]

The ‘Big Bang’ is a false premise and conclusion or rather a logical conclusion of the error of Flamsteed -

“… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…” Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677 .

It looks like this -

youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY

And this -

opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif

Our race has lost the ability to reason properly and while I understand the 'big bang ’ appeal to Christianity,it represents something as close as possible to sub-human thinking,astrological thinking to be precise.

There is actually nothing left to do in this forum as it appears everyone is happy to believe whatever they need to in order to be believer or non believer.This is actually a religion in itself but without any of the inspiring traits of Christ and terrestrial/celestial creation.

Most of us on this thread would believe that the Judaic-Christian God is eternal and that he created “time” for us humans. I would also agree that the “Big Bang” is a false premise and is not needed in science or Christianity.

Those billions and billions of years required to even give the “fairy tale of evolution of life from non-life” through a “Big Bang” any chance of having happened do not appear to even exist. I’m speaking of “The Big Bang” to Hydrogen to planets and from planetary rocks to all life forms through some mysterious process proposed by the Darwinian/Lyellian evolutionary biological hypothesis; sounds more like one of the God’s of Rome called Mythras who “was born out of a rock.” A statue depiction of Mythras is in the basement of St. Clemens in Rome which was built over a first century apartment garden with the Mythras statue and one of Apollo killing a bull. Nothing new under the sun—early Christians called it paganism; it can now be called “science fiction”

I like very much a bumper sticker I saw on a car recently “Evolution is science fiction”. Since those billions of years appear not to exist then scientists need to at least get back to the basics and reconsider “Abrupt Appearance” as an alternate theory of origins and listen to the 4th Latern Council on origins from a metaphysical point of view. The Big bang needs realistic competition and that one-sided assumption of long ages debated.

An open discussion of the latter hypothesis, “Abrupt Appearance” would indeed in my humble opinion help solve the metaphysical and moral challenges to our secular society and restore some sanity.

 

[cassini]

Is It Logically Possible That Science Will Answer all The Great Metaphysical Questions Concerning Existence?

No it is not. Indeed what men call science will give FALSE answers because while it is called empirical those that could reveal some mysteries it is but the fallible conclusions of man.

Today what is called ‘science’ is the dogma for man, his new religion upon which he bases his metaphysical religion. By this I mean that the history of assumptions that make up heliocentricism have already destroyed any hope of man finding real truth in both faith or science.

Take for example the ‘Big Bang’, a by-product of heliocentricism. What is this ‘fact’ that even Pope Pius XII credited as endorcing a metaphysical proof for creation.

It is based on an assumption that light-shifts are interpreted correctly and show stars are expanding outwards. An assumption is not a truth, not a fact, nothing but a guess of man.There are scientists who dispute this theory, Robert Gentry, a PhD in nuclear physics records the reasons for this rejection… But let us say it is true. Did the Big Bang produce SPACE as well as scatter matter? Does an expanding universe prove there must have been a single point of beginning? Of course not, it is an assumption. Now how in God’s name can fallible human assumptions answer any great mystery?

But now use the Queen of sciences and start again. God revealed we exist in a geocentric cosmos created by Him immediately, whole and entire with the stars visible to man from the beginning. Thus space-time does not even exist. The universe rotates once a day, thus proving it is not infinite, a mystery empirical science will NEVER show now that it has been handed over to the heliocentric heretics. A rotating universe could well explain an expanding universe, if it is expanding.

There is of course more, much more. Alas truth has been consigned to the human-brain’s rubbish bin and we are now stuck in a spiral of ignorance. Theology is the queen of all truth about science and the mysteries. But mankind, both Church and State did a U-turn and put their FAITH in their ‘science’ thus going down the road to nowhere. Had man been faithful to the Word of God he would now be far more advanced in the mysteries that could be known from both faith and science. Genesis tells us God created the heavens ‘for signs’ as well as for day and night and seasons. These signs are there to as links to some mysteries, but the Devil has made sure man with his heretical heliocentricism will NEVER find them now. No, any mysteries from now on will all be man made.

 

[MindOverMatter]

An open discussion of the latter hypothesis, “Abrupt Appearance” would indeed in my humble opinion help solve the metaphysical and moral challenges to our secular society and restore some sanity.

You are obviously anti evolution. Evolution doesn’t really bother me. But i am interested in what you mean by “Abrupt Appearances”. Why would that be a better hypothesis then the big bang?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Take for example the ‘Big Bang’, a by-product of heliocentricism. What is this ‘fact’ that even Pope Pius XII credited as endorcing a metaphysical proof for creation.

It is based on an assumption that light-shifts are interpreted correctly and show stars are expanding outwards. An assumption is not a truth, not a fact, nothing but a guess of man.There are scientists who dispute this theory, Robert Gentry, a PhD in nuclear physics records the reasons for this rejection… But let us say it is true. Did the Big Bang produce SPACE as well as scatter matter? Does an expanding universe prove there must have been a single point of beginning? Of course not, it is an assumption. Now how in God’s name can fallible human assumptions answer any great mystery?

You seem to think that the Big bang Hypothesis is some kind of threat to metaphysics and belief in God. Why? Why not the Big bang? It seems to fit nicely with the metaphysical and biblical concept of God creating the world out of nothing. It certainly puts Christianity in a more favorable light.

 

[centurionguard]

You seem to think that the Big bang Hypothesis is some kind of threat to metaphysics and belief in God. Why? Why not the Big bang? It seems to fit nicely with the metaphysical and biblical concept of God creating the world out of nothing. It certainly puts Christianity in a more favorable light.

I certainly don’t see how the Big Bang (“THEORY”) is any threat to believing in God.
I call human science "primitive’. because science is always like a child sucking on a soother trying to define a universe that is immensely far greater than humans could ever conceivably imagine in comparison to humans being a speck of micro dust under Gods microscope. Human science has it’s own limited fascination but that’s where it ends.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not a physicist, or any kind of a scientist.

But am I not correct in understanding (by accepted hypothesis at least) that there are barriers to science, beyond which we cannot go, because of the nature of the barriers?

For example, it is, I believe, generally accepted that we cannot know anything about the condition of matter or energy prior to the Big Bang if, indeed, there was a Big Bang, because the event itself would have changed everything that was before it. Having been altered, there is no trace of the “prior” condition to study.

I read where some physicists believe there are “membranes” of energy existing beyond our capacity of perception, being in dimensions other than our own, and that the intersection of membranes caused the infinitesimal “strings” out of which the entire universe arose in the Big Bang. But again, my impression is that membranes are fated to be beyond our measurement or perception, being consigned forever to hypothesis; beyond experimentation, beyond study, beyond all possibility of observation.

One thing more. A blind slug is able to perceive me. But only as I manifest myself and in the manner in which it is capable of perceiving my manifestations. If I touch it, it perceives me. If I write a book, but never come within miles of the slug, that manifestation of me (the book) is forever locked beyond its knowledge, by its nature and by mine. This is such an obvious thing that nobody would ever dispute it.

But when it comes to God, whose mode of existence may, like me with the slug, be fundamentally beyond my powers of perception, and knowable only to the extent God manifests himself to me in a way that is within the ken of my nature, people balk.

Many, perhaps most, believe there may well be creatures somewhere in the universe so advanced and so brilliant that we could never comprehend them in the way they comprehend themselves. But when it comes to acknowledging the likelihood of a being or beings that happen to have been conceived of by religious people (or revelation), they balk.

This balking is difficult for me to understand, except perhaps as an unwillingness to accept something precisel because it is deemed religion; particularly a religion that makes demands upon us.

 

[centurionguard]

I am not a physicist, or any kind of a scientist.

But am I not correct in understanding (by accepted hypothesis at least) that there are barriers to science, beyond which we cannot go, because of the nature of the barriers?

For example, it is, I believe, generally accepted that we cannot know anything about the condition of matter or energy prior to the Big Bang if, indeed, there was a Big Bang, because the event itself would have changed everything that was before it. Having been altered, there is no trace of the “prior” condition to study.

I read where some physicists believe there are “membranes” of energy existing beyond our capacity of perception, being in dimensions other than our own, and that the intersection of membranes caused the infinitesimal “strings” out of which the entire universe arose in the Big Bang. But again, my impression is that membranes are fated to be beyond our measurement or perception, being consigned forever to hypothesis; beyond experimentation, beyond study, beyond all possibility of observation.

One thing more. A blind slug is able to perceive me. But only as I manifest myself and in the manner in which it is capable of perceiving my manifestations. If I touch it, it perceives me. If I write a book, but never come within miles of the slug, that manifestation of me (the book) is forever locked beyond its knowledge, by its nature and by mine. This is such an obvious thing that nobody would ever dispute it.

But when it comes to God, whose mode of existence may, like me with the slug, be fundamentally beyond my powers of perception, and knowable only to the extent God manifests himself to me in a way that is within the ken of my nature, people balk.

Many, perhaps most, believe there may well be creatures somewhere in the universe so advanced and so brilliant that we could never comprehend them in the way they comprehend themselves. But when it comes to acknowledging the likelihood of a being or beings that happen to have been conceived of by religious people (or revelation), they balk.

This balking is difficult for me to understand, except perhaps as an unwillingness to accept something precisel because it is deemed religion; particularly a religion that makes demands upon us.

Even if there was intelligent beings from some distant solar system in our own Milky Way galaxy or some other galaxy it still wouldn’t change one iota of the fact that Yes; God did sent His Only Begotten Son into our World to mercifully save us from ourselves and fulfill His Redemptive plan.

 

[cassini]

You seem to think that the Big bang Hypothesis is some kind of threat to metaphysics and belief in God. Why? Why not the Big bang? It seems to fit nicely with the metaphysical and biblical concept of God creating the world out of nothing. It certainly puts Christianity in a more favorable light.

One could say Metaphysics is knowledge, and the highest accumulation of knowledge is wisdom, and wisdom is the science of the Catholic Church. Wisdom is attained on four levels of knowing. Beginning with the lowest value of knowledge and rising to the highest level, these grades are, (1): knowledge of the simple building blocks of the world surmised through the senses, something even animals are capable of; level (2): knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematised and brought under general principles (empirical science), reserved of course to man; level (3): knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search for causes by reason, and level (4): comprehension from theology, our understanding of things from both reason and revelation of God, and how He relates to the universe and man.

[Edited] This is what is referred to today as SCIENCE and here is one honest assessment of its worth:

‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers. — ’Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen, The Science of Discworld, p.39.

[Edited]

The Big Bang is the mother of all godless theories. From it can come everything else to satisfy ATHEISM. But look at pathetic theists on this forum. They accept this atheistic theory and try to build CATHOLIC metaphysics on it. It has nature creating. But stick in God as directing nature creating and that will do the trick, for that is all Catholic metaphysics today is, a trick. Just rtead some of the theology invented by the Neo-scholastics over the last century and you will see conjurers at work, not theologians.

Well Catholicism as it was in Scholastic times is the only true metaphysics. Faith was lost in revelation and pontifical decrees and this is what you get, a fallible metaphysics that is both atheistic and theistic with little or no difference.

[Edited]

 

[hugh_miller]

You seem to think that the Big bang Hypothesis is some kind of threat to metaphysics and belief in God. Why? Why not the Big bang? It seems to fit nicely with the metaphysical and biblical concept of God creating the world out of nothing. It certainly puts Christianity in a more favorable light.

I am anti-evolution [edited]. The justification for the pro macro-evolution hypothesis of the “Big Bang” many billions of years ago is based on assumptions and many deceptions. If one feels that there is a true need for a non-metaphysical theory of origins to oppose the Big Bang and biological evolution then I again repeat: Use the hypothesis of “abrupt Appearance theory” to oppose the pagan evolution theory that we have all evolved from a rock [the ancient pagan Mithras religion of Rome [60 BC to AD 350 or so]. Both the pagan hypothesis that we have evolved from a rock etc; and, the Abrupt Appearance hypothesis that implies an Intelligent Designer we call God [and as Catholics the Holy Trinity] that by whom all critters were created “simul” [as in Lateran one documents] can be tested by emperical science of today.

[Edited]

And whether you are a theistic or an aethistic evolutionist doesn’t that put you in the same bed with the pagan God Mithras? But [edited], TE’s and AE’s can’t be lumped together with Mithras because the earth was formed 4.567 billion years ago and the universe about 15 billion years ago. Hello Big Bang, Goodby church fathers and Lateran one etc.

Just a few problem for [edited] TE’s and AE’s to solve before you continue on the Big Bang wagon:

• Darwinian evolution has never been observed or reproduced even in micro-organisms whose explosive rates of replication would guarantee its validity. To observe macro-evolution in micro-organisms requires a species definition for them and proof that any new function observed was not already latent in the genome]
• Based on a random, unguided process, Darwinian evolution has no predictive power. Consequently, Darwinian evolution has not contributed to a single technological or medical advance since it was conjectured 150 years ago. [recently I heard a lecture in which the assumption of evolution as a “fact” has done significant harm to medical research and caused more human suffering.
  [* Information, like that found in DNA, is empirically known to originate only from intelligent causes.
• There has been insufficient time for the simplest gene, much less the simplest organism, to develop from an unintelligent process, even given all the necessary chemical ingredients.
• And then there’s the fact of entropy, the universal law of physics that causes systems to go from bad to worse, unless affected by a rational application of energy.

 

[kesa82]

You seem to think that the Big bang Hypothesis is some kind of threat to metaphysics and belief in God. Why? Why not the Big bang? It seems to fit nicely with the metaphysical and biblical concept of God creating the world out of nothing. It certainly puts Christianity in a more favorable light.

( emphasis mine. )

actually , philosophy and theology are not my fields of expertise, I just like reading what you write.
Anyway, but, history is my field. My general interest, previously, was the past 200 years, and specifically the American, French, Brownshirt, and Bolshevik revolutions.
Many things led me to Christianity, but a primary factor in it was the conclusion I came to that given the history of the past 200 years, Christianity actually scarcely needs to be shown in a more favorable light. Favorable or unfavorable compared to what? Granted, we have air conditioning now, and electricity, and diabetes medicine, and those things are nice, and they didn’t have those things 300 years ago. But spiritually, morally, ethically ? It takes one heck of a pile of obfuscation and spin to represent the developments of the past 200 years as anything other than disgusting, obscene, shocking, downright unbelievable if they were not, it so happens, true.

So that statement just raised my eyebrows a bit. Christianity needs be represented favorably in comparison to what?
I guess my question is off-topic though.

 

[gavanhe]

Metaphysics or physics, when you observe and attempt to understand all that God’s creation consists off we can consider ourselves lucky indeed to live in the age of enlightenment.
When one considers the daily advances in the furthest reaches of the cosmos or the tiniest component particle of the subatomic, one is only left to ponder the imponderable. That is we cannot begin to see the ends of physics in a physical sense let alone a metaphysical one. We are forever left with further discoveries to discover and isn’t it wonderful that God’s creation is such, as human minds are made to inquire!!
Cheers
Gerry

 

[Dameedna]

*]Darwinian evolution has never been observed or reproduced even in micro-organisms whose explosive rates of replication would guarantee its validity. To observe macro-evolution in micro-organisms requires a species definition for them and proof that any new function observed was not already latent in the genome]

Darwinian evolution has been observed throughout nature. The replication of Gene’s and the mistakes that can occur during this process have also been observed in a laboratory.

We have a lot to learn, but God of the Gaps will get you no-where. It will just force you to ignore what we now know about reality, because as we fill these gaps…science will challenge your beliefs.

You can’t base faith, on God of the Gaps.

*]Based on a random, unguided process, Darwinian evolution has no predictive power. Consequently, Darwinian evolution has not contributed to a single technological or medical advance since it was conjectured 150 years ago. [recently I heard a lecture in which the assumption of evolution as a “fact” has done significant harm to medical research and caused more human suffering.

The majority of modern biology and medical science is based on Evolution. Evolution was the 'beginning" and many things stemmed from that. DNA is one example.

The world wouldn’t be racing around attempting to create a vacine for the Swine virus, if we did not have an understanding of evolution. The Swine virus, is an example of a virus that has “mutated” via evolution.

If it wasn’t for evolution and our understanding of it…you would not have new vacinations against the flu being created every year because the flu WILL mutate, evolve and cause havoc year after year after year.

Everything in modern medicine…is based on our understanding of evolution. It is impossible to seperate biology from evolution. It is the bones, the guts and the skin that ties it modern biology together.

*]Information, like that found in DNA, is empirically known to originate only from intelligent causes.

We do not yet know exactly how DNA was originally created, which means it has never been “empirically” known to originate from anywhere. We do not KNOW yet. We are however, learning at a rapid pace.

*]And then there’s the fact of entropy, the universal law of physics that causes systems to go from bad to worse, unless affected by a rational application of energy.

This has been addressed ad-nauseum. Google it.
[/quote]

 

[Dameedna]

It is possible.

The way in which it will happen, is probably not so much an answer to our questions…but the reason we ask the questions in the first place.

If we can determine the reason for our questioning, then science will have answered the “metaphysical”.

 

[wcknight]

No, and heck no. Science and logic can only get you to the physical, biological, chemical and any of the sub-disciplines (Geology, Astronomy etc). It will never resolve the questions of the spiritual or metaphysical realms. They are mutually exclusive, and where one ties to impose itself onto the other, that is when you get one looking foolish or ridiculous.

 

[JDaniel]

No, and heck no. Science and logic can only get you to the physical, biological, chemical and any of the sub-disciplines (Geology, Astronomy etc). It will never resolve the questions of the spiritual or metaphysical realms. They are mutually exclusive, and where one ties to impose itself onto the other, that is when you get one looking foolish or ridiculous.

I’m not sure you stated what you wanted to state the way you wanted to state it: I have to guess, since you say you’re Catholic, that St. Thomas didn’t look “foolish or ridiculous” when using logic to answer the metaphysical question regarding the existence of God, did he? (I know the atheists have a penchant for making that statement.)

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

( emphasis mine. )

actually , philosophy and theology are not my fields of expertise, I just like reading what you write.
Anyway, but, history is my field. My general interest, previously, was the past 200 years, and specifically the American, French, Brownshirt, and Bolshevik revolutions.
Many things led me to Christianity, but a primary factor in it was the conclusion I came to that given the history of the past 200 years, Christianity actually scarcely needs to be shown in a more favorable light. Favorable or unfavorable compared to what? Granted, we have air conditioning now, and electricity, and diabetes medicine, and those things are nice, and they didn’t have those things 300 years ago. But spiritually, morally, ethically ? It takes one heck of a pile of obfuscation and spin to represent the developments of the past 200 years as anything other than disgusting, obscene, shocking, downright unbelievable if they were not, it so happens, true.

So that statement just raised my eyebrows a bit. Christianity needs be represented favorably in comparison to what?
I guess my question is off-topic though.

Hello kesa

I absolutly agree with you. Christianity as a religion, as far as im concernd, has the most advanced, fullfiling, and reasonable, ethical system on the face of the planet. At least thats my experience with Christianity. You could argue that belief in God ought to be a human principle in so far as building a better society.

However; in so far as there being “metaphysical proof” that Christianity is a true religion, the BigBang Theory does favor the existence of an inteligent Cause rather then a natural one. With out the Bigbang Theory, i think it would be easy for some people to fall victim to the illusion that the universe is eternal and needs no explanation. Even now, some are trying to find away of showing that the Universe could just pop out of nothing by its self using Quantum Theory. But such arguements, in my eyes, are much weaker then the idea of an eternal universe.

I think Quantum Physics marks the end of what we can trully know about our reality through the scientific method.

 

[geometer]

If Science could explain how the universe, its qualities, and all the laws of physics, could come into being by itself, or be self explanatory, there would be no good reason to believe in a Creator.

Could such an explanation be true?

If God works through nature, then there must necessarily be a point where nature is unable to explain itself, since it is reliant upon God in order to work or be. So, I’m not sure that your idea works. Ultimately; nature has to have an inconsistency somewhere in terms of explanation; otherwise there is no logical reason to think that nature itself isn’t existence. Hence Pantheism or Atheism

We know that nature exists, is existant. When you say existence do you mean some kind of singular reality? Have you ever considered panentheism?

 

[Leela]

What are the “great metaphysical questions”? I wonder if they are really great questions.

 

[greylorn]

The questions you speak of have already been answered, not by science, certainly not by a group of individuals focused upon finding the answers solely within science, but by a combination of science, quasi-philosophy, math, engineering principles, logic, and speculation. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the answers do not support the beliefs of any known human religion, or the theories of scientific atheism, and are therefore discounted.

Whoever posed the question would be wasting his time seeking the already published answers. Because they do not affirm his beliefs, his brain will automatically reject them.

 

[hugh_miller]

You are obviously anti evolution. Evolution doesn’t really bother me. But i am interested in what you mean by “Abrupt Appearances”. Why would that be a better hypothesis then the big bang?

I think that you will see what I mean by “Abrupt Appearance” when you read the “abstract” below that I submitted in another thread. It is a far better hypothesis than the Big Bang hypothesis and is not based on a mountain of assumptions. Furthermore “Abrupt Appearance” agrees with all the church fathers including St. Augustine and the church council of Lateran IV “simul” as used in Lateran IV means “abrupt appearance” of everything within the six days of Creation by the Holy Trinity].

As one writer in a another thread wrote about science:

1. there is something that is true or real.
2. there we have to ability to know this truth or reality
   So the question is not a metaphysical stumper, it is a basic rational assumption. This is an extremely important point. If rationality is called into question, it hinders studies of religion and sciences. It would be the fulfill of G. K. Chesterton’s fear that evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality.

MY COMMENT: I do not have much time these days to enter into long discussions as I have taken my guardian angel’s advice and the advice from one of the ardent pro-evolution regulars on one of the threads RE origins to submit a twenty some page paper to a scientific journal. So please forgive me for submitting the abstract of the paper and then bowing out to continue preparing another technical paper for submission. I think that the paper as seen in the abstract meets the criteria noted above regarding the scientific method and an understanding of “abrupt appearance”

**DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - **same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna.
Author: Hugh R. Miller

Abstract:

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum this writer asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for RC testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 +/- 380 for the *Triceratops *and 23,170 +/-170 for the *Hadrosaur *were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer. Total organic carbon was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words:

Radiocarbon dating, Dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
COMMENTS continued: What does the above scientific data suggest? It helps give a reality check to people who are deceived by the regurgitated Mithras religion that we came from a rock, i.e. and we evolved thereafter from bacteria ad nauseum. Such data provides the ammunition for scientists and other folks who support the church fathers to continue to challenge the evolution hypothesis in the lab, field and theological venues.

Unlike Chesterton I do consider evolution as a threat to religion [and faith in the word of God; and, it has also brought much evil consequences to all of us which Chesterton did not live to see unfold]. But I do agree with Chesterton that evolution is a threat to rationality so I shall continue to do battle with the deceptions created by the evolutionary hypothesis as best I can. I do this as a humble chemist using the talents and the circumstances that the Lord has provided and the team of scientists, educators and theologians with whom I am privileged to associate. Moses sizzles as Darwin fizzles