On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

I don’t care if it’s logically necessary or not. We have the data. We know it happened. Logic is irrelevant, as usual.

Just as I thought – science prefers to uphold the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of reality than to explain the natural world according to reason. Science had better be logical,if it is really about the pursuit of the truth about the natural world and how nature works. Data can be misleading or not to the point if it is used by people who don’t think logically when they draw inferences from it.

 

[itinerant1]

Just as I thought – science prefers to uphold the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of reality than to explain the natural world according to reason. Science had better be logical,if it is really about the pursuit of the truth about the natural world and how nature works. Data can be misleading or not to the point if it is used by people who don’t think logically when they draw inferences from it.

Your asertion that a naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of the natural world assumed by science is not “according to reason” makes no sense, whatsoever.

There is little logic to your claim.

 

[itinerant1]

Arguing in circles is not proof or evidence of anything…

Just more proselytizing

None the less it is just your belief, it’s only evidence is that belief, nothing but a circular argument.

Nothing but more patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome your beliefs are, totally incestuous and irrelevant.

All you are doing is proselytizing your own beliefs, you have no more evidence for yours than any one else has for theirs. your constant assertion that your beliefs are true while others are superstitions is disingenuous at best and intentional lies at worst.

Have a good life. Good bye.

 

[itinerant1]

Hello intinerant1, one point I was attempting to deal with was this prior statement of yours, “See foregoing question. (I am not concerned for now with those cosmological theories (Hawkings, et al) that step beyond the proper scope and limit of physics in an attempt to disprove the contingency of the universe.)”

You imply that Hawking is dealing with cosmological theories which isn’t accurate. He is not attempting to disprove ‘the contingency of the universe’ by stepping beyond the proper scope and limit of physics.

In regard to your foregoing statement, I offer the following questions for your consideration:

1. What do you think is involved when a cosmologist intentionally attempts to construct a model of the universe in which that universe is not dependent upon God for its existence?
2. In your view, can such a model be strictly scientific?
3. Can any such model accurately describe the universe?
4. Do you think the universe can create itself?
5. Do you think matter and energy can arise from nothing?
6. Do you think causality exists in nature?
7. Do you think a scientist, or anyone else, is correct when he rejects the principle of causality?
8. Is the rejection of causality a scientific or a philosophic position?
9. What do you think of Heisenberg’s claim that he conclusively disproved the principle of causality?
10. What do think about Neils Bohr’s claim that physics is not about the real world?

 

[itinerant1]

I have to disagree with you. He accepts the Big Bang Theory as I earlier stated. You may wish to explore his website for futher information and review all his publications.
hawking.org.uk/index.php/information/newsandarchive

Just a quick response here…there is now, more than one model of BBt floating around in academia:

“Nevertheless, in the past two decades some cosmologists have come to offer theories that account for the Big Bang itself as a fluctuation of a primal vacuum. Just as sub-atomic particles appear to emerge spontaneously in vacuums in laboratories, as the result of what is called “quantum tunneling from nothing,” so the whole universe may be the result of a similar process. Other cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawking, contend that the notion of an initial “singularity” that seems to require a temporal beginning to the universe needs to be rejected. The universe, according to Hawking, does not have a boundary: “It is completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.” He thinks that the only way to have a scientific theory is if “the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe.” For Hawking, contemporary quantum theory leads us to reject the very notion of such a privileged point as the beginning of the universe.”

from Aquinas and the Big Bang

 

[sinnerdexter]

Have a good life. Good bye.

Well, look at it this way: if you could prove your religion, it wouldn’t be a religion.

 

[anthony022071]

To anthony022071:

Still waiting for a reply:

***** How would you account for the fact, from a scientific perspective, that the universe is not in a steady state, but is rather, expanding?

From a scientific (i.e. naturalistic,mechanistic) perspective,the idea that the universe is expanding may seem unquestionable,but there is no means by which the universe (as opposed to a model of it) can be measured. We can’t reach the limits of the universe either in person,or know by means of something that can be sent out to the limits and retrieved (as with sounding the bottom of an ocean),or know the distance by way of a point of reference (as with measuring the distance of an object with reference to an object that lies in between). I am not denying that the universe is expanding,I am denying the ability for us to know if is expanding.

 

[itinerant1]

From a scientific (i.e. naturalistic,mechanistic) perspective,the idea that the universe is expanding may seem unquestionable,but there is no means by which the universe (as opposed to a model of it) can be measured. We can’t reach the limits of the universe either in person,or know by means of something that can be sent out to the limits and retrieved (as with sounding the bottom of an ocean),or know the distance by way of a point of reference (as with measuring the distance of an object with reference to an object that lies in between). I am not denying that the universe is expanding,I am denying the ability for us to know if is expanding.

On what grounds do you base your statement that we need to literally reach the boundaries of the universe in order to know that it is expanding? That is, on what grounds do you claim the expansion of the universe cannot be known by other means?

We can in fact measure the rate of expansion, and we know the universe is not only expanding, but also the rate of expansion is increasing. In order to provide evidence for your claim, you would have to (1) be familiar with how expansion is measured and (2) disprove on scientific grounds that the methods and means of measurement do not show what they are alleged to show. If you cannot meet the two foregoing criteria, it would seem that you have no facts to support your opinion. Hence, why, then, should anyone listen to you?

Methods have been developed to measure the distance, movements, size, temperature and composition of stars. What do you know about these techniques?

There are many things we know, oftentimes by inference, about space without actually being in a physical location to see what we know by inference. For instance, we know the shape of our galaxy, even though no person or probe has ever viewed the Milky Way from beyond it. Do you question also the shape of the Milky Way because we have not viewed it from an external location?

If everything we observe indicates the “observable” universe is expanding, do you deny the evidence? Or, one could claim the observable universe is expanding but not necessarily so the universe as a whole, or with that which lies beyond our observational ability; but such a model would not be consistent with what we do see, or with the laws of physics, and hence would remain the weaker argument.

 

[ManOnFire]

We religious people don’t need to prove to ourselves in order to have Faith. Atheists demand that we have scientific proof of God in order to justify our own beliefs, but it’s not their business to ask me to prove my beliefs to them. I only need to convince myself, not them. Mysteriously and arrogantly, it’s peculiar how atheists have taken a leap of faith, hope, belief that God does not exist, yet, they have zero scientific proof to justify their own beliefs that He does not exist. If He does exist, then naturally, there will never be proof of his non-existence. If He doesn’t exist, then they’ll claim the philosophical and scientific paradox that one cannot claim a negative. EITHER WAY, regardless of WHY, the FACT remains that atheists have no scientific proof to justify their own beliefs that God does not exist. Hypocrites.

 

[itinerant1]

We religious people don’t need to prove to ourselves in order to have Faith. Atheists demand that we have scientific proof of God in order to justify our own beliefs, but it’s not their business to ask me to prove my beliefs to them. I only need to convince myself, not them. Mysteriously and arrogantly, it’s peculiar how atheists have taken a leap of faith, hope, belief that God does not exist, yet, they have zero scientific proof to justify their own beliefs that He does not exist. If He does exist, then naturally, there will never be proof of his non-existence. If He doesn’t exist, then they’ll claim the philosophical and scientific paradox that one cannot claim a negative. EITHER WAY, regardless of WHY, the FACT remains that atheists have no scientific proof to justify their own beliefs that God does not exist. Hypocrites.

Modern atheism is a full-blown religion. It is faith in reverse gear, or faith inverted. It is strictly on faith that the atheist claims there is no God. But then, if there were no God, there would be no atheists.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Just a quick response here…there is now, more than one model of BBt floating around in academia.

Hello itinerant1. I am short on time. I wanted to tackle this one response that you made. No there is only one scientific model of Big Bang Theory and Hawking knows that to be true today because he is a scientist. All reputable scientists acknowledge it.

This is the definintion of “Theory” from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration):
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of **new phenomena **that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#Theory

**The Big Bang Theory **from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration):
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. . . .
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Also you must look at the current findings by date as noted below:
”Berkeley Lab Director Steven Chu, himself a Nobel Laureate (1997 Nobel Prize in Physics), said in response to the news: “My warmest congratulations goes out to George Smoot and John Mather for being awarded the 2006 Prize in Physics for their precision investigation of the cosmic microwave radiation, first discovered by a pair of Bell labs scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. Maher and Smoot led a large team of scientists that showed with the COBE satellite that the radiation is precisely of the form that would be expected as a result of a Big Bang creation of the universe.””
lbl.gov/Publications/Nobel/

We have to remember that is the current view. It is strictly a scientific explanation. As I said before ‘science itself doesn’t address issues pertaining to God’. Can we as Roman Catholics believe in God? Absolutely! Please review my remards on the topic: The Bible: Story book or actual events?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6892697#post6892697

To everyone, have a wonderful, blessed weekend. Precious peace for all. May love and joy surround everyone.

 

[itinerant1]

Hello itinerant1. I am short on time. I wanted to tackle this one response that you made. No there is only one scientific model of Big Bang Theory and Hawking knows that to be true today because he is a scientist. All reputable scientists acknowledge it.

This is the definintion of “Theory” from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration):
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of **new phenomena **that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#Theory

**The Big Bang Theory **from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration):
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. . . .
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Also you must look at the current findings by date as noted below:
”Berkeley Lab Director Steven Chu, himself a Nobel Laureate (1997 Nobel Prize in Physics), said in response to the news: “My warmest congratulations goes out to George Smoot and John Mather for being awarded the 2006 Prize in Physics for their precision investigation of the cosmic microwave radiation, first discovered by a pair of Bell labs scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. Maher and Smoot led a large team of scientists that showed with the COBE satellite that the radiation is precisely of the form that would be expected as a result of a Big Bang creation of the universe.””
lbl.gov/Publications/Nobel/

We have to remember that is the current view. It is strictly a scientific explanation. As I said before ‘science itself doesn’t address issues pertaining to God’. Can we as Roman Catholics believe in God? Absolutely! Please review my remards on the topic: The Bible: Story book or actual events?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6892697#post6892697

To everyone, have a wonderful, blessed weekend. Precious peace for all. May love and joy surround everyone.

But you have not addressed the fact Hawking now questions an initial singularity in order to avoid the conclusion the universe had a temporal beginning. Also,

"The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

"In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” "

 

[itinerant1]

Speculative physics: significant variations on a theme -

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

1. models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.
2. brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model, the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.
3. chaotic inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.

From Wikipedia

 

[itinerant1]

We have to remember that is the current view. It is strictly a scientific explanation. As I said before ‘science itself doesn’t address issues pertaining to God’.

What is completely absent in your post, and which needs to be given serious consideration, are the problems involved when a cosmologist assumes that physics can answer questions which are properly the domain of philosophy. For Hawking, a complete understanding of the mathematical properties of the universe will enable an answer to the question: “Why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” This statement should raise a red flag. It did with so with Jane Wilde, i.e. Mrs. Hawking, who understood well this problem with Stephen. She said,

“There is one aspect of his thought that I find increasingly upsetting and difficult to live with. It’s the feeling that, because everything is reduced to a rational mathematical formula, that must be the truth…You can’t actually get an answer out of Stephen regarding philosophy beyond the realms of science. He is now postulating a theory in which the universe is…with no beginning and no end and no need for God at all. What I can’t understand is whether–and this is something in the whole 22 years of being married to him that I haven’t been able to understand–he is working within the bounds of math and science and saying: ‘This is what the theory predicts; if you have other interpretations that’s up to you.’ Or whether he is saying: ‘This is the only concrete evidence we have of any thing.’ I can never get an answer, I find it very upsetting.”

Thus, in regard to Stephen Hawking and like minded cosmologists, it is beside the point to highlight the fact BBt is a scientific theory. Hawking wrongly assumes that physics can answer those ultimate questions about the universe and existence.

Hawking certainly isn’t the first notable scientist to exhibit this attitude. Charles Darwin, for example, had not the least notion of the proper boundary and limit of the natural sciences. Darwin interpreted all of nature, including the mind of man, from the perspective of a metaphysical materialism. It would miss the point to say that evolution theory is a scientific theory. Darwin transgressed the boundaries of evolution science, all the while believing he was doing just science. We can say there is not a single theory of evolution. There are non-Dawinian theories of evolution, as well.

Likewise, Hawking transgresses the proper limit and scope of physics all the while believing he is doing just physics. That is a very different situation from that of a scientist he proffers philosophical reflections on his science. Perhaps you have not grasped that all-important distinction.

In other words, many scientists wrongly believe that methodological naturalism necessarily entails philosophical naturalism. Consequently, they conflate their ideology with their science.

In sum, your links to BBt, while interesting in themselves, are not relevant to my point about Hawking and BBt.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Just as I thought – science prefers to uphold the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of reality than to explain the natural world according to reason. Science had better be logical,if it is really about the pursuit of the truth about the natural world and how nature works. Data can be misleading or not to the point if it is used by people who don’t think logically when they draw inferences from it.

That is why a stringent invigilation of all scientific experiments is ongoing. As for “truth” I’d say that is nothing more than an extention of human vanity. What matters is practical advances that are useful, not the massaging of human egos with philosophical self congratulation.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Just as I thought – science prefers to uphold the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of reality than to explain the natural world according to reason. Science had better be logical,if it is really about the pursuit of the truth about the natural world and how nature works. Data can be misleading or not to the point if it is used by people who don’t think logically when they draw inferences from it.

I don’t pretend that humanity will ever be able to explain the natural world according to Universal truths. I don’t see how any intelligent person could. What matters is that science works.

 

[itinerant1]

As for “truth” I’d say that is nothing more than an extention of human vanity. .

Do think there is any truth to your statement?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Do think there is any truth to your statement?

That statement was actually from me, on my brothers computer. I think there is validity to it…

Truth Schmuth…

 

[itinerant1]

That statement was actually from me, on my brothers computer. I think there is validity to it…

Truth Schmuth…

If the statement “truth is nothing more than an extention (sic) of human vanity” is reputed to be true, then the statement itself is nothing more than “than an extention (sic) of human vanity”, and as such, it is self-refuting, and deserves no creedence whatsoever.

 

[anthony022071]

Nice to met you itinerant1 and anthony022071. Brief mention, academician Stephen W. Hawking is a member of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Here is a brief mention about him from the Vatican website:

“I have suggested that the boundary conditions of the universe are that it has no boundary. This would mean that there was no singularity and no single event that could be identified as the creation. Instead one could say that the universe was created quantum mechanically from nothing.”

It would take an omnipotent living being to make the universe,or even a single phyical particle,come into existence from nothing,because there is an absolute difference between nothingness and physical existence.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/hawkingnew.html
Professor Hawking does at times mention in a lecture that he thinks God started it.

The Big Bang Theory is accepted by him and all reputable scientists (religious and non-religious), including the Pope’s Scientific Advisory Committee.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/pasacademicians.html

That’s because they all go along with the naturalistic,mechanistic perspective. If you take that perspective,then it seems like nature can do anything that God is thought to do,given enough time,the right conditions,and through so-called “mechanisms”.