Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, now that you mentioned it, I fully agree. It is an idea ideed. Perhaps I would even venture to use the term hypothesis. But of course in my dictionary here, the word 'hypothesis' mean:
No! God is an idea. Not a theory. Unless you are using the non-scientific usage of the word "theory". He is definately NOT a scientific theory!
an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not been proved to be true or correct.
I'm not sure if there are any known facts which have been established to support the idea of god's existence.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIndeed, however, current theory suggests nothing can transcend a big bang-esqe singularity, so the question seems rather moot.
Indeed, however, current theory suggests nothing can transcend a big bang-esqe singularity, so the question seems rather moot. At the time the previous universe collapsed into itself or whatever happened that gave rise to our universe, the clock either restarted or just simply started. The simplest option is that the universe just popped out of non-ex ...[text shortened]... monious) and (c) it doesn't make them feel special (i.e. no warm-fuzzies of a benevolent god).
Can you flesh this out a bit for my non-scientific mind? I was using “transcend” to mean something that is simply not accessible to our cognition—and without introducing the supernatural category (sorry to keep belaboring that, but I don’t mean something that transcends the natural order). I’m trying to avoid an error in my own thinking here, before I continue down the road too far...
Thanks.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Hypotheses have to be testable. The God idea is not.
Yes, now that you mentioned it, I fully agree. It is an idea ideed. Perhaps I would even venture to use the term hypothesis. But of course in my dictionary here, the word 'hypothesis' mean:
an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not been proved to be true or correct.
I'm not sure if there are any known facts which have been established to support the idea of god's existence.
1 edit
Originally posted by ckoh1965I saw a lecture by Simon Singh some time ago discussing the Big Bang and cosmological issues where he stated that even small differences in the strength of the four fundamental forces of the universe would have produced a universe where life of any kind would have been impossible. While other explanations are possible i.e. Meta Laws, infinite number of universes, etc. etc., I fail to see how this fact isn't at least some evidence of some type of purposeful creation. This was discussed in a thread here some time ago.
Yes, now that you mentioned it, I fully agree. It is an idea ideed. Perhaps I would even venture to use the term hypothesis. But of course in my dictionary here, the word 'hypothesis' mean:
an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not been proved to be true or correct.
I'm not sure if there are any known facts which have been established to support the idea of god's existence.
This is the link to Singh's website: http://www.simonsingh.net/home.html
EDIT: The discussion was at http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22381&page=1
starting near the end of page 1.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnthropic principle. The fact that the universe is the way it is and we are here, is only proof that the universe is the way it is and we are here. Nothing more, nothing less.
I saw a lecture by Simon Singh some time ago discussing the Big Bang and cosmological issues where he stated that even small differences in the strength of the four fundamental forces of the universe would have produced a universe where life of any kind would have been impossible. While other explanations are possible i.e. Meta Laws, infinite number of u ...[text shortened]... twork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22381&page=1
starting near the end of page 1.
Originally posted by vistesdWell, I'm merely pointing out if there were anything pre-big bang (although that has an unfair time connotation) it couldn't have survived (even time). Whether there was anything 'before' the big bang, is another question, and in my opinion a moot one.
[b]Indeed, however, current theory suggests nothing can transcend a big bang-esqe singularity, so the question seems rather moot.
Can you flesh this out a bit for my non-scientific mind? I was using “transcend” to mean something that is simply not accessible to our cognition—and without introducing the supernatural category (sorry to keep belaboring ...[text shortened]... to avoid an error in my own thinking here, before I continue down the road too far...
Thanks.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzA meaningless assertion. Taken to its logical extreme, it would rule out any type of scientific or metaphysical searching.
Anthropic principle. The fact that the universe is the way it is and we are here, is only proof that the universe is the way it is and we are here. Nothing more, nothing less.
EDIT: Do you regard trying to find an explanation for why the "weak" force is at the level it is to be a waste of time because "the universe is the way it is"?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really ARE going nuts Marauder. My assertion was not "meaningless", and you know it. Simply stating that a universal constant does not imply proof of a creator is not the same as stating science to the futile. I have never heard anything more absurd! Science searches for answers to real questions. You are making an assertion based on insufficient data. There may not even be a question.
A meaningless assertion. Taken to its logical extreme, it would rule out any type of scientific or metaphysical searching.
EDIT: Do you regard trying to find an explanation for why the "weak" force is at the level it is to be a waste of time because "the universe is the way it is"?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think I got it. Whatever "survived" the big whoopie is, de facto, part of the universe as we know it. Thanks, Scott.
Well, I'm merely pointing out if there were anything pre-big bang (although that has an unfair time connotation) it couldn't have survived (even time). Whether there was anything 'before' the big bang, is another question, and in my opinion a moot one.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree that it rules out metaphysical* searching (I can’t say anything about science). Why is that a problem? If people want to indulge in metaphysical speculation, I have no more problem with that than I have with mythology—G-d knows I’ve done enough of both, and maybe will do more—as long as we own up to what we’re doing: myth and speculation.
A meaningless assertion. Taken to its logical extreme, it would rule out any type of scientific or metaphysical searching.
EDIT: Do you regard trying to find an explanation for why the "weak" force is at the level it is to be a waste of time because "the universe is the way it is"?
So, “we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here...” (John Travolta as the archangel Michael, in the film “Michael” ). That’s only a problem when we want something more. When we want something more, we begin to use our faculties (aesthetic, imaginative, intellectual) to compose meaning; the problem, it seems to me is that we go astray when we deny that that is what we are doing. We really want to know (be given, discover as a fact) what the “meaning of it all” is. Or the purpose.
So there is no purpose to the whole of it—to your existence or mine—except what we are challenged to make; and so we take up the challenge, some philosophically, some mythologically, some religiously. (BTW, “low-blow” hit to my friend here: does the Tao have a “purpose”?)
* It’s possible that I’m construing metaphysics too narrowly here, I admit.
Note: a physical explanation of the “weak force” is not the same as a metaphysical explanation of “why” we are here.
Originally posted by ckoh1965supposedly noah's ark was discovered, idk if thats true or not. also, i forget what it was called i think it was Jesus's tomb or something like that, that had an imprint of his face or something like that, again idk if thats true i heard.
Yes, now that you mentioned it, I fully agree. It is an idea ideed. Perhaps I would even venture to use the term hypothesis. But of course in my dictionary here, the word 'hypothesis' mean:
an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not been proved to be true or correct.
I'm not sure if there are any known facts which have been established to support the idea of god's existence.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI think someone has been yanking your chain mate.
supposedly noah's ark was discovered, idk if thats true or not. also, i forget what it was called i think it was Jesus's tomb or something like that, that had an imprint of his face or something like that, again idk if thats true i heard.