beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Robert Jastrow and anyone else that either says or implying we
should not use reason is a moron for doing so. -and reason is not faith.

Robert Jastrow did not say that we should not use reason.

Robert Jastrow wrote a book in which he explains his realization of the limitations of his scientific research.

His science eventually led him to a point where he was greeted by people who came to the same conclusions in their thinking. The beginning of the universe was caused by forces which transcend nature, are for all intents and purposes "supernatural".

And it is pretty lame of you to get upset and want to call people morons because they do not cling to your atheistic faith.

Are all agnostics morons ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Robert Jastrow did not say that we should not use reason.

Robert Jastrow wrote a book in which he explains his realization of the limitations of his scientific research.

His science eventually led him to a point where he was greeted by people who came to the same conclusions in their thinking. The beginning of the universe was caused by forces wh ...[text shortened]... ople morons because they do not cling to your atheistic faith.

Are all agnostics morons ?

Jastrow never, to my knowledge claimed that the beginning of the universe was caused by "forces which transcend nature". He claimed that there are epistemic limitations on our investigations into the beginning of the universe.

Originally posted by bbarr
Jastrow never, to my knowledge claimed that the beginning of the universe was caused by "forces which transcend nature". He claimed that there are epistemic limitations on our investigations into the beginning of the universe.

" ... forces which transcend nature ..." is not a direct quote. But here is his quote:

" ... the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they [astronomers] have have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

R. Jastrow

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]" ... forces which transcend nature ..." is not a direct quote. But here is his quote:

" ... the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they [astronomers] have have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can ...[text shortened]... rnatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

R. Jastrow [/b]

Where is that quote from?

I found this which has many of the same ideas but without any conclusion regarding "supernatural forces at work" being "a scientifically proven fact".

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth18b.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where is that quote from?

I found this which has many of the same ideas but without any conclusion regarding "supernatural forces at work" being "a scientifically proven fact".

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth18b.html

Finding problems with the quotation I think is vain. Some might say it is too old, others dismiss him as "moron" and various other excuses not to believe a scientist could say that.

I think it is more honest to just admit "Well, that's one scientist's opinion" and leave it at that.

Now the quote comes from:

A magazine article - "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.

And it is quoted by Geisler and Turek on page 85 in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

Originally posted by jaywill
Finding problems with the quotation I think is vain. Some might say it is too old, others dismiss him as "moron" and various other excuses not to believe a scientist could say that.

I think it is more honest to just admit "Well, that's one scientist's opinion" and leave it at that.

Now the quote comes from:

A magazine article - "A Scientist C ...[text shortened]... d by Geisler and Turek on page 85 in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.[/b]

Thank you.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]" ... forces which transcend nature ..." is not a direct quote. But here is his quote:

" ... the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they [astronomers] have have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can ...[text shortened]... rnatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

R. Jastrow [/b]

Thanks. I wonder, though, why Jastrow claims that the evidence supports the contention that the universe began in an act of creation, or that supernatural forces were at work. After all, if the Big Bang came from a point singularity, then there may have been perfectly natural causes for the Big Bang. If one simply defines 'natural causes' as those amenable to scientific investigation, and if the nature of the Big Bang and our epistemic limitations prohibits investigation into the nature of the origins of the Big Bang, then it will trivially follow that its causes were supernatural (but even this does not support the further claim that there was any agency-guided creation at work).

Originally posted by jaywill
... That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

Astronomers will never agree to this, unless we redefine the concept of "supernatural forces".

The belief of "supernatural forces" is exactly what is needed to define religion. If you believe in miracles, "supernatural forces" is exactly what is needed.

Originally posted by bbarr
Thanks. I wonder, though, why Jastrow claims that the evidence supports the contention that the universe began in an act of creation, or that supernatural forces were at work. After all, if the Big Bang came from a point singularity, then there may have been perfectly natural causes for the Big Bang. If one simply defines 'natural causes' as those amenable ...[text shortened]... en this does not support the further claim that there was any agency-guided creation at work).

Anyway there are respected scientists who are theists and we have no problem with their scientific finds. Furthermore their philosophical procedures are related to their intuition, their logic and their knowledge, therefore their conclusions can be deeply metaphysical, and over here we have to check them through the basic rules of the philosophy.
Since Jastrow or anybody else decides to call whatever he cannot understand "supernatural causes" it is obvious that he is heading to that joyful gang of theologists up the mountain (!), but by no means his opinion must be accepted as the Sole Absolute Truth. The ret scientists and the scientific community will keep up searching and evaluating finds and evidence; bbarr has right when he is talking about the point singularity, I mean that the more we search the most we find and the most we have to answer, and this is evolution. Nobody could imagine (or he could, however he prefered to shut up his mouth because he would dislike the taste of some haggis made of his vey body) even to mention a fractal of the modern theories to a past -not o past- Christian authority.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I define t=0 as being the first point of the timeline then it is the first point of the timeline. No argument can change that. You could however suggest that time does not have a first point (there are two scenarios where this happens) and that t=0 does not exist, but you cannot, I repeat cannot say that t=0 exists and is not on the timeline.
----- ...[text shortened]... ng that the Universe has both been around forever but is finite in it's time dimension.

yes you can say time begins and that is that. because anything prior to that beginning is meaningless to us. nothing happened before t=0(therefore no cause for time to begin) because there was no time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But can that first event occur in the very time that is beginning? The beginning of time must be by definition the first event ever in existence. It cannot be initiated "in time" because there's no time for it to happen in until it happens.

I agree with you in essence but the first event cannot occur "in" time in the same way as other subsequent ev ...[text shortened]... a very different catagory of event from subsequent events that occur in pre-existing time?

no. because the first event ever marks the existence of time. one cannot have events without time. in a timeless state nothing ever happens. period.

Originally posted by jaywill
Educated dude,

Could you explain this puzzle to us with your superior scientific education?

What caused the beginning of time ?


[b]Stephen Hawking - "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." [/b]

from a scientific point of view, we can surely say that nothing caused the big bang. one might think that the "pre" big-bang singularity existed for a long time before something or someone flipped a switch and big bang happened. but since there was no time, we cannot see anything before big bang because not a single piece of information can come from no-time.

now if we are talking god as in a being on a separate timeline or out of time completely whatever that means, we might incline to think God flipped the switch and started the show. however the originator of this thread claimed to have found scientific proofs about whatever he is claiming and so we are ignoring god for now. (sorry god)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes you can say time begins and that is that. because anything prior to that beginning is meaningless to us. nothing happened before t=0(therefore no cause for time to begin) because there was no time.

How do you know it's meaningless?

Also , you say that nothing happened before t=0 which means you must believe that everything that happens must happen in time?

If so how did the beginning of time happen at t=0?

I guess what i am asking is that if "no time" as you put it is a reality , then how do we get from "no time" to time? Leaving aside whether such an event was caused or uncaused , how are we able to say that the progression from "no time" to time happens in time?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no. because the first event ever marks the existence of time. one cannot have events without time. in a timeless state nothing ever happens. period.

no. because the first event ever marks the existence of time. one cannot have events without time. in a timeless state nothing ever happens. period. -----------zahlanzi----------------

And this is my very point - do you not see the paradox?

The fact that you say time has a beginning implies directly a timeless state because if there is no such thing as timelessness then time is without boundary or beginning. By saying that time has a beginning you are defining it's boundary and you can only do that with timelessness.

If you say that in a timeless state nothing ever happens then how does the beginning of time ever happen? If you say that there is no such thing as timelessness then how can you say that time has a beginning?

The first ever event (ie the beginning of time) must occur in timelessness because it cannot occur in time because time has not begun.

If you "cannot have events without time" and the beginning of time is an event then then the beginning of time cannot occur.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know it's meaningless?

Also , you say that nothing happened before t=0 which means you must believe that everything that happens must happen in time?

If so how did the beginning of time happen at t=0?

I guess what i am asking is that if "no time" as you put it is a reality , then how do we get from "no time" to time? Leaving asid ...[text shortened]... sed , how are we able to say that the progression from "no time" to time happens in time?

Such a helluva question is normally expected solely by ultra intelligent giants of insight, ie like the presidend of USA Mr Bush Jr;