Originally posted by knightmeisterI will hide behind the others
Again I ask you - can you think for yourself? Stop retreating back on to the arguments of others. Do you have an argument of your own?
If time is a neccessary pre-requisite for existence then how does the beginning of time exist?
Another way of putting this is "if the Universe itself is a pre-requisite for existence then how did the Universe begi ...[text shortened]... off my theism and hide behind others or engage with the argument -which is it going to be?
😀
Originally posted by black beetleso that knight understands, let me explain your words to him
I will hide behind the others
😀
(speaking in the general direction of knight)
we give up, you win. unless you can produce real logic and not just "the sky is blue therefore there absolutely must be a squirrel with a fluffy tail out there " kind of home brewed logic.
Originally posted by knightmeisterlalalalalalalalalalalalala he can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala
At least you are honest about the fact you don't want to think about things for yourself. I admire your forthrightness and honesty.
Do you still think time is a pre-requisite for anything to happen?
Originally posted by knightmeisterand yes time is a perequisite for anything to happen.
At least you are honest about the fact you don't want to think about things for yourself. I admire your forthrightness and honesty.
Do you still think time is a pre-requisite for anything to happen?
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==================================
[b]…Robert Jastrow did not say that we should not use reason. . …
No -but he implied it by talking about scientist’s “FAITH in the power of reason” thus implying that to believe that we should use reason it just blind “FAITH” (which, of course, is just total claptrap) -why would he do that if it is not the case that he wants use to abandon all w stop pretending this is about theism verses atheism. -This is about reason verses stupidity.[/b]
No -but he implied it by talking about scientist’s “FAITH in the power of reason” thus implying that to believe that we should use reason it just blind “FAITH” (which, of course, is just total claptrap) -why would he do that if it is not the case that he wants use to abandon all reason?
=========================================
I don't see anything unreasonable at all about it. The forces that brought about the Big Bang he says we cannot hope to know because time, space, energy, matter are all products of the Big Bang.
Instead of repeating you contemptuous attitude of superiority why not simply explain to him what those forces were? Then you can spout off about everybody else's "Blind Faith" who doesn't come to the same Atheistic conclusions you come to.
As it stands I find Jastrow a better scientist then you are. And to think that theologians or people of faith do not reason is ridiculous.
===================================
-why else would he try and totally rubbish reason by dismissing it as just mere “faith”?
=====================================
What did Jastrow "dismiss" ? He said his search for truth via science surprisingly led him to the same conclusion as cetries old theologians were. They use the tools of Revelation and reason and he the tools of the scientific method. They ended up at the same place.
Quite the contrary then to trashing reason, he said his method and that of the theologians ended up at the same place. That surprised him.
The more you wish to paint him as a turncoat or a sell-out the more you expose your religion of scientism. It could be that he wrote that book God and the Astronomers to deal with that kind of attitude from colleauges.
Rather than ostricize Jastrow from your scientism as an apostate produce evidence that the forces responsible for the Big Bang can be researched and discovered. You have a whole life time. Get started.
No one is telling you not to use your reason.
=======================================
…The beginning of the universe was caused by forces which transcend nature, are for all intents and purposes "supernatural". …
Is that conclusion based on “reason”? -answer -no. He is clearly against the use of reason here.
==================================
Produce for us the identification of the forces. Settle it all. Why waste time to argue.
Identify those forces which brought about the creation of Time, Space, Mater, and Energy. Here's your chance to shine.
If you say "We're working on that" that's fine. But don't stop other scientists from reasoning that they honestly believe they have hit a wall with the known instruments and science methods at their disposal.
In other words - Put up or shut up.
=====================================
No doubt he would claim that it IS based on “reason” -the very thing he himself totally rubbishes as mere “faith”! can you see his logical inconsistency here?
========================================
I don't think you can hold a candle to the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
Get started. See you in another 20 years or so of research. Then we'll see if you have bragging rights to ostrisize Robert Jastrow
for abandoning reason from the science community.
================================
...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. ….
This has nothing to do with my atheism or his theism.
========================================
He's an agnostic according to him. And it does have to do with your atheism because you hate where the evidence points.
Why else are you here on a Spirituality Forum with a mission and agenda to defend your faith that no Creator is needed to understand how the universe came to be?
===================================
A person who is against reason is a moron simply because he is against reason -regardless of whether he is an atheist or theist. If he was an atheists and if he still dismissed reason as just “faith” -I would STILL call him a moron!
======================================
At first I thought you were a person who seemed to have taken some colleage courses in philosophy. But the more I read of your posts the more it seems you forgot what you learned or you never had those courses.
Your concept that reason is the sole property of scientists is ridiculous. Theologians, Philosophers, and people of faith can also reason.
You also do not realize that sin has damaged your mind. Some of your reasonings are evil. Sure they are.
Stop your self sometime and ask "What am I reasoning here?" Oft times what you are reasoning is how to get away with an evil act.
Sin has damaged man's reasoning. This is a Spirituality Forum.
But anyway, for a scientist to say in essence "I was shocked to find that my science search ended up at a place where theologians have been musing for a long time - there are supernatural forces at work. Being an agnostic that surprised me that it now seems a proven scientific fact that that is so. We cannot hope to find out what pre-Time, pre-Space, pre-Energy, and pre-Matter forces brought about the existence of these things." (all my paraphrase).
But if you do not agree, produce the telescope. Produce the atom smasher, produce the microscope, or whatever other tool or calculations you have to reveal what these pre-Universe forces are that caused the Big Bang.
Here's your chance to shine.
========================
-so I will continue to use reason -and this is not “faith“.
… Are all agnostics morons ?
...….
No. Now stop pretending this is about theism verses atheism. -This is about reason verses stupidity.
========================================
Stop pretending you are on the Science Forum and have not come over to the Spirituality Forum to reinforce your FAITH in Atheism.
We see you. Why else are you here ? You're here to defend your "No Spirituality Atheistic World View." And cardinal to that is proving that there is no need for a Divine Creator.
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill dude,
[b]==================================
No -but he implied it by talking about scientist’s “FAITH in the power of reason” thus implying that to believe that we should use reason it just blind “FAITH” (which, of course, is just total claptrap) -why would he do that if it is not the case that he wants use to abandon all reason?
=============================== ...[text shortened]... dinal to that is proving that there is no need for a Divine Creator.
The forces that brought about the Big Bang are actuallly not known due to our temporary ignorance, thus we are talking today about a point singularity.
But our nowdays ignorance is not like the ignorance we had before 40 centuries, and everyday we move a bit further. Whatever we ignore today we may know it tomorrow.
Today the science suggests that it all begun at a point singularity, but this may change in the future due to the fact that the scientific community never settles down and looks always for rational reasoning. Now please do think: could really anybody in the past talk about a "point singularity" in front of a Christian authority without being sure that he would be sentenced to death? I am sure we agree that in such a case a bright human being would loose his life because of the religionism of the ignorant dolts who where members of that authority.
Furthermore, what Jastrow seems to dismiss? He seems to dismiss the propability that in the future the scientists could find in detail all the answers that today we ignore. And this is too much due to the fact that the so called "unsolved problems" or the so called "divine messages" or the so called "supernatural forces" of the past were just natural phainomena. Therefore Jastrow is not reasonable over this very point, and our friend Andrew Hamilton replied to you over this specific point. BTW, I think that Hamilton is quite accurate over here.
So please my friend do calm down. We need not personal attacks and for sure we need nobody to keep up preaching. We solely debate over opinions;
Originally posted by Palynkawell my life doesn't revolve around your approval so i guess i will survive.
Idiot.
i stated my opinion and as i did tried to explain my point of view dozens of times and he still won't admit his nobel prize idea is not really so "nobely", i find it reasonable to give up and because i am not a very nice person, to call him an idiot.