1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleTypical tag team intrusion.
Jaywill dude,
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 scie ttacks and for sure we need nobody to keep up preaching. We solely debate over opinions;
Let the Hamilton answer for himself. He doesn't need your patronizing assistance.
And there is nothing in the paragraph saying an answer is forbidden to be discovered by science in the future. He is dealing with HIS own day and time, as he has every right to. You do it.
Originally posted by jaywillWhy my comment is a "typical tag team intrusion"? I am free to participate at any thread over here. Or not?
Typical tag team intrusion.
Let the Hamilton answer for himself. He doesn't need your patronizing assistance.
And there is nothing in the paragraph saying an answer is forbidden to be discovered by science in the future. He is dealing with HIS own day and time, as he has every right to. You do it.
I replied to your post because I found it interesting, and I did it for myself. I do not represent Hamilton. Our friend Hamilton may reply too or not, but this is not my business.
In addition, although in that paragraph there is nothing saying an answer is forbidden to be discovered by science in the future, Jastrow's thesis is unreasonable due to the fact that Today we ignore things which in the Future we may not. It is simply wrong to have the case closed stating that the things whose the cause we ignore are caused by the so called "supernatural forces".
Originally posted by knightmeisterProve me wrong.
Wrong again , if you want to know what I actually think just ask.
I said "Not that I think that infinite causal chains are a necessity of the universe, but knightmeister does."
Do you or do you not think that every event has a cause?
Does that imply that all causes are in infinite chains of causes?
Originally posted by PalynkaSo do I. I am here whenever I think that I may learn a thing or two. And I am ever ready to change my opinion if my interlocutors are reasonable;
It's too late. I think for now KM is probably too entrenched in his opinion. Maybe in a few days, maybe never. I'm not here to convince the world...
Originally posted by bbarrI have my doubts about the quote; Christianity Today is an evangelical publication and I wonder if the quote is: A) Jastrow's or a synopsis and/or B) What the exact context of the quote was. It does not seem to be consistent with the reference I cited which is from 1995 (I think) specifically:
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).
So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question.
Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe's existence. At that time it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.
That certainly isn't a statement consistent with the view that the Big Bang's causation by "supernatural forces" is a "scientifically proven fact". There does not seem to be a transcript of the interview on line and my subscription to Christianity Today does not date back to 1982
😛
Originally posted by no1marauderAllright no1 pal, let's accept for the sake of our conversation that the quote that our friend jaywill brought up is accurate and that therefore Jastrow expressed his opinion exactly as was mentioned at the mag; in such a case how do you evaluate it?
I have my doubts about the quote; Christianity Today is an evangelical publication and I wonder if the quote is: A) Jastrow's or a synopsis and/or B) What the exact context of the quote was. It does not seem to be consistent with the reference I cited which is from 1995 (I think) specifically:
So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effe ...[text shortened]... terview on line and my subscription to Christianity Today does not date back to 1982
😛
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle===============================
Why my comment is a "typical tag team intrusion"? I am free to participate at any thread over here. Or not?
I replied to your post because I found it interesting, and I did it for myself. I do not represent Hamilton. Our friend Hamilton may reply too or not, but this is not my business.
In addition, although in that paragraph there is nothing sayi hat the things whose the cause we ignore are caused by the so called "supernatural forces".
Why my comment is a "typical tag team intrusion"? I am free to participate at any thread over here. Or not?
I replied to your post because I found it interesting, and I did it for myself. I do not represent Hamilton. Our friend Hamilton may reply too or not, but this is not my business.
======================================
Yea. You're free to participate.
I get grumpy when I see stuff like "Oh calm down my dear jaywill". I take that comment back.
====================================
In addition, although in that paragraph there is nothing saying an answer is forbidden to be discovered by science in the future, Jastrow's thesis is unreasonable due to the fact that Today we ignore things which in the Future we may not. It is simply wrong to have the case closed stating that the things whose the cause we ignore are caused by the so called "supernatural forces".
=========================================
The statement that science has to him proven that supernatural forces are at work is as legitimate as it is for you to say there was a Big Bang.
His proposal is not the least bit unreasonable TODAY.
You don't say the Big Bang is not a legitimate thesis because 500 years from now they may discover that the 20th century scientists had is all wrong.
At least be consistent and admit that NOTHING, including gravity, is certain because future discoveries may prove us all wrong.
According to your "wait and see" approach will ANYTHING ever be certain from science ?
Originally posted by jaywillIs a scientist still a scientist when he's cooking dinner?
Look, Jastrow detractors, I suggest that you give up trying to ostricize Jastrow from the science community.
If I were you I would simply say "That's one man's opinion."
Give me a quote from a scientist who feels otherwise. I have every right to refer to what one reputable scientist thinks.
Why not just admit that one scientist apparently sees things that way. What's the problem with that?
Originally posted by PalynkaCooking dinner ?
Is a scientist still a scientist when he's cooking dinner?
Making lunch ?
Going bowling ?
What does this have to do with an Interview with a scientist that includes his attitude about what the Big Bang discovery has scientifically proven ?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillBecause no experiment or evidence supports his claim. He may be a scientist, but not all of his opinions are scientific.
What does this have to do with an Interview with a scientist that includes his attitude about what the Big Bang discovery has scientifically proven ?
The label "scientist" on such opinions is merely a falacious appeal to authority.
Originally posted by jaywillI proposed you to calm down because you became a bit steamy for nothing. Excuse me if I made you feel uncomfortable.
[b]===============================
Why my comment is a "typical tag team intrusion"? I am free to participate at any thread over here. Or not?
I replied to your post because I found it interesting, and I did it for myself. I do not represent Hamilton. Our friend Hamilton may reply too or not, but this is not my business.
============================== ...[text shortened]... ccording to your "wait and see" approach will ANYTHING ever be certain from science ?
But I think that still there are things that we know and things that we ignore, and that the Science has a huge contribution. For example, thanks to the scientists we have today the chance to be connected through this site/ technology, don't we? Thanks to the scientists we know that Earth is a round planet in our solar system, don't we? What could we have achieve if we had not faith in science?