Originally posted by knightmeister"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, the first and the last", thats what God said. Whether time itself has a beginning or not does not matter
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.
Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)
Thoughts?
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat this nonsence, i was not making logic, i thought it was an established fact that the universe had a beginning, that it has not always existed, is this not an established scientific fact? if so, then of necessity we must ask what caused it, whatever, it must have been caused by something. and whether logic can bring us there or not, i dunno, although the evidence seems to suggest that it can.
you are forcing logic. just because you don't understand a concept doesn't mean you can invent outside forces that magically make it so. or better said, that you are making science when you do that.
sure, you can suggest a god that created the universe but from this to a "must be god" there are still many leaps of faith. and logic cannot bring you there.
Originally posted by jaywillMy understanding of the quote is that he is saying that there is scientific proof that supernatural forces were at work. Further, there is a very strong implication that such scientific proof is known about and agreed upon by a reasonably large proportion of the scientific community. Since that is not the case, I believe that either he did not say it, or he is a liar, or I am misunderstanding him.
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.
I would be interested in what he means by 'supernatural'. If he simply means unknowable by scientific means, then it makes more sense, but that is not a common use of the word. I would still dispute his claim that it is a scientifically proven fact as being outrageously far fetched.
I would be interested in whether he also considers Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to be proof of supernatural forces, after all it is an identical effect to what he is proposing.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead==================================
My understanding of the quote is that he is saying that there is scientific proof that supernatural forces were at work. Further, there is a very strong implication that such scientific proof is known about and agreed upon by a reasonably large proportion of the scientific community. Since that is not the case, I believe that either he did not say it, or be proof of supernatural forces, after all it is an identical effect to what he is proposing.
there is a very strong implication that such scientific proof is known about and agreed upon by a reasonably large proportion of the scientific community.
======================================
The implication of what to call such pre-Big Bang forces is implied in these words - "what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces".
There is NO implication that large numbers of his associates are bold enough to say that the existence of the forces is now a scientifically proven fact.
In other words he individually has had the courage to declare that. There is no implication that many others have catagorically said the same.
Close, but no cigar.
======================================
Since that is not the case, I believe that either he did not say it, or he is a liar, or I am misunderstanding him.
=======================================
Your assumption is incorrect.
What you have here is a scientist saying, in essence "These forces have to be called supernatural forces, by me or anyone else."
Following that you have the courage of his minority assessmet of the situation - "I think ... is a scientifically proven fact" that such forces were at work.
He did not exactly say "We have all proclaimed this is a scientifically proven fact." He said in essence "I think .... I THINK ... it is a scientifically proven fact."
He is couragous to state what the obvious implications of the Big Bang are.
It could be that the greater majority are timid or are taking a wait and see attitude.
======================================
I would be interested in what he means by 'supernatural'.
=========================================
An in depth of the meaning of "supernatural" would be interesting. For the purposes of this discussion it is sufficient that we take it as he implies - Pre Big Bang force/s which scientists cannot hope to discover through science. At least today we cannot.
For all intents and purposes those or that is a "super natural" force.
====================================
If he simply means unknowable by scientific means, then it makes more sense, but that is not a common use of the word. I would still dispute his claim that it is a scientifically proven fact as being outrageously far fetched.
======================================
It does not appear to me that admiting so was an easy matter for Jastrow. The article discribed a man in conflict. He said he was an agnostic. Perhaps his agnosticism has been shaken a bit.
The beginning of the quote is about astronomers painting themselves into a corner. I did not get the impression that it was either easy or desireable for him to admit what he sees as a scientifically proven fact.
=======================================
I would be interested in whether he also considers Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to be proof of supernatural forces, after all it is an identical effect to what he is proposing.
=======================================
I don't know.
I respect him for having the courage to state what the implications of the Big Bang theory are.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that every event has a cause but it doesn't neccesitate and infinte chain of causes. I believe the buck stops with an Uncaused cause , and in my mind the Uncaused cause is not a series of causal chains.
Prove me wrong.
I said [b]"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?[/b]
I have said before that the only three choices I think we have is something from nothing (and ideas based on this)
Uncaused Cause
or infinite regress of causes.
I have also said that infinite regress is to me an unsatisfactory solution , and that something from nothing is illogical , this is why I plump for the Uncaused cause.
Originally posted by knightmeisterthe little boy in the story said what it was obvious. everybody saw what he saw, they were just afraid to say it.
The little boy in the story just simply says what he sees. My argument is not brilliant or complex , it's just simple.
in this case, i assure you we are not afraid of the truth and we really do think your idea is flawed. very.
Originally posted by jaywillNormally, in modern science, something is taken as speculative until verified by other scientists. That is standard practice. When a scientist says something is "scientifically proven" he is implying that others agree with him.
There is NO implication that large numbers of his associates are bold enough to say that the existence of the forces is now a scientifically proven fact.
In other words he individually has had the courage to declare that. There is no implication that many others have catagorically said the same.
Close, but no cigar.
If he did not mean that, then I find his choice of words rather strange. If he meant what you claim he did, then I would expect him to rather say something along the lines of "it is my opinion that there is no alternative".
I am also fairly sure that when you quoted it, your intention was to imply that it was not just his personal opinion.
It is also interesting to note that you are still playing the implication game ie you talk of his associate not being bold enough to admit something, in other words you are claiming that some of his associate hold similar views. You have zero evidence for this. You also have zero evidence for the further implication that if they did have such views they would attempt to hide them.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't really know what you mean by uncaused cause, but why would a timeline starting at t=0 not fit that description?
I think that every event has a cause but it doesn't neccesitate and infinte chain of causes. I believe the buck stops with an Uncaused cause , and in my mind the Uncaused cause is not a series of causal chains.
I have said before that the only three choices I think we have is something from nothing (and ideas based on this)
Uncaused Cause
or inf ...[text shortened]... on , and that something from nothing is illogical , this is why I plump for the Uncaused cause.
Why cant you apply your arguments from this thread to your uncaused cause?
I also cant see how your uncaused cause can fit together with the infinite timeline that you claims is inevitable.
Originally posted by jaywillBut it is certainly not what I first imagined when I heard the quote. One would think he would have defined what he meant somewhere.
An in depth of the meaning of "supernatural" would be interesting. For the purposes of this discussion it is sufficient that we take it as he implies - Pre Big Bang force/s which scientists cannot hope to discover through science. At least today we cannot.
For all intents and purposes those or that is a "super natural" force.
It does not appear to me that admiting so was an [b]easy matter for Jastrow. The article discribed a man in conflict. He said he was an agnostic. Perhaps his agnosticism has been shaken a bit.[/b]
I cant see the connection to his agnosticism. If I discovered that I could not know anything about the early stages of the big bang or what happened prior to that, it would not affect my atheism whatsoever.
The beginning of the quote is about astronomers painting themselves into a corner. I did not get the impression that it was either easy or desireable for him to admit what he sees as a scientifically proven fact.
Why? He is not the first to propose the idea. I have read a number of articles in Scientific American discussing it as a possibility, and it never disturbed me, nor apparently did it disturb the writers of those articles.
I respect him for having the courage to state what the implications of the Big Bang theory are.
I still don't see why it would require courage. The scientist with courage are those who went against the views of the Church as they new they would incur outrage. Simply stating that you have found evidence or proof for something that has long been speculated about and is not particularly controversial in scientific circles does not need courage. He may be deserving of the Nobel prize if he is right, but merely stating that you have scientific proof is not the same thing as having it.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead========================================
Normally, in modern science, something is taken as speculative until verified by other scientists. That is standard practice. When a scientist says something is "scientifically proven" he is implying that others agree with him.
If he did not mean that, then I find his choice of words rather strange. If he meant what you claim he did, then I would expect or the further implication that if they did have such views they would attempt to hide them.
Normally, in modern science, something is taken as speculative until verified by other scientists. That is standard practice. When a scientist says something is "scientifically proven" he is implying that others agree with him.
==========================================
However, if others are timid to make the claim and he is bold enough to speak so, it has merit. Someone has to speak up.
Maybe you're more interested in the game of science. Maybe he, while doing science, was suddenly struck by the discovery of truth.
===============================
If he did not mean that, then I find his choice of words rather strange. If he meant what you claim he did, then I would expect him to rather say something along the lines of "it is my opinion that there is no alternative".
==================================
"I think" and "it is my opinion there is no alternative" are pretty much the same.
Nice effort.
============================================
I am also fairly sure that when you quoted it, your intention was to imply that it was not just his personal opinion.
========================================
So what if I did ?
Many scientists agreed with Ptolemy when his thought his calculations (which were rigorous from what I have been told ) "proved" that the earth was the center of the solar system.
Someone like Copernicus came with a different conclusion which we know now to be correct. Was Copernicus' opinion not worth much during that period in which others were not yet agreeing with him ?
What is with this "Everybody isn't saying it, so its not yet valid" excuse ?
Funny how some atheists champion the individuality of a "trail blazer" or pioneer like Darwin but hoot down another scientist when he steps out to say something they don't like.
=================================
It is also interesting to note that you are still playing the implication game ie you talk of his associate not being bold enough to admit something,
=========================================
It is interesting how this little quote annoys you so much that you are still hunting for some disqualifying loophole to discredit it.
==============================
in other words you are claiming that some of his associate hold similar views. You have zero evidence for this. You also have zero evidence for the further implication that if they did have such views they would attempt to hide them.
=================================
Go take your little argument to scientist Richard Dawkins who says anyone who believes in God is either evil or ignorant or a mental case.
Originally posted by jaywillit takes more guts to admit ignorance than to present an obviously flawed theory as science. when ignorant, a real scientist says "i don't know but i will find out" or "this is what i propose, correct it if you can." He however didn't correct his theory in anyway, i believe not even when palynka suggested continuous time might maybe make some of his intention work
[b]========================================
Normally, in modern science, something is taken as speculative until verified by other scientists. That is standard practice. When a scientist says something is "scientifically proven" he is implying that others agree with him.
==========================================
However, if others are timid to m ...[text shortened]... o says anyone who believes in God is either evil or ignorant or a mental case.[/b]
the copernicus example is flawed. his theories and calculations were not disproved and later they were actually proved to be correct. we have proved za meister wrong, he must now adjust his theory
perhaps you should refrain from using Dawkins as a mold by which all scientists are made, just as we refrain from molding all believers(to which cathergory i am part of) to YEC's or "God hates fags" morons.
Anyway, i would take Dawkins before a YEC anyday.