Originally posted by jaywill===============================
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 ?
But you are yet to provide any evidence of these not so bold others. More importantly, if they do not come forward then his claim remains false.
Funny how science in now a 'game' and 'discovery of truth' is now more important, yet the claim was specifically one of science. He didn't say "I have discovered the truth" he said "it is a scientifically proven fact". Now that I think about it, the tense of the sentence implies that he himself did not make the discovery at all, but he believes that the majority of other scientists in the field believe it to be the case.
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.
I have no objections whatsoever to his finding, if he can back it up with evidence.
It is interesting how this little quote annoys you so much that you are still hunting for some disqualifying loophole to discredit it.
It doesn't particularly annoy me. I think he was wrong and thats that. The reason I am discussing it with you is to help you understand why it is wrong. Most importantly, I want to show you that you cannot use it as an argument to support knightmeisters claims.
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.
I fail to see the relevance. Or are you now saying that he claimed to have discovered God? That would be a contradiction as you previously backtracked from the idea that 'supernatural' had anything to do with God in the context of his quote.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, it is not an established scientific fact. Consider yourself enlightened.
what 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,
Why should we? Who's going to force us? More importantly, would such a question make sense? For answers, read the whole thread.
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi======================================
it 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 intenti ...[text shortened]... to YEC's or "God hates fags" morons.
Anyway, i would take Dawkins before a YEC anyday.
it 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
=========================================
If you have read enough of posts by me, jaywill, you will discover the following:
A number of times I challenged or asked someone a question and said that I would accept "I don't know" or "We haven't figured that out yet" as a legitimate answer.
I have absolutely no problem with the humility which would confess that a scientist is still not able to give an answer yet to such a question.
I think many militant atheists, who believe science and Christian faith are totally at odds with each other, and that only science can lead to truth, will hesitate to admit to not knowing the scientific answer to the big questions.
So you can always say "We haven't yet figured that out".
Now while they are working on the problem, let me tell you what my belief is.
But that often gets the respond something like "Oh no, God of the Gaps again. Go back to the Dark Ages thou superstitious uneducated fellow."
I do not go over to the Science Forum and talk about faith and revelation. But here on the Spirituality Forum is the appropiate place to state what my belief is about what is true and why not only revelation but also even science might confirm that I'm on the right track.
=====================================
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
=========================================
I am not sure what this statement is a rebuttal to. Did I say Copernicus theories were not proved to be correct ?
All I was saying was that in history the scientist with accurate information often undergoes a period "lonership".
Not everyone immediatly jumps on the band wagon of his proposal. That does not de-legitimize his or her discovery.
For the time present, and perhaps for the forseeable future I think this statement is true, albeit not universally echoed by a majority of scientists:
" That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
- R. Jastrow
================================
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.
============================================
Read my keyboard .... I did not use Dawkins as a mold by which ALL scientists are made ....
I requested that twhitehead be consistent and take his complaint to another vocal scientist who expressed an opinion as Jastrow did. That's all.
====================================
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
===================================
Okay, but whose the "we"?
"We" participants in this board ?
"We" athiests who are scientists ?
"We" scientists ?
Who is the "we" here ?
2 edits
============================
Anyway, i would take Dawkins before a YEC anyday
=============================
Personlly, I believe in an more ancient universe. Science aside for a moment, I think a planet of unspecified age makes more biblical sense.
This is the Spirituality Forum.
Originally posted by twhitehead===============================
[b]===============================
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 alternat ...[text shortened]... upernatural' had anything to do with God in the context of his quote.[/b]
Or are you now saying that he claimed to have discovered God?
=================================
He claimed that Thiests must be evil, ignorant, or mental cases.
- "The God Delusion" .
But Oh No ! The fact that millions have bought his book and his statements have gone around the world as the verdict of a leading scientist ... ? Of course there is no relevance to you.
2 edits
Since we all like Jastrow so much ... ! Let's sample him again.
" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause .... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a prodict of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."
I would add that physicist and professor Raymond Chau when at Berkley wrote tract based on lecture he called - "Beyond Reason ?"
He also argued the existence of God as a First Cause for the Big Bang. Raymond Chau (spelling is a little uncertain) pioneered Laser research and demonstrated that he could measure speeds EXCEEDING or appear to be exceeding the speed of light.
There was an article about Dr. Chau in the 80s in either Newsweek or Time ( I cannot remember which ) discussing his discoveries of faster than light speeds.
Unlike Jastrow, a confessed agnostic, Dr. Raymond Chau is a Christian but a gifted scientist also.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause;…[/b]
Since we all like Jastrow so much ... ! Let's sample him again.
[b]" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause .... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a prodic trow, a confessed agnostic, Dr. Raymond Chau is a Christian but a gifted scientist also.
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause and quantum mechanics is a part of science. He clearly misrepresents science by implying it is ALL about either “finding causes” or “assuming causes” -what about the science of mathematics -is that about finding causes or assuming causes?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't really know what you mean by uncaused cause, but why would a timeline starting at t=0 not fit that description?
I don't really know what you mean by uncaused cause, but why would a timeline starting at t=0 not fit that description?
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.
---------whitey-----------------------
It does in some ways but the one crucial difference is the fact that it has a start. My conception of an Uncaused Cause is that it would be self reliant , self existent and not dependent on anything else. A beginning is suggestive of something being begun by something else. I would also imagine that an Uncaused cause might be supremely powerful. Something that was able to will itself into existence from nothing would be incredible , so incredible that one might wonder whether it just should always exist. I mean why bother with having a beginning if it is so incredible? Why not just exist forever?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause
…" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause;…
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause and quantum mechanics is a part of science. He clearly misrepresents science by implying it i ...[text shortened]... auses” -what about the science of mathematics -is that about finding causes or assuming causes?[/b]
--------------hammy----------------
How does one prove that an event has no cause? One might say that no cause has been found as yet or that one cannot understand why something happens but I'm not aware that quantum events have been proven to be uncaused , I only know that their behaviour cannot be predicted accurately.
Can you clarify how this is proved? Where did they find this non-existent cause? Are they aware of all possible causes and have eliminated all of them? What about the unknown causes that might exist?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==================================
…" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause;…
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause and quantum mechanics is a part of science. He clearly misrepresents science by implying it i ...[text shortened]... auses” -what about the science of mathematics -is that about finding causes or assuming causes?[/b]
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron...
=====================================
Feel better now ? Better stock up on some other handy ad homs there.
=========================
ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause and quantum mechanics is a part of science.
=================================
Refering to these articles: "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Prinicple, New York: Cambridge University Press 1993 page 30; D. Allen Bromley, "Physics: Atomic and Molecular Physics," Science 209 (1080), page 116 - Hugh Ross, Phd., in the chapter entitled "A Just Right Universe" in "The Creator and the Cosmos," writes this about quantum tunneling:
"In addition to requireing exquisite fine-tuning of the forces and constants of physics, the existence of life demands still more. It demands that the fundamental particles, the energy, and the space-time dimensions of the universe enable the principles of quantum tunneling and special relativity to operate exactly as they do. Quantum tunneling must function no more or less efficiently than what we observe for hemoglobin to transport the right amount of oxygen to the cells of all vertebrate and most invertebrate species."
To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunneling has been proved to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting hemoglobin.
So bringing up Quantum Mechanics puts us closer to the evidence of intelligent creatorship NOT further away.
Originally posted by jaywillI think we are misunderstanding each other here.
He claimed that Thiests must be evil, ignorant, or mental cases.
[b] - "The God Delusion" .
But Oh No ! The fact that millions have bought his book and his statements have gone around the world as the verdict of a leading scientist ... ? Of course there is no relevance to you.[/b]
You keep saying (or at least strongly implying) that the finding that the origin of the universe is unknowable would be a highly undesirable result for theists. I am trying to get clarity as to why that would be the case. We have already established that the scientist in question did not claim to have discovered that God exists, nor that there was a creator to the universe, so I fail to see the relevance of the Dawkins quote.
I also wonder whether you have actually read "The God Delusion" as I think you will find that your quote is out of context. Would you know which page it is on? I would like to look it up.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo am I correct that your uncaused cause cannot have a start?
It does in some ways but the one crucial difference is the fact that it has a start. My conception of an Uncaused Cause is that it would be self reliant , self existent and not dependent on anything else. A beginning is suggestive of something being begun by something else. I would also imagine that an Uncaused cause might be supremely powerful. Someth ...[text shortened]... t. I mean why bother with having a beginning if it is so incredible? Why not just exist forever?
If so, then am I correct that you believe that time is necessarily infinite?
Originally posted by jaywillIf you think about your statement (which I rather doubt is a true reflection of what he actually said), you will see how remarkably ridiculous it really is.
To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunneling has been proved to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting hemoglobin.
So bringing up Quantum Mechanics puts us closer to the evidence of intelligent creatorship NOT further away.
Lets say you throw a dice and it lands on the number five. Clearly, everything involved in the throw, from the wind, the roughness of the floor, your subtle hand movements possibly caused by your mood brought on by our discussion in this forum had an effect on the way the die rolled, and were therefore required for the result. So, can I correctly argue that the result of 'five' is due to the "unbelievably fortunate accident" that we had this discussion in this forum, and that there is clear evidence that this discussion is all part of a intelligent plan to ensure that the five is achieved?
Or have you perhaps not thought it through?
Originally posted by robbie carrobienow you have toned it down a little but not enough.
what 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 kept using "there must be a god" now it is down to "must have been caused by something".
you are mistaken. there is no "must", only "might" for now. hawkings claims that the universe is perfectly capable of starting on its own without outside help. a theory among others. and if the universe started from a point singularity, there is no way in knowing what caused it because we cannot see in no-time.
Originally posted by jaywillspirituality forum is no excuse for being impervious to logic.
[b]============================
Anyway, i would take Dawkins before a YEC anyday
=============================
Personlly, I believe in an more ancient universe. Science aside for a moment, I think a planet of unspecified age makes more biblical sense.
This is the Spirituality Forum.[/b]
god gave us reason. any knowledge we get through that wisdom is a homage to god's work and not us rebelling against his word.
god doesn't want us stupid, he wants us to figure the world out. through logic, not through an idiot self-contradictory book that put together some good stuff next to evil and prideful boasts of genocide.