07 Sep 08
One scientist - Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and a confessed agnostic wrote:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that 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 have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
["A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982]
07 Sep 08
2 edits
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
Stephen Hawking (
Quoted in Geisler and Hoffman. Why I am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why tThey Believe, Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001, pg 66)
This quotation is not a suggestion that Hawking is a Christian or a Theist.
07 Sep 08
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywillHe obviously hasn’t understood the big bang theory very well:
One scientist - Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and a confessed agnostic wrote:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every livin ght Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982]
…earth. And they have found that all this happened as a PRODUCT of forces they cannot hope to discover ,…(my emphasis)
He obviously has not understood the implications of the concept of there being no “before” the big bang;
it means it didn’t happen “as a PRODUCT of forces” because that is just another way of saying it had a “cause”
-“no before” implies “no cause” and "no cause” implies "no supernatural cause" (as well as implying "no non-supernatural cause" ).
07 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut his central point is still valid however many semantic triple loops you perform.
He obviously hasn’t understood the big bang theory very well:
[b]…earth. And they have found that all this happened as a PRODUCT of forces they cannot hope to discover ,…(my emphasis)
He obviously has not understood the implications of the concept of there being no “before” the big bang;
it means it didn’t happen “as a PRODUCT of forces” b cause” implies "no supernatural cause" (as well as implying "no non-supernatural cause" ).[/b]
If existence has no cause then he's right isn't he. We have no hope of explaining it or understanding it. The only way we could understand it would be if we found a reason for existence to exist . But if we found the "why?" of existence then we would have fouind the cause , so it's a logical paradox.
Just because you say that there was no "before" the Big Bang (which may or may not be true) doesn't solve it. The question "why?" still remains. You could say "there is no why" but does that really solve the mystery?
07 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…If existence has no cause then he's right isn't he. We have no hope of explaining it or understanding it. …
But his central point is still valid however many semantic triple loops you perform.
If existence has no cause then he's right isn't he. We have no hope of explaining it or understanding it. The only way we could understand it would be if we found a reason for existence to exist . But if we found the "why?" of existence then we would have fouind t ill remains. You could say "there is no why" but does that really solve the mystery?
We have no hope of “explaining the cause” for there is no cause BUT we do have hope of “understanding it” in the sense that we can deduce various physical properties (such as the total amount of energy and the rate of expansion etc) at the big bang. There is no “logical paradox” between the two here.
I can understand the various properties of an avalanche (such as speed, size etc) even if I didn’t know what caused it -no paradox there -and GIVEN the fact that knowing the cause of an avalanche doesn’t tell me about its properties anyway, what difference would it make if there was “no cause“? -I mean, applying this to the big bang, what is the logical paradox between understanding the properties of the big bang and there being no cause to the big bang? -the answer is that there is no paradox.
…Just because you say that there was no "before" the Big Bang (which may or may not be true) doesn't solve it. The question "why?" still remains. You could say "there is no why" but does that really solve the mystery?…
It is basic logic that an unanswered question that presumes something to be so when it isn’t so is not a mystery. If you asked “why is the Earth is covered in ghosts?” and claim this to be a “mystery“ I would claim “there are no ghosts” and therefore the question of “why is the Earth is covered in ghosts?” is not a “mystery” and then you could not rationally argue that “but to say “there are no ghosts” does that really “solve” the mystery of “WHY it is covered in ghosts?” “ -and no “mystery” means no “unsolved mystery”.
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI was hoping to reserve this thread for quotations only of others. If you have a representative quotation which expresses your thoughts, by all means put it up here.
He obviously hasn’t understood the big bang theory very well:
[b]…earth. And they have found that all this happened as a PRODUCT of forces they cannot hope to discover ,…(my emphasis)
He obviously has not understood the implications of the concept of there being no “before” the big bang;
it means it didn’t happen “as a PRODUCT of forces” b cause” implies "no supernatural cause" (as well as implying "no non-supernatural cause" ).[/b]
08 Sep 08
3 edits
Another quotation of Robert Jastrow - founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Author of God and the Astronomers:
"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 product 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."
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"There is No Four-Term Fallacy in the Theistic Argument:
He obviously hasn’t understood the big bang theory very well:
[b]…earth. And they have found that all this happened as a PRODUCT of forces they cannot hope to discover ,…(my emphasis)
He obviously has not understood the implications of the concept of there being no “before” the big bang;
it means it didn’t happen “as a PRODUCT of forces” b cause” implies "no supernatural cause" (as well as implying "no non-supernatural cause" ).[/b]
Some non theists have insisted that the argument for theism equivocates on the term cause. They insist that the word cause in the premises means "finite cause" but in the conclusion it means "infinite cause." But the meaning of the same term may not be broader or different in the conclusion than in the premises. Therefore, the conclusion of an infinite God is invalidly drawn from the premises of the argument. However, this objection misses the meaning of "cause" in the premises. "Cause" in the premise simply means "that actuality (whether finite or infinite) which produces an effect." In other words, in the premises it is an open question as to whether it is an infinite or a finite cause. But as it turns out, the conclusion demands a not-finite kind of cause which is causing everything else that exists .... For every finite thing needs a cause; hence, the first cause must be not-finite. If it were finite, then it too would need a cause. But since it does not have a cause it must be a not-finite (i.e. infinite) cause of all things. Therefor, an infinite cause is possible in the premises but necessitated by the conclusion of the argument. No four-term fallacy has occured."
[ Norman Giesler, Christian Apologetics, Baker Book House, pg. 255 ]
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisteryou don't understand the concept of big bang. there was nothing before it because there was no time. so you cannot say "the forces that led to the big bang" because there were no forces that led to the big bang. it is T0 of our universe.
But his central point is still valid however many semantic triple loops you perform.
If existence has no cause then he's right isn't he. We have no hope of explaining it or understanding it. The only way we could understand it would be if we found a reason for existence to exist . But if we found the "why?" of existence then we would have fouind t ...[text shortened]... ill remains. You could say "there is no why" but does that really solve the mystery?
as such, one cannot possibly say "i found proof of what was before the big bang" because there was no before. the time line begins there.
your why is irrelevant from a scientific point of view. of course you could guess but that is not science. and that is why that astronomer was wrong.
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill1, What do the terms “finite cause" and "infinite cause" mean? -I have no idea.
"There is No Four-Term Fallacy in the Theistic Argument:
Some non theists have insisted that the argument for theism equivocates on the term [b]cause. They insist that the word cause in the premises means "finite cause" but in the conclusion it means "infinite cause." But the meaning of the same term may not be broader or different in the occured."
[ Norman Giesler, Christian Apologetics, Baker Book House, pg. 255 ][/b]
2, Is there any logical premise for the belief that whatever begins to exist, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, must have a cause?
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou have no hope of "explaining the cause" in science, that does not
[b]…If existence has no cause then he's right isn't he. We have no hope of explaining it or understanding it. …
We have no hope of “explaining the cause” for there is no cause BUT we do have hope of “understanding it” in the sense that we can deduce various physical properties (such as the total amount of energy and the rate of expansion etc) ...[text shortened]... tery of “WHY it is covered in ghosts?” “ -and no “mystery” means no “unsolved mystery”.[/b]
mean there is no hope of "explaining the cause" only that cannot be
done while using currect methods in science. After talking to you guys
about this for a little while you really do jump through some major
hoops in avoiding a cause outside of the universe itself. The whole
notion of an event with no cause is not logical either, neither is the
ever exspanding universe that isn't moving into new areas, neither
is having an event and telling me there was no before, and so on!
Logical paradoxes is all you have!
Kelly
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou want to prove to me there was no time before the big bang,
you don't understand the concept of big bang. there was nothing before it because there was no time. so you cannot say "the forces that led to the big bang" because there were no forces that led to the big bang. it is T0 of our universe.
as such, one cannot possibly say "i found proof of what was before the big bang" because there was no before. the time ...[text shortened]... course you could guess but that is not science. and that is why that astronomer was wrong.
if you have something go BANG, then before the BANG it simply was,
meaning it was without a BANG then some time passed before the
BANG! How long was it there, where did it come from?
Kelly
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI believe God always was, is, and will be. That puts God before all
1, What do the terms “finite cause" and "infinite cause" mean? -I have no idea.
2, Is there any logical premise for the belief that whatever begins to exist, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, must have a cause?
things.
Kelly
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis Thread I have reserved for Quotations of others (as far as I am concerned). If I find a quotation close to what you request, I'll include it.
1, What do the terms “finite cause" and "infinite cause" mean? -I have no idea.
2, Is there any logical premise for the belief that whatever begins to exist, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, must have a cause?
I think you could include quotations which express a different point of view.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…After talking to you guys about this for a little while you really do jump through some major hoops in AVOIDING a cause outside of the universe itself.
You have no hope of "explaining the cause" in science, that does not
mean there is no hope of "explaining the cause" only that cannot be
done while using currect methods in science. After talking to you guys
about this for a little while you really do jump through some major
hoops in avoiding a cause outside of the universe itself. The whole
notion of ...[text shortened]... d telling me there was no before, and so on!
Logical paradoxes is all you have!
Kelly
. … (my emphasis)
How can I be “AVOIDING” something that I don’t believe exists?