Originally posted by scottishinnzSo, why can the universe not be eternal, having existed for all time, yet time be finite? SCOTTY
So, why can the universe not be eternal, having existed for all time, yet time be finite?
The answer, I fear, will be that you don't like it, rather than anything of substance.
THe universe could be eternal but eternal means without beginning or end and infinite and permanent. If the universe is finite in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it? The universe seems to fail one of the conditions of eternity in that it appears to have a beginning.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat a load of horse crap you download onto our screens at every possibility.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Man, we didn't even know about continental drift, the structure or function of DNA, and most certainly hadn't come up with the Big Bang theory in 1933.
So, what's your point again?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does the fact that there are many things YET to be discovered that we have know present day knowl ...[text shortened]... out. It has little bearing on the subject of the universe's beginning and expansion.[/b]
Don't forget to wipe after your next dump.
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
Originally posted by jaywillRubbish,
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then he's not an agnostic. He believes that supernatural forces are at work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Baloney.
By his own admittion he is an agnostic. And that means that he doesn't KNOW if there is a God or not.
"When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill o ...[text shortened]... universe had a cause.
Other objections raised I will attempt to deal with latter.
If he believes supernatural forces are at work. he is neither a scientist, nor a agnostic (an unnatural grouping anyway) not an atheist.
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually, my definition is internally coherent, yet yours......
So, why can the universe not be eternal, having existed for all time, yet time be finite? SCOTTY
THe universe could be eternal but eternal means without beginning or end and infinite and permanent. If the universe is finite in time or only been around for a finite amount of time then it can't be eternal can it? The universe seems to fail one of the conditions of eternity in that it appears to have a beginning.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rubbish,
If he believes supernatural forces are at work. he is neither a scientist, nor a agnostic (an unnatural grouping anyway) not an atheist.
If he believes supernatural forces are at work. he is neither a scientist, nor a agnostic (an unnatural grouping anyway) not an atheist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Robert Jastrow is not a scientist? The former director of the Mount Wilson Observatory is not a scientist?
So the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies is not a scientist?
Scientists like Eddington and Jastrow who mentioned "supernatural forces" realized that all natural forces along with all nature were produced in the Big Bang.
By definition then since the Big Bang is the scientifically accepted beginning point of natural laws, nature, time, space, and matter, what else can they call the forces at work outside of the Big Bang but "SUPER - natural"?
Looks like Jastrow the founder of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies is a scientist and you don't understand about the Big Bang.
So a scientist by definition MUST be an athiest? Yes or No?
So a scientist must not believe in supernatural forces? Yes or No?
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What a load of horse crap you download onto our screens at every possibility.
Don't forget to wipe after your next dump.
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
What a load of horse crap you download onto our screens at every possibility.
Don't forget to wipe after your next dump.
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is our little potty mouth scotty getting desperate now to fall back on ad homs?
Actually Ptolemy's [not "Potelmy" Oh MOST knowledgeable scientist !!] ... Ptolemy's mathematics about the solar system were quite rigorous even though he was incorrect. I had a science teacher tell me that people underestimate the sophistication of Ptolemy's mathematical proofs for the earth being the center of the solar system. He was just wrong.
How come no chorus from you "Oh, that's how science works" ?
Anyway, I didn't download. I copied by hand manually.
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. I objected to the notion that God was not a part of the subset 'everything.'
Nemesio
No. I objected to the notion that God was not a part of the subset 'everything.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The premise that I wrote did not simply say "Everything".
The premise I wrote states "Everything that had a beginning".
What do you think of Scotty saying that Robert Jastrow cannot be a scientist?
1 edit
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's a strawman dodge to avoid dealing with the argument.
Go knock down your strawman about Potelmy [sic] and Mars. That should be easier for you.
Attention any poster :
Does anyone out there have any knowledge of this scotty guy's credentials as a scientist ?
He says Robert Jastrow can't be a scientist.
Anyone know the science credentials of this poster ??
Originally posted by jaywillIf a person chooses mysticism over logic and reason then, in my opinion they may do science as an occupation, but they are not a good scientist.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
If he believes supernatural forces are at work. he is neither a scientist, nor a agnostic (an unnatural grouping anyway) not an atheist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Robert Jastrow is not a scientist? The former director of the Mount Wilson Observatory is not a scientist?
So the founder of NASA's God ...[text shortened]... st? Yes or No?
So a scientist must not believe in supernatural forces? Yes or No?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillAh yes, sorry, a typo whilst drunk. It happens, you know.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What a load of horse crap you download onto our screens at every possibility.
Don't forget to wipe after your next dump.
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is our little potty mouth s how science works" ?
Anyway, I didn't download. I copied by hand manually.[/b]
I don't disagree that Ptolemy's model was a "pretty good description" of the universe. However, it wasn't good enough to explain the transits of Jupiter's moons when the data was noted, and had to be dumped. There is nothing wrong with that. And yes, it is how science works - when we find data that our models are wrong, we fix them.
[edit; had Galileo seen the evidence, then ascribed it to magic, that's be the equivalent of what Jastrow is saying.]
Originally posted by jaywillI have a BSc in Biology from the University of Dundee, and a PhD and honorary Masters from the University of Aberdeen in Plant Science. Happy?
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point was, your entire argument is similar to asking Potelmy about about transits if Mars - the data didn't exist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's a strawman dodge to avoid dealing with the argument.
Go knock down your strawman about Potelmy [sic] and Mars. That should be easier for you.
Attenti ...[text shortened]... t Jastrow can't be a scientist.
Anyone know the science credentials of this poster ??[/b]
Originally posted by jaywill
The premise I wrote states [b]"Everything that had a beginning".[/b]
Okay. Then God had a beginning.
Either that or my objection stands, because you are claiming that God is not a part of the set
containing 'everything.'
What do you think of Scotty saying that Robert Jastrow cannot be a scientist?
Well, I would only submit that he is not an agnostic. (I'm not sure that scotty has concluded that
he isn't a scientist.) He has concluded that supernatural did in fact create the universe. This is a
statement of belief which contradicts his claim of not knowing anything about it. He may be agnostic
to whether this impetus is a Christian God or whether some other supernatural force, but the quotation
doesn't permit an examination of this.
We're agnostic about a lot of things. For example, I bet you're agnostic about whether I had eggs
for breakfast this morning or whether it rained where my sister lives because you have no knowledge
about me that would help you answer these questions. 'Agnostic' means 'no knowledge.'
His claim to agnosis, as it were, is belied by his assertion that he has concluded that supernatural forces
drove the universe into being.
Nemesio