3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz[/b]
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".
Once a scientist chooses mysticism over logic, they allow "magic" into their explanation repertoire. This debases everything - no explanation is beyond "goddunit". And how do we even know it was God? Why not Allah, or the FSM? The distinction is abs rld.
2 Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More backpeddle. Hey, you're an athiest. You don't believe in worth ANY God, period - personal or non-personal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Once a scientist chooses mysticism over logic, they allow "magic" into their explanation repertoire. This debases everything - no explanation is beyond "goddunit". And how do we even know it was God? Why not Allah, or the FSM? The distinction is absolutely arbitrary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"SUPERNATURAL FORCES"[/b ] were at work is what the man said in the quotation that I used:
[b]"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
He didn't mention Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, or God, did he?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, before Big Bang theory was formulated it was impossible to understand where everything came from without God.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now we're after the Big Bang and you're not doing a great job of explaining where everything came from.
Instead you've resorted to semantic games to make it hard to pin you down on whether your universe is finite, infinite, eternal, or what not. I guess you want a little bit of everything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
And the church was very strong in the past. It would be ludicrous to judge, for example, Newton or Hooke by today's standards. However, I'm doubting that Jastrow believes in "God" in anything like the way that you choose to think of this mythical beast.
++++++++++++++++++++
He said "supernatural forces".
Ad homs against God don't bulster your rebuttal much.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In fact, he doesn't mention God at all.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You jumped to the conclusion that he mentioned God, not me.
I quoted him as saying supernatural forces had been scientifically proved to exist. How else could we account for the Big Bang? That was his point.
+++++++++++++++++
He says "supernatural" forces. If that is taken to mean forces outside those of nature, and the first 2 definitions that answers.com give would certainly agree with that (see below), then technically he is right,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks. Some progress. From Jastrow being NO scientist, to Jastrow not being a good scientist, to Jastrow technically being right.
Good progress Scotty.
++++++++++++++++++++++
even if he phrased it badly (in my opinion). The forces at work during the big bang are certainly not the ones at work now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore the universe had a cause.
Possible cause - Supernatural Forces. You now agree the man was technically right.
NOW, what were the supernatural forces?
Vishnu?
Yahweh?
Allah?
Something Else?
Now you can speculate what was the supernatural force.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Supernatual
1 Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2 Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks, but I got to know that already. You're the one that had a knee jerk negative reaction against it.
Originally posted by jaywillBy posting a lot and saying little I guess you try to fool people into thinking you know what you're talking about.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More backpeddle. Hey, you're an athiest. You don't believe in worth ANY God, period - personal or non-personal.[/b]
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Once a scientist choose ...[text shortened]... You're the one that had a knee jerk negative reaction against it.
So what? Even if he said he believed that some type of "greater than what we understand as natural forces" (which by very definition must have occurred that the start of the universe) were in operation at the start of the universe, that doesn't prove a single thing. It certainly doesn't prove what you are trying to get it to prove.
I disagree with the man. There, I said it. The fact that he is the director of anything has no relevance as to the correctness of his on his opinion on the unknowable.
But fine, continue on attacking something I wrote whilst drunk. That's fine. If you cannot debate me sober, that hardly says anything good about you.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz[/b]
by the way.
You're an idiot.
I published a paper this month. What did you do?
++++++++++++++++++
by the way.
You're an idiot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[/b ]
[b]Finally, you're bringing out your stronger and more rational arguments and reasonings - name calling.
We're all impressed Scotty. Pace yourself Scotty. Don't concentrate too hard.
++++++++++++++++++
I published a paper this month. What did you do?
+++++++++++++++++++++
I produce CD albums of original songs. Been doing it for years.
But then I don't claim to be the superior scientist around here. You're the one bragging that Robert Jastrow doesn't come up to your standard of a good scientist.
Hey, I said up front, in science, I'm a layman. Unfortunetly for you, a layman with some common sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI nearly missed this.
[bLooks like Jastrow the founder of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies is a scientist and you don't understand about the Big Bang.[/b]
Your entire argument is based on a false premise.
In 1933, when this quote was taken, Jastrow COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE BIG BANG BECAUSE THE CONCEPT HADN'T BEEN INVENTED YET!!!!
He's talking about a defunct theory. Not the Big Bang.
Originally posted by jaywillI never claimed to be superior. I'm nothing special. However, when one accepts mysticism as an explanation for empirical data, one losses the right to call oneself a scientist. It's just that simple.
++++++++++++++++++
by the way.
You're an idiot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[/b ]
[b]Finally, you're bringing out your stronger and more rational arguments and reasonings - name calling.
We're all impressed Scotty. Pace yourself Scotty. Don't concentrate too hard.
++++++++++++++++++
I published a pa ...[text shortened]... front, in science, I'm a layman. Unfortunetly for you, a layman with some common sense.
Originally posted by jaywillNeither did Einstein.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More backpeddle. Hey, you're an athiest. You don't believe in worth ANY God, period - personal or non-personal.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHad little problem in getting you to back off your position that Robert Jastrow was no scientist, to a not good scientist, to being technically right.
By posting a lot and saying little I guess you try to fool people into thinking you know what you're talking about.
So what? Even if he said he believed that some type of "greater than what we understand as natural forces" (which by very definition must have occurred that the start of the universe) were in operation at the start of the universe, tha nk. That's fine. If you cannot debate me sober, that hardly says anything good about you.
Superior debater that you are, that wasn't suppose to happen Scotty.
6 edits
Another interesting quote from Robert Jastrow, former director of Mount Wilson Observatory and founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies:
"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe has a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind- supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."
[God and the Astronomers, R. Jastrow, pg 16)
Some athiests just can't stand it when some agnostic scientist is willing to follow the evidence where ever it may lead. In this case Jastrow, an agnostic, feels the evidence of the Big Bang leads to "supernatural forces".
And we now have an athiest who concedes he is technically correct.
Enter the philosopher or theologian or common thinking everyday joe - what or Who was the Supernatural Force?
What or Who then was the Cause of the Beginning of the Universe???
Not to be too trite, but how about "Somebody Bigger than You and I"?
Possibility?
Originally posted by jaywillyeah, you're such a hero picking off drunk people's arguments.
Had little problem in getting you to back off your position that Robert Jastrow was no scientist, to a not good scientist, to being technically right.
Superior debater that you are, that wasn't suppose to happen Scotty.
I still maintain though, that if his argument is that mysticism is an acceptable alternative to logic, he's not a good scientist.
However, after re-reading what he said whilst sober, I don't believe that's what he was saying at all, and that you, and the source you got it from, are misrepresenting his position, the way you tried to misrepresent Einstein's.
Originally posted by jaywillI only concede that his being technically correct depends on the definition of "supernatural".
Another interesting quote from [b]Robert Jastrow, former director of Mount Wilson Observatory and founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies:
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe has a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of t ...[text shortened]... o be too trite, but how about [b]"Somebody Bigger than You and I"?
Possibility?[/b]
Your definition, and what I believe mine and Jastrow's to be, are completely different.
Originally posted by jaywillNo I haven't. I've been perfectly clear.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, before Big Bang theory was formulated it was impossible to understand where everything came from without God.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now we're after the Big Bang and you're not doing a great job of explaining where everything came from.
Instead you've resorted to semantic games to make it hard to ...[text shortened]... universe is finite, infinite, eternal, or what not. I guess you want a little bit of everything.
You are the one trying to use fault logic (cause and effect in a non-causal situation (due to the lack of time)) to twist the situation to what you perceive you can use.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I never claimed to be superior. I'm nothing special. However, when one accepts mysticism as an explanation for empirical data, one losses the right to call oneself a scientist. It's just that simple.
I never claimed to be superior. I'm nothing special. However, when one accepts mysticism as an explanation for empirical data, one losses the right to call oneself a scientist. It's just that simple.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He followed the empirical evidence to its limit. Beyond that limit he says supernatural forces were at work. He says that has been scientifically proved.
Which is it? Is he technically RIGHT? Or does he lose the right to call himself a scientist?
Originally posted by jaywillHe followed the empirical evidence beyond its limit.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I never claimed to be superior. I'm nothing special. However, when one accepts mysticism as an explanation for empirical data, one losses the right to call oneself a scientist. It's just that simple.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He followed the empirical evidence to its limit. Beyond that limit he says supernat ...[text shortened]... Which is it? Is he technically RIGHT? Or does he lose the right to call himself a scientist?[/b]
The thing about the supernatural (standard definition of the word, Gods and the like) is that it's untestable. It is not scientifically provable.
If he uses the word "supernatural" to mean 'forces beyond those which we currently (in 1933) call natural', then his statement may reconcile itself, without God.
