Post Reply
Page 13 of 33  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Scientist Solves "The Mystery of the Universe": It Came From Nothing
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:00AM #121
Utilyan
Posts: 6,010

If this nothing can be pointed out, its no longer nothing, but something, this nothing.


 


Like we do nothing all the time.    Just look at the point of one event to the next.  if your sitting there is nothing between you and your chaire. 


Within the plane of existence of this computer everything seen is made of pixels.......


Ultimately everything YOU see is a brain signal sent to your eyes via retina or whatever......


You never actually see anything..... you get a brain signal.....   thats the truth... 


on your own.....what?


Its like if I asked you folks how to make a fist.     You can't convey or communicate how to fire off the proper brain signals to make a fist.


You just "know" how.......


 


We ignore the very basic foundations of information we recieve.    People just figure on direct/naive realism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:44AM #122
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:28PM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:24PM, Kwinters wrote:


No there is a lot of people saying things that make no sense if you understand science.


And the links are intended to provide educational material for people who are interested in learning about things instead of making up stuff that makes no sense.




Are you saying God "makes no sense"?




The belief in a loving concerned active and vengeful god makes no sesne




Yes, (as in yes, I know you think that) and I cannot for the life of me find Zacharias' theodicy that you mentioned on another thread.  What I DO have, however, is something a bit like it--that this is the best of all possible worlds.


I'll start that thread on it in a bit.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:47AM #123
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:07PM, Justme333 wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:45PM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Justme333 wrote:


I was taught somewhere that there should be no disagreement between creationism and the big-bang theory because they can co-exist.  If not, it is either because of faulty science or faulty theology.  Do not know that much about the science part, but I can tackle the theology part. My Church teaches that scripture does not prove how the heavens were made, but instead shows how to go to heaven. So I am not seeing a conflict here.



Justme




Indeed--in fact, the Big Bang theory was developed by a Christian.



ETA:  Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.


(wiki--more)




Indeed, but I was unsure what to call the non-creationism theory, the phrase I originally learned used evolution (should be no disagreement between creationism and evolution), but did not see that term used in reading through this thread.  Regardless, I do not see a conflict between the two sides.


Justme




I don't either.


I think (along with JPII's Encyclical Fides et Ratio) that the two are not just compatible but essential--just like the OP/subsequent posts (and comments from others) imply.


The Pope posits that faith and reason are not only compatible, but essential together. Faith without reason, he argues, leads to superstition. Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:49AM #124
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:52PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


Curious that I was browsing a book last night, and the author mentioned how we get something from nothing.


"In the 1980's, the puzzle of the source of cosmic energy was solved. It was discovered that the total energy of the universe might actually be zero, and it was therefore really a case of nothing-for-nothing. The reason the universe can have zero energy and still have 10(to the power of 50) tons of matter is that the gravitational field has negative energy--a peculair concept related to what I have to say below. The sums show that the two contributions can exactly cancel to leave zero. A convincing mechanism was found to explain how positive energy was channeled into matter, and an equal quantity of negative energy went into the gravitational field. So, in effect, all the cosmic matter was actually created for free!"


from The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life by Paul Davies, 1999, pgs 61,62


sdp 




Yes, Davies (himself a physicist):


An opinion piece published in the New York Times[2] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."[2] The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed.[3] While atheists Richard Dawkins[4] and Victor J. Stenger[5] have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others, including the John Templeton Foundation have praised his work.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:53AM #125
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Kwinters wrote:


'It’s often said that you can’t get something from nothing. And while this may be true for most practical applications of your life, it isn’t true for our physical Universe.'




But nothing isn't literally speaking nothing - it is something. So "You can get something from nothing" really says the same thing as "You can get something from something".


James




Right!


Not even in just philosophy...


Some would consider the study of "nothing" to be foolish, a typical response of this type is voiced by Giacomo Casanova (1725–1798) in conversation with his landlord, one Dr. Gozzi, who also happens to be a priest...


However, "nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.


but physics:


In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether serving as the transmission medium for propagating light waves.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:56AM #126
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744


btw, it's fairly obvious that some here didn't recognize that the author of Krauss's book review in the NYT is himself a physicist (so it's simply impossible to say "what science says is" in an unqualified way):



David Z Albert, Ph.D., is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his B.S. in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri.[1] Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.


Prof. Albert has published two books (Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992) and Time and Chance (2000) ) and numerous articles on quantum mechanics. His books are both praised and criticized for their informal, conversational style, but he is routinely credited by both fan and critic as having a talent for communicating difficult, highly abstract concepts in ways that are accessible to the lay science reader.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 8:47AM #127
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:41PM, Adelphe wrote:



If you watched it [2  hours of Krauss and Dawkins] and understood it, it should be a simple matter to summarize it.





I listened to the vast majority of it, and it was very disturbing. 


They continually argued that for example a teacher that teaches the book, but doesn't believe it fully in their heart and mind should be fired. Or a doctor who believes in ID should lose all his patients.


Writing my cousin is a monkey on the test is not good enough.  If they could determine you don't believe it to your core, they'd mark your answer wrong.


And ironically, these guys probably speak disparagingly of the Inquisition...


There was a moment when Krauss found some common ground with religion and Dawkins immediately objected.  Dawkins believes there is no common ground between faith and what he believes is the Truth. His purpose therefore seems to be at all costs to stay on the opposite side of that fence.



So you can see why there aren't many scientific researchers that would admit to being a person of faith.  They'd be ridiculed, not promoted, not published.






‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:17AM #128
Paladinsf
Posts: 3,660

Addie, ole girl, your search skills are declining along with your memory.


Here:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0



If you began @ 1:55 you get his "analysis."


As for his "personhood" theory, it rests on the UNspoken assumption that I myself CANNOT w/o reference to anything or anybody define for MYSELF what I am worth to ME.


BS, piled on  his “God” bun. And it has to be that way. Unless he makes that assumption, his entire argument – and the belief in supernatural religion –is bogus.


I do NOT need to have some eternal agent force or imaginary being to fill me with "personhood." It comes as standard equipment.


 

The World is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe.
The belief in supernatural religion will kill us all if we don't outgrow it.

When I first read "End of Faith" I thought Sam went too far. The more I read and listen to these "believers" the more I wonder if maybe he wasn't right after all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:33AM #129
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:17AM, Paladinsf wrote:


Addie, ole girl, your search skills are declining along with your memory.


Here:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0



If you began @ 1:55 you get his "analysis."


As for his "personhood" theory, it rests on the UNspoken assumption that I myself CANNOT w/o reference to anything or anybody define for MYSELF what I am worth to ME.


BS, piled on  his “God” bun. And it has to be that way. Unless he makes that assumption, his entire argument – and the belief in supernatural religion –is bogus.


I do NOT need to have some eternal agent force or imaginary being to fill me with "personhood." It comes as standard equipment.


 




(btw (and thanks, too), I copied your post onto the "Best Possible World" thread as a "collection" of theodicies as this is more related to that topic rather than this)

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:39AM #130
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:47AM, Ed.W wrote:


I listened to the vast majority of it, and it was very disturbing. 


They continually argued that for example a teacher that teaches the book, but doesn't believe it fully in their heart and mind should be fired. Or a doctor who believes in ID should lose all his patients.



Wow.  You know, this seems to be the attitude over on the bible/dino thread.  Not really this attitude or that strong but to my mind related--you almost can't do your job as a scientist in secular society IF you believe in YEC or creationism, etc.


No wonder I have such trouble understanding that--it's really a belief and not just an argument!



Writing my cousin is a monkey on the test is not good enough.  If they could determine you don't believe it to your core, they'd mark your answer wrong.


And ironically, these guys probably speak disparagingly of the Inquisition...



Indeed--bet you can find them commenting on that somewhere.


Scary.



There was a moment when Krauss found some common ground with religion and Dawkins immediately objected.  Dawkins believes there is no common ground between faith and what he believes is the Truth. His purpose therefore seems to be at all costs to stay on the opposite side of that fence.


So you can see why there aren't many scientific researchers that would admit to being a person of faith.  They'd be ridiculed, not promoted, not published.




Exactly.  I admire those who do, however, and take their lumps.  I admire them a lot.


btw, I don't think that fact is insignificant in some of the polls we often see that most scientists are atheists.  Many aren't going to take the tiniest chance that they'll be "found out" as a person of faith.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 13 of 33  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook