[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Dennis Avery & S. Fred Singer: Climate Science Frauds
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 27 18:06:59 PDT 2008
I just don't see them as being more or less equal, though. As far as I
can tell empirically, God or the Creator or whatever appears to be made
up out of whole cloth. In that way, it doesn't differ in any meaningful
way from the creation stories of other past cultures. The Big Bang
theory, as unbelievable as it might be if someone told you what it was
and you'd never heard of it before, comes directly from observation and
evidence and the scientific method. It could very likely be wrong in
some or all of it's claims. It will take many more observations before
we'll know enough one way or the other. But at least it's got some
backing in reality.
Anyway, we're looking at this from different perspectives. I can see
how you might find them equal in terms of the suspension of disbelief
required to believe them. I just think that to do so you're belittling
all the hard work that has gone into cosmology in the past century.
Paul
g. crabtree wrote:
> "Why would God create an expanding Universe that appears to
> have expanded from a single point?"
>
> The mind of God is unknowable (at least to me) I suppose the most
> obvious reply would have to be, why not?
>
> Why would nature and physics collude to create everything there is
> from nothing at all and have it radiate outward from a single point?
>
> I have no problem with the theory and I'm relatively sure that the
> astronomers observations are correct. My point is that from the
> perspective of the event itself there is no difference in the amount
> of "willing suspension of disbelief" as to whether the event was a
> cosmic accident or the will of God. Did it go bang for no good reason
> or because it was part of a Deity's greater plan? Either way the
> outwardly observable phenomena would remain the same.
>
> The "Big Bang" is a lovely little theory as far as it goes but, there
> is no way it prove or disproves the existence of a Creator and the
> mental gymnastics required to buy into either seems to me to be more
> or less equal. (Actually, I find it much easier to imagine a
> purposeful Creator of the universe as opposed to a everything from
> nothing random event explanation but that's just me) Both require a
> leap of faith.
>
> g
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Rumelhart"
> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: "Nick Gier" <ngier at uidaho.edu>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Dennis Avery & S. Fred
> Singer: Climate Science Frauds
>
>
>> It appears that everything in the Universe is moving away from
>> everything else. Everything that is not local is red-shifted.
>> That's easily verifiable and observable. There are only two basic
>> reasons everything would be moving away from us. Either we are at
>> the exact center of the universe and everything is actually (for
>> whatever reason) moving away from us, or the entire thing is
>> expanding and everything is moving away from everything else like
>> raisins in bread as it expands in the oven move away from each
>> other. Since it's doubtful that we are that special here on the
>> outskirts of a forgotten arm of an average galaxy among billions to
>> be the Center of the Universe, then the universe must be expanding.
>> Something that is expanding will shrink when you go back in time.
>> The name "Big Bang" was given to this theory from an opponent of it,
>> who thought it absurd if you take it too far. The funny thing is, if
>> you assume that the Big Bang really did happen, it explains the ratio
>> of certain elements (which I link to below). As weird as it sounds,
>> it explains the observations the best.
>>
>> The theory itself cannot say anything meaningful about what happened
>> before time t=0, if that's even a valid question. It also doesn't
>> state that there was nothing at the beginning. It all had to be
>> there at the beginning for it to expand to where it is now.
>>
>> So, you are asked to compare the evidence against the framework of
>> the theory, not to simply believe that something came from nothing.
>> Those are completely different. It also doesn't say anything about
>> whether there was a "reason" it happened. Unless you believe that
>> God set everything up and kicked off the Big Bang (which does not
>> conflict with the theory), then the "certain observations" would
>> presumably be different. Why would God create an expanding Universe
>> that appears to have expanded from a single point?
>>
>> Do you think that astronomers have made incorrect observations? Can
>> you come up with a better theory that explains the evidence?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> g. crabtree wrote:
>>> This hardly seems to be a false dilemma at all. One side insists
>>> that out of nothing, an explosion occurred for no apparent reason at
>>> all and the universe was created. The other side professes that God
>>> said "bang" and the universe was created. The "certain observations"
>>> after the fact could/would remain the same. The big bang requires
>>> the suspension of disbelief adequate to buy into the notion of from
>>> nothing, everything.
>>> Creation requires the faith to believe in an all powerful deity
>>> that wanted the universe to exist for a reason.
>>> They both require a single belief for which there is no evidence.
>>> I know which way I'm betting.
>>> g
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Nick Gier <mailto:ngier at uidaho.edu>
>>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:09 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Dennis Avery & S. Fred
>>> Singer: Climate Science Frauds
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Great answer to Kai's false dilemma.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> At 06:01 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:
>>>> Kai Eiselein, Editor wrote:
>>>> > Actually both sides of this debate require suspension of belief.
>>>> >
>>>> Not really. The Big Bang theory doesn't try to answer the
>>>> question of
>>>> what happened before the singularity or what caused it to
>>>> explode. It's
>>>> just there to explain certain observations, such as why the
>>>> farther away
>>>> something is the greater it's redshift is, which it appears to do
>>>> really
>>>> well. For example, the theory predicts certain ratios for the
>>>> abundance
>>>> of certain elements as a by-product of the known state of the
>>>> universe
>>>> within the first twenty minutes of it's starting point, which
>>>> seems to
>>>> fit really closely with what we've observed.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
>>>>
>>>> So there's little suspension of disbelief required. You just
>>>> follow the
>>>> evidence, and don't worry about those kinds of questions (what
>>>> happened
>>>> before the Big Bang?) until you have some kind of framework you
>>>> can use
>>>> to address them.
>>>> As for a deity, you are asked to believe not just that the deity
>>>> wanted the universe to exist, but that it wanted to also make it
>>>> appear that the Big Bang also happened. How did this deity "want"
>>>> anything, before there was anything at all? How can it exist
>>>> outside of the universe? Where did it come from? How was it
>>>> created, or did it always exist?
>>>> A deity, on the other hand, requires a whole bunch of different
>>>> beliefs
>>>> for which there is no evidence, nor is it predictive in any
>>>> way. Fortunately, belief in that system requires belief with a
>>>> complete lack
>>>> of evidence (faith) and the assumption that no meaningful
>>>> predictions
>>>> can occur (God works in mysterious ways), so it all works out in
>>>> the end.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> <http://www.fsr.net%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
>>>>
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> "Truth is the summit of being; justice is the application of it to
>>> human affairs."
>>> --Ralph Waldo Emerson
>>>
>>> "Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings
>>> who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it."
>>> --Mohandas Gandhi
>>>
>>> "Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot
>>> be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying
>>> each part by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the
>>> whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is
>>> true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear
>>> cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal
>>> simply to the sum of its various parts." --Max Planck
>>>
>>> Nicholas F. Gier
>>> Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
>>> 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
>>> http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/home.htm
>>>
>>> <http://www.home.roadrunner.com/%7Enickgier/home.htm>208-882-9212/FAX
>>> 885-8950
>>> President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
>>> http://www.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ift.htm
>>>
>>> <http://www.roadrunner.com/%7Enickgier/ift.htm>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list