Deception of Big Bang Theory

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I don't think its boring...my point is that it is possible for someone to believe in the tenets of science and a god/creator/Moomins...thats all.
    I'm sure that scientists will develop novel theorem to account for gaps in knowledge whilst believers in a god/creator will change their ideology to accommodate this new understanding.
    It should also be acknowledged that as religious ideologies show variation so do scientific ideologies...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    It's quite possible to be both a scientist and a member of a faith. Just don't mix them or their methods.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Exactly...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    The Big Bang theory was postulated by a Roman Catholic priest, and should properly be called LemaƮtre's Theory.
     
  8. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Thanks Spidergoat...this is what I've been trying to get at for the last few posts...
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
  10. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Totally - their debate should be with scientists within their faith....not outside it. I suspect that they have lost the debate within their faith and have made feeble attempts to discredit science as a whole. It didn't work then (Galileo) and it won't work now.
     
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    And this is a problem. When one adds constraints to science (i.e. morals, or an accepted woeld-view), one is no longer doing science.
     
  12. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Totally - science isn't about fitting facts to theory its about testing the null hypothesis...
     
  13. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Not an honest one - of either stripe.

    Science is not a body of knowledge. It's a very specific and disciplined way of looking at the world. If you live by religion yet claim a scientific approach, you are lying to someone, not only yourself, and if you live by science and claim a god exists, then you are clearly lying to someone.

    Either way, you are a liar and a fraud. You can't ever say "I believe in god" and be an honest scientist at the same time.
     
  14. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I would like to qualify the above by adding: That, hypothetically, if the scientific method did find that an 'organism' of some description had created the BB e.g. it laid an egg - then a scientist who believed had originally believed that the BB had been created by an autonomous organism would be proved to be both a believer and scientist without contradiction.
    It is the denier of this possibility who is in contradiction.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    super---

    I have heard many athiest fundamentalists use this argument before, but it is not true. The rub is in the definition of what god is and what god does. (Go to Cosmicvariance.com and read some posts by Sean Carroll, who is a brilliant cosmologist and an evangelical athiest.) There is a fine line, and there are many great scientists in history and today who are theists of some ilk or another. An honest scientist will not let his world-view color his science---this is the difference. But you (and Dr. Carroll I'm sure) will disagree with me.

    And Zen, I don't think God can ever be tested or proved---this is strictly a question of faith. If one could prove God, then what is the point in faith?
     
  16. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    But the point is that you cannot be sure that science will not do this.
     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Well Ben, I'm sure you are partially right - that there are some great scientists in history and today who are theists of some ilk or another. My stance though is that they are short on integrity and are hypocrites. How can you devote yourself to the discipline of science, which is, above all, about doing everything in your power to not fool yourself into thinking you have the correct take on things, then go on to espouse the existence of any kind of supernatural entity?
     
  18. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    But at one level any prediction about causality prior to BB is a valid guess until evidence to contrary. A theist scientist might see some form of creator/organism as a feasible scientific explanation...organisms exist at many levels of scale on Earth...why not elsewhere in the scientific universe?
    Surely this is good science?
     
  19. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    No. I never deny the possibility of a primordial plasma egg-laying god. That is a looonnggg way from the defenseless and intellectually bankrupt position of saying that I believe in a primordial plasma egg-laying god.

    You see the difference, right? Belief in anything that claims a real effect on the cosmos, without some proof or strong evidence, is just silly. Why not just take the null position?

    I can postulate any number of causes of the universe, from gods, to alien supercomputer simulations. Why is one any more or less worth ridicule than the other? (because, for sure, a god person will surely ridicule my alien supercomputer simulation "belief").
     
  20. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Yes. These are not scientist/theists. The people I believe we are speaking of are those who believe in "GOD". Not some potential non-supernatural cosmos-originating entity.

    I guarantee you that the vast majority of true scientists are not traditional theists. They will be more of the description you wrote.
     
  21. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I think the start of this dialectic concerned whether theism and science were mutually exclusive...you thought they were and I think they are not.

    If, using scientific method, an atheist discovers that the Moomin goddess laid an egg that created the BB, and in the course of this discovery adopts, without false belief and within the agreed tenets of science, a theist perspective -then science and theism are not mutually exclusive.
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Of course it is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think that perhaps such a strict interpretaiton of what it means to be a scientist would leave very few "real scientists" in the world. You must accept that anyone who poses any precondition on science is not a scientist---that is, one must deny all other values in the pursuit of knowledge vis a vis the scientific method. For example, there is nowhere in the world where it is acceptable to carry out tests of certain types on living human beings. Such a moral code is in place because, as a society, we have chosen to bind science by a certain set of rules. There is a social contract, of sorts, between scientists and society---scientists are allowed to pursue science that will (hopefully) benefit mankind, and society supports that pursuit, purusant to the guidelines it has set. However, one cannot deny that forbidding such experiments on living humans impedes science from moving forward. Indeed, much of the intuition into the human organism was gained by allowing scientists to preform such inhumane experiments on living humans.

    You have arbitrarily chosen a line in the sand, called religion. You claim that if someone believes in God or a flying spaghetti monster, then they are not a true scientist. I claim that if someone doesn't believe that it is ok to kill people in the name of knowledge, they cannot be a true scientist. I have chosen to set my own arbitrary limits on what defines "science" and "scientist".

    It's perfectly ok to have beliefs which temper your worldview---like a physicist that believes experimenting on animals is wrong. This says nothing of your contribution to science.
     
  23. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    That's not theism! Theism is the acceptance, with zero requirement for proof, of the existence of an almighty god.

    zen, you are confusing your ideas. What you describe is science. Moomin is no longer a theistic goddess if Bob the atheist scientist discovers Moomin and can unequivocally demonstrate her existence. Moomin then becomes a part of the standard model of physics (well, maybe not standard...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) and Bob is still in no way a theist.

    A theist is defined by his/her faith.
     

Share This Page