The True Origin of The Universe?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 9, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    If as you say dmoe, you are only Interested in the above and nothing else, why have you yourself, seen the need to quote Carl Sagan many times, even in the OP where you specifically say you are only interested in the above.
    You seem to be contravening your own subject matter.
    Taking all that into account, does that mean that what "origin" said at post 3 has some merit?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647



    In reply to your reflections on what you yourself posted about Carl Sagan, I have seen quite a few "Carl Sagan"debates with creationists and such, and like I said earlier, his approach was with the utmost kindness and certainly qualities that I do not have.....
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    this is what I mean, by his former wife Ann Druyan....
    And there were other instances of Carl’s remarkable persuasiveness. One was a great story of a so-called “creation scientist” who watched Carl testify at a hearing about creationism in schools. Carl testified for about four hours. It was somewhere in the South, I can't remember where. And six months later a letter came from the “creation scientist” expert who had also testified that day, saying that he had given up his daytime job and realized the error of what he was doing. It was only because Carl was so patient and so willing to hear the other person out. He did it with such kindness and then, very gently but without compromising, laid out all of the things that were wrong with what this guy thought was true. That is a lesson that I wish that all of us in our effort to promote skepticism could learn, because I know that very often the anger I feel when confronting this kind of thinking makes me want to start cutting off the other person. But to do so is to abandon all hope of changing minds.
    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ann_druyan_talks_about_science_religion/
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    I also think that the following from the same link illustrates his Atheism right up until the day he died

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.
    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ann_druyan_talks_about_science_religion/
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


    In your opinion, I can see how you are going to say the above is off topic...a bit pedantic though I think to push that issue, and of course it was in reply to your own rather lengthy off topic [by your own standards] OP.
    I also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man, to reflect on his true nature and ability.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    dmoe:

    I'm not sure what you mean by "Creation".

    Are you thinking of the biblical creation story, from Genesis? If so, then taken as a scientific account of the origins of the universe, the bible is demonstrably wrong. That is settled among scientists, though clearly not among all religious types.

    If your real question is whether there is room for God in the formation of the universe, then that is not a settled scientific question, and probably never will be. The best we can say right now is that it's looking increasing as if our universe is consistent with its having appeared without the necessity for a supernatural Creator.

    A lot of people think it's an important question because it changes fundamentally our conception of our universe. A universe that includes an all-powerful Creator is likely to be different in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being.

    On the wider question: what is achieved by finding out about anything that doesn't directly impact your life?

    I guess the question to ask is: don't you care about what is True?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    1.) - So...paddoboy, you fully comprehend and understand my "opinion"...

    2.) - So...paddoboy, would you care to elaborate on how you, paddoboy, "can see how" I, dmoe, am "going to say the above is off topic"?

    3.) - paddoboy, "pedant", or being "pedantic", is a very important part of Science and the Scientific Peer Review process. Science and the Scientific Peer Review process, is about : "correcting" even the smallest of "errors" ; paying very close "attention" to even the smallest of the "minor details".

    4.) - paddoboy, my OP was the "topic"...would you care to elaborate on exactly how the "topic of the OP" can be "off topic"?

    5.) - So...paddoboy, you "also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man, to reflect on his true nature and ability." ?
    May I humbly ask you, paddoboy : who would be "close(r) to the man" ; and who would be able "to reflect on his true nature and ability", any better, or with more knowledge of "his true nature and ability", than the man himself?

    paddoboy, I respectfully refer you to the following "excellent points", from the following "excellent Thread" : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    James R., have you read the OP? :
    James R., "Creation" - that which becomes manifest(verb) in reality by the actions of a "Creator(Deity)"

    James R., I am "thinking" of "Creation" in the same manner as expressed by Mr. Sagan - as I presented in the OP.


    James R., my "real question is" :
    ...

    James R., you state : "likely to be different".
    Would you care to "elaborate" on what those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" just might be?
    Would you care to "elaborate" on how those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" would be discerned?

    Good question, James R.!
    My answer, to that question, is probably along the same lines as Mr.Sagan's answer would have been - if the insight or opinion of his 3rd wife, Ann Druyan, is any indication :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10537.Ann_Druyan

    So...James R., my answer is : I was born very curious and inquisitive, therefore it is more important for me to gain true knowledge than it is to merely accept a belief

    James R., I find you asking me that question, in all honesty, to be somewhat personally "insulting"!
    James R., SciForums is supposed to to be a Science Forum. Science is about the search for, and establishment of, the absolute Truth.

    If I were to ask you : "James R., don't you care about what is True?"
    Would you, in all honesty, in any way, possibly consider that question, as somewhat "insulting" to you personally, James R.?

    ------------- An aside. -----------

    *** Note : Since you are available, James R., I, dmoe, fully concur with the following Request! ***
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-interpretation-is-the-one-that-s-right/page6
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Well dmoe, your inferences are correct, but the evidence of your past interactions, plus what you have already requested/demanded in this thread is on record...thus....

    Originally Posted by dumbest man on earth View Post
    The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?[/QUOTE]
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    then you say.....

    :shrug:
    But that's OK, dmoe, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of Carl Sagan, as you are now requesting.
    Mainly to clear the air about his obvious Atheism broadly speaking, and his wonderful way of tearing strips of the creationists and other God botherers and their supporters.


    dmoe, you are only partially correct. You need to remember that some individuals raise unnecessary pedantic matters like spelling mistakes, typographical errors etc, just as a means of diversion from some cold hard facts.
    Let's check out the definition....

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    pe·dan·tic adjective \pi-ˈdan-tik\
    1
    : of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
    2
    : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



    Apologies for my pedant dmoe, just trying to clear the air here somewhat.



    dmoe, I find that a rather curious pedantic remark.
    No one can question the closeness and bond between Carl and his wife when he died.
    When they lived they shared their passion of cosmology and the Universe with the world.
    Both Carl and Ann are and were Atheists in the broad sense of the definition.
    But Carl in his many debates, with religious folk and creationists, leaned over backwards to make sure it was seen that they were given a fair go. This may be mistaken for Agnosticism more then Atheism.
    Broadly speaking though, Carl [nor Ann] believed in any divine deity as normally and generally envisaged.
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    WIKI gives a Carl quote thus......
    The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    "

    Thank you dmoe. And yet most of our alternative hypothesis pushers, God botherers, conspiracy adherents and their supporters so often defy those points as well as the other 10.
    My advice though to you dmoe, is to look at all 12 points together and how they blend.
    The other Important thing in that excellent thread, is that these people I have just referred to, must realise that the incumbent theory or model, is logically and sensibly the default position.

    Now dmoe, you have a lot to consume there, which is generally not my style to post such lengthy stuff and comment on such pedantic matters.
    In my future posts to this thread, I will avoid the uneccesary pedant traps and stick to the main points.
    Which in my opinion, is like comparing chalk with cheese.
    Creationism and God are non scientific myths, while Evolution, both of the Universe and life, are true scientific disciplines.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    PS; dmoe

    I did ask you a couple of questions in post 20. Any chance of getting them answered?
     
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    paddoboy, your Post #20 :
    paddoboy, I did not claim that you attacked me!
    I posited an "if" (I essentially proposed a question) : "paddoboy if you do not realize that real proper Science is about Objective Observations ; Not Subjective Observations ; Nor ad hominem attacks :"

    Some examples of "Subjective Observations" and/or the use of "ad hominem attacks" can be found in your Posts : #2 ; #4 ; #5 ; #6 ; #8 ; #10 ; #17 ; #21 ; #25 ; And #29. Also #32 and #33. Also #34 ; #35 ; #36 ; and #37.

    paddoboy, "Real Eyes Realize Real Lies" means that Real Eyes Realize Real Lies!

    P.S. In your Post #17 :
    paddoboy, you seem to have inadvertently edited, or just possibly did not realize that you abruptly ended the "quote" in the middle of the Authors statement. :
    Here is the final part of that Authors Statement :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

    paddoboy, it was possibly just an oversight on your part.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2014
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    dmoe posted....

    Sure Einstein said that. He also said,
    " Imagination is more Important than knowledge"
    But I would bet my last dollar he said it to make known to others that Imagination is Important, as is Speculation and Innovation, and all actually go hand in hand with knowledge.
    In other words, Einstein knew that Imagination without knowledge is lame, and knowledge without Imagination is blind.

    What did he mean by the quote, you have quoted?.....
    Personally, I knew 100%, he was not inferring some almighty deity who created the Universe out of SFA....

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion. But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful. But first let me show you how, in that same essay, Einstein proposes what is essentially Stephen Jay Gould’s version of NOMA (Non-overlapping Magisteria). Gould’s idea (which was clearly not original) was that science and religion were harmonious because they had distinct but complementary tasks: science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe, while religion deals with human values, morals, and meanings. Here’s Einstein’s version (my emphasis):

    at.......
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It's worth noting at this time, how much religion has learnt from science.
    You do realise that the Catholic church recognises the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution, and also the evolution of life itself.
    This means in actual fact, that they admit the bible is essentially a great big book of fairy tales.
    In fact as also most science adherents here would know, it was a Belgian Catholic priest, Father George La-Maitre that first hypothesised the BB.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647




    So are we discussing your first claim, or the second?
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    That Link Leads to a "Log In" Page!!


    This may possibly help you paddoboy (highlight by dmoe) :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://cerf-institute.org/2012/10/30/albert-einstein-on-science-and-religion/

    paddoboy, the quote : "A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." by Albert Einstein, is culled from the above (I highlighted it, just for you, paddoboy!) paragraphs of Mr. Einstein's presentation.

    I quoted quite a bit to "show context" - but there is more at the Link.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Not sure what you are trying to prove dmoe.
    Why not be up front and inform us of your beliefs and philosophy of life.


    The link works fine.....
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted

    “Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
    I have no quarrel with the claimed contribution of science to religion: helping test ways to achieve one’s goals. Einstein, however, neglects another contribution of science to religion: disproving its truth statements. Darwin did a good job of that!

    But Einstein errs again by claiming that “the aspiration toward truth and understanding. . . springs from the sphere of religion.” Perhaps he conceives “religion” here as a form of profound curiosity about the universe beyond oneself. But he’s certainly not seeing religion as most people understand it. Why couldn’t he simply say that some people are insatiably curious to find out stuff? Why did he have to see that curiosity as a form of “religion”? It’s that conflation that has caused persistent confusion about Einstein’s beliefs. Was he so eager to placate the faithful that he had to redefine “religion” as a godless awe? Or was he truly a pantheist who worshipped Nature as his god? It’s not clear.

    What is clear from Einstein’s writings on science and religion, though, is that he didn’t believe in a personal God, and saw theistic religion as a man-made fiction. In a letter written in 1954, he made no bones about this (translated from the original German):

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
    Indeed, the last paragraph of the 1954 essay shows his faith not in the numinous, but in rationality:

    The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.
    Finally, I take issue with Einstein’s statement that the value of reason in understanding the world is a form of “profound faith.” As I wrote in Slate, this is confusing because the religious meaning of faith is “firm belief without substantial evidence,” while the scientist’s “faith” in the laws of physics is simply shorthand for “strong confidence, based on replicated evidence and experience, about how things are.” Further, we don’t have faith in reason: we use reason because it helps us find out things. It is in fact the only way we’ve made progress in understanding the universe. If other ways had proven valuable, like personal revelation or Ouiji boards, we’d use those, too.

    Although Einstein didn’t believe in a conventional god, his explanation of the harmony between science and faith has been widely misunderstood, and some of that is his own fault. What he should have done is abandon the world “faith” in favor of “confidence born of experience,” and not tried to argue that curiosity and wonder before nature was a form of religion. It is that confusion (or perhaps that imprecision of language) that has led to prolonged debate about and misrepresentation of what Einstein believed about God and religion.

    So let me simply recast Einstein’s famous statement in terms of what I think he meant:

    “Science without profound curiosity won’t go anywhere, and religion without science is doubly crippled.”
    Doubly crippled, of course, because theistic religions are based on a supernatural but fictitious being, and are further crippled when they reject the findings of science.

    In the end, Einstein’s famous quotation should provide no solace—or ammunition—to theists, for Einstein did not see “religion” as theistic. But I wish he would have written a bit more clearly, thought a bit more clearly or, perhaps, completely avoided discussing the relationship of religion and science. On that issue he is less cogent than many philosophers or, indeed, many scientists. He was Einstein, but he wasn’t God.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    From my earlier post, and the point Einstein was making...
    Like I said, I'm 100% certain that neither Einstein, Sagan believed in any deity or divine creator as is generally accepted by society.
    You appear to be trying to say they do...although even your links are saying differently.... sheesh!

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Gould’s idea (which was clearly not original) was that science and religion were harmonious because they had distinct but complementary tasks: science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe, while religion deals with human values, morals, and meanings. Here’s Einstein’s version (my emphasis):

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
     
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"- A Einstein.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Ex-bloody actly!!!
    And the same applied to Sagan, and its quite obvious if you are listening to him debate creationists and similar groups that seem to make a habit of taking science and great men out of context.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Adding to Alex's revelations, and part of the link I gave earlier,

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted


    What is clear from Einstein’s writings on science and religion, though, is that he didn’t believe in a personal God, and saw theistic religion as a man-made fiction. In a letter written in 1954, he made no bones about this (translated from the original German):

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
     
  21. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I am not trying to prove anything, paddoboy.

    I am always "up front".
    If my OP can not or will not be grasped...what possible chance is there that anything I Post about "beliefs and philosophy of life" would be Grok'd?

    The ^^above^^ Link (at least through my ISP!) leads to the New Republic "Log In" page. "Subscribe Now" / "Get The New Republic for $34.97/year" - ???!!!
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    There is comments on Einstein and what he said before you Log.
    I have posted relevant extracts anyway, similar to Alex's extract.. :shrug:

    It's there for all to read.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    If you say so.

    But then again, I have posted two versions of what you say this discussion should be about...see post 37 :shrug: again.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2014

Share This Page