Considering he came up with THE most important scientific theory in history, no, I don't believe he talked nonsense. He was an incredibly intelligent guy, as many religious people - and religious scientists are.
If there is a 'God' that is the source of the universe, then we can attribute the existence of everything in the universe to God. So the most basic definition of God is that God is the source of everything.
Well, actually we could exist to observe a universe that isn't so finely-tuned. Or atleast, some things could still exist, the point is not so much that the universe is finely-tuned but that is finely-tuned in a way that it is almost perfect.
We can make intellectually-respectable assumptions or predictions based on what evidence is available. Because we cannot realistically find what was before the Big Bang using science, and it is ultimately unknowable (most likely, but definetely in our lifetime), is the reason why man chooses to adopt philosophies or speculate other ideas to try and explain our, admittedly quite extraordinary existence.
Yeah, spot on. But that's not good enough for a curious creature like ourselves, I would rather die having a belief, that I consider to be respectable and viable based on what I have learnt in my life, than no belief whatsoever.
You would still need to explain how physical matter could eternally exist without a cause, and furthermore physical matter outside of the constraint of time and matter that comprises this universe. Have you had a look at the 'Multiverse' thread yet?
Okay, perhaps a better description would be just that your soul is essentially who you are, it's what divides from you every other person, every other consciousness.
There is so much we don't know about consciousness and the brain, we don't even know what dreams are really. In fact, it's possible that consciousness isn't even entirely linked to the brain, an example being some patients that have recalled experiences while their brain was shutdown and they had been declared clinically braindead. Aswell as some other weird cases.
Why is man the only creature on this planet that gained sentient consciousness and self-awareness?
Perhaps we are linked together by some kind of "cosmic consciousness" that we evolved from? Who knows. So many questions we can ask.
and you have the temerity to call me a dumbass!It is not proven that the universe was created.
Round is not the same as spherical!
Earth doesn't rest upon a formless void.
Why does there have to be a reason?Why does it have to make sense?
The most important theory in history is a matter of opinion not fact. Big bang theory wouldn't rate in my top 10.Are you saying this fellow deserves recognition equal to Planck, Einstein, Newton?
Newton has influenced more people than Jesus. Believe it.
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
What the hell does his occupation have to do with his belief about life? Of course it doesn't rate as a scientific explanation, it's a philosophical argument >_<
The shape of the universe is flat; it's been proven. Cosmic inflation predicts that the universe will continue expanding forever.QuoteYes and in another 100 years men may be laughing at how we thought the universe was flat.Quote from: psyche;719457We know that time did not exist before the Big Bang, because it has been scientifically proven that time as we know it began with the Big Bang - what is so difficult for you to grasp about that? Of course, speculating that we could scientifically find out what was before the Big Bang and before spacetime began is probably ultimately pointless.I am having trouble understanding you because you are making no sense. Earlier you said you agree we cannot predict before the BB, and now you say there is no time before the BB. That is a prediction. You have regressed into making blind assumptions again.And you are actually referring to observable time when you say "Time as we know it" above.Physics is limited to make observations from within it's own observable universe. You cannot see beyond a singularity.Quote from: psyche;719457There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.to quote Stephen Hawkings:But there is definitely no time in this state? So how many dimensions were there? Only 3? 2? 1?? 0?Quote from: psyche;719457I try to remain open-minded. That's why i'm agnostic. Can't say the same for most others in this thread.You are not agnostic. You believe in intelligent design. That means you believe there is an intelligent designer. That is not agnostic.You are a theist. Actually, you sound more like a Deist. But I'm not sure yet.
Yes and in another 100 years men may be laughing at how we thought the universe was flat.Quote from: psyche;719457We know that time did not exist before the Big Bang, because it has been scientifically proven that time as we know it began with the Big Bang - what is so difficult for you to grasp about that? Of course, speculating that we could scientifically find out what was before the Big Bang and before spacetime began is probably ultimately pointless.I am having trouble understanding you because you are making no sense. Earlier you said you agree we cannot predict before the BB, and now you say there is no time before the BB. That is a prediction. You have regressed into making blind assumptions again.And you are actually referring to observable time when you say "Time as we know it" above.Physics is limited to make observations from within it's own observable universe. You cannot see beyond a singularity.Quote from: psyche;719457There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.to quote Stephen Hawkings:But there is definitely no time in this state? So how many dimensions were there? Only 3? 2? 1?? 0?Quote from: psyche;719457I try to remain open-minded. That's why i'm agnostic. Can't say the same for most others in this thread.You are not agnostic. You believe in intelligent design. That means you believe there is an intelligent designer. That is not agnostic.You are a theist. Actually, you sound more like a Deist. But I'm not sure yet.
We know that time did not exist before the Big Bang, because it has been scientifically proven that time as we know it began with the Big Bang - what is so difficult for you to grasp about that? Of course, speculating that we could scientifically find out what was before the Big Bang and before spacetime began is probably ultimately pointless.
There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.to quote Stephen Hawkings:
I try to remain open-minded. That's why i'm agnostic. Can't say the same for most others in this thread.
Newton also believed in God!
Probably a misaccurate quote on my behalf, but yes it does. It doesn't rest on top the back of a Giant Floating Cosmic Turtle, does it?
If you can't think of anything intelligent to say, resort to petty insults instead! I guess Einstein and Lemaitre were loons according to you too? Good going numbnuts.
oh my thats rather funny.
lol
Actually, yes it does.You just can't see it because god doesn't want you to.
Good lord... quoting Richard Dawkins with an evil-looking demon thingie in your sig. Scary. You really have stooped to the bottom of the failure pit haven't you Killer..The same guy that rants about fairy's and unicorns, and thinks that life on Earth being intelligently designed by advanced alien beings is an "intriguing possibility".Atheists: mankinds biggest joke.
One of the frequent attacks that Dawkins levies against religion- in particular Christianity, the religion he was brought up in- is that it inhibits and stultifies intellectual progress. Certainly the Vatican has had a rather withering view of scientists for most of the past two hundred years and at times has proved slow to wake up to wonders of the cosmos that scientists have uncovered during that time. However…. Consider the following three discoveries:(a) The Big Bang Theory(b) Hubble’s Law(c) The Laws of Genetic Succession. The Big Bang Theory:The first proponent of the Big Bang Theory was a Belgian man called George Lemaitre. One of the most revered astrophysicists of his time, Lemaitre had put forward his theory of how the Universe began as early as 1931. Lemaitre’s theory was subsequently confirmed by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) which showed that the level of background microwave radiation was the same everywhere in the universe and therefore must have had a common point of origin. Hubble’s Law:Most of us have probably heard of Hubble because the world’s most famous telescope was named after him. Edwin Hubble, however is better known for the law which has forever become associated with his name: Hubble’s Law. This law states that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. By applying this law astronomers can gauge the distance between objects such as galaxies and stars. However although accredited with the discovery back in 1929 it was in fact George Lemaitre who discovered the law first and who had published his paper on it in 1927. As such it is Lemaitre who can be accredited with laying down one of the fundamental principles of cosmology. Incidentally Hubble’s - or, to give credit where credit is due- Lemaitre’s law has been invoked to prove time and again that the universe is expanding at an increasingly higher rate. The Laws of Genetic Succession:The year 1865- Having spent a number of years cross-breeding various kinds of garden peas a gentleman called Gregor Mendel eventually formulated the foundational laws of what was to become the field of modern genetics from which men like Richard Dawkins would weave their rainbows! Thanks to Mendel and his successors in the field we now have the Human Genome Project which has undertaken to map out every human gene with a view to understanding how, for example, hereditary diseases are transmitted. And this is where the Church comes in…You see neither Lemaitre nor Mendel could afford to spend as much time in their chosen pursuits as they would have possibly liked. Like Albert Einstein, who worked as a patent clerk during the day and worked on this theory of general relativity at night, Lemaitre and Mendel also held down steady day-time jobs. When he wasn’t dabbling in astrophysics, Lemaitre heard confessionals and said mass in his capacity as a Roman Catholic Priest! For his part Mendel prayed in silence in his monastery as an Augustinian monk! In other words three of the most important finds in science owe their initial discovery to men of God. Incidentally both of these men remained men of the cloth until their dying day. What’s more their Church assisted them in their scientific endeavours and even promoted them : Lemaitre was promoted to monsignor in 1960 by Pope John XX111while Mendel was appointed chief abbot of his monastery following his discovery. Are men like Lemaitre and Mendel to be called “delusional” as Sir Richard Dawkins would call them simply because they believed in God? Did their faith prevent them from asking the most profound questions a human mind can ask regarding the very nature of the Cosmos and the life flowing within it? Did not both men find a happy co-existence between two apparently disparate frames of reference namely religion and science? Even if Einstein didn’t have established faith systems in mind when he would mention the word “religion” it is perhaps fitting that we quote him here: “religion without science is lame and science without religion is blind”. (Italics added) For men like Lemaitre and Mendel, awe-inspiring mystery was not meant to be left mysterious- it was meant to be explored. They did not believe that to have faith meant that one had to have blinkers on. Their faith in reason went hand in hand with a faith in a higher power.
The impasse between the Big Bang and the steady-state theory was broken when Hubble found out that the universe is in expansion. Einstein was shocked by the expanding universe demonstrated by the findings of Edwin Hubble. Lemaître saw this as a great opportunity and rushed to California. In the early 1930s, as reported by Timothy Ferris (The Whole Shebang, 1997), in a lecture in the library of Mt. Wilson observatory offices, Lemaître declared solemnly to an audience which included Einstein: "In the beginning of everything we had fireworks of unimaginable beauty. Then there was the explosion followed by the filling of heavens with smoke. We come to late to do more than to visualize the splendor of creation's' birthday." Not even Moses would be so eloquent. Lemaître's oratory was so brilliant that even Einstein became convinced by this new version of the biblical cosmology. Unbelievingly, after resisting for a long time, Einstein, and most of the scientific establishment, capitulated to the idea of the Big Bang by the influence of no less than a monk: George Lemaître. This Catholic monk succeeded in infiltrating into the secular science the preposterous idea of a Biblical universe being created out of nothing. By who? By God, naturally! Congratulations to Abée Lemaître. Once more religion defeated science. Not for long, we hope!
Atheists: mankinds biggest joke.
no offence - but you are one of the most ignorant people i have ever come across - all you do is misquote scientists and you have not added anything of value to this discussion - yes we all know you have your retarded world view - all that proves is that you are a retard - you are not smart enough to understand concepts so you should leave this thread to the adults
Bahaha, all that shows is that you can't come up with any coherents arguments so you'll just try and diss me to make me look bad instead. Truly pathetic.Oooh I see, I have a 'retarded world view', so George Lemaitre, Einstein, Gregor Mendel, Newton - they were all retards man, 'cause Cobra said so.These guys are all retards too, because Cobra fuckin' said so:Simon C. MorrissFrancis CollinsKenneth R. MillerRobert t. BakkerPeter GrunbergGalileo GalileiSir Francis BaconNicholas CopernicusJohannes KeplerRobert BoyleMichael FaradayWilliam Thomson KelvinMax PlanckI love atheists like you, I don't even have to argue to make you look bad and your arguments look weak, you practically do it yourself!
you dont understand my arguments and your world view isn't the same as those scientists you listed - but good to see you keep your ego in check
How do you know I don't understand your arguments? If I don't understand them it's probably because they are full of shit. But let's hear them.How do you know what my world view is and that it isn't the same, or atleast similar to the beliefs of those scientists? You probably didn't even read any of the links. Are you implying that, because I recognize the immense intelligence of these scientists and that there also must have been some very good reasons that such intelligent people also believed in a higher power, that makes me a retard?No sorry, the only retards are the little minority group of deluded Dawkins-sheep-followers that constantly rant about fairy's and unicorns and evil Christian people.
i know you dont understand my arguments because i use my readingyou claimed you were agnostic also your are stupid and ignorant, no even close to the level of those scientists
have you read any of Dawkins books?, you know he has books other than the god delusion? Books highly recommended by Professors in Biology?
You use intelligent people believing in God as an argument (a lot of the time misquoting and misrepresenting their world view or ignoring historical context) then why are christian nobel prize winners in science a minority?
How is some of the greatest minds in our history that believed in God as the cause of the universe not a decent argument to use? You are saying that I am a retard for thinking that the universe was created, you are also saying that these many scientists are/were retards aswell.
lolololseriously thou psyche you are a living joke. your beliefs change every time they are proven wrong but instead of accepting it your beliefs become even more outlandish and ridiculous.please, PLEASE read back through your own posts in the last few pages and realise how ignorant you really are.you claim to have studied all this from reading books but i doubt you have read anything other than wikipedia. Ive even pulled you up on it before in this thread where you used direct copy and paste quotes to make yourself look smart.Im sure someday when you stop taking those pills and smoking that grass that addles your brain that you will understand what we are trying to tell you but for some reason i doubt that is very likely, infact it may already be too late.
