Also, this statement is a blatant argument ad populum - an 'argument of the many' or an 'argument from authority' which states that just because a lot of people think its true, doesn't necessarily make it true. A large number of people believe in the existence of intelligent life on other planets, but it doesn't make it true.Similarly, saying that great minds from throughout history believed in God, so thus it must be true that God exists, is an argument ad populum, though on a smaller scale. I think I speak for most of us when I say that just because Rene Descartes believed in God, doesn't mean I'm now convinced God exists; similarly, just because Richard Dawkins says God does not exist, doesn't mean I'm now convinced he doesn't.
Now did I SAY that because some of the most intelligent people in our history believed in God that that is PROOF of God's existence? No. No I did not. Which means you haven't even bothered to read my posts, and are jumping to misinformed, bullshit conclusions just like Killer. I said that because these extremely intelligent men also believed in a higher power as the cause of the universe; then there must be some VERY GOOD REASONS WHY and they are people worth listening to.
What, put me on ignore? So this thread can go back to the boring monotonous religious-bashing instead of any kind of intelligent discussion?Or do you mean me put people like Killer on ignore? I don't see the point. I don't see any merit in killer's posts or arguments whatsoever, so I guess I should just naturally ignore him instead of getting all riled up over nothing. :/
Oh dear. See, why are you trying to create conflict? Do you have some kind of mental problem where you have to insult people and create unnecessary conflict just for the sake of it?You know full well I am offering intelligent discussion to this thread, you don't even seem to be participating in it so the fuck are you to judge other people? Where's your intelligent discussion? That's right; nowhere. Because you are incapable of intelligent discussion, aren't you?Let's see you respond to some of my arguments instead of pissing and moaning like an immature child.
I don't need to waste my time having petty bullshit arguments with you about absolutely nothing.
WE have now entered what is being celebrated as the Einstein Year, marking the centenary of the physicist's annus mirabilis in 1905, when he published three landmark papers - those that proved the existence of the atom, showed the validity of quantum physics and, of course, introduced the world to his theory of special relativity. Not bad for a beginner."It's not that I'm so smart," Einstein once said, "It's just that I stay with problems longer." Whatever the reason for his greatness, there is no doubt that this determination allowed him to invent courageous new physics and explore realms that nobody else had dared to investigate. What he was not, however, was a perfect genius. In fact, when it came to the biggest scientific issue of all - the origin of the universe - he was utterly wrong. And while we should certainly laud his achievements over the next 12 months, we may learn a more valuable lesson by investigating Einstein's greatest failure.The story starts in the late 19th century, when the scientific establishment believed in an eternal and unchanging universe. This was a neat theory of cosmology, because a universe that had always existed did not raise any awkward questions, such as "When was the universe created?" and "What (or Who) created it?"Einstein grew up in this era, and was similarly convinced that the universe had existed for an eternity. However, when he developed general relativity (his theory of gravity) in 1915, he became aware of a tricky problem. Gravity is an attractive force - it attracts coins to the ground and it attracts comets toward the sun. So why hadn't gravity caused the matter in the universe to collapse inward on itself? Gravity seemed to be incompatible with an eternal, unchanging universe, and Einstein certainly had no sympathy for the alternative view of a collapsing universe, stating that: "To admit such a possibility seems senseless."Isaac Newton had run into the same problem with his own theory of gravity some 250 years earlier. He too believed in an eternal universe, yet he knew that gravity would have to cause its collapse after a finite time. His solution was to propose that God was responsible for keeping apart all the celestial objects, adjusting their positions from time to time as part of his cosmic curatorial responsibilities.Einstein was reluctant to invoke God, so his solution was to fiddle with his theory of general relativity, adding an antigravity force alongside familiar gravity. This repulsive force would counteract gravity over cosmic distances, thereby maintaining the overall stability of the universe. There was no evidence for this antigravity force, but Einstein assumed that it had to exist in order to provide a platform for eternity.Although everything now seemed to make sense, there were some dissenters. A small band of renegade cosmologists suggested in the 1920's that the universe was not eternal but had been created at a finite moment in the past. They claimed it had exploded and expanded from a small, hot, dense state into what we see today. In particular, they argued that it had once been compacted into a primeval super atom, which had then ruptured and exploded. This model, which has since developed into the Big Bang theory, did not require any stabilizing antigravity because it proposed a dynamic, evolving universe. The Big Bang model was initially ridiculed by the scientific establishment. For example, one of its pioneers, Georges Lemaître, was both a cosmologist and an ordained priest, so critics cited his theology as his motivation for advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They suspected that the model was Lemaître's way of sneaking a Creator into science. While Einstein was not biased against Lemaître's religious background, he did call the priest's physics "abominable." It was enough to banish the Big Bang model to the hinterlands of cosmology. However, in 1929 Einstein was forced to eat humble pie. Edwin Hubble, working at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, showed that all the distant galaxies in the universe were racing away from one another as though they were debris from a cosmic explosion. The Big Bang model seemed to be correct. And, while it would take several decades before the theory was accepted by the scientific establishment, Einstein, to his credit, did not fight on. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and even called his repulsive force the biggest blunder of his career.In 1931, Einstein paid a visit to Hubble at Mount Wilson, where he renounced his own static cosmology and endorsed the expanding universe model. His support was enough for The New York Times to embrace the mavericks, running an article with the headline "Lemaître Suggests One, Single, Great Atom, Embracing All Energy, Started The Universe." Hubble's hometown newspaper in Missouri, The Springfield Daily News, preferred to focus on its local hero: "Youth Who Left Ozark Mountains to Study Stars Causes Einstein to Change His Mind."It might seem that Einstein emerges from this story as a flawed genius, one who was not perfect. In fact, there is a twist to the tale, one that implies he was perhaps better than perfect.If gravity pulls everything together, then the expansion of the Big Bang should be slowing, because all the receding galaxies would be attracted to one another. In 1998, however, when astronomers tried to measure this deceleration, they were astonished to find that the universe is in fact accelerating. The galaxies are apparently moving apart faster and faster as time passes. What is the best explanation scientists can come up with? The existence of an antigravity force. Theorists call this repulsive effect "dark energy," but it is exactly the sort of force that Einstein posited to maintain the stability of the universe. Antigravity is now back in fashion some seven decades after he abandoned it. It seems that even when Einstein thought he was wrong, he turned out to be right.And, as we celebrate the Einstein Year, let's also bear in mind the fact that he was prepared to admit that he was wrong. Perhaps humility, more than anything, is the mark of true genius.Simon Singh is the author of "Fermat's Enigma" and the forthcoming "Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe."
Or have you not got the balls to admit you were wrong? Have you got big brave balls Arnifix, or have you got mincy little faggot balls? I'm going to hazard a guess and here and assume that it's the latter...
Psyche, I don't know if you noticed, but its pretty much you against this entire community. Even I don't have the patience to read your posts and endure your illogical reasoning and petty insults - and theoretically, you and I should be on the same side. But the fact that you've got absolutely no-one backing you on this ...... and the fact that I've got the whole IA community agreeing with me, should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence.Now.F*** off.
It's only because the majority of this community are idiots intent on making the 'new guy' look bad. Give it a rest already, would ya? If anyone thinks i'm wrong, feel free to try and prove me wrong! You're not going to prove me wrong by merely calling me names, all that is going to achieve is prove how lacking you are in knowledge on this subject and your blatant unwillingness to admit it.All I hear is this chilidsh bitching and moaning about nothing at all, but no intellectual input whatsoever. Arnifix seems to be content offering nothing but petty insults to the discussion but seems incapable of forming any kind of intelligent response or argument of his own - but you don't seem to have a problem with that? Why?I approve of the use of the Snatch quote though.I didn't realize the entire community agreed with you, last I heard most of the people here seem to think Christians are all morons. That just gives you an idea of the intelligence of the some of the people I have to deal with in this thread. Thankfully it is not like this at any other open discussion forum; just this one for some reason.
I know I am being a hypocrite when I accuse other people of name-calling ect. - but the difference is, i'm actually going out of my way to share my informed opinion and all I get is abused for it whilst some others have nothing to offer but childish insults and criticism but have nothing to back up their criticism; I am not one to take unprovoked abuse lightly or ignore it, and naturally I have responded with my own insults. and i'm not talking about people like DirtyApe, Ngati or Dr_Woohoo, they actually respond to my arguments with intelligible criticisms, i'm talking about people like you, Killer, Zarkov, Arnifix, Inmotion ect. that have absolutely nothing of any merit to contribute.look, if you haven't got anything to discuss then why bother posting at all? You are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, you're wasting everyone's time.You also say that I put forward nothing of worth, this just shows how completely pathetic and worthless your opinion is. A few days you guys didn't even know what Albert Einstein's true views about the universe were and were posting irrelevant quotes from him before he had even heard of the Big Bang theory. Again with the 'cut and paste' accusation: the internet is here to be used for information dumbass. You do realise that just about every bit of information related to various books, and excerpts from books and studies are available right here on the internet for our viewing pleasure, don't you?
