| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2009 12:27:12 PM · #626 |
| No I don't, and the last link I posted shows all 5 pages. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:30:57 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No I don't, and the last link I posted shows all 5 pages. |
That last link only shows one page for me as well. Don't know why you're so special!
And Bear does have a very good point. Since information most likely couldn't pass from one cycle to the next, the theory would be extremely difficult to prove and is at that point as philisophical in nature as any religious explanation. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:31:26 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No I don't, and the last link I posted shows all 5 pages. |
No it doesn't; gives us a teaser then two buttons, to subscribe or to "buy this issue". Scientific American never HAS given away their content as far as I know.
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:48:50 PM · #629 |
| Shannon must be getting direct revelation from the gods of Science. :P I will take him at his word and will not require proofs of his special knowledge... |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:59:01 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No I don't, and the last link I posted shows all 5 pages. |
No it doesn't; gives us a teaser then two buttons, to subscribe or to "buy this issue". Scientific American never HAS given away their content as far as I know. |
I still see all 5 pages from that link, and I've never had a subscription or even registered with them in any way.
Obviously God must not want you to read the article. ;-P Try the "read more" link here. It's the exact same link, but oddly I saw the "subscribe" message once this morning and every other time it opened the whole thing. If the link is eternal, why would it suddenly change? |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:06:54 PM · #631 |
| Clicking the read more link takes me to the page with the subscribe button on it -- aargh! |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:08:42 PM · #632 |
| Ya, me too. If it makes you feel better, I do get to read all the comments, which are nearly all skeptical... :) |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:10:34 PM · #633 |
| and there is this one nugget from the page I can read: "Consequently, many scientists question whether the concept of atomic spacetime can even be called scientific." |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:14:46 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Clicking the read more link takes me to the page with the subscribe button on it -- aargh! |
LOL- I had the whole article visible in Safari, copied the same link to Firefox and got the subscribe button. I did a Google search in FF, got to the article from here (it's the exact same URL), and saw the whole thing again. It's the Internet Uncertainty Principle! ;-) |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 02:05:06 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If the link is eternal, why would it suddenly change? |
Must be an occilating link ... ;-) |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 02:28:29 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.......that's fine.
But don't you think it's strange at all that there are so many others who because they don't share your beliefs who by your understanding and faith will never achieve salvation? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
By my way of thinking it is not I that decides who and who does not spend eternity with God... it is God. Since in my view he created all things who am I to tell the one who made me that he is not being fair (which seems to be your inference). |
Here's the thing.....*I* do not know, I readily admit that, and part of my dilemma with religions in general is that I don't profess to know anything. I have to rely upon the information that I glean from members of the various denominations that I talk to about these things.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Doesn't your own theory that the implanted morality could go so awry that more than half the population is doomed to burn in Hell seem at least to be sort of odd? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
By my way of thinking it is not the amount of moral or immoral acts that will determine your final state but your reliance and faith in Jesus as your intercessor before God the Father. |
But what about those religions that do not accept Jesus as you do, yet their books are just as correct in their understanding, and their edicts by which they live just as good?
How do you reconcile their just being wrong? Isn't it possible that they are not?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What about all those incredible humanists? Jews? Muslims? Are all the people through history, theoretically created by God destined to NOT achieve salvation because they don't meet your standards? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
They are not my standards and I am not their judge. I do not believe that people are'destined' to NOT achieve salvation. |
But they are your standards.....they are what you have chosen to believe.....you're human, and fallible, by your own admission you are not God, so how do you know they're right
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There's the fly in the ointment. Since I wasn't brought up to blindly believe the credo of one faith, and I do believe that there is inherent good in the human animal, what am I supposed to think about all you fervent people who believe that YOUR brand of answer is the only one? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I do not blindly believe in God as you suppose. In fact quite the opposite. Through prayer I have a relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is very real. I don't expect you to believe this but it is the case nonetheless.
|
Maybe a bad choice of words.......I do understand that you feel that you are within the divine umbrella, if you will, my only question is this: If a Muslim, who is a good and decent man, and following the teachings of the Koran, has the same relationship with Allah that you do with Jesus, and lives his life to the best of his abilities according to his supreme guidance, and I know this man to be the same type of decent & devout man as you try to be, who do I, a Philistine, curious & questioning seeker, to decide who is......righter?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How can so many be so wrong when their structure is fundamentally the same, yet allows no room for what each sect feels is misguided? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would disagree that the structure of other faiths is fundamentally the same as the Christian faith is fundamentally based on Jesus and his resurrection. No other faith has this as the fundamental structure. |
You know what I mean......the concept of fealty to a Divine being and all that he/she stands for in truth & goodness towards his fellow man. The rest, like it or not, is specifics.
I truly find it hard to believe that God, as I understand God, would have issues with the details & specifics. I don't believe that God meant for us, humans that is, to be so divided in our search for him. I can get next to the idea that we all should strive for our relationship with God, but that tghe relationship is a deep and personal relationship, not one to be handed down by some imposing presence in human form shouting from a pulpit.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
For me, there is no other choice than to entertain the possibility that whatever concept I have of God could be completely and totally wrong. |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is understandable that you would feel this way having no relationship with your creator other than the idea that we were created instead of being a random chance happening. I would and did at one time feel the same way. This thinking did eventually lead me to being atheist at one point in my life. |
I don't think that you have any idea how I feel about my understanding of God. I am constantly being looked down upon condescendingly, or admonished for my lack of understanding, yet I feel so much more honest about where I stand simply because I'm comfortable with my understanding of God. And it's telling to me to have people treat me as lesser because they aren't comfortable with, or understand my faith.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That doesn't make my faith any less, but it sure as heck ensures that I don't wander around spouting that I have the answer and am certain that you're not going to achieve salvation 'cause you don\'t do it my way. |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
We have had this conversation before and I want to be very careful not to offend because it is not my intention and sometimes words without verbal cues can lead to misunderstanding. Correct me if I am wrong: You believe there is a God but you do not know who he is. You believe that he is 'good' but do not know what good is because you do not have a relationship with the creator. So you substitute your own moral judgments of what seems right and fair to you and ascribe them to God because God is good. My point here is that I, unlike you, do not decide for God what is good based on my own moral judgments but upon the relationship I have with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I am led to a greater understanding, day by day, in what is or is not moral. The more I submit to his counsel the more is revealed. Just as Jesus denied himself and indeed submitted himself so that I could be reconciled to the father I seek to submit myself wholly to his Holy Spirit. I accept correction when I do wrong and learn. It is not a matter of doing it my way. It is a matter of doing it God\'s way. |
I have an acceptance level with my virtually nonexistent lack of knowledge, yet I feel that I have been shown ample grace, and that due to the way I've lived ever so much of my life, and yet STILL am here, that there must be a good and merciful God looking out for my dumb ass.
Again, like most people who have faith of any kind, it was a choice that I've made, and I try to do the best that I can to be a good and decent man. You can tell me that my moral compass is by convenience, and that I'm ignorant to the true way, but surely you have to see that in order for your religion to be valid, you HAVE to treat and view me that way.
So does the good and decent devout Muslim, and the Jew. Unfortunately, though we all are supposedly God's children, each sect has their specifics that must be adhered to in order to be a part of the system as it's established.
The sad part is, that means that other people of faith, though they be living a life of identical striving to be virtuous according to the laws of their faith, denopunce their neighbor just because of it.
To me that's so sad......it goes against all the teachings of religions as I understand them......love thy neighbor as thyself, be good to each other, do unto others, love God......these are all basics in any religion as near as I've been able to tell.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think faith is a thing of beauty; I find most religions to be obnoxious and arrogant.....and in some cases, terrifiying. |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Religion is often tainted by those purporting to be religious twisting the truth for their own gain and in search of their own comfort. It is terrifying when those who purport to be the representatives of God do not behave in a Godly way and in fact seek not for God but for themselves. You are right, true faith is a thing of beauty. |
Ah......truth! Therein lies the rub. What is truth, really?
That's my question. Because your truth is not mine, not the truth of a good & decent Muslim or Jew, and I just have so much trouble believing that good and decent men who worship their God, in the way they were brought up, are in danger of not achieving salvation if it is to be had because it doesn't match what you believe.
That would bring me back to my original question.....can you not be open to the possibility that your understanding might be wrong? Or does your faith expressly forbid it? And if so, and the Muslim and the Jew are God's children too, what's the point of their existence at all?
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I know you may not agree with me and my assessments nor do I expect you to but the answers given are what I believe and respectfully I submit them to you. |
And I respect that. Surely you can see how this forest I've been navigating is full of shadows and dead ends. Yet I still do have a rudimentary faith that I feel guides me towards an understanding of God. But it's a more basic and pragmatic life guidance, and surely not one you could reconcile. The beauty of it is, my God sees what both you and I are trying to do if, and only if, we give ourselves wholeheartedly to being the best we can, as we understand his guidance, we'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 03:03:07 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The way I see it (and this is grossly oversimplifying), not all that long ago everyone believed in a steady-state universe, an unchanging/eternal universe. Then Hoyle and people like that proved it was expanding, and this caused some problems, to put it mildly. Expanding from *what*? End result? The "big bang" theory.
But there's still a problem there; How did it all *start*? Now, the religious folks have their answer, of course; the big bang = God's first instant of creation. The scientists, naturally, don't buy that, but still, where does it all *come* from? So, in the classic way of humankind, they deferred the issue by postulating the oscillating universe; this one will stop expanding, start shrinking, ultimately collapse, and be recreated in a new big bang, unto the end of time.
It can't be proven, it's impossible to test it (there's no conceivable way to see deeper into the origin of the universe than the instant of the big bang), so it's a matter of conjecture and/or faith. Basically, a very *religious* theory, if you ask me :-)
R. |
The thing many people forget is that relativity and quantum theory have a hell of a lot of math behind them, and are probably really only completely comprehensible in view of the mathematical formulae. That the relativity formula, for example, is flawed and therefore presents us with an infinite singularity that vitiates a complete view into the past is well known. Big bounce is a reasonable theory, actively being pursued, to address what we don't already know, and calling it "faith", let alone "religious", is completely inaccurate. Pay careful attention to the section Recent developments in the theory.
Message edited by author 2009-10-21 15:07:00. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 03:45:02 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The thing many people forget is that relativity and quantum theory have a hell of a lot of math behind them, and are probably really only completely comprehensible in view of the mathematical formulae. That the relativity formula, for example, is flawed and therefore presents us with an infinite singularity that vitiates a complete view into the past is well known. Big bounce is a reasonable theory, actively being pursued, to address what we don't already know, and calling it "faith", let alone "religious", is completely inaccurate. Pay careful attention to the section Recent developments in the theory. |
Oh, I understand all that (that there's math behind it etc, not the math itself). I'm just yanking Shannon's chain... Besides, there's an argument to be made that the changing landscape of theoretical physics is a faith-based paradise :-) I mean, any time we come up with observations that call into question the accuracy of our existing models/theories, we just come up with new/modified versions of same, and call the puzzle "solved".
I'm not putting that down, I understand the scientific method, but nevertheless we cannot, and never will be able to, see beyond the "bang" part of the model, so in the end it's all speculation. Informed speculation, possibly, but speculation nonethneless, because it is not susceptible to proof. And therein lies the rub, in the context of this little debate the boys are having here.
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 03:49:50 PM · #639 |
| Actually, it seems we can potentially see beyond the bang, according to research done by Martin Bojowald, once again using mathematical models (which is the only way any of this "observable" anyway). You neatly described the scientific theory (inaccuracies leading to revisions), so I suppose I have difficulty when someone describes something so painstakingly reasonable as "faith-based". |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 03:56:03 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm just yanking Shannon's chain... |
Be careful -- that sounds an awful lot like you're sneaking up on a violation of Forum Rule #12 ... |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 03:56:48 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, it seems we can potentially see beyond the bang, according to research done by Martin Bojowald, once again using mathematical models (which is the only way any of this "observable" anyway). You neatly described the scientific theory (inaccuracies leading to revisions), so I suppose I have difficulty when someone describes something so painstakingly reasonable as "faith-based". |
The problem with a mathematical proof is that it only proves if it is possible, not whether it is factual. It certainly lends more weight to a theory, but it doesn't equal direct observation, which obviously wouldn't be possible. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 04:06:05 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, it seems we can potentially see beyond the bang, according to research done by Martin Bojowald, once again using mathematical models (which is the only way any of this "observable" anyway). You neatly described the scientific theory (inaccuracies leading to revisions), so I suppose I have difficulty when someone describes something so painstakingly reasonable as "faith-based". |
The problem with a mathematical proof is that it only proves if it is possible, not whether it is factual. It certainly lends more weight to a theory, but it doesn't equal direct observation, which obviously wouldn't be possible. |
Is that true? What about calculations to determine the volume of a sphere, for example? The formula leads to a factual conclusion about a real-world object. Why would the formulae behind physics theories be any different, discounting singularities? |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 04:09:02 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, it seems we can potentially see beyond the bang, according to research done by Martin Bojowald, once again using mathematical models (which is the only way any of this "observable" anyway). You neatly described the scientific theory (inaccuracies leading to revisions), so I suppose I have difficulty when someone describes something so painstakingly reasonable as "faith-based". |
The problem with a mathematical proof is that it only proves if it is possible, not whether it is factual. It certainly lends more weight to a theory, but it doesn't equal direct observation, which obviously wouldn't be possible. |
Is that true? What about calculations to determine the volume of a sphere, for example? The formula leads to a factual conclusion about a real-world object. Why would the formulae behind physics theories be any different, discounting singularities? |
To be acceptable as a scientific proof, the mathematical proof would need to provide predictions that could be observed to be true or false, preferably predictions that would not be true if the proof was false. You can certainly observe the volume of a sphere to verify the mathematical proof. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 05:07:30 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...we cannot, and never will be able to, see beyond the "bang" part of the model, so in the end it's all speculation. Informed speculation, possibly, but speculation nonethneless, because it is not susceptible to proof. |
How do you know that? Theories describe a process, not just an event, and processes have repercussions and interactions that CAN be tested. We can't see the bang itself either because the universe was opaque at the time, but we can see the cosmic background radiation the model predicts. A bounce model (or any other) may predict sequences that lead to unique signatures in this universe that can be sought out. We've already figured out ways to detect things like anti-matter, neutrinos and gravitational waves, so you never know what ingenious experiments lie ahead. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 06:14:09 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm just yanking Shannon's chain... |
Be careful -- that sounds an awful lot like you're sneaking up on a violation of Forum Rule #12 ... |
Oh, c'mon! This whole thread is a circle chain-yank :-) It's not like it's *personal*, after all... And the flavour du jour is Shannon tweaking Sneezy and Sneezy tweaking Shannon, so I claim diplomatic immunity :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 06:26:55 PM · #646 |
After reading a bit about Bounce Theory, it seems we're back to my original statement: "So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse)."
If I understand correctly, the "bounce" is caused by two branes colliding with each other which triggers a Big Bang. Would these two branes not count as something other than our Universe (using a standard definition)?
I understand what Louis is getting at, but we do need to be clear that all this, String Theory, Bounce Theory, M Theory, are using the word "theory" in the absolute loosest way possible. Intelligent Design Theory would be no worse a use of the word. None of these are "scientific" and probably should garner a new designation such as "scientific philosophy", especially since mathematics is probably more associated with philosophy than observation science. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 06:50:15 PM · #647 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I understand correctly, the "bounce" is caused by two branes colliding with each other which triggers a Big Bang. Would these two branes not count as something other than our Universe (using a standard definition)? |
You don't, and no. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 06:59:20 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I understand what Louis is getting at, but we do need to be clear that all this, String Theory, Bounce Theory, M Theory, are using the word "theory" in the absolute loosest way possible. Intelligent Design Theory would be no worse a use of the word. |
Maybe not, if you consider peer-reviewed repeatedly tested mathematical physics the same thing as thoroughly discredited pseudo-science. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:33:59 PM · #649 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I understand correctly, the "bounce" is caused by two branes colliding with each other which triggers a Big Bang. Would these two branes not count as something other than our Universe (using a standard definition)? |
You don't, and no. |
Bouncing and Colliding Branes?
Bouncing and cyclic universe from Brane model
You sure I'm not getting it? (that's a real question) |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:36:47 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I understand what Louis is getting at, but we do need to be clear that all this, String Theory, Bounce Theory, M Theory, are using the word "theory" in the absolute loosest way possible. Intelligent Design Theory would be no worse a use of the word. |
Maybe not, if you consider peer-reviewed repeatedly tested mathematical physics the same thing as thoroughly discredited pseudo-science. |
How are you discrediting Intelligent Design? It's impossible as it is the ever-shifting goalpost and all things could be attributed to it. And I'd object to your "repeatedly tested" bit. How do you do that? Keep putting numbers in and see if you get numbers out? There are no testable hypotheses these ideas make. You don't put numbers in and verify the numbers out against observation.
So actually I'm still lumping the two things in the same "non-scientific" category. One may suit your tastes better, but that doesn't remove it from the basket. |
|
