| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2008 04:04:35 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
However, if there were constant and verifiable "miracles" (in the case of Lourdes, verifiable would mean confirmed instances where people who partook had been known to have specific illnesses prior to the experience which were, in fact, healed after the experience - aka, person diagnosed with lung cancer goes in, person comes out without lung cancer) - this would be incredibly persuasive evidence that "something" was going on. |
I posted many times on this subject. The 66 miracles (recognized by the Church and truly classified as miracles) did in fact require documented pre-existing conditions and documented record of cure/remission for a minimum of 5 years after the miracle occurrence. That is why there are only 66. There are hundreds and even thousands of others, however only 66 meet the stringent requirement for Church sanction.
The last I posted on these (even with links) it was essentially ignored. I do agree with you that evidence like these 66, should be convincing. They are/were to me. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 04:08:19 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by chalice:
We may be talking semantics here. The first three questions ask what I "know" to be true. If the questions were, "Do you believe..." Rather than "Do you claim to know..." then I would unequivically answer them "yes" as I "believe" them to be true statements of fact. However, use of the word "know" especially in a thread dealing with Atheism and Theism implies (to me at least) that the word "know" is being used in a "factually proven" context, on the order of science providing the evidence for or against a particular process.
Let me give you a non-theological example. If I am asked "Do you claim to know who your mother is?" Literally, I have to answer No. I know the woman who claims to have given me birth, I know that woman raised me as her own, and I certainly "believe" she is my mother, without doubt I might add, but I don't "know" it because I do not have certain proof of the fact that she is who she claims to be in relation to me, even though I was there at the time (I just don't have a memory of the event that I can draw upon) and even though there is a piece of paper recorded in a Registry that says she is. A similar thing can be said of my relationship with God.
Having said that, Christianity requires me to "believe" that Christ is who he says he is and that God is the Great I AM. It does not require me to "know" he is as a matter of provable fact. Actually, Jesus says to Thomas (who had doubts), "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29 emphasis added). We are not all privileged to have the Thomas experience to have "knowledge" in the corporeal or scientific evidence sense. Jesus doesn't require that we have that kind of knowledge. It is "belief" and "faith" that are called for.
I am already on record as to my view that a "reasoned" faith is appropriate. That's why I read Hawkings, Davies, et al. That's why I read extra-biblical sources.
Moreover, although the questions don't get to this point, I have plenty of personal experiences that corroborate what I believe. Some are of the variety like DrAchoo's example of the $500 gift to missions. They happen fairly regularly and, on occasion, are quite "spiritual" in nature. Now, I realize that nonbelievers will chalk it all up to coincidence. My experience is that the "coincidences" are piling up way too often to be answered by probability theory (either that, or I am way out on the end of the bell curve).
I am also familiar with the more relaxed view of the word "know" - as in the song lyrics that go something like "I know in whom I believeth..." As I say, we may be dealing with a semantical issue with the word "know". I have no lack of faith. Christ is who he says he is. I have assurance and it is based upon openly examining what I believe, it is based upon answered prayer, it fills my life based upon experiences I have had and continue to have. And I have no lack of conviction. I can assure you, I am quite "hot" in my convictions (I wouldn't be in a thread like this if I did not have the courage of my convictions). I am just careful how I phrase my beliefs, especially with those who may not share them.
I might add, there is no reason for you to be reluctant to question me. Questioning faith permits a stronger faith. Questioning beliefs may lead some to abandon their beliefs (as is the case with some who describe themselves as Atheists) but my experiance has been just the opposite. |
dponlyme breathes a sigh of relief. I see what you are saying now. I know there can be no scientific evidence of God's existence. What you are saying is exactly what I expect then from a Christian. Semantics can certainly screw around with the true meaning of what you are saying. I guess I have been refusing to accept that atheists are using a different more strict meaning to the word 'know'. I only 'know' of God's existence because of my relationship to him that is characterized by him intervening in my life. I do however not doubt his existence which is what the atheists seem to be wanting you to say and indeed you did seem to say. Thanks for clearing your position up for me.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 04:22:57 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would be interested to know about our other senses. |
Etheric (aka 6th sense) or sometime referred to as "womens intuition". An energy type sense that is photographable (in keeping with the photography site application). It essentially radiates about 3' from the centerline of the torso. Those practitioners of some of the fighting arts or sutdents of warrior mindsets, acknowledge the existence of this aura or force. It is sometimes referred to as the "voice" that predicts a catastrophe or bad experience for an individual. Some claim to have a "knowledge" when a terrible event has ocurred to a loved one or close friend. This is often attributed to the Etheric sense. Some believe (as I do) that all possess it, however some are more "in tune" with its messages. It is also believed that one can become more astute to it by becoming more aware of its pressence. Like any sense, it can be overridden and dull over time.
left on page 3, came back and it grew another 10 pages. Lots more reading to do to catch up. |
Oy... and here I was just a little bit ago referring to you as a "paragon of reasoned debate." Welcome back to Thunderdome. ;)
Intuition, as it turns out is pretty real phenomenon, if not at all supernatural. Pretty decent book review of "Blink."
Can't get on the boat with you on auras, though. One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge |
That is more than a little funny. Interesting about the aura thing. That's certainly a new one on me. I always thought intuition was the result of the subconscious mind putting things together and evoking a feeling of sorts. What scientific proof is there of this aura? (I'm sure you will find it pretty ironic- me asking for scientific proof) I don't have a relationship with any aura. I don't think I can get on the boat with the aura theory either.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 04:34:40 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
However, if there were constant and verifiable "miracles" (in the case of Lourdes, verifiable would mean confirmed instances where people who partook had been known to have specific illnesses prior to the experience which were, in fact, healed after the experience - aka, person diagnosed with lung cancer goes in, person comes out without lung cancer) - this would be incredibly persuasive evidence that "something" was going on. |
I posted many times on this subject. The 66 miracles (recognized by the Church and truly classified as miracles) did in fact require documented pre-existing conditions and documented record of cure/remission for a minimum of 5 years after the miracle occurrence. That is why there are only 66. There are hundreds and even thousands of others, however only 66 meet the stringent requirement for Church sanction.
The last I posted on these (even with links) it was essentially ignored. I do agree with you that evidence like these 66, should be convincing. They are/were to me. |
I'll admit to not knowing what is going on at Lourdes, and would be interested in seeing continued research on the supposed miracles. But at the risk of hearing the Doc say, "I told you so," I would say that my attitude toward Lourdes remains heavily skeptical that whatever is going on is in any way supernatural.
While there has been a couple of recently recorded "miracles" under the guidelines, it appears that the vast majority occurred quite some time ago (list of recognized Lourdes miracles) -- only 4 since the 1950s, last occuring in 1987, recognized in 1999 -- scientific understanding has advanced quite a way since then. Further, while 66 sounds impressive out of the gate, it sounds a lot less impressive when you consider that more than 6,000,000 people visit Lourdes each year, 66 starts to look like a pretty small and insignificant number. You might expect to see quite a few more, just on grounds of statistical chance.
Lastly, I would say that recent medical and scientific research is beginning to uncover many of the psychological and physiological mechanisms of the religious experience. From a physician's site that is otherwise quite sympathetic and supportive of the Lourdes miracle claims:
Originally posted by Dr. Raj Persuad:
There are many astonishing remissions of large cancerous tumours amongst the official miracles of Lourdes, though admittedly spontaneous remission of cancer is not unknown in the outside world. One study found on average about three spectacular cases each year are reported by surgeons in medical journals - another suggested that, depending on the particular cancer, up to one per cent might subside entirely of their own accord.
One theory is that spontaneous regression of a cancer represents a sudden mobilisation of natural host defence mechanisms. Since it is well established that our immune system is influenced by our emotional state, it is possible that strong emotions evoked by visiting Lourdes could have beneficial physical effects in suddenly galvanising an immune system to start attacking the cancer.
Two independent studies into spontaneous remission of cancer found psychological changes, occurring just before the physical disease began to improve dramatically, could be significant. Both found that resolving an existential crisis in the person's life, a dramatic change in life outlook and a reduction in anxiety and depression, seemed to occur just before the cancer started to resolve by itself.
Indeed, a British study testing at regular intervals the mental state of pilgrims to Lourdes found that up to a year later, the pilgrimage had produced significant reductions in anxiety and depression - an effect equivalent to the strongest anti-depressants. But it is this ability of science to explain away religion with advances in understanding of brain and mind which suggests that science could be more an enemy of God than an ally.
For example, another recent study found that by brain scanning the spiritual while they were meditating, it was possible neurologically to account for the religious sense of transcendence - oneness with nature or unity with God. The brain scanner showed that during meditation the part of the brain responsible for orientation of the body in physical space, the parietal lobe - near the top of the brain - went to sleep.
People who have suffered damage to this area have difficulty negotiating their way around their surroundings. The sense of a self as separate from your environment could reside in this part of the brain, so now scientists can explain why the sense of self disappears during religious states. |
(emphasis mine) |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:05:58 PM · #330 |
Thanks for the response guys. I see themes and I see differences. The most surprising answer to me is "yes" to #2.
Dpon: Chalice answered for me as well. Faith without doubt is not faith. I don't have faith that I'm sitting on a chair because I can see it and touch it. I will always have doubt and worry. I've learned to live with it and accept it. It's not a 'deal breaker' as far as I'm concerned.
For those of you who were ostracized for asking too many questions in church, that's too bad. Just Sunday I was attending a "Church 101" class that our church puts on. I was mainly there to provide feedback to the pastors about the content, but I thought I'd ask a few toughies (so why is it important to believe in the Trinity as we understand it? why not believe like the Mormons believe? didn't most of this language start with the Nicene creed?). At the end of the talk I had a number of people say, "I loved your questions, don't stop asking them." Tough questions are enemy only to people with a lazy faith. Unfortunately there are lots of lazy people in the world. Some of them are Christian.
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 18:13:15.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:15:21 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I'll admit to not knowing what is going on at Lourdes, and would be interested in seeing continued research on the supposed miracles. But at the risk of hearing the Doc say, "I told you so," |
I told you so... ;)
As far as the number, it only takes one real miracle to ruin a materialist's day...
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:30:44 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it only takes one real miracle to ruin a materialist's day... |
Still waiting apparently. The absence of that event should make "real miracle" an oxymoron. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 18:32:03. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:32:03 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those of you who were ostracized for asking too many questions in church, that's too bad. Just Sunday I was attending a "Church 101" class that our church puts on. I was mainly there to provide feedback to the pastors about the content, but I thought I'd ask a few toughies (so why is it important to believe in the Trinity as we understand it? why not believe like the Mormons believe? didn't most of this language start with the Nicene creed?). At the end of the talk I had a number of people say, "I loved your questions, don't stop asking them." Tough questions are enemy only to people with a lazy faith. Unfortunately there are lots of lazy people in the world. Some of them are Christian. |
Well, don't make the "lazy" assumption that our atheism is simply a reaction to not fitting in with the religious crowd, or flows from somehow being snubbed by our religious peers. I got the "don't lose the church/faith because of its practitioners" speech ad nasuem. At some point it becomes condescending and rude.
The theme of "asking too many questions" is prevalent in the atheists that I know, at least the ones that come from religious backgrounds. I can't speak for others, but for myself, my continued questioning didn't flow from any particular hostility toward my religious upbringing or the other religious believers around me, but from an honest curiosity about ideas that were fascinating to me. (These ideas are still fascinating to me, actually, and I often find that atheists from religious backgrounds tend to share this fascination with religion generally and are often more educated about religion than most followers.)
When those around couldn't answer my questions I went investigating on my own. First within the tradition I had grown up with, then to other traditions, and finally outside of religious traditions altogether as it became clear that the lack of good answers wasn't the fault of the religious believers and teachers I was questioning, but was simply a result of there not being good answers in the religious context. In fact the deeper my studies into religion went, the worse the answers became.
But that's me. I suppose your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:33:36 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I'll admit to not knowing what is going on at Lourdes, and would be interested in seeing continued research on the supposed miracles. But at the risk of hearing the Doc say, "I told you so," |
I told you so... ;) |
I knew you were going to do that. I must be clairvoyant. :j
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 18:35:16. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:39:17 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those of you who were ostracized for asking too many questions in church, that's too bad. Just Sunday I was attending a "Church 101" class that our church puts on. I was mainly there to provide feedback to the pastors about the content, but I thought I'd ask a few toughies (so why is it important to believe in the Trinity as we understand it? why not believe like the Mormons believe? didn't most of this language start with the Nicene creed?). At the end of the talk I had a number of people say, "I loved your questions, don't stop asking them." Tough questions are enemy only to people with a lazy faith. Unfortunately there are lots of lazy people in the world. Some of them are Christian. |
Well, don't make the "lazy" assumption that our atheism is simply a reaction to not fitting in with the religious crowd, or flows from somehow being snubbed by our religious peers. I got the "don't lose the church/faith because of its practitioners" speech ad nasuem. At some point it becomes condescending and rude.
The theme of "asking too many questions" is prevalent in the atheists that I know, at least the ones that come from religious backgrounds. I can't speak for others, but for myself, my continued questioning didn't flow from any particular hostility toward my religious upbringing or the other religious believers around me, but from an honest curiosity about ideas that were fascinating to me. (These ideas are still fascinating to me, actually, and I often find that atheists from religious backgrounds tend to share this fascination with religion generally and are often more educated about religion than most followers.)
When those around couldn't answer my questions I went investigating on my own. First within the tradition I had grown up with, then to other traditions, and finally outside of religious traditions altogether as it became clear that the lack of good answers wasn't the fault of the religious believers and teachers I was questioning, but was simply a result of there not being good answers in the religious context. In fact the deeper my studies into religion went, the worse the answers became.
But that's me. I suppose your mileage may vary. |
I was more annoyed with the practicioners, not you. If your questions were things like "what's up with the Shroud of Turin?" then I hear ya. If your questions were things like, "Where did we come from and where are we going?" I would think these would be perfect examples of questions Science is no better (and perhaps worse) equippped to answer (and some of why I'm surprised you answered that you felt Science was the key to all of life's questions).
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:46:30 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was more annoyed with the practitioners, not you. If your questions were things like "what's up with the Shroud of Turin?" then I hear ya. If your questions were things like, "Where did we come from and where are we going?" I would think these would be perfect examples of questions Science is no better (and perhaps worse) equipped to answer (and some of why I'm surprised you answered that you felt Science was the key to all of life's questions). |
Well, I had read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy so I already knew it all boiled down to 42.
Early questions were more along the lines of "Why do we believe this, when my friend Billy's church says that?" Moving on to "What's up with the Shroud of Turn" type stuff. As far as grand meanings, the reason for it all, and the like, as a materialist I must answer that it means only what me make it mean. Some find this outlook bleak. I find it powerfully liberating and rife with possibility.
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 18:54:46. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:47:45 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your questions were things like, "Where did we come from and where are we going?" I would think these would be perfect examples of questions Science is no better (and perhaps worse) equippped to answer (and some of why I'm surprised you answered that you felt Science was the key to all of life's questions). |
I'm surprised... no, aghast, that you think science is less equipped to answer a question like "where did we come from?" when the Bible fails to explain early hominids at all. There may be gaps in scientific knowledge, but we at least know humans weren't poofed into existence in their present form. The Biblical gap represents a enormous void from shortly after "in the beginning" to shortly before the appearance of the offering plate. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:57:10 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your questions were things like, "Where did we come from and where are we going?" I would think these would be perfect examples of questions Science is no better (and perhaps worse) equippped to answer (and some of why I'm surprised you answered that you felt Science was the key to all of life's questions). |
I'm surprised... no, aghast, that you think science is less equipped to answer a question like "where did we come from?" when the Bible fails to explain early hominids at all. There may be gaps in scientific knowledge, but we at least know humans weren't poofed into existence in their present form. The Biblical gap represents a enormous void from shortly after "in the beginning" to shortly before the appearance of the offering plate. |
Maybe if you understand "where did we come from?" when referring to a more universal scale. Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science.
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 18:57:45.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 06:59:47 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Perhaps, and almost certainly we won't be around for the final analysis on this point. But I think the jury is still out on this question.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:10:20 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Perhaps, and almost certainly we won't be around for the final analysis on this point. But I think the jury is still out on this question. |
Science itself dictates we cannot know the Prime Mover (ie. the uncaused cause). Current theory stipulates that knowing what happened before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang is impossible due to the fact that physics as we know it disintigrate into what is known as "quantum foam". Basically, as I understand it, you start getting too many "infinities" working their way into the equations and that screws things up.
Think of it as similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Here's a quote from the wiki on Big Bang:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch."
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 19:13:25.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:10:25 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, our turn. These are pretty easy, but interesting.
1. Do you claim to know, without a doubt, that no Supreme Being exists?
1a. If you are a Weak Atheist (ie. you said “no” to #1), how do you consider yourself to be different from an agnostic?
2. Can science provide the answer for all of life’s questions?
3. Which of the following most represents your attitude about the remaining areas of discovery science has not yet been able to tackle (ie. pre-Big Bang, abiogensis, consciousness, etc.)
a) I don’t think much about it
b) The question is poor because we do know the answers
c) I assume science eventually will be able to provide explanations
4. Were you born into a religious family? Would you consider religion to have been an important part of your family’s life?
5. If so, what caused you to change your mind?
6. How has this decision improved your life?
7. Is atheism worth “spreading the word” about? Why or why not? |
1. No
1a. I don't. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"
2. I don't know but I think one day it might be possible.
3. C
4. Somewhat to both. I suppose.
5. When I was young I believed in the Christian God like I did with Santa and the Easter Bunny. I stopped believing when I grew up and started questioning these things and found them to be very questionable to say the very least.
6. I can't really say. To me, this question is not even applicable. I wouldn't characterize it as a decision any more than I would characterize "the sky is not filled with blueberries", a decision.
7. No. I don't believe in shackling people with one's own bias. The only thing worth spreading the word about is encouraging others to think for themselves and giving them the means to practice it. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:14:16 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Perhaps, and almost certainly we won't be around for the final analysis on this point. But I think the jury is still out on this question. |
Science itself dictates we cannot know the Prime Mover (ie. the uncaused cause). Current theory stipulates that knowing what happened before 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang is impossible due to the fact that physics as we know it disintigrate into what is known as "quantum foam". Basically, as I understand it, you start getting too many "infinities" working their way into the equations and that screws things up.
Think of it as similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. |
Current science dictates... |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:15:41 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe if you understand "where did we come from?" when referring to a more universal scale. Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Oh, so you meant that religion explains where we came from (if you can call magic an explanation), and then skips over every chapter of human history from there until the last page or two. Science is getting a pretty good handle on at least the past few million years, not just the last 6,000. I consider that a better explanation. |
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:23:15 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe if you understand "where did we come from?" when referring to a more universal scale. Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Oh, so you meant that religion explains where we came from (if you can call magic an explanation), and then skips over every chapter of human history from there until the last page or two. Science is getting a pretty good handle on at least the past few million years, not just the last 6,000. I consider that a better explanation. |
"pretty good handle" is, of course, relative. My only point is there are questions Science is not designed to answer. You can argue whether 'where did we come from?' is one of them, but I don't doubt such questions exist. "What is our purpose?" makes no sense with regard to the Scientific Method yet we cannot ignore the question because it is asked thousands of times every day.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:25:37 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Current science dictates... |
In the same way the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates we can never know the exact speed and direction of a elementary particle. It's not like we're just not smart enough. We understand why it can never be done.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:29:11 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Current science dictates... |
In the same way the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates we can never know the exact speed and direction of a elementary particle. It's not like we're just not smart enough. We understand why it can never be done. |
We currently understand why it can currently not be done, within the bounds of current understanding.
yes.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:30:37 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Perhaps, and almost certainly we won't be around for the final analysis on this point. But I think the jury is still out on this question. |
Science itself dictates we cannot know the Prime Mover (ie. the uncaused cause). Current theory stipulates that knowing what happened before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang is impossible due to the fact that physics as we know it disintigrate into what is known as "quantum foam". |
There is an interesting article on a study reported earlier today on this very subject - Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?. It may be difficult, but maybe not impossible to gather evidence from before the big bang. I guess that a few decades ago we might not have expected to be able to detect the echo of the big bang, and we have, so maybe impressions of an earlier universe will not be impossible to detect.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:35:48 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimate beginnings are outside the realm of science. |
Perhaps, and almost certainly we won't be around for the final analysis on this point. But I think the jury is still out on this question. |
Science itself dictates we cannot know the Prime Mover (ie. the uncaused cause). Current theory stipulates that knowing what happened before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang is impossible due to the fact that physics as we know it disintigrate into what is known as "quantum foam". |
There is an interesting article on a study reported earlier today on this very subject - Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?. It may be difficult, but maybe not impossible to gather evidence from before the big bang. I guess that a few decades ago we might not have expected to be able to detect the echo of the big bang, and we have, so maybe impressions of an earlier universe will not be impossible to detect. |
An interesting read and although it sounds like we are talking about Science, we aren't. The telling quote is as follows: "However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.” On those grounds the idea fails the most basic requirements to qualify as a "scientific hypothesis". Those requirements, of course, have been applied countless times in these threads to theistic ideas.
EDIT: I understand they altered the equations, but it still does not lead to any testable hypothesis.
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 19:40:00.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 07:50:44 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An interesting read and although it sounds like we are talking about Science, we aren't. The telling quote is as follows: "However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.” On those grounds the idea fails the most basic requirements to qualify as a "scientific hypothesis". Those requirements, of course, have been applied countless times in these threads to theistic ideas.
EDIT: I understand they altered the equations, but it still does not lead to any testable hypothesis. |
have you never heard of theoretical physics before, or do you just not think it is science ?
Theories typically need to be testable, but models of the operation of the world can be useful, even when they are not provable.
If you ever manage to make a phone call with a cell phone, you are using technology based on unimplementable and unprovable physical models.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 08:29:19 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
In regards to the portion about evolution I am happy to say that I agree and understand 100%. One point here though. Didn't the gardener in each of the three scenarios have a dramatic impact on each of the gardens? |
Not really - one garden was dry, another shady, and the last influenced by another species. Those environments exist naturally, without the need for any gardener.
Let's add something else that we see in nature: occassional genetic misprinting resulting in a deformity. The vast majority of deformed seeds will not germinate, and those that do may generally be mising something vital. But once in a while, the change might be better for the plant in a particular environment. For example, a leaf may become upturned and crinkled at the edges because the leaf edge cell type is genetically damaged and less effective at processing the required nutrients, with the unintended consequence that the plant catches rain water better. In the shady garden that is a disadvantage (less open surface area) but might keep the plant alive for longer in the dry garden. In one environment its descendents would flourish, in the other it would die out more quickly.
Again - hopefully common sense.
Now consider a longer line of gardens, each with a different environment. Lets say that the plant is first grown in a moderate garden, then spreads to a dry garden (where long rooted descendents thrive), spreads to the shady garden (where the bigger leaved descendents tend to do better), and these spread to a hot garden (where plants with fewer pores do better). The descendents of the first plant are normal in all respects. The plants in the last garden might have collected traits from its various ancestors and have fewer pores, bigger leaves, longer roots, and look quite different from those in the first garden. Throw in a lucky genetic misprint that has been successful somewhere along the line, and the differences may be so great within the chain that the plants at each end might not look terribly similar, and would not cross pollinate.
Again, hopefully this is still not beyond common sense.
Message edited by author 2008-04-09 20:35:14.
|
|
