Science and Theology, the sequel

08/25/2011 03:56:09 PM · #2226

Originally posted by scalvert:

So your counterclaim to the argument that time has always existed, and therefore god isn't necessary, is to point out that there are competing hypotheses where t=0 and god still isn't necessary? Cool... a god of the gaps minus the gap.

You know that isn't MY claim at all. Using the word "gap" doesn't scare me at all. Where else would you expect to find the supernatural except outside the natural?

Here's more to help you in case you still don't get it. It's from the wiki on the lamda-CDM model...

Historically, the dominant cosmological model previous to the now "standard model" was the Steady State theory, proposed independently in 1948 by H. Bondi & T. Gold and by Fred Hoyle. The universe in this model was flat, infinitely large, infinitely old (homogeneity and isotropy were extended in time as well as space)and was continuously creating matter to stabilize the mass-energy density of expanding space. The ΛCDM model is remarkable in that it describes a dynamic, evolving universe, from the initial singularity, inflation, spatial expansion and the creation of all matter through the formation of more than 100 billion visible galaxies from a fixed quantity of matter. It foretells a future in which the metric expansion of space will carry all galaxies away from each other at speeds greater than light, and observers in each galaxy will see only their own galaxy in an otherwise empty universe.[2]

We used to think the universe was isotropic in all dimensions (including time). That would be consistent and easier to describe. Now we think the universe is not isotropic in the dimension of time. Why? Should we have expected this? Could naturalism theories have predicted this? That's your nut. Have at it.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/25/2011 04:14:38 PM · #2227

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's your nut. Have at it.

Awesome. The ability to discard old beliefs in favor of new evidence is the primary appeal of science, whose predictions have led to countless new discoveries and understandings. Contrast that to religion, with its track record of zero successful predictions, staunch resistance to contrary, evidence and unbroken history of absurd claims. Whereas primitive tribes used to believe gods directed storms and smote unworthy humans, we now have modern people praying for a god to influence Hurricane Irene and spare them. That's your nut... thousands of years old and unfit for human consumption. ;-)

08/25/2011 04:15:04 PM · #2228

Hey, sorry to interrupt our banter. Was it you that was taking pictures with your camera attached to an extendable pole? I have it in my mind that it was you. We were talking about it in the aerial kite thread.

08/25/2011 04:24:44 PM · #2229

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's your nut. Have at it.

Awesome. The ability to discard old beliefs in favor of new evidence is the primary appeal of science, whose predictions have led to countless new discoveries and understandings. Contrast that to religion, with its track record of zero successful predictions, staunch resistance to contrary, evidence and unbroken history of absurd claims. Whereas primitive tribes used to believe gods directed storms and smote unworthy humans, we now have modern people praying for a god to influence Hurricane Irene and spare them. That's your nut... thousands of years old and unfit for human consumption. ;-)

And the two return to their corners, bruised and battered, but unswayed... ;)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/25/2011 04:51:30 PM · #2230

Disprove a major tenet in science and you win the Nobel Prize. Disprove a major tenet in religion and you're lucky to escape the death penalty. Disprove a major tenet in a DPC rant thread and it never really happened. ;-)