|
Post by Yankel on May 21, 2005 0:12:34 GMT -5
Thousands and even just hundreds of years ago, religious explanations of reality had a certain plausibility. When you have no science and little or no understanding of how or why anything works or has come about, the suggestion that it's all been created, sustained and controlled by some unseen, omnipotent 'supernatural' being or beings is not an altogther unreasonable hypothesis. One could argue that science itself is a religion. Concepts like the big bang theory, which are far are from flawless and do contain inconsistencies, do require faith.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 21, 2005 3:12:58 GMT -5
One could argue that science itself is a religion. Concepts like the big bang theory, which are far are from flawless and do contain inconsistencies, do require faith. But they are not believed in as dogmas, but more as the best suitable hipotesys for the moment, preferred on the others as more consistent/proved. The same can not be said of religions IMO.
|
|
|
Post by vela on May 21, 2005 18:41:30 GMT -5
But they are not believed in as dogmas, but more as the best suitable hipotesys for the moment, preferred on the others as more consistent/proved. The same can not be said of religions IMO. And you're not condemned if you don't believe!
|
|
|
Post by Circe on May 23, 2005 13:45:24 GMT -5
And you're not condemned if you don't believe! Although you may get excommunicated
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on May 24, 2005 5:14:36 GMT -5
For the people interested, the Big Bang theory is just a result of using general relativity to extrapolate back to the moment of the beginning of the Universe (i.e. t = 0). It asserts that at t = 0 all space, time, matter and energy were created.
However it is definitely flawed (as Flowin Prose mentioned) due to a number of inconsistencies. The theory states that there was a point of infinite temperature and density, which is clearly physically impossible. Also general relativity is not an apt theory for very small distance scales, as this is the realm where quantum mechanical effects take over, and the two theories cannot be merged as they produce disastrous results (e.g. infinite probabilities).
To be honest, all scientific explanations of the beginning of the Universe are up to now, just pure speculation. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to corroborate those claims. (I am excluding the Big Bang theory as it is not really a theory of the beginning of the Universe but rather of the aftermath, and just explains the expansion since very early times.)
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 24, 2005 5:28:07 GMT -5
However it is definitely flawed (as Flowin Prose mentioned) due to a number of inconsistencies. Yes, but this is non relevant to the difference between science and religion. Even the most religious man chooses religion over science only where this does not affect his life, but when he wants to stop his car prefers brakes and attrition to prayers.
|
|
|
Post by amksa on May 24, 2005 9:07:22 GMT -5
judging by the curious way we practrice islam (maraboutism, talisman, witchcraft, local saints worshipping, etc), i think that i'm some kind of modern Animist whereas, deeply, i believe that i am Lamaist : i wish i were Tibetan !
|
|
|
Post by humantag on Jun 3, 2005 22:41:23 GMT -5
For the people interested, the Big Bang theory is just a result of using general relativity to extrapolate back to the moment of the beginning of the Universe (i.e. t = 0). It asserts that at t = 0 all space, time, matter and energy were created. This is dead wrong. Einstein in fact famously fudged his theory of relativity by selecting a carefully determined non-zero value for the 'Cosmological Constant' which appears in the equations of relativity, in order to ensure a static ('non-expanding') universe by contributing the force necessary to counter the expansion implied (but not observed) by relativity. In other words, special effort was made in the formulation of the theory of relativity to prevent such a thing as a Big Bang from being possible. The Big Bang theory came about much later as a result of the 1929 observation by Edwin Hubble that all of the distant galaxies (those not effected by local gravity, which would tend to coalesce matter) were travelling away from one another (ergo, the universe is expanding). This led Einstein to retract his Cosmolgical Constant, which he famously characterised as his 'greatest blunder'. Interestingly enough, recent observations that the expansion of the universe is accerating have led scientsists to revisit Einstein's Cosmological Constant as one possible explanation for what is observed - it may not have been such a blunder after all. However it is definitely flawed (as Flowin Prose mentioned) due to a number of inconsistencies. The theory states that there was a point of infinite temperature and density, which is clearly physically impossible. You are obviously ignorant of the physics involved here. First if all, it is by no means clear that a true singularity (a point of infinite density and temperature) is 'physically impossible' - support this claim with evidence please. The problem with infinites is that they represent a mathematical dead end when they turn up in equations. This does not mean however that they are physically meaningless. Certainly the possibility of a true singularity is far more plausible than the idea of an invisible, perfect, eternal, moral, conscious being who 'created everything', for whom there is absolutely no compelling evidence but plenty of wishful thinking. After all, there is plenty of evidence of stars collpasing into black holes (and possibly points of infinite density and temperature). There is NO compelling evidence of a conscious, moral, supernatural creator with a personal interest in mankind. In any event, a point of infinite density is not required by the Big Bang theory. The most famous example of this is the Hawking-Turok model of the 'early universe'. There are others. You are ignorant - very ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on Jun 4, 2005 5:33:02 GMT -5
This is dead wrong. Einstein in fact famously fudged his theory of relativity by selecting a carefully determined non-zero value for the 'Cosmological Constant' which appears in the equations of relativity, in order to ensure a static ('non-expanding') universe by contributing the force necessary to counter the expansion implied (but not observed) by relativity. Sorry, you are the one that is wrong here. The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is based on both general relativity and the cosmological principle. If you are denying this, then you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Alexander Friedmann was the first physicst to apply general relativity to the Universe as a whole, and found that Einstein's theory of general relativity (1915) did not admit any static cosmological solutions. It undeniably asserted that the Universe had to be either expanding or contracting. This was unacceptable to Einstein, who refused to change his views of a static, eternal Universe. This was the reason why he introduced the cosmological constant in the first place. I provide you with this link so that you can read about the BBT, something which you have clearly not understood: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Theoretical_underpinnings The Big Bang theory came about much later as a result of the 1929 observation by Edwin Hubble that all of the distant galaxies (those not effected by local gravity, which would tend to coalesce matter) were travelling away from one another (ergo, the universe is expanding). Wrong again. Hubble's observation of the recession of distant galaxies in 1929 provided the first experimental evidence of the BBT. This is a necessary step for what is commonly called 'the scientific method'. A theory can only have the status of a theory when it makes predictions which are subsequently verified by independent experimenters. Hubble's observations are NOT the catalyst behind the formulation of the BBT, as you so confidently claim. The BBT was proposed before 1929, so it clearly doesn't mean 'that the BBT came about much later as a result of the 1929 observation'. Interestingly enough, recent observations that the expansion of the universe is accerating have led scientsists to revisit Einstein's Cosmological Constant as one possible explanation for what is observed - it may not have been such a blunder after all. True, the cosmological constant is no doubt a big puzzle of modern-day science. Attempts are being made to reconcile the mystery of dark energy with this cosmological constant, although recent papers suggest that there is no cosmological constant. Anyhow, dark energy is not at all close to being understood by physicists or astronomers, and there are many speculations about the nature of it. You are obviously ignorant of the physics involved here. First if all, it is by no means clear that a true singularity (a point of infinite density and temperature) is 'physically impossible' - support this claim with evidence please. The problem with infinites is that they represent a mathematical dead end when they turn up in equations. This does not mean however that they are physically meaningless.. Again wrong! A singularity is undoubtedly regarded by physicists as a clear signpost that nature is telling us that there is something incomplete about the modern theories. I don't have to provide any evidence for it, any serious physicist will tell you that infinite temperatures, infinite density and no volume are evidence for the lack of applicability of general relativity when we approach time t = 0. Actually, by denying this you are in denial of what is considered the central problem of modern-day physics: the formulation of an internally consistent theory of quantum gravity, which merges both quantum mechanics and general relativity, and is applicable within any range. The two theories are fundamentally incompatible, and this mysterious fact has been occuyping the world's most renowned physicists. In any event, a point of infinite density is not required by the Big Bang theory. The most famous example of this is the Hawking-Turok model of the 'early universe'. There are others. You are ignorant - very ignorant. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Hawking-Turok instanton is not related to the BBT, but is just a theory of initial conditions. There are various models of initial conditions, including the 1983 Hawking-Hartle model. These are all designed specifically to avoid infinities. There would be no reason to formulate these models if infinities could be a common feature of nature. Anyways, these are all clearly speculations, and are considered to be on the bound of metaphysics. I must conclude that I am not the one that is ignorant, very ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 4, 2005 14:18:02 GMT -5
The fact that humantag and Curios6, being in deep disagreement (i.e. hating each other guts) on Sionism, found a way to fight over the big bang, should tell a lesson to all those who think problems should be resolved by a pool of experts.
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on Jun 4, 2005 14:42:37 GMT -5
The fact that humantag and Curios6, being in deep disagreement (i.e. hating each other guts) on Sionism, found a way to fight over the big bang, should tell a lesson to all those who think problems should be resolved by a pool of experts. LOL, you're kinda exaggerating dude.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 5, 2005 12:40:49 GMT -5
Maybe. Or maybe not. Let's say that was it possible to elaborate two different takes of the theory of relativity and that one would imply the corollary that sionist have very long dicks, while the second would bring to the conclusion that they are sadly lacking in that department, I would be glad to bet on who of you would support which theory. Ever heard of the reductio ad absurdum, dude?
|
|
|
Post by nbz on Jun 5, 2005 14:41:27 GMT -5
Today however, when the triumph of reason and scientific methodology over superstition and supernaturalism is woven into the fabric of virtually every aspect and convenience of modern life, supernaturalism is an entirely unnecessary and implausible hypothesis. You cannot compare religion with science that way. You say supernaturalism is a thing from the past, lets take a look at today top box office movies: www.movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.phpStar Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Shrek, ET... Magical Creatures, Witches, Prophecies, Superpower Heroes, Beings from outer space, etc... And the Bible is about Superstition?
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 5, 2005 14:50:41 GMT -5
Eliminate the supernatural and you will have no joy in life.
Elimate God and you are nothing but a smart monkey.
No thank you.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 5, 2005 19:20:31 GMT -5
Eliminate the supernatural and you will have no joy in life. Elimate God and you are nothing but a smart monkey. No thank you. Which joy gives you superstition, Mike? And what's so bad in being a smart monkey? Finally the fact religion or superstition may be useful in life is not a good argument, is it?
|
|