Beyond Belief 2006

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Depends what God is.

If God is just a placeholder, then sure, guess that works. But no one can agree on a definition of God and if you use the literal biblical definition then it's impossible.

I guess I am safe then because Catholics don't take the bible literally.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

From all that science has to go by the big bang is a fact. It is a scientific theory which in science means it is a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean a theory as used in everyday language.

Also, saying God and the universe are the same has no leg to stand on. It sounds good but doesn't make sense. If you say the universe isn't infinite that has nothing to do with God existing.

No, a scientific theory is not a fact. A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

From all that science has to go by the big bang is a fact. It is a scientific theory which in science means it is a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean a theory as used in everyday language.

Also, saying God and the universe are the same has no leg to stand on. It sounds good but doesn't make sense. If you say the universe isn't infinite that has nothing to do with God existing.

Saying God exists has even less to stand on. We know the universe exists. How can one suggest that God is infinite, the universe is not and you can't even prove that God exists? Then break down my suggestion that the universe might be infinite by simply saying "doesn't make sense". Give me a break, where is the rationality?

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

No, a scientific theory is not a fact. A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. (I did copy this definition. I am not that smart...or even close.)

It has been proven and is a fact.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Saying God exists has even less to stand on. We know the universe exists. How can one suggest that God is infinite, the universe is not and you can't even prove that God exists? Then break down my suggestion that the universe might be infinite by simply saying "doesn't make sense". Give me a break, where is the rationality?

You might have me on this one. I guess it would all just come back to the basic belief in God and having to have faith that he exist.

It is good to talk to someone who has an educated opinion and doesn't take to name calling though.

PJPOWER

MakingWaves wrote:

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. (I did copy this definition. I am not that smart...or even close.)

It has been proven and is a fact.

Any scientist will say to be careful with the word "proven" or "causation".........The term "correlation" is much more appropriate. A scientific theory is at its roots based on correlations instead of absolutes.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

No, a scientific theory is an interpretation of observances. It is at best only as accurate as our ability to observe and make measurements. At worst they are completely wrong based on poor reasoning, poor measurement or poor observation.

MakingWaves

PJPOWER wrote:

Any scientist will say to be careful with the word "proven" or "causation".........The term "correlation" is much more appropriate. A scientific theory is at its roots based on correlations instead of absolutes.

I would agree with that.

We were talking about the Big Bang and from what I know, in the science field that is regarded as fact. Do you agree?

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

I would agree with that.

We were talking about the Big Bang and from what I know, in the science field that is regarded as fact. Do you agree?

It's not, read about it. I'm sorry if I get frustrated by this, but honestly if you so much as look on wikipedia you will find that is garbage.

Halton Arp is a very well known cosmologist who does not agree with Big Bang theory. There are dozens of cosmologists that don't agree with Big Bang. I can link you a documentary full of cosmologists that disagree with Big Bang theory. I'm sickened by the assumptions you people constantly make.

Scientific theory is a theory about facts, hypothesis is a means to test the theory. Scientific theory is much more solid than a guess, but it hardly translates to fact.

wikipedia wrote:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory

OutOfBreath

surferdude wrote:

No, a scientific theory is an interpretation of observances.

You nailed it there I think. Scientific theories are ususally more founded than mere guesswork and loose speculation, and are based on a number of observances, some of which one feel (note the word I used there) are so secure as to call facts. Fact is generally a word used far too often for my tastes.

Still, I usually put more merit in a scientifically tested theory, than untested theories.

Peace
Dan

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I think the big bang does noting to explain the creation of the universe at all. It's complete bunk.

All it does is account for all that we can observe as far out as we can look with the instruments we have at this technology level.

To think there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the physical space that surrounds us is utterly and totally rediculous in the same way it was once thought that everything revolved around the earth by the small religious minds of the time.

It also defies the notion of infinity. The big bang concept is a finite concept and quantification of space that has borders.

True we are living in the remnants of a immensely massive supernova, but to think it accounts for everything out there is again the old world concepts of the mind of man interfering with reality.

Religion is a method to keep man from going insane trying to comprehend the raw reality of our physical circumstance(s) as we scream along through space becoming increasingly aware or our surroundings. It's like a soother to a baby in a way. Or in most cases just learned behavior from childhood.

searchlightsoul

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think the big bang does noting to explain the creation of the universe at all. It's complete bunk.

All it does is account for all that we can observe as far out as we can look with the instruments we have at this technology level.

To think there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the physical space that surrounds us is utterly and totally rediculous in the same way it was once thought that everything revolved around the earth by the small religious minds of the time.

It also defies the notion of infinity. The big bang concept is a finite concept and quantification of space that has borders.

True we are living in the remnants of a immensely massive supernova, but to think it accounts for everything out there is again the old world concepts of the mind of man interfering with reality.

Religion is a method to keep man from going insane trying to comprehend the raw reality of our physical circumstance(s) as we scream along through space becoming increasingly aware or our surroundings. It's like a soother to a baby in a way. Or in most cases just learned behavior from childhood.

There are theories to explain pre-Big Bang time which involve an infinite number of universes which collide periodically releasing and infinite amount of energy which we equate with the begining of our universe. I guess I would ask why there needs to have been a start and an end-isn't it possible that there never was one despite how difficult that may be for us to comprehend?

searchlightsoul

OutOfBreath wrote:

You nailed it there I think. Scientific theories are ususally more founded than mere guesswork and loose speculation, and are based on a number of observances, some of which one feel (note the word I used there) are so secure as to call facts. Fact is generally a word used far too often for my tastes.

Still, I usually put more merit in a scientifically tested theory, than untested theories.

Peace
Dan

My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

searchlightsoul wrote:

There are theories to explain pre-Big Bang time which involve an infinite number of universes which collide periodically releasing and infinite amount of energy which we equate with the begining of our universe. I guess I would ask why there needs to have been a start and an end-isn't it possible that there never was one despite how difficult that may be for us to comprehend?

We are here therefore something always was "here"

An empty universe in order to be truly empty can never be anything but empty, otherwise is was not empty space to begin with in the first place.

I found a great web page explaining this concept in depth a while back.

Basically two scenarios exist. Something was always here, or nothing was always here. Very simple.

Something cannot just appear from out of nowhere like a spark or big bang because that spark requires space and origin from somewhere, yet we are talking about the one and same everywhere so it is one and the same place. Something cannot come from somewhere when that somewhere is everywhere.

We are here so that proves that the universe has always been here, and just exists, and will continue on as such....forever.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not, read about it. I'm sorry if I get frustrated by this, but honestly if you so much as look on wikipedia you will find that is garbage.

Halton Arp is a very well known cosmologist who does not agree with Big Bang theory. There are dozens of cosmologists that don't agree with Big Bang. I can link you a documentary full of cosmologists that disagree with Big Bang theory. I'm sickened by the assumptions you people constantly make.

Scientific theory is a theory about facts, hypothesis is a means to test the theory. Scientific theory is much more solid than a guess, but it hardly translates to fact.

and i can link you to writings by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings who are regarded as the greatest modern scientists of all time that say the big bang did happen. I get sickened where people give their opinion that things that are regarded as scientific fact in the science community is wrong when there is so much more evidence to support the big bang then to disprove it. If you are sick of us people making assumptions then people like you need to look in the mirror. You are making more assumptions since there is less fact to say the big bang didn't happen.
Also, if you look on wikipedia you will find that the big bang is correct. You can find any opinion on wikipedia so that means nothing.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saying the big bang explains the entire universe is like saying a spark flying out of the fire is the whole fire.

Preposterous...and stupidity, regardless of whatever academic credentials.

OutOfBreath

searchlightsoul wrote:

My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.

Indeed, ideally. But it's a limited scope of science that fall under the "retestable in experiment" category. And one experiment provides an observance, not a theory. The number of testable observances is theorized into a structure, and in time can become comprehensive theories.

They're theories, but with a bit more weighty backing than "I think". And many of them are useful practically. That does not mean that they have it nailed, it means they are correct enough for the purposes in this time and place.

But semantics really. I think we agree on what science is.

Peace
Dan

PJPOWER

Hey guys, this isn't really about the big bang theory, but rather the expansion of the Earth............I am bored here at work and found this video. It looks to have been made in 2000, so some of you may have seen it before. I haven't really looked into this theory in detail, but it's an interesting video. What are your thoughts? The main piece of information I took from it was the claim that scientists disregard these facts because it would disprove the last 100 years of geographical science (plate techtonics, etc)..........Is it possible that scientists (like the religious) disregard information in order to stand by their beliefs and if so.......how much science, is based on pure speculation instead of evidence? If we can't even figure out the Earth, how can we even begin to explain the origin of the universe (again, this is hypothetical, seeing as how I haven't really deaply looked into the sources of the video). It just got me thinking.........
http://www.vidipedia.org/Special:Video/462

angelica

PJPOWER wrote:

Hey guys, this isn't really about the big bang theory, but rather the expansion of the Earth............I am bored here at work and found this video. It looks to have been made in 2000, so some of you may have seen it before. I haven't really looked into this theory in detail, but it's an interesting video. What are your thoughts? The main piece of information I took from it was the claim that scientists disregard these facts because it would disprove the last 100 years of geographical science (plate techtonics, etc)..........Is it possible that scientists (like the religious) disregard information in order to stand by their beliefs and if so.......how much science, is based on pure speculation instead of evidence? If we can't even figure out the Earth, how can we even begin to explain the origin of the universe (again, this is hypothetical, seeing as how I haven't really deaply looked into the sources of the video). It just got me thinking.........
http://www.vidipedia.org/Special:Video/462

I am totally with you in theory my friend. I see this all the time. What we uncover scientifically in 500 years won't come about because new reality systems reveal themselves; what will come about will be due to human awareness, comprehension, etc evolving past the limits and preconceptions that cloud the current human--including scientist--view. Dogmatic science like dogmatic religion distorts reality just as much. Unfortunately, modern western society is based upon scientism, and not real science. When we discovered what science could do for us, we used it in it's own realm, and then beyond in realms it cannot assess, thusly distorting aspects of life that scientific method cannot understand.. In our blindness, we came to decide that if science can't address and uncover it, it doesn't exist, effectively collapsing the fullness of everything. We need only look about at the blatant imbalance surrounding us amidst our great technology to see the fallout.

This is the stuff of quantum philosophy--how we alter any experiment we approach depending on what we are looking to find. Until scientism is willing to accept it's blindness and it's biases, we will keep perpetuating this imbalance, just like imbalanced religion. Two sides of the same coin, my friend. It's the shadow side of human nature.

(I haven't watched the video--I'm going by what you are saying in your post.)

surferdude

searchlightsoul wrote:

My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.

A lot of theory is now only tested in theoretical models. These theories are only as valid as the models. Global Climate Change is pretty accepted theory even though there has never been an accurate climate model developed.