Posted on 09/23/2007 7:07:18 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
And how the universe will end in the big RIP.
“Science can explain everything except why there are scientists.”
The problem isn't a lack of belief in God, in Science....the problem is a lack of belief in "MY God". Or rather, the God of the society the scientist is operating in.
The way some people behave - even here at FR - is a perfect example. Hardcore Christian Fundamentalists often get on threads that discuss any question of science more than 6,000 years in the past, and paint them as Godless lunacy that will land the unbelievers in hell. Should scientists believe in Adam and Eve? The six day creation? A boat so huge it would hold two of every living thing on earth?
No. Of course not. That would end science. But not believing in their God means that to Biblical Literalists, every scientist is a "Godless atheist".
So when ConservativeMind said "automatically believe in God", who's God? God, in general? Fundamentalist's God? Why would they believe in that? How much of the Bible would a scientist have to believe in, for you to consider them a "believer"? Why shouldn't they believe in Allah? Or follow Hinduism?
The question of God in Science is relative to the society asking the question. And frankly, it's usually only a question for the non-scientists. Many scientists believe in a God but find any attempt to qualify God absurd and won't address the question. Thus, they sound like atheists when, in fact, they actually understand how ignorant they truly are.
While the volume of this primordial particle was smaller than an atom, the energy and mass in that wasn't all that much. Most, you could say all, the mass and energy of the universe appeared after the event. Might also mention it is all mathematics of the incomprehensible kind and doesn't directly concern us even if it energizes those who feel existentially threatened by obtuse math.
Purists view the BB as a singularity before which nothing was happening since there was no time, but some cosmologists are indeed theorizing in some detail about what came before. First, though, they assume there was a before--which is doubtless more difficult for most to imagine.
Modern science began with St Augustine. Science in fact came out of the Church and is analogous in some fundamental ways, especially in adopting dogma as the starting point. No wonder some accuse Science of being a Religion. It has a family resemblance and could hardly be otherwise since there aren’t a lot of alternatives.
Indeed, for a bunch of people who claim they can’t believe in God for lack of proof, they instantly except that there are massive amounts of unseen material.
So the answer to, “How is this possible without God?” is “Easy, its unknown invisible matter that is everywhere around us.”
Indeed, for a bunch of people who claim they can’t believe in God for lack of proof, they instantly except that there are massive amounts of unseen material.
So the answer to, “How is this possible without God?” is “Easy, its unknown invisible matter that is everywhere around us.”
It's too bad so many of us lose the inquistiveness of a 3 year old. :^)
Once again, we find that we are not the center of the universe. Truly, adding insult to injury. :^)
“This is why it astounds me that all scientists don’t automatically believe in God.
The best science can do is to state the Big Bang occurred. They think they can describe the Universe to within a second of the Grand Explosion.
However, they can’t begin to even theorize what was there before that, or what put that sort of matter and energy together, or what caused that.”
“And the moment they come up with something, I’ll be right there asking them, okay, then what caused THAT?”
“Science tells us we shouldn’t care about death, because there is nothing we can do about it. God asks us to follow Him and our fears will be wiped away and we will indeed continue.”
There are thousands of theological views in the world, even more if you go back in history.
Which one do you feel is not mis-leading anyone?
There are so many. Even amongst christians yes?
Some very strange ones too. At least to us.
In free nations, we can come to our own conclusions.
I am not religeous. I have not been “mislead” at anytime.
I have been exposed to many views.
I put my trust in the the scientific process because it has earned it. I accept I cannot have answers to every question.
Legendary scientist Freeman Dyson..........
“Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.”
LOL! You've just described "Scientists'" great urge to believe in the fantasy of Dark Energy.
Dark energy, like dark matter before it, is a mathematical construct. Neither exists in the real world.
One great irony is that the self-same scientists who drink the Einsteinian Kool-Aid of "curved space" magically creating Gravity, are the same people who insist that there must be some sort of unknown "Force" accelerating our Universal Expansion.
Which is to say, when push comes to shove, proponents of the Theory of Relativity are the first people who toss ToR into the garbage bin when attempting to actually predict and understand the expansion of our Universe.
er............................ya. ohkay
It’s actually easy to understand.
If Einstein is correct about curved space/time, then the expansion of our universe (or acceleration of matter in said universe) can be explained by curved space/time boundaries whose shapes become sharper the further the universe expands (thus speeding up matter).
Dark matter need not apply.
Or put another way, the universe isn’t really expanding...it’s just that matter speeds up as it approaches the sharp boundaries of Space/Time.
Amazing. All those brilliant physicists out there, and you’re the only one who can do the math.
The math is why physicists feel compelled to invent “dark matter” and “dark energy” from whole cloth...for the physics equations can’t show an accelerating universe without such artificial constructs.
...but anyone who believes in Einstein’s work should disregard “dark matter” and “dark energy” as superfluous constructs because sharply edged space/time boundaries to our Universe explain why matter accelerates as it approaches the edges.
And that explanation needs no such nonsense like “dark matter” to explain unseen gravity.
Or put another way, anyone who believes in “dark matter” and/or “dark energy” is essentially saying that Einstein was wrong about curved space/time.
I was under the impression that something like dark matter is required to explain the angular momentum of galaxies.
Well, considering that “dark matter” doesn’t exist except in the minds of mathematicians, I’d say that would present a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.