Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Deductive Reasoning

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Rob Worrall/">Rob Worrall on October 5, 1998 12:58:54 UTC

: : : : : : Exactly!! Most people (or believers in god) argue that god doesn't need a creator simply because he/she created everything?! Through deductive reasoning, this argument doesn't have any viability. The age of the universe is estimated to be between(10,000,000,000-20,000,000,000)yrs. old. Is god's creator double these #'s? As science advances there will be less belief in a (creator the god)! : : : : : : PS. I used to believe in Santa Claus (Is faith proof????)evidence nil!!!!!!!!!!!! : : : : : You sound rather uneducated sir, why don't : : : : : you tell me exactly what deductive reasoning : : : : : is, reason for using it and the steps of : : : : : deductive resoning that led you to your : : : : : conclusion that the belief that The Creator : : : : : must have a Creator.

: : : : : -Adam : : : : Adam, I assume you own a dictionary so I won't : : : : define deductive reasoning. As far as education, I'm : : : : biologist. Why wouldn't the creator need a creator? : : : : These are questions humans don't know. Why believe in : : : : something that cannot be justifiable as fact.

: : : Upon this day the Big Bang is ONLY a theory. : : : Not a justifiable fact. : : : Why do you BELEIVE in one theory and not the other?

: : : I did not mention the Big Bang theory in any of these questions and statements!!! However, there is some scientific evidence that suggests that this theory COULD be possible!!(Along with Inflationary theory ect..)

: : The microwave backround radiation seen in our universe is a good example of this evidence.

: : It also may be impossible to know the exact cause of the hypothetical BIG BANG because the laws of physics at the hyper-young stage of our universe might be completely different!! On the other hand, please give me some peer critiqued scientific info. on the CREATION THEORY!!

: : CAN YOU READ??? I never mentioned the BIG BANG THEORY until this post!!!!!!!!!! : It isn't just abouyt the Big Bang. If you want you can replace Big Band with any other theory about the origin of : the Universe. It still comes down to the same question: : As long as there is NO proof and just theories

Tut tut everybody. No point wasting metabolism defending your egos against people you don't even know. Use your heads a bit and enjoy the discourse. So coolit!

I'm enjoying this evening on this page. I probably won't return though.

Sure, there is some pretty good physical evidence supporting the mathematical theories of energy, matter, space and time, courtesy of a very large quantity of money spent over a very long time by very many people with telescopes and microscpes and particle accelerators and rockets. And in the harmonic strains of Karen Carpenter "we've only just begun".

But the sum total of human scientific endeavour can't just be boiled down into E=mc2 or Big Bang or whatever. It is a phenomenally immense corpus of extremely sophisticated mathematical and physical modelling. Likewise the sum totality of theological metaphysical prose is more sophisticated and detailed than losing sleep over whether God existed before We invented It.

Now listen. You can't just go and replace a theory about the big bang with some other theory. It has to be completely and totally consistent with the global mathematical and theoretical corpus and it has to have some supporting physical evidence. OK. This is beyond question. It is how living scientist perform their profession.

True - the big bang is JUST a theory and not a justifiable fact. But at this juncture of space and time, it is the model (to be accurate, it is not a "theory" any more than it is an axiom) which best resembles the vast accumulated corpus of scientific though. One day it will have to be superceded by a more accurate, detailed and sophisticated model. One day clever primates called mathematicians (and no I am not one) may cleverly devise a consistent model that punches through the original space-time singularity - we may never ever know. But we should keep on trying.

And not be bogged down by the inertia of DOGMA.

Right now we are UNABLE to know what happened before. Some bright sparks even suggest that "before" is a ridiculous notion because time originated with space and energy (whatever that is) at the singularity.

I must confess - of all things - the wave particle duality of energy and its occasional expression as matter still, after all these years bugs me and excites me immensely.

Physics is not metaphysics.

And bickering about metaphysics should be done amiably.

Hoo roo.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins