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

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 Science=Religion? on October 5, 1998 14:57:44 UTC

: 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 One day it will have to be superceded by a more accurate, detailed and sophisticated model.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.

In the hour of complet darkness the light becomes more clear. I allways try to put as much contrast as possible in a discussion. Even if I agree, I'll mostly oppose any statement made. Not to anoy, judge, offend, irritate or even for pleasure. But simply because agreeing wonīt bring any new facts or theories to light. So for those who feel offended by my remarks on this forum, maybe itīs in the eye of the beholder. But please remember, I don`t know you and will probably never meet you, so why should I get personal?

Gerwin Brink (evrybody has a right to my opinion)

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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