Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."
Posted 08 April 2012 - 02:53 AM
Unfortunately for the op, the BB theory makes predictions about what the cosmos should look like, then those predictions can be tested. So far they it's fairly acurate. The theme of creation however is not inconsistent with the BB theory. Only inconsistent with literalist interpretations. I'm not a creationist, but genisus is a pretty acurate poetic summary of the BB when view from unbiased eyes.
My own personal experience with altered state symbolism lends me to beleive like most spiritual revelations, the original story came from someone witnessing the BB In a vision and trying to describe it in the language available.
"To know oneself is to study one self in action with another person. Relationship is a process of self evaluation and self revelation. Relationship is the mirror in which you discover yourself - to be is to be related."---Bruce Lee
This is expected from Dawkins and Sagan they are scientists and good ones but not philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science,
This is ridiculous Lion. Sagan was not familiar with the philosophy of science? You realize what the P in PhD stands for right?
Oh, please allow us all to now be enlightened by a 'former'-atheist-converted-muslim-cabdriver-turned-internet-philosophizer to inform us on the philosophy of science.....Dunning and Kruger-- damn them, striking again!
Edit to test out my psychic powers: Can you then quote me and add a bunch of "lols", whilst claiming I also know nothing about the philosophy of science--simultaneously singing your praises for your l33t philosophy skills!
I can't agree with you more. My point is to avoid the emotive eruption to deny or affirm anything we are not sure about it.
My post was not made to agree with your OP in the specifics of it. I was pointing out that people, who generally have an imperfect understanding of something, tend to create their own mythology built on that imperfect understanding.
In the case of the BBT, it is not that the theory itself describes a myth, but that lay-people have made claims regarding what BBT states which amount to myth. You are somewhat correct when you refer to "the myth of the Big Bang" (although your referencing of Sagan to make this point was not), but it is what people claim the theory states that is the myth - not the theory itself.
In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project
"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.
It is a pleasant surprise to find myself in partial agreement with Lion. However, there is no surprise that we disagree about many things here.
because if they were (philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science) they would understand such questions ("well where did god come from" and "who designed the designer") are philosophically and logically redundant and shows lack of understanding of the actual argument for god.
Well, of course, Dawkins' question has an additional complication that Sagan's does not, which narrows it possible application. Must a designer be designed? If yes, then since I have designed things, I must have been designed. Dawkins disbelieves this. That leaves us with no, in which case, the objection doesn't rebut the truth of the claim that a designer God exists.
Dawkins' remark seems to have arisen in the face of pseudoscientific arguments that alleged "complexity" in biology requires a designer. His objection is perfect rebuttal to the force of the argument, since it reveals the argument to be incoherent. An incoherent argument can support nothing, however, so its defeat can't support anything, either, as noted earlier.
Sagan, I think, was hunting for bigger game. There is a heuristic, rooted in scientific practice, maybe best expounded by Richard Feynman. If the strength of evidence in favor of an existence claim consistently decreases the more and more carefully the claim is investigated, then the claim is that much more likely to be false. Sagan's "God of the gaps" visibly specializes Feynman's principle to the ontological claim "God exists."
While a heuristic does not prove anything, it can furnish a rational basis upon which to adopt a belief or to increase confidence in a belief. Thus, Sagan's "gaps" argument justifies the idea that science does provide a rational basis to reject Creator God claims. That justification happens despite the question not being a direct object of scientific inquiry, and occurs in addition to the complete uselessness of those claims for conducting scientific inquiry.
That's pretty good shooting for a guy who's unfamiliar with the philosophy of science. You may wish to revisit your estimate of Sagan.
"I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".
Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:36 PM
Ben Masada, on 07 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:
Why don't you share with me what you teach your daughter about the big bang?
Well for a start..... I will teach her not to pay attention to spamming posts on multi forumsby the same perosn Ben Masdas
.... If I teach her anything about the Big Bang, it will be my OWN choice of science books... ....And what I teach her is is my own business
And if you sigh about it being a myth,
you must not believe that Carl Sagan was a famous astrophysicist to refer to the big bang as a myth.
I am not putting down Carl Sagan ....What I am going to do here is point out the differences between - Myth and Theory
An idea or hypothesis that is tested through scientific methods, conclusions drawn, presenting an outcome OR facts ....Example - Often so many creationists will mix up the words - Theory and Hypothesis .
Are made up tales about super humans or fictional events even tale tales ...Myths have absolutely no evidence to back them.. so they remain a collection of tall tales AKA myths
Isn't the Big Bang a theory based on a hypothesis that seeing as we are expanding, if you rewind the timeline then there comes a point when the expansion must have started..its not a myth its an explanation based on science, science is still debating this event...even using the religious explanation god created everything...so there must have been an time when there was nothing and then suddenly everything...a big bang event !
Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:58 AM
Lion6969, on 08 April 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:
I think 8 bits reply was sufficient and I would like to give a philosophical angle on what Sagan was referring to....in 8 bits quote of Sagan it's clear that he says the if the big bang is correct it actually leaves us with much tougher questions to answer and in this process he says that questions which are beyond science are responded by saying "well it must have been god" this is the god of gaps argument Sagan was referring to, his own response is "well where did god come from" very similar to the regurgitated quote of Dawkins "who designed the designer". This is expected from Dawkins and Sagan they are scientists and good ones but not philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science, because if they were they would understand such questions are philosophically and logically redundant and shows lack of understanding of the actual argument for god. That said the god of the gaps was a Christian theological response to questions science could not answer, it's very simplistic.
I saw a live braodcast between Dawkins and catholic arch bishop of sydney, australia, Pell, on ABC last night. One thing became vey clear. Their world views are so different that they speak different languages. Eg dawkins said science could explain why we are here. But he meant in a mechanistic sense Pell said only religion could explain why we are here. Dawkins said this was a nonsense question? He didn't go so far as to explain that, to him there IS no inherent purpose to our existence.
Pell then explained that, to him, the metaphysical/philosophic question of why we exist and what our puprose is, is the single most important/fundamental question humanity can ask.
The basic difference in understanding and priorities of these two world views made any sensible dialogue almost impossible. DAwkins knew his science far far beter tha pell, but pell knew people and their needs much better.
Near the end of the show a young woman asked dawkins that, if no god existed, but belief in god conferred benefits, wasn't that a logical reason to believe in god. DAwkins, first, really did not accept significant benefits of belief, but then said no, the truth was more important than any benefits conferred by belief. Again this is a limited view. If one truth is that belief will improve, lengthen and enhance your life, then why is that truth less significant than any truth about the existence of a physical god? It is what is physically demonstrable which is most important. And the benefits of faith ARE provable. The non existence of god is not.
One is not really a belief at all, while the other is. Unfortunately, IMO, pell agreed. He said that belief was not important, but that the truth was. And to him, gods existence is a truth. I dont see how, as for most people it is a world view based on faith.
Finally, and most interestingly, pell said that catholc theology says humans will be resurrected in a new physical body, with our old soul, and placed on a new earth.
Dawkins simply refuse to accept that Pell believed this. H could not see beyond the brain and body dieing and thus being impossible to ressurect. I susoect this refusal lays at the heart of dawkin's atheism. He has never really considered the possibility of, or potentialities arising from, a full physical resurrection of body and soul as possible. Raised an anglican he must have only considered resurrection as an extension of consciousness, and knowing that consciousness is a product of our body, concluded that it was impossible once the btrain was dead.
Pell explained that he really believed that both body and soul would be reborn and that go dhas the power to do both quite easily.. Dawkins was certain that pell's belief was metaphysically/philosophically based, rather than physically.
Dawkins evidently has no room, in any belief structure, for a god so powerful it can resuusrect both body and soul. Where as Pell sees god as that powerful, and also existing beyond/outside of our own space time continuum. Unfortunately that issue was not resolved, as they ran out of time.
One other comment by pell, i found fascinating.
He said all humans are saved by christ. He does not expect any human to suffer in hell for eternity, althought he believes such a place exists. Rather, he expects people who are not immediately saved to be re-educated and reconnected to god after varying periods of time. I found that fascinating, bcause it is not what i would view as traditional catholic theology.
Edited by Mr Walker, 10 April 2012 - 02:24 AM.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..
I love Pell, and I think Global Cayholicism last out when he didn't become heir to the throne of Saint Peter.
And the concept of everyone getting into Heaven/reborn is in line with the concept of Purgatory cleasening us all of sins and then allowing us the Grace of God, with the fiery pit only for those who actively side against God.
Seems to have until you look at the details. That is not evidence. That is belief.
Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about? Its admited by honest scientist they have no idea, say for instance, how the first living cell formed. Some people look at it, with all its amazing complexity and say it must be designed. Others look at it and assume conditions must have been perfect for it to create its self. Seems to me, though both take a leap of faith, believing it could create its self takes at least as much faith then thinking it was designed.
Edited by preacherman76, 10 April 2012 - 10:57 AM.
Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.