Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: White House Science Advisor: "Intelligent Design" not Scientific

Expand Messages
  • Danny Faulkner
    Kyle wrote: Danny R. Faulkner a stellar astronomer drfaulkn@gwm.sc.edu ... I don t have to chase down theories and put God into it. Athiests who are
    Message 1 of 31 , Mar 1 5:25 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Kyle wrote:

      Danny R. Faulkner
      a stellar astronomer
      drfaulkn@...

      >>>>
      I don't have to "chase down theories" and put God into it. Athiests
      who are scientifically and philosophically educated reject the Big
      Bang theory not because I put God into it, but because by the very
      nature of the Big Bang model, God is already in it. Athiesm and the
      Big Bang model are, BY DEFINITION, mutually exclusive propositions.
      If you have someone who professes to believe in both they are
      uneducated either in the realms of theology, philosophy or perhaps
      both.
      >>>>

      Kyle, I must disagree. I suppose that you will hang your hat on
      your statement about those "scientifically and philosophically
      educated," but I think that that is a trap is separate out those who
      disagree with you. Does one have to have formal education in philosophy
      to qualify as being philosophically educated? From what I see, those
      who are predisposed to theism tend to see theism in the BB, and those
      who are not do not. Indeed, many of what we would consider heavy
      hitters in BB cosmology reject theism. Please read the last two
      paragraphs of the epilogue of Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg's "First
      Three Minutes." Many theists reference Robert Jastrow's book, "God and
      the Astronomers" without realizing that three decades after the
      publication of that book, Jastrow remains an agnostic. Both Paul Davies
      and Stephen Hawking in there many books refer to god (notice the little
      "g"), meaning something very different from theism. Martin Reese has
      weighed in with similar conclusions in his books dealing with cosmology,
      as have the late Carl Sagan, and Barrow and Tippler in their tome, "The
      Anthropic Principle." I'm sure that the list goes on. If the case for
      a Creator is so great in the BB model, one must ask why all of these
      brilliant men have escaped that conclusion, apart from mere hardness of
      their hearts.
      Most people who see theism in the BB use the causality argument,
      which works in time. The BB model posits that the BB was the first
      event in time. Therefore, the BB could not have an antecendent. A
      causality argument for the BB must push causality through the barrier of
      time. One cannot apply an argument bound in time past a barrier in
      time. It is pretty obvious that an effect cannot precede its cause; I'm
      not quite so certain, but still pretty sure, that an effect and its
      cause cannot happen simultaneously. Therefore, I conclude that
      causality cannot get you theism from the BB model. It doesn't mean that
      God doesn't exist - it just means that causality cannot demonstrate
      theism. If one understands the BB model (my qualifier that I hang my
      hat on), then one realizes that it qualifies as a uncaused cause. If
      one wants to believe that God caused it, then realize that that is an
      appeal to two uncaused causes. Many of the above authors have suggested
      ways in which the BB came to be in a manner consistent with itself, such
      as quantum flucuations or Hawkings' unbounded in time model. I think
      that the work of these many people demonstrate that atheism is alive and
      well among BB theorists. What clouds the issue is that while most, but
      certainly not all BB'ers are atheists, apparently there are no theists
      among the common alternate cosmologies, such as steady state or plasma.
      Danny
    • charleenlohman
      You are mentally unstable, Mark. I choose not to dialog with you, not because you are mentally unstable, but because you are MEAN and mentally unstable....
      Message 31 of 31 , Mar 4 5:25 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        You are mentally unstable, Mark. I choose not to dialog with you, not because you are mentally unstable, but because you are MEAN and mentally unstable....






        ---------------------------------
        Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
        Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.