|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 15, 2005 16:08:58 GMT -5
You'll dig the books, I'm sure. Your response will probably be similar to the reviews you posted, though. Sorry if I steered you in the wrong direction. I spoke too hastily on the subject of science; you said that it had not given you evidence to believe in God, and I replied that recent (20th century) discoveries lend more weight to the "God-hypothesis." What I should have said is that they do not give contraverting evidence, and that they define some limits to what evidence we can glean. That's an entirely different stance, my friend. To say something supports an idea is different than saying it doesn't contravene the idea. However, if the basis of an idea is surrounded in obscurity and nowhere near elucidation, then it is simply relying on the lacking of knowledge and this is the typical "god-of-the-gaps" line of argumentation. Those questions aren't meaningless if someone asks them. To try to find out and research and answer those questions is not meaningless. The acquisition of knowledge will lead inevitably to more questions, this is how science progresses. To say there is limitations is to know that all avenues of inquiry have been exhausted and I know I would not be anywhere near that arrogant to think I am certain that has taken place. But that's just me. Could you explain?
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 15, 2005 17:38:38 GMT -5
That's an entirely different stance, my friend. To say something supports an idea is different than saying it doesn't contravene the idea. However, if the basis of an idea is surrounded in obscurity and nowhere near elucidation, then it is simply relying on the lacking of knowledge and this is the typical "god-of-the-gaps" line of argumentation. I know it is a different stance. I misunderstood. I agree with you that science gives us little to go on as to the origins of existence itself. There are certain limitations in the amount knowledge that nature relinquishes us through the study of physics. Perhaps other fields of science meet with similar difficulties, but I just took a physics class, so it is fresh in my mind. However, I'm not a physicist, so I cannot speak with authority on this... Perhaps the books you purchased will enlighten you about it. Here are a couple things that come to mind-- For instance, the condition of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe was such that telescopes today cannot "see" back further than about 300,000 years after the onset of the Big Bang, due to the recombination of electrons that occured before that time, which did not permit radiation (or something like that). Anyway, one can analogize it to the light we see from a cloud; there is a "cloud" obscuring our vision of the earliest moments of the universe, and we can only see the "last scattering" of light that exits that cloud--that light that makes it out of the very edge (in this case, in the form of thermal radiation that has red-shifted down to microwave wavelengths). Another limitation on our knowledge that comes to mind has to do with quantum physics. Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle states that the position and speed of every material particle cannot be "known." Although either indeterminacy can take on any value, the two terms are related by the fact that their product must approximately equal to Planck's constant divided by the particle's mass. (Indeterminacy of Speed)(Indeterminacy of Position) approximately= 6.6xten to the negative 34 (mass) This means that some things are entirely unknoweable; it isn't that we lack the theory or the mathematics or the measuring skill--some things exist outside the scope of human comprehension. Or, if you prefer, the comprehension of any observer bound by the laws of physics as they appear to humans.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 17, 2005 18:48:43 GMT -5
There are certain limitations in the amount knowledge that nature relinquishes us through the study of physics. Perhaps other fields of science meet with similar difficulties, but I just took a physics class, so it is fresh in my mind. However, I'm not a physicist, so I cannot speak with authority on this... Perhaps the books you purchased will enlighten you about it. Here are a couple things that come to mind-- For instance, the condition of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe was such that telescopes today cannot "see" back further than about 300,000 years after the onset of the Big Bang, due to the recombination of electrons that occured before that time, which did not permit radiation (or something like that). Anyway, one can analogize it to the light we see from a cloud; there is a "cloud" obscuring our vision of the earliest moments of the universe, and we can only see the "last scattering" of light that exits that cloud--that light that makes it out of the very edge (in this case, in the form of thermal radiation that has red-shifted down to microwave wavelengths). Another limitation on our knowledge that comes to mind has to do with quantum physics. Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle states that the position and speed of every material particle cannot be "known." Although either indeterminacy can take on any value, the two terms are related by the fact that their product must approximately equal to Planck's constant divided by the particle's mass. (Indeterminacy of Speed)(Indeterminacy of Position) approximately= 6.6xten to the negative 34 (mass) This means that some things are entirely unknoweable; it isn't that we lack the theory or the mathematics or the measuring skill--some things exist outside the scope of human comprehension. Or, if you prefer, the comprehension of any observer bound by the laws of physics as they appear to humans. Of course there are limitations but these are constantly pushed further and further and research continues. However, phsyics not being my forte, I can understand what you're getting at. However, this line of argumentation puts a god within that area which is just out of reach and that is why it is called the "god of the gaps" argument. You choose to believe that outside our area of knowledge is where a deity lies. I see what we do know and continue to know and concluded there is not anything to indicate such a belief. If later knowledge changes and shows this stance to be wrong, I will admit such. I think you may have me figured for a strong atheist who strongly states "there is no god", that I am not. I am described as an agnostic atheist, one who says, "I see no evidence to warrant belief in a god". However, I have not solidly conluded that such is absolutely impossible.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 13:44:58 GMT -5
i'm not bitter. i'm just trying to flip the view of everything and show how stupid the whole thing is. i'm new here so i'm trying to figure out who is who. if i should misunderstand someone its going to happen. there is no god i know this, i would hope someone that does believe would read this and start debating with me. that is all. sorry for any misspellings i'm in a hurry I must admit I could only get through about 1/3 of your orriginal post befor my eyes started to glaze over. It became clear that you seem to know enough of the story that the answers to most of your questions should be clear if you were really interested in answers. I am willing to engage your descusion if you are willing to chose a couple of your favorite challenges, being a working family man I m not able or willing to sort though all of the above when I doubt you are really interested in anything more than mocking. if you havent guessed, I am a Christian and I never have time to worry about my spelling.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 13:46:57 GMT -5
forgot to check the notify of reply box, I wish that could be made automatic, if it can someone please tell me.
|
|