Occams razor or Occams rule-the simplest answer is usually the correct one... adding in an unexplainable unverifiable deity to an already complex question multiples the complexity to the Nth degree, and that's just not how nature works...
That is one opinion. Another opinion states that man originated knowing God and the nature of God, and described the heavens accurately. The thunderclouds that developed were well-known by man. However, the farther man spiritually travelled from God, the less he understood, as he sought to undertstand things apart from God. Gradually, his capability in doing so increased; however, the knowledge that is contained in the Bible has typically far outpaced the self-derived knowledge that man has provided. An excellent example of this is Geocentricity, which is quite a valid statement. Another excellent example is the "photon decoupling" event, which is described by Moses in Genesis as the light and the darkness separating. Many modern scholars agree that, if one were there to see the event, the known universe would have appeared opaque before splitting into lightness and darkness. Now, to say that "bringing gods in is unnecessary" challenges the evolutionary standpoint just as surely as your own. Why? Well, I can explain the points of Creation without needing to use secular assumptions; therefore "bringing evolution in is unnecessary." While God is sometimes described as "supernatural," this is largely misunderstood. Supernatural does not mean "unnatural"; rather, it means "beyond natural," or "beyond the visible observable universe" according to Merriam-Webster. When taken in this light, the supernatural can be construed to mean only the origin of the visible, observable universe; that is, the world that surrounds the known world. Now, since something cannot - under any circumstances - be derived from nothing, it is only natural to assume that something "beyond natural" gave rise to something "natural." This is, in verity, a logical statement. There is no possibilty for something to come from nothing. So I'll end this every long night with Einstein: "May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."
You're quite stubbornly starting the story of the universe directly in the middle - most likely because that's the part you feel most comfortable defending. I have posted a bit on the origin of the universe, mostly in response to Flint - which precludes life both literally and in the realm of logic. You are free to post your own responses, or to start the debate yourself at the proper place to start such a debate.
Yeah, no need for the lecture. I am well aware of ID's history and have a fair understanding of the scientific process. I do not view Intelligent Design as a theory (notice that I quoted theory when I wrote of Intelligent Design) and I know that there is no such thing as proof in science, just trying to goad them into taking up my challenge.
Nice try, pal - there are more things wrong about that post than there are about the U.S. government. Occam's Razor says USUALLY - not always. It is a truism, not a codified rule. Not only that, but "God did it" actually makes everything a helluva lot simpler, cutting out those hundreds of millions of years of random chemical changes and the convenient chance mutations that proved beneficial. Adding "God" is not much more complex - only mathematically speaking - than the number infinity^4. Or maybe a few more, depending on how many dimensions there actually are. So according to you, adding a Deity actually satisfies the TRUISM of Occam's Razor, indicating the correctness of Creationism. I'll be charitable and ease your squirming by informing you that Occam's Razor is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, as it is a truism - NOT a mathematical concept. Luckily for your side of the argument.
This is demonstrably incorrect http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html
Chuck....you posted this.... .....So according to general consensus, light speed is actually not constant; or rather, it is, but the speed of the expanding fabric of space could be instant, sort of "dragging" the comparatively slow-moving light with it, and simultaneously scattering and expanding the ultra-dense particles that would become the heavenly bodies all about the newly-created "space". That is, within space, light speed has remained constant, somewhat similar to a paper airplane thrown inside or outside of a closed car. But if you include the speed of the car with the speed of the thrown airplane within in, the speed of the airplane is actually much faster. (Now, of course, frictional and "gravitational" forces make this analogy imperfect, but the point is still quite valid). ********************************************************************************************************************* Your assumption here is completely invalid and cannot be possible in our Universal Space/Time Reality. This part in particular...That is, within space, light speed has remained constant, somewhat similar to a paper airplane thrown inside or outside of a closed car. But if you include the speed of the car with the speed of the thrown airplane within in, the speed of the airplane is actually much faster. Is COMPLETE NONSENSE...as far how you are relating it to the velocity of Light in conjunction with Universal Space/Time expansion. This concept only works with PARTICLES OF MASS...or objects of MATTER...as if I am in a convertible going 30 miles per hour and I stand up and throw a Baseball at 80 miles per hour from that car....the ball will actually be traveling 110 miles per hour relative to a person standing still but to the person in the car the ball is moving away at 80 miles per hour. Even that fact has nothing to do with the reality of Light Speed. Light is comprised of PHOTONS...a Quantum Particle/Wave Form having NO MASS. Light of Photons exist as BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE and exist at a CONSTANT VELOCITY of 186,282 miles per second. As well a Photon exists as a VIRTUAL PARTICLE...in that it will exist at all points of position existing along the WAVE LENGTH. Thus if the Wave Length or Frequency of Light is 10 Nano-meters....a Photon will exist at all INFINITE POINTS OF POSITION along that 10 Nano-meter wave length. As well...if I was in a Spacecraft traveling at 10,000 Miles per Second....and I turned on a "HEAD LIGHT"...pointing in the same direction of the crafts travel...and I did this at a point where existed a Space Buoy that was static and stationary....thus at the exact moment I passed that buoy I turned on the lights on the craft....the Light would STILL be traveling at 186,282 Miles Per Second relative to the stationary Buoy....NOT 196,282 Miles per second as LIGHT cannot do as the baseball does in the car example. Light cannot obtain a higher velocity by being generated from a moving object any faster that it's constant velocity of 186,282 miles per second. I specifically detailed to you how when I threw a Baseball from the convertible car at 80 mph...and the car going 30 mph...meant that from the perspective of the person in the car the Baseball was traveling 80 mph NOT 110 mph. THIS IS THE SAME WITH UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. Since the Universe is expanding in a sense that the Galaxies are being accelerated away from each other....the EXPANSION OF SPACE/TIME...is specific to the existing distances between the Galaxies and the Universal Edge. Thus unlike the car where an OUTSIDE OBSERVER...can exist standing static while a car drives by....Universal Expansion does not allow for an outside observer or a static position by which velocity can be calculated from. Due to this Lights VELOCITY WILL ALWAYS REMAIN CONSTANT. Universal Expansion will have no bearing upon it. AboveAlpha
You didn't do any research, did you? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, according to Einstein and Mach. I won't hold your hand, Wizzy, but I'll try again to get you started: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?543-Einstein-sustains-Geocentricity http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no120/physngeo.html Now if you still insist on pushing your false argument, I'm afraid to say I won't be discussing much with you in the near future.
Bluff and bluster..... Einstein is not required for this because the space time fabric is not being disrupted in the area of measurement. You claimed there was no observational way to distinguish between the heliocentric and geocentric model. I have demonstrated the distances measured for Jupiter are incompatible with a geocentric prediction. These measurements preceded the theory of relativity by some 250 years, yet required no compensation by the theory to show true values
This link details what you are trying to talk about but if you read it it does NOTHING to support your position. LINK....http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html AboveAlpha
I think you are. "Last Tuesdayism" is the philosophy that the whole universe was poofed up last Tuesday, complete with every appearance of great age. Including everyone's consistent fake memories. And while this MIGHT be true, if it IS true why bother studying to see how things work? This is half of a good point. The good half is that any frame of reference is not inherently superior to any other in the sense of being more correct. A heliocentric view simply makes calculations easier, but the extraordinary difficult calculations based on a geocentric frame of reference ultimately produce the same results. So when NASA orbits satellites or go to the moon, they DO use a geocentric model, because it's easier. When they send probes to Saturn, they use a heliocentric model, because that's easier. The bad half of your point is that selection of which frame of reference is more suitable is in no way a religious decision. It's purely a practical decision. Yes, quite so. One selects the model most appropriate to the task to be done. No religion involved. I don't follow this. Some aspects of the past are of course not constant at all - I would say that a model that holds the rules constant but allows a wide variety of outcomes is the best predictor. And of course, we can always fall back on observatons -- we can say IF this or that "constant" had been much different, what results would have happened. Then we can look and see that those results did NOT happen. Uh, well, yes there is. A good many lines of evidence converge on a consistent age for the universe, and on that universe emerging from a near-point source. While there are a great many speculations as to what conditions led to this event or were required for it to happen, the evidence for those speculations varies from nonexistent to very tiny. Mostly it's simply "if this mathematical model of the big bang is correct, it does NOT lead to contradictions with what is observed." But of course a great many models can be constructed that meet that single constraint. Well, my point is that the theory is constructed as the best-fit explanation for the evidence currently at hand. If one wishes to disregard this evidence, one is most likely to arrive at a model observation refutes. I would very much like to read about this lightspeed variation. I'm not familiar with it. I AM familiar with a lot of various demonstrations that IF light speed had changed more than a tiny bit, the universe we live in can be shown to be very different from what we have.
Well, I suppose so, but you really very much need to specify which god(s) you're talking about. You should be aware that your own god is local, one of thousands of gods human cultures have invented over the millennia, all with different powers, motivations, and behaviors. And many of these gods described the heavens, and they did it differently. So the "goddidit" opinion is too hazy, there are too many versions. As an opinion it's fine, but as a TOOL it's measuring reality with a very soft rubber ruler. Again, you MUST specify which god! Assume for this discussion that I am a devout Hindu. I firmly believe in a countless number of gods, but only six major gods, each with their own powers and limitations. And so you must specify which of those six gods you mean, or I won't be able to understand you! Assume I have very different scriptures, written way before yours, in a entirely different culture. If I'm as convinced mine are Absolute Truth as you are convinced yours are, then we must find some common ground outside our respective religious texts. I do not think it's helpful for any religion to claim ownership of an arbitrary frame of reference. I regard this as a flagrant example of trying to force your scripture to fit your knowledge. Kind of like the "postdicters" of Nostradamus, who wrote some imaginative poetical stuff nobody could figure out, but after the fact, they could go back and say "Oh, he must have meant THIS." As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to project modern knowledge attained through very different methods, back onto bronze age poetry. But you really should understand that before that knowledge was attained, there's no way you could guess or derive the cosmological model you're now borrowing. Yes, you are right. If you don't care about making predictions, you can use whatever model crosses your mind. And indeed, for millennia this is how things worked. And it WAS "just as good" provided you didn't care about curing diseases, growing better crops, enabling communication, learning about space, and so on ad nauseum. Those who DO care about such things understand that models based on knowledge work better than models based on ignorance. And some people like models that work better, though YMMV. Which of my six major or countless minor gods are you referring to? Remember, for me this is all the gods there are. No fair making up a new one, I KNOW that if it's not one of mine, it's a fake. I don't understand what you mean. Logic entails applying the rules of inference to a set of postulates. Your postulate here is that something can't be derived from nothing. The universe itself might be an exception to this. To determine if it IS an exception, you must be rigorous in your definitioin of "nothing". Mathematician Martin Gardner wrote an entire book showing that the concept is meaningless within any given context. If he (and many others) are correct, then your postulate is not supportable, it's just word salad confected to be consistent with the desired conclusion. People tend to do that sort of thing instinctively. Define "nothing", in any way that's not circular. Yes, I agree with Einstein. Hopefully you realize that Einstein's god was like Spinoza's god - a sort of ineffable spirit of reality, a vague sense of awe at the majesty of the universe. Not in any way an intentional, motivated human-style entity.
This isn't what Occam's Razor says, and it's wrong besides. The simplest answer is usually not correct, and reality tends to be byzantine in its complexity. Occam's Razor says that explanatory entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. But where they are needed, they are needed. I would say the real problem here is that magical entites don't explain anything. In fact, as they are generally used, they inhibit explanation, sometimes completely. You can close your eyes, spin until dizzy, point at random, and say "my god explains this" and nobody can prove you wrong - or right. Problem is, even if you're right, you haven't explained anything. You've really done no more than saying "I don't understand this at all, but I can trick myself into thinking I do." I once saw a comment where someone was surprised that any scientific theory, hypothesis, or observation works despite not involving any gods. Whereas it's more accurate to say they work BECAUSE they don't involve any gods. As soon as any gods are brought in, explanation slams to a halt. So does science rule out gods? To answer that, you must provide a properly scientific operational definition of a god. An operational definition is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity. And without an operational definition of a god, the question is scientifically meaningless, and the answer (according to Douglas Adams) is 42.
same thing... adding god/gods doesn't simplify the issue as creationists assume...it adds even more complexity to the questions, what is god? where is god, what made god, what came before god? ...to the nth degree...the simpler solution/explanation does not include gods...
Oh no, not at all. The most accurate answer is almost never the simplest. Occam is just saying, don't make up superfluous stuff to make explanations more complicated than they need to be. For example, natural selection is the simplest explanation for evolution. Today, increasingly biological research indicates that there are many other factors, some of them perversely on-selective, and that natural selection plays a much smaller total role than the simple model described. No, this still misses the point. Adding gods doesn't make an explanation either more OR less complex, it renders it a complete non-explanation. Sucks any explanatory power right of of things. Imagine if instead of gravity, the "explanation" was "intelligent pushing". And why does this pushing show so many inconsistencies and anomalies? Well, the intelligent pusher is whimsical, see...
"Einstein is not required?" Einstein might disagree. And anyway - you obviously failed to read the source (ans the starting point for research) that I posted. The "distances measured" are irrelevant - they would be the same in both the geocentric and heliocentric model. I think your problem is this: You are referring to old-style geocentrism, where earth is in the middle of the solar system and everything rotates about it. This is not the geocentrism to which I refer; the theory to which I refer looks, when static, EXACTLY like the heliocentric model; however, in movement, the earth remains "fixed" in space while the apparent movement of the earth is actually the movement of the universe. This isn't really complicated. If you and I are floating toward each other in space without other reference points, according to the General Theory of Relativity, you moving toward me/me moving toward you/the both of us moving toward each other are essentially the same thing. So of course I'm not suggesting that the position of the earth is that of the sterotypical geocentric model. That's absurd. You really ought to learn to read before passing ga... er, judgement. So let's try this again: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no120/physngeo.html
Intelligent Design doesn't mean Divine Design. Individual intelligences could have always been there and activated the pre-life forms. Why do you demand one God? Why do you say He must be good? Authoritarian irrationalism is an automatic wrong answer.
I am not well-learned in the the several dimensions of the universe, but this is fairly basic material. Material that isn't even referred to in the post of mine that you quoted.
What are you talking about now Chuck? Let me ask you this....how many dimensional states do we know for certain must exist AT A MINIMUM for the Physical Laws of our Universal Reality to exist? AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - This question I ask you is extremely important as without understanding this you cannot hope to discuss such things with any level of understanding. AboveAlpha
I understand what you are saying but if you are not aware of such things you cannot state that what I have stated does not refer to your link. AboveAlpha
The reasons why it is so important to understand Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics and thus understand such things as what comprises upon a Quantum Level....Protons and Neutrons as well as understand the Universal Space/Time Dimensionality needed for Photons...ie...Light....and Electrons to act and behave as they do...a person cannot hope to understand THE ORIGINS OF LIFE....thus...QUANTUM EVOLUTION. AboveAlpha...p.s....Chuck...not trying to place you on the spot...just trying to help you understand.
Four to explain all observable forces individually, and 5 to - for lack of a better term - unify them. There may be more, but they are, as yet, not provable. Anyway, this has no more relevance to my post than the deceptively-loaded question "What color is the sky?" The color of the sky is a question which has a bearing on a great deal of what we think and know about the world - and has many scientific connotations attached - but the relevance of this to my post is only tangential.
I'm the one who pointed out that we ought to start at the very beginning when you were quite insistent that we start with the biological evolutionary process. If I did not point this out in an obvious and concise manner, I will attempt to do so in the future. So we are surely in concurrence when we state that "understanding particle and astrophysics" conceptually and mathematically is vital to understanding the origins of life.
Actually we need at an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM....10 OR 11 DIMENSIONAL STATES and this number could most likely be 26 or more. Without at a minimum of 10 or 11 dimensional states...the atoms that make up your body could NOT EXIST. I will give you an answer to your question of why is the sky blue?...but I would like to here your answer for this question first if that is OK with you? AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - Actually I have been saying all along over MANY posts that QUANTUM EVOLUTION is responsible for GENESIS and thus the Origin of Life and at this point....Biological Evolution takes over. AboveAlpha
Chuck...do you know WHY we see the sky as BLUE? Also...do you know what QUANTUM EVOLUTION is? Just to give you a hint....Stellar Fusion is one of the processes of Quantum Evolution. AboveAlpha
