**************************************************** I think your remarks are erroneous." Scores of other scientists scrambling to undo his [Hawking] discovery" I don't think so. **************************************************** Yes they are - Hawking is himself! No non-theistic cosmologist likes the idea of a First Cause Big Bang. It's too final. Hoyle, Einstein and Eddington (just to name a few) all disliked the Big Bang because of the First Cause principle and because they realized it destroyed Darwinian evolution. Non-theists, whether they like to admit it or not, have been backed into a tiny corner of the universe at 10 -34 seconds that is ill-defined and highly speculative. This is their last holdout, their last little sanctuary of the unproven. Well, they can have that little time window if they want it. I'll take everything thereafter that clearly shows the earth is much, much, much too young at 4 bn years to even pretend to have spawned the transitions from prebiotic soup to asexual life, asexual life to sexual life, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, etc., etc. As Mick Jaggar said, "Time, time, time, time is on my side..."
shoeshine boy, you are truly showing your ignorance of the matter by saying that stuff. it's not a matter of what non-theistic cosmologists "LIKE", it's a matter of finding what really happened. far from painting non-theisism into a corner, big bang cosmology has been argued to effectively rule out the existence of any creator. i think i've recommended to you before to check out the work of Quentin Smith (among many others). and also, please note, a first cause (even if it's required) in no way, shape or form implies the existene of a "god"-like 'creator'.
I am not surprised by your response ShoeshineBoy. I find it is the standard of the theist to reply by turning a situation on it's head, then claim the ground of his opposer, alter the evidence and then use his opposerâs point as his own. I disagree with your premise that scores of other scientists are scrambling to undue Hawkins discovery and it remains - as I said - erroneous. It was Georges Lemaître a Belgian Priest (ironic or what !!!) who first suggested that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom, the first "Big Bang" theory and it was Edwin Hubble who supported Lemaître with experimental evidence, justifying the theory and resulting in Hubble's own Constant equation. Your remark about it destroying Darwinian evolution is just ridiculous, ill informed and irrelevant. The Big Bang theory as a First Cause Principal who said that???? More head stands I think. Everything is the rearrangement of something else not the cause of it. Only in quantum physics is the âsomething from nothing/free lunchâ proposed and there perhaps is an explanation for a lot of what up to now has been acclaimed by some to be one kind of god or other. The BB Theory is a scientific proposition for the origins and structure of the universe. Science searches for cause, theists already declare first cause is the only place where their god lives. A few hundred years ago he lived in the skies above the earth, now apparently his existence is only known as - first cause principle. What a joke! Your 10-34 seconds are erroneous too. Free neutrons and protons formed within the first second after the "bang" and it is the case that physics proposes events up to milliseconds after the event, where it is said gravity (and Time?!) first emerged as one of the first of the four fundamental forces. This stuff is merely some 50 years old and some of the most incredible information about the universe has been uncovered by scientific effort during this short period. My guess is Einstein may have been even more of a non-theist than he appeared to be during his life, if he were alive today. The continuous refusal and hostility declared by some theists against any or all empirical evidence, is unfortunately for them, the very thing that destroys their protestations. It is apparently why religion likes to turn argument on its head, as there is no longer any other means by which they can put forward such an incredulous notion. Time will tell.
this post is just going to be me rambling..this is kind of off topic. i really do believe time is the 4th dimension. sometimes i wonder if there could be more dimensions that we don't understand. obviously, it's hard for me to think about what these dimensions might be like. it's still interesting to think about it though. can anyone here guess what other dimensions might be like if they exist? i'm not saying more dimensions is my belief, but it's an interesting concept. in the end, a big belief i have is that we as humans can only understand so much. start with organisms in your own body. to the organism, your body is its universe. yet outside the body still is a place that exists. think about a fish in a fish tank. to the fish, the tank is everything, yet there is still so much more outside the tank that the fish can't even comprehend. just think about a guppie and the planet jupiter. no amount of anything will make the fish understand jupiter. as you go higher up the evolution chain, you have us humans. just because we're the most intelligent beings on earth, does not mean that there aren't higher levels above us that we will never understand. maybe our universe is our fish tank and we'll never understand outside of it. it seems pretty obvious that there was some type of explosion because of red shift. i think it has been shown that objects in the universe seem to be moving away from a center point, giving credibility to a big bang type event. however, even if that is the case, what if our big bang was really a little bang inside of some other higher being that we will never comprehend. maybe there are a bunch of big bangs. maybe we're nothing but insignificant bacteria type things living inside some other being's much higher power universe. i know this AMAZING link has been posted a few times before, but think about what i just said and then look at it: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
************************************************* it's not a matter of what non-theistic cosmologists "LIKE", it's a matter of finding what really happened. ************************************************* Yes, I agree and greatly admire most of the cosmologists that I have read about. But my point it just that I feel many people on this board are ignoring the fact that non-theism is in tremendous trouble at many points in history. Great minds like Gould recognize that traditional Darwinian evolution does not work and are searching for alternatives. And the origin of life field is in even greater disrepair, etc., etc. I probably overreact, but I feel there is an anti-theistic bias when the evidence is anything but obvious. I can only hope that most astronomers have more objectivity than what I read around here. And I will read Quentin Smith by the way...
What can be said? If scientists want to put forth the terms of a proof, define what a proof is based on their point of view and their rules, how can anyone argue with that? How can you argue with a man on treadmill who says that running gets you nowhere, when that is all he has ever known, and is unwilling to get off the treadmill to see things differently? That someone is looking at the butt end of a pencil and seeing a pink eraser, and someone else is looking at the point of the pencil, neither can prove the other wrong. Each has to move from their vantage point to see things differently. If the scientists choose to limit their means of experience to the physical senses, and instrumentation and the limits that they hold, and want to view the eraser who am I to judge them? Equally, who are they to judge me or others when they fail to put themselves in a position to see the point from my perspective?
well said. it is obvious that we are dealing with "true believer" type atheists who are as dogmatic as the religious people they so oppose. it's quite funny ! best, surfer
yes, us scientific people can feel as strongly about our beliefs as the religious ones. i know i sure do. there's one big difference, however. at least we feel strongly about something that can be observed!!!!!!! if you're going to believe strongly in an explanation for something as major as your EXISTENCE, and you can choose between something based on observable phenomena or something with no provable concept, WHY CHOOSE THE BS ONE? i won't get into if you were even GIVEN A CHOICE..because of the brainwashing that takes place with religion. i have a good question for all you religious people. if what you believe can't be proven, how did you decide to believe what you believe? why not believe we were created by giant pink worms? the answer is simple though. you believe what you believe because you were TOLD to believe it. now i know this won't be the case for everyone, but everyone here damn knows that sending a kid to church every sunday for their whole life and telling them the bible is the way things are. of course when they get older it will be their core belief. it IS brainwashing if you religious people can admit it or not. and what a scam it is, too! if you don't believe, you go to hell! so i guess we all better just blindly believe then, right?! WHAT A PERFECT SCAM!!!!! i really do not know how ANYONE can click on this link: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/ and then come back and STILL think us HUMAN BEINGS have it all figured out!!! we don't have SH!T figured out!!!! to believe for an instant that the bible is the real explanation for everything is nothing short of ABSURD!!!!! btw, marketsurfer and everyone else....i don't mean to get personal...you're all good guys, but religion really bugs me!!!!