Cosmological constant.... - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st December 2004, 01:03 AM   #1
mikeks is offline mikeks  United Kingdom
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Animal farm
Post Cosmological constant....

Thoughts anyone......

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...oconstant.html

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ils.php/id/829
 
Old 21st December 2004, 01:50 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
TwoSpoons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Oh no, more christian pseudo-science. The 'too good to be true' argument, again. Just because the numbers are beyond the scope of human imagination, does not mean there must be a supernatural force involved.

I've always preferred the weak anthropic principle in these cases: "We see the universe as it is, because if it were otherwise then we would not be here to see it".

So we have a set of numbers that work for our universe. Who would like to prove that this is the only set of numbers that can work? I doubt anyone's physics is good enough for that.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 02:24 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Bill Fitzpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Eugene, OR
I was hoping that the need for religion would disappear in my lifetime. Very sad.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 02:29 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
How is it that such beliefs held by a single person can be considered a pathology, with very little disagreement (a supreme being that talks to me and lives in the attic) - and those same beliefs (essentially) when held by a congregation are said to constitute "spirituality"? I propose that group pathologies are no less identifiable. Unfortunately, these aren't as readily dismissed and, despite all enlightenment, are apparently untreatable. So we must suffer them among us.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 03:24 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 12km off the alaska highway in northern BC
Quote:
We see the universe as it is, because if it were otherwise then we would not be here to see it".
Thats the weak anthropic principle. With that I can agree, the strong one as proposed by - i think - wheeler has too many religious connotations: The universe is that way we because we as observers make it so.

Anyway, refreshing that there are more agnostics around here.

If you want to reconcile the bible and science - where does faith go?. Faith by definition is the non proof/falsifiability available or possible in the subject of the faith, so by definition science and faith are and have to be on opposite sides.

So - if faith wants to cooperate with science, it can do so only on the terms of scientific investigation - and there it looses any ground and becomes a non faith and has to join science - not science joining faith. This would automatically disqualify it as science.

As long as faith sticks to the principal of creation of the universe by a superior being, that believe is not affecting any scientific investigation . So far this is not concerened with the excistence or non existence of a pime mover, although there are attempts to find a cause for creation. That imo crosses over to faith - see above principles of scientific investigation ..

But it gets really sticky when religion starts to propose an explenation for the "day to day" business of "creation"/development - i.e. biology and its essential principal of evolution, which seems to be more under "religous attack" than any other principle.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 03:39 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Bill Fitzpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Eugene, OR
Have you noticed that if you don't pretend to believe you have a zero chance of getting elected president? Very sad.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 03:48 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 12km off the alaska highway in northern BC
And what about a statistic I read yesterday: only 13% of US citizens agree that humans are part of the evolutionary development of the species (plural).
44% agree that evolution is a false theorie, and all beings were directly created by a supreme being.

A pretty lousy tradesman if he had to make that many tries.

That statement, this being a US website, probably gets me straight to texas...how apt, considering the subject and the present leader....
 
Old 21st December 2004, 03:50 AM   #8
Stocker is offline Stocker  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Austin
Geez, you guys are hard core! Relax a little! Perhaps this type of post is a bit annoying (even to me) but cut folks some slack- At the very least, nobody is going to know the truth for sure (faith aside) until they die! By then it is too late, but...

I also think personally that it is a pretty lousy God that has to use evolution, the big bang etc. In my mind, it weakens the whole proposition of an intelligent designer to try to make it fit with somebody else's theorem of creation.

I believe that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God, god or gods by scientific method, especially the Creator-God type. It seems self-evident that if God is such that he can make the universe, with all its physics etc., and remain outside it as far as we can tell, God would be greater than what he made. If I make a line-drawing sketch of a man, I am not bound by the rules of my drawing, either (and BTW, my little sketch will never see or understand me). If I invent the laws of physics out of my head, and then make a place where they apply, am I bound by them?

Anyhow, this is all details. Here is 2 cents on the most important matter. I believe the gospel story is literal truth, and that people who don't have a Very Bad surprise awaiting them after they kick off. If you don't, you are entitled to your opinion, but there is no use in calling names!
__________________
Jesus loves you.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 04:00 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
jackinnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ
having a wife who is a molecular biologist -- look up the "methylation of DNA" -- also discussed in a NYTimes OpEd last week -- once thought "fixed", to explain it crudely, a portion of your DNA actually is receptive to environmental factors -- and changes much faster than Crick and Watson would have thought -- on the new edge of molecular bio -- species change more rapidly than previously thought.
 
Old 21st December 2004, 04:00 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 12km off the alaska highway in northern BC
Quote:
but there is no use in calling names!
Nobody was calling anybody names - just suggestions what to label certain beings under certain conditions.

You are perfectly entitled to your believes - as long as you do not label them science or creation science. An oxymoron if there ever was one.

You also can label me as condemmed as a non beliver - as long as you do not use that as a reason to kill me or put me into prison or try to burn me alive.

I simply do not give a hoot if god or anything like a creator exists - history shows his/her total irrelevance.
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2