Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination. Sorry I dont really know what you are getting at here. The original Anecdote was in response to the ops point that nothing can be ruled out, which was essentially what the bloke was getting at. How can that even be examined, not to mention false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 "The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief ... may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense understanding." - Antony Hewish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm not even close to being religious, assumptions shouldn't ever come near a science thread Assumptions and theory's are all we have when dealing with this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm not even close to being religious, assumptions shouldn't ever come near a science thread Assumptions and theory's are all we have when dealing with this topic. true, we can never be right, we can only assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination. Sorry I dont really know what you are getting at here. The original Anecdote was in response to the ops point that nothing can be ruled out, which was essentially what the bloke was getting at. How can that even be examined, not to mention false? No one can rule anything out but no one can count anything in either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination. Sorry I dont really know what you are getting at here. The original Anecdote was in response to the ops point that nothing can be ruled out, which was essentially what the bloke was getting at. How can that even be examined, not to mention false? No one can rule anything out but no one can count anything in either. Oh I see, completely agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 I get you now, I was very naive to believe there to be a why thinking about it Not at all, they're wrong. "Why" isn't based in science fact though so VT isn't interested. As a philosophical question it holds up just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 29, 2013 Administrator Share Posted October 29, 2013 I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Does the Christian dogma include mention of a singularity? I don't think someone can be described as "devout" if they don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. I bet he also doesn't believe that slavery or killing cheeky children is moral. He is suffering from cognitive dissonance, probably brought on my childhood indoctrination. Anyway, this thread isn't for religious discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 The religious point has been taken out of context. It was merely used to back up the point that even people who have a higher level of understanding about such things realise nothing can be ruled out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Here's Feyman talking about the importance of doubt in science: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Try and digest this, it's dispusted so not exactly verified but at least forms a framework of understanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 The religious point has been taken out of context. It was merely used to back up the point that even people who have a higher level of understanding about such things realise nothing can be ruled out. Non sequitur. Expert physicists acknowledge that they don't know EVERYTHING (obviously), therefore it must be possible that the stuff in the Bible is true? Pshaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I notice that you can get the complete Cosmos series on DVD for less than a tenner these days, so I might buy that for someone for Christmas, if I can learn to live with the 'boring uncle who buys educational gifts' role. Sagan was great at creating a sense of awe about this stuff. Edited October 30, 2013 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Everybody should appreciate Sagan... Edited October 30, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I tried to watch 'Cosmose' but it seemed really dated and I couldn't get in to it. It didn't help that Sagan sounds like an American version of Trevor Francis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Everybody should appreciate Sagan... No one could say, 'billions and billions of stars' quite like Sagan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I tried to watch 'Cosmose' but it seemed really dated and I couldn't get in to it. It didn't help that Sagan sounds like an American version of Trevor Francis. It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Yeah, we need some sort of publically funded body to provide intelligent, educational television. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I tried to watch 'Cosmose' but it seemed really dated and I couldn't get in to it. It didn't help that Sagan sounds like an American version of Trevor Francis. It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. I thought (our Brians) wonders of the universe was better, simply more up to date. Edited October 30, 2013 by Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I tried to watch 'Cosmose' but it seemed really dated and I couldn't get in to it. It didn't help that Sagan sounds like an American version of Trevor Francis. It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. I thought (our Brians) wonders of the universe was better, simply more up to date. Cox's Wonders of The Universe fulfils all my objections to modern TV perfectly. Why does he need to fly to Victoria falls to explain a blackhole? The analogy is weak and the images are just distracting. It certainly looks great but what has it to do with sheer scale and mystery of a blackhole? How can it be possible for the audience to watch the distracting pretty images and then be in the right frame of mind to contemplate the complexities of general relativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts