Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

A question to the religious.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 07:40:54 BDT
Andrew,

Sorry to butt in here...

Cosmologists think that there was a brief period of rapid expansion soon after the Big Bang when the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in an extremely short time at speeds greater than that of light. They call this 'inflation' and it's used to explain certain observed characteristics of the universe.

I don't think that inflation is universally accepted yet. There are some excellent popular science books that cover it, including The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality (Penguin Press Science) by Brian Greene.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 20:39:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Mar 2012 21:45:19 BDT
Spin says:
Shakepen: Yes, the LHC (Large Hydron Collider), Every year since its operation they have promised results "soon". The money and knowledge spent on that constructions such as the LHC would feed, educate and develop and third-world nations for decades. More time, effort and finance is spent on developing technology than on those who use it =)

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 20:59:50 BDT
Hi Sam,

Thanks for that. Would I be getting any more detail in the book you suggested than in Simon Singh's Big Bang book, which I have read?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 21:45:24 BDT
Andrew,

I couldn't say as I haven't read Singh's book. Greene's book is fairly detailed while still being comprehensible to the layreader (which certainly includes me).

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2012 20:07:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2012 20:11:39 BDT
Joe. C says:
Spin,
"Yes, the LHC (Large Hydron Collider), Every year since its operation they have promised results "soon". The money and knowledge spent on that constructions such as the LHC would feed, educate and develop and third-world nations for decades. More time, effort and finance is spent on developing technology than on those who use it =)"

Sorry i have to very strongly disagree there, do you have any idea how much funding the scientific community receive from governments around the world? it is quite literally a **** in the ocean compared to military spending, that should be who you are targeting not the LHC etc,. I don't think 2.9 billion pounds would feed educate and develop third world nations for decades somehow as i said a **** in the ocean compared to the military's yearly spending of over 1 trillion pounds (1000 billion).
Through the study's taken place at the LHC and other's around the world we will gain a greater understanding of how our reality work's at it's smallest scale. The applications in technology's, these discovery's may have could solve the energy crisis, increase life span, improve our way of life, in previously unimaginable ways.
Money well spent, unlike war.

Posted on 26 Mar 2012 20:20:49 BDT
Joe. C says:
Also without going into great detail, the LHC team will know by the end of this year, if the Higgs Boson is there to be found or not, poorly named "the god particle" *sigh*. It will explain the origin of mass.
It is a very exiting time we live in, if you are a physicist or you have an interest in this kind of thing.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2012 22:12:08 BDT
Joe,

Have you seen that there are some who wish to rename the Higgs boson to more accurately reflect the people who came up with it? By the time the Higgs boson is discovered (or not), it might not even be the Higgs boson.

Posted on 26 Mar 2012 22:35:09 BDT
Joe. C says:
Sam,
I wasn't aware of the people wishing to re name it no, the Higgs boson was first theorized in 1964 by the British physicist Peter Higgs, who expanded on the ideas of American theoretical physicist Phillip Anderson. If it is proven to exist it will serve the same purpose in the standard model of particle physics regardless of it's name.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2012 23:13:59 BDT
Read it in New Scientist. Alternative names include: BEH boson (Brout, Englert & Higgs), scalar boson, and BEHHGK boson (BEH above, plus Hagan, Guralnik & Kibble). Some expressed doubt that the name would change due to the momentum behind Higgs.
Of course, as you point out, the name will make no difference to its place in physics.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 00:44:06 BDT
Joe. C says:
Interesting, i may well look into that, thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 00:59:51 BDT
Tom M says:
Gary

So you would say that the food appearing on your table is not there so that you can feed yourself.

And the reason yous suggest I might just keep one of the most famous thinkers in world history is that you see exactly what his point is and know it is wrong, or is there a chance that one of the world's most famous thinkers on metaphysics, whose principles, I would argue are essential to knowing anything and in fact are assumed by you in virtually every thought just might be a little deeper than you allow for.

Was the cause of the electrical impulses on my screen an intention to change my way of thinking? Is that the reason for their appearance? Is the reason for the existence of things , sometimes their final purpose?

If not, what purpose this conversation. All these sights and sounds seem to be caused or explained by a desire for truth. If I limited my explanation of their appearance to photons, would this be an 'acceptable' cause because this is all cause can mean?

Is it true that your heart is not designed to pump blood and just happenst to pump blood?

Are you so very sure that Aristotle is do be dumped when you run into a problem? Was he just stupid then?

How on earth did the guy get so dang famous! So 17th century empiricism isn't he dead end it is easily shown to be?

David Hume strikes again.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:01:33 BDT
Tom M says:
Actually Drew you missed the logic of it completely on a couple of planes.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:04:26 BDT
Tom M says:
RAB

The anthropic nature of the universe is extremely powerful evidence for God, and the fact that everything in the universe is seen to be essentially finite is another. Something necessary, unconditioned and intelligent and purposeful is almost impossible to rationally deny.

And if this Uber Person has a point of view on why you are created, maybe yours isn't the last word on what is and isn't important.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:09:10 BDT
Tom M says:
Huck your post just shows that you haven't read seriously on the issues. Your portrayal is farcical to anyone who knows traditional theism.

The god you describe has virtually nothing to do with theism. I don't believe in the joke you describe or the naive biblical literalism you would also impose falsely on theists.

Like most posts of this ilk, its mostly people ignorant of theism laughing at their own ignorance. Along with the theists of course.

As Williams said recently, its mostly a matter of ignorance and prejudice.

Voila!

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:14:32 BDT
Tom M says:
Apparently AJ also hasn't moved off his biblical literalism and fundamentalism either. I agree AJ what you are describing is ridiculous an ignorant. Unrelated to Christian monotheism, but certainly ignorant and ridiculous.

You are also arguing , paradoxically an ongoing teleology in evolution that is completely unwarranted and unknowable within mechanistic assumptions that you embrace wittingly or otherwise.

And the point you make on this false foundation does not at all support your position.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:31:02 BDT
Tom M says:
Hi Shakepen

Evolution is part of an anthropic universe of conditioned causes the existence of which requires an unconditioned cause or God. An infinite series of conditioned causes, right here and now is obviously impossible if one knows what conditioned means. This is the racdical fallacy at the heard of the alternative scientistic mechanistic worldview that appeals to the imagination or sensory imaging, but not to intelligence. It's like claiming the sun comes up in the morning.

What is with all the biblical literalists here. Are they all form biblethumping fundamentalist backgrounds" Sola scriptura? Christianity always rejected biblical literalism. Only agnostics and the other fundamentalists keep insisting upon it as if its a realistic part of any intelligent discourse. How dull. Do they believe in electricity?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 01:34:46 BDT
Tom M says:
Sam

I read "Inflationary Cosmology Revisited" in which it is claimed that Linde and inflationary models used an infinite value for the mass of the universe which nullifies its value as physics, much like the Hawking Hartle arbitrary model that removed the singularity. Not physics.

Hawking's latest book is not even rational.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 07:48:11 BDT
C. A. Small says:
How about the scarlet pimpernel particle?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 08:02:18 BDT
> "An infinite series of conditioned causes, right here and now is obviously impossible if one knows what conditioned means."

Perhaps a definition would be helpful. Does it mean something like "intended"? If so I wouldn't disagree with you.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 08:06:34 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Mar 2012 08:07:12 BDT
> "Is it true that your heart is not designed to pump blood and just happenst to pump blood?"

It can be misleading to think of it as designed at all.

If you fail to complete a course of antibiotics and are left with a resistant strain of the microorganisms, they have not been designed to resist that antibiotic, but this new ability was not exactly accidental either.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 08:39:47 BDT
Best suggestion so far

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 09:56:26 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'Christianity always rejected biblical literalism.'

Like "This is my Body."

Quite so. Not just Christianity.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 10:02:29 BDT
Drew Jones says:
I used the "logic" you provided and continued with it. I'm sure you'd agree that God came before us but I'm also quite sure that you wouldn't like the implication of this with regard to Aristotle's working suggestion that that which is the end is the reason for what wen't before it. If we are an end product at the top of want you see as a hierarchy then your own logic suggests we give God purpose, like most metaphysical thought experiments it's kind of fitting if you can entertain the notion, children give parents meaning, and if meaning and purpose is so important it would be a lesser existence for God not to have one too.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 10:10:07 BDT
RAB says:
"And if this Uber Person has a point of view on why you are created, maybe yours isn't the last word on what is and isn't important."

What I consider to be important matters only to me in the grand scheme of things. This would be true whether there was a god or not.

The point I was trying to make is that it shouldn't matter that you do good deeds in order to genuinely help others, or just to get yourself into God's good books, what matters is that the deed is being done.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2012 11:01:15 BDT
Sorry to delve back to the beginning of this discussion but

"The universe is exactly the right size for stars the right age to manufacture the heavy metals needed for intelligent life. "
Well, yes, given the physical constraints of our universe it needs to be this size to produce those metals, but could it have been another way? How do you know?

"The only instances we see in life where inanimate objects act for ends they do not choose is in objects moved by intelligent purpose. "
But you already define that into this statement, by us having to know about the ends. Objects act and do things without intelligence all the time.

"So the universe is just perfect to produce free willed creatures who know good from bad and who can choose or fail to choose love and responsibility. Great for sports too."
Hardly, as the initial post said, the universe is mostly uninhabitable, the bulk of it can never interact with us in any way, because it is too far away. The universe was clearly NOT designed for us.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  87
Total posts:  1844
Initial post:  20 Mar 2012
Latest post:  11 Oct 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions