OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 07:23:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cosmologists Forced to “In the Beginning”  (Read 737 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,897


« on: January 19, 2012, 12:14:39 PM »

Quote
Cosmologists Forced to “In the Beginning”
Posted on January 11, 2012 in Amazing Facts, Astronomy, Bible and Theology, Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Issues, Origins, Philosophy of Science, Space
 
The late astronomer Robert Jastrow detailed in his 1978 book God and the Astronomers how cosmologists were repulsed by the idea the universe had a beginning.  He found it quizzical that they would have such an emotional reaction.  They all realized that a beginning out of nothing was implausible without a Creator.  Since then, various models allowing for an eternal universe brought secular cosmologists relief from their emotional pains.  It now appears that relief was premature.

In New Scientist today, Lisa Grossman reported on ideas presented at a conference entitled “State of the Universe” convened last week in honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday.  Some birthday; he got “the worst presents ever,” she said: “two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.”  Of the two, the latter is most serious: a presentation showing reasons why “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

[Continue reading at: 
http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/ ]
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 12:16:30 PM by jah777 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2012, 10:54:12 PM »

I've listened to the arguments and concluded many things:

1.  First the word "eternity" is used incorrectly.  Maybe "everlasting" is a better word, but eternity is a state beyond everlasting.  Therefore, if the cosmos is everlasting, then so be it.  It doesn't diminish our belief in God, but makes it stronger and more wondrous.  People like the Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Maximus the Confessor who quoted him would say things like "God is beyond infinity."  If you think deep enough, infinity is quite limiting to God indeed!  If "everlasting" or "infinity" can be scientifically conceived, then we are in fact limiting the unlimited One by using such words.

2.  Atheist cosmologists are hypocrites.  They cannot anyway scientifically verify that the cosmos is everlasting, and yet they go along with that, rather than belief in God, since "infinity" seemed to have been in their equations somehow.  Matter of interpretation I suppose.

3.  Atheist cosmologists are stubborn.  Much like how we will not lose our faith if the cosmos turned out to be everlasting, they will not lose their faith if the cosmos turned out to have a tangible beginning.

Nevertheless, thank you for the article.  Much appreciated!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:56:03 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2012, 12:31:03 AM »

This may slightly be off topic, but what Mina said is very telling. Scientists freely admit that 98% of the universe (Dark Matter & Dark Energy) is not understood or observed. Yet in the same breath say that they have it:
 "All figured out!".

"God can't possibly exist, we've proved it with Science!".
Hypocritical at best.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2012, 12:38:59 AM »

Any scientist who says that has a misguided philosophy of science IMO, as all scientific findings should be considered tentative or provisional.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2012, 12:46:53 AM »

Any scientist who says that has a misguided philosophy of science IMO, as all scientific findings should be considered tentative or provisional.
Yes. You should watch "Expelled" with Ben Stein, if you haven't already. It shows how politics, affects what is taught in universities. Scientists want Evolution to be considered a "Fact". Not very tentative to me.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2012, 12:00:26 AM »

Any scientist who says that has a misguided philosophy of science IMO, as all scientific findings should be considered tentative or provisional.
Yes. You should watch "Expelled" with Ben Stein, if you haven't already. It shows how politics, affects what is taught in universities. Scientists want Evolution to be considered a "Fact". Not very tentative to me.
Well we already discussed Expelled elsewhere and frankly it rubbed me the wrong way.  Let's stick with cosmology here.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2012, 01:38:17 AM »

This may slightly be off topic, but what Mina said is very telling. Scientists freely admit that 98% of the universe (Dark Matter & Dark Energy) is not understood or observed. Yet in the same breath say that they have it:
 "All figured out!".

"God can't possibly exist, we've proved it with Science!".
Hypocritical at best.

It is good to know who the wackos are but the quote is not recognized by Google. What person are you referring to and what did she/he say?

Can you cite a peer reviewed science paper that makes the proposal that God probably does not exist? As a supportive justification for the preceding question, can you cite a significant and accepted scientific finding that has not undergone critical peer review in the past 60 years? There may be one but I do not know what it is.

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2012, 01:40:56 AM »

This may slightly be off topic, but what Mina said is very telling. Scientists freely admit that 98% of the universe (Dark Matter & Dark Energy) is not understood or observed. Yet in the same breath say that they have it:
 "All figured out!".

"God can't possibly exist, we've proved it with Science!".
Hypocritical at best.

It is good to know who the wackos are but the quote is not recognized by Google. What person are you referring to and what did she/he say?

Can you cite a peer reviewed science paper that makes the proposal that God probably does not exist? As a supportive justification for the preceding question, can you cite a significant and accepted scientific finding that has not undergone critical peer review in the past 60 years? There may be one but I do not know what it is.



Are you being facetious? The "quote" was a common response by most people who argue against God, scientist or not.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2012, 01:51:25 AM »



Can't we just leave it at that?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2012, 02:49:57 AM »

This may slightly be off topic, but what Mina said is very telling. Scientists freely admit that 98% of the universe (Dark Matter & Dark Energy) is not understood or observed. Yet in the same breath say that they have it:
 "All figured out!".

"God can't possibly exist, we've proved it with Science!".
Hypocritical at best.

It is good to know who the wackos are but the quote is not recognized by Google. What person are you referring to and what did she/he say?

Can you cite a peer reviewed science paper that makes the proposal that God probably does not exist? As a supportive justification for the preceding question, can you cite a significant and accepted scientific finding that has not undergone critical peer review in the past 60 years? There may be one but I do not know what it is.



Are you being facetious? The "quote" was a common response by most people who argue against God, scientist or not.

I was not being facetious and there are a few scientists that have irrational ideas, which is why I asked. At the same time there are people on this forum that are so prejudiced that they falsely characterize scientists (as a whole, rather than a fringe minority) as believing science has proven God does not exist. If you share this belief, which I believe falls into the category of defamation and I also believe falls into the category of bearing false witness, the ball is in your court, prove it. Just fill in the blanks:

Evidence that a significant segment of practicing(*) scientists believe that science has proved God cannot exit:
1)
2)
3)
etc.

(*) note scientist do science, naive students and atheistic comments at Huffington Post post do not count.

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2012, 03:24:42 AM »

Haha atheistic Huffington Post comments.

I and alot on this board loves to make sweeping generalizations. It just makes things alot easier to have a discussion/argument with.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2012, 02:31:41 PM »

Haha atheistic Huffington Post comments.

I and alot on this board loves to make sweeping generalizations. It just makes things alot easier to have a discussion/argument with.

Thanks

I guess you could be right about this. I shouldn't take this personally even though it has the appearance of being so.

I still prefer Aposphet

Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2012, 07:29:22 PM »

I've listened to the arguments and concluded many things:

1.  First the word "eternity" is used incorrectly.  Maybe "everlasting" is a better word, but eternity is a state beyond everlasting.  Therefore, if the cosmos is everlasting, then so be it.  It doesn't diminish our belief in God, but makes it stronger and more wondrous.  People like the Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Maximus the Confessor who quoted him would say things like "God is beyond infinity."  If you think deep enough, infinity is quite limiting to God indeed!  If "everlasting" or "infinity" can be scientifically conceived, then we are in fact limiting the unlimited One by using such words.

2.  Atheist cosmologists are hypocrites.  They cannot anyway scientifically verify that the cosmos is everlasting, and yet they go along with that, rather than belief in God, since "infinity" seemed to have been in their equations somehow.  Matter of interpretation I suppose.

3.  Atheist cosmologists are stubborn.  Much like how we will not lose our faith if the cosmos turned out to be everlasting, they will not lose their faith if the cosmos turned out to have a tangible beginning.

Nevertheless, thank you for the article.  Much appreciated!

How can something that was brought from non-existence into being not have a tangible beginning?

Any scientist who says that has a misguided philosophy of science IMO, as all scientific findings should be considered tentative or provisional.

Yeah, this.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2012, 07:41:54 PM »

Haha atheistic Huffington Post comments.

I and alot on this board loves to make sweeping generalizations. It just makes things alot easier to have a discussion/argument with.

Thanks

I guess you could be right about this. I shouldn't take this personally even though it has the appearance of being so.

I still prefer Aposphet



I mean the problem you have is if we are really getting this particular about something is things get distorted in a relativistic light. You could have 500 scientists who do not believe God exists for another 500 who think He does.

But I think we shouldn't focus on x amount of scientists believing that Lord Xenu created Earth by nuclear bombs. Rather we should look on the problem with those that believe science is the end all be all for metaphysical/philosophical questions. If an atheist is simply an atheist because science has not quantifiably proved or negated God's existence, then they are doing it wrong.

Science is a wonderful tool that can expand our knowledge about nature, however bringing science into a realm of speculation about the beginningness in the universe is truly problematic.

Also after the anagram Pope Shat, I have retired Aposphet. Wink
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2012, 07:54:29 PM »

How can something that was brought from non-existence into being not have a tangible beginning?

Because some scientists have defined "nothing" not as "non-existence," but as removing all things, and yet we still calculate "something" out of it, which may indicate in some twisted fashion that "nothing" is not literally nothing, but something.  It's confusing, but nevertheless, interesting, that when removing all things, even the smallest of subatomic particles, space still has some value in the mathematical realm.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2012, 07:54:39 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2012, 09:15:21 PM »

Haha atheistic Huffington Post comments.

I and alot on this board loves to make sweeping generalizations. It just makes things alot easier to have a discussion/argument with.

Thanks

I guess you could be right about this. I shouldn't take this personally even though it has the appearance of being so.

I still prefer Aposphet



I mean the problem you have is if we are really getting this particular about something is things get distorted in a relativistic light. You could have 500 scientists who do not believe God exists for another 500 who think He does.

But I think we shouldn't focus on x amount of scientists believing that Lord Xenu created Earth by nuclear bombs. Rather we should look on the problem with those that believe science is the end all be all for metaphysical/philosophical questions. If an atheist is simply an atheist because science has not quantifiably proved or negated God's existence, then they are doing it wrong.

Science is a wonderful tool that can expand our knowledge about nature, however bringing science into a realm of speculation about the beginningness in the universe is truly problematic.

Also after the anagram Pope Shat, I have retired Aposphet. Wink

I do not have a problem with commenting on scientists that are atheists as a generalization since there are enough of them to make it relevant and I have not complained. My issue was in the particular statement made that necessitated an interpretation that a significant proportion of scientists are irrational. I will grant you, as someone that reviews a lot of papers, that I run into papers from "new" scientists that interpret their data from preconceived notions (and sometimes "old" scientists that are too lazy to critically evaluate their own data from researchers in their lab they trust). For the most part "new" scientists learn from this experience and those that do not sooner or later disappear since they can only publish in journals with lax peer review, which is not compatible for the few research dollars  available.

More importantly, I can now see Aposphet originated from juvenile notions, but it does not negate its commercial value in my opinion.  I am stubborn and I like this word.



Logged
Tags: evolution creation 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.074 seconds with 42 queries.