Pre-Big Bang

[gboisjo]

Posted by gboisjo
Speculation about the origins of the universe through classical philosophy is dead, it matters not in 2020. The statement "the time before the big bang is neither observable or testable" is something a theist or philosopher might say as he bellows about gods and such. If we ever learn about the origin of the universe it will be IMHO through science not the word games philosophers and theist resort to.

Posted by tosca 1
How do theories and discoveries get started? Through philosophical thinking!

Whats left of Philosophy and its practitioners are something no one hears about, because traditional philosophy and its system of thought is dead. Many colleges today don't carry courses in philosophy ..its not available due to the lack of professors and interest. Hawking announces, that scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge, scientists can only do so by becoming philosophers of science themselves, hence the resurrection Philosophy.

That, my friend is whats happening today. Science and those scientist who think about science are the way forward.

So, if by "philosophical thinking" your referring to contemporary Philosophy within science, your right. However, if your looking back at the abstract mumbo jumbo reasoning of a Kant or Hume your lost.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Whats left of Philosophy and its practitioners are something no one hears about, because traditional philosophy and its system of thought is dead. Many colleges today don't carry courses in philosophy ..its not available due to the lack of professors and interest. Hawking announces, that scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge, scientists can only do so by becoming philosophers of science themselves, hence the resurrection Philosophy.

That, my friend is whats happening today. Science and those scientist who think about science are the way forward.

So, if by "philosophical thinking" your referring to contemporary Philosophy within science, your right. However, if your looking back at the abstract mumbo jumbo reasoning of a Kant or Hume your lost.

There are so many misunderstandings in what you posted above, and I do blame science "education" for these, some of the claptrap spouted by "scientists" on TV and so on.

This poor quality "education" is eagerly lapped up by the atheist who often suffers from the misapprehension that "science" undermines "religion", since the atheists like to attack "religion" they uncritically lap up whatever the hear about "science".

I've mentioned before that I used to a staunch atheist so I understand all this from first hand experience, you can take or leave what I say but I do know what I'm talking about.

I've grown rather tired of the regularity with which I see atheists say things like "but that's not how science works" and "if you understood anything about science" and "that's the difference between science and religion" and "but science isn't about beliefs" and so on, all of which are quite naive and quite arguably wrong.

Anyone writing such stuff immediately comes up on my radar as having been hoodwinked, been misled and see this a lot in debating forums.

I could speak at length about this but I won't, all that would do is see umpteen atheists start to spout exactly the kind of stuff I mention above, so if you really care why not do some actual research?

 

[Triton]

Whats left of Philosophy and its practitioners are something no one hears about, because traditional philosophy and its system of thought is dead. Many colleges today don't carry courses in philosophy ..its not available due to the lack of professors and interest. Hawking announces, that scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge, scientists can only do so by becoming philosophers of science themselves, hence the resurrection Philosophy.

That, my friend is whats happening today. Science and those scientist who think about science are the way forward.

So, if by "philosophical thinking" your referring to contemporary Philosophy within science, your right. However, if your looking back at the abstract mumbo jumbo reasoning of a Kant or Hume your lost.

Science can't sufficiently answer a whole series of important question pertaining to the human condition, and until science develops a sufficiently complex model of the brain, then we need to apply philosophical methods which are outside the scope of the philosophy of science in order to satisfactorily solve said issues.

 

[zyzygy]

Science can't sufficiently answer a whole series of important question pertaining to the human condition, and until science develops a sufficiently complex model of the brain, then we need to apply philosophical methods which are outside the scope of the philosophy of science in order to satisfactorily solve said issues.

Which branch of philosophy are you advocating?

 

[Triton]

Which branch of philosophy are you advocating?

Ethics is a big one.

 

[zyzygy]

Ethics is a big one.

We are talking at cross purposes. I was referring to investigating the Big Bang. Religion and ethics would not help with that.

 

[watsup]

:roll:

You're seeing things! :mrgreen:


No one is talking about God!

Ummm....you keep mentioning THEISTIC evolution. What exactly do you think that “theistic” refers to. Look it up.

 

[watsup]

There are so many misunderstandings in what you posted above, and I do blame science "education" for these, some of the claptrap spouted by "scientists" on TV and so on.

This poor quality "education" is eagerly lapped up by the atheist who often suffers from the misapprehension that "science" undermines "religion", since the atheists like to attack "religion" they uncritically lap up whatever the hear about "science".

I've mentioned before that I used to a staunch atheist so I understand all this from first hand experience, you can take or leave what I say but I do know what I'm talking about.

I've grown rather tired of the regularity with which I see atheists say things like "but that's not how science works" and "if you understood anything about science" and "that's the difference between science and religion" and "but science isn't about beliefs" and so on, all of which are quite naive and quite arguably wrong.

Anyone writing such stuff immediately comes up on my radar as having been hoodwinked, been misled and see this a lot in debating forums.

I could speak at length about this but I won't, all that would do is see umpteen atheists start to spout exactly the kind of stuff I mention above, so if you really care why not do some actual research?

Lots of ad hom towards atheists and psychological projection, but not much else.

 

[zyzygy]

Lots of ad hom towards atheists and psychological projection, but not much else.

Par for the course. He will abandon this thread too. If only he could understand our arguments!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lots of ad hom towards atheists and psychological projection, but not much else.

You a rather sensitive, delicate fellow aren't you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Par for the course. He will abandon this thread too. If only he could understand our arguments!

But unlike you I at least know when I don't understand something.

 

[zyzygy]

Rant, insult. Yawn.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Rant, insult. Yawn.

Seems to sum up the nature of your posts here quite well - brief and devoid of content relevant to the subject.

 

[watsup]

Seems to sum up the nature of your posts here quite well - brief and devoid of content relevant to the subject.

Psychological projection.

 

[tosca1]

Ummm....you keep mentioning THEISTIC evolution. What exactly do you think that “theistic” refers to. Look it up.

I was quoting the NAS!

Lol. Why shouldn't it be brought to the discussion? The NAS brought it to the table by naming it specifically, and explaining about it! :lol:

I wouldn't even know of it had I not stumble upon that FAQ from NASA!


Just because it refers to God creation......you want to exclude it? Talk about blatant disregard for facts!
See.....you're showing how close-minded you are because of your atheism! :lol:

 

[zyzygy]

Psychological projection.

My early posts showed the flaws in his arguments, and then the insults started.

 

[tosca1]

Par for the course. He will abandon this thread too. If only he could understand our arguments!

What argument?

It's lost to you that you guys don't have any argument at all!
Watsup gives articles that don't agree with him! That seems to be a pattern with him. :lol:

Lol. Watsup doesn't even understand what he's on about - lol, he doesn't even understand the articles he gave in his OP.
You just showed that goes for you too! :mrgreen:



You two better do some actual reading!

 

[tosca1]

Which branch of philosophy are you advocating?

LOGIC!

Philosophy of logic

the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the nature and types of logic, including problems in the field and the relation of logic to mathematics and other disciplines.

The term logic comes from the Greek word logos. The variety of senses that logos possesses may suggest the difficulties to be encountered in characterizing the nature and scope of logic.
Among the partial translations of logos, there are “sentence,” “discourse,” “reason,” “rule,” “ratio,” “account” (especially the account of the meaning of an expression), “rational principle,” and “definition.”

Not unlike this proliferation of meanings, the subject matter of logic has been said to be the “laws of thought,” “the rules of right reasoning,” “the principles of valid argumentation,” “the use of certain words labelled ‘logical constants’,” “truths (true propositions) based solely on the meanings of the terms they contain,” and so on.

philosophy of logic | Definition, Problems, & Facts | Britannica

Whats left of Philosophy and its practitioners are something no one hears about, because traditional philosophy and its system of thought is dead. Many colleges today don't carry courses in philosophy ..its not available due to the lack of professors and interest. Hawking announces, that scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge, scientists can only do so by becoming philosophers of science themselves, hence the resurrection Philosophy.

That, my friend is whats happening today. Science and those scientist who think about science are the way forward.

So, if by "philosophical thinking" your referring to contemporary Philosophy within science, your right. However, if your looking back at the abstract mumbo jumbo reasoning of a Kant or Hume your lost.

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us.

Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

WMAP Site FAQs





To borrow what's turning out to be my most quoted line from Watsup -

WHO DO WE BELIEVE? YOU......................or.................... the NAS?

 

[watsup]

What argument?

It's lost to you that you guys don't have any argument at all!
Watsup gives articles that don't agree with him! That seems to be a pattern with him. :lol:

Lol. Watsup doesn't even understand what he's on about - lol, he doesn't even understand the articles he gave in his OP.
You just showed that goes for you too! :mrgreen:



You two better do some actual reading!

More ad hom. *YAWN*……..

 

[zyzygy]

More ad hom. *YAWN*……..

Most of our theists here start the insults when painted into a corner.

 

[watsup]

There are so many misunderstandings in what you posted above, and I do blame science "education" for these, some of the claptrap spouted by "scientists" on TV and so on.

This poor quality "education" is eagerly lapped up by the atheist who often suffers from the misapprehension that "science" undermines "religion", since the atheists like to attack "religion" they uncritically lap up whatever the hear about "science".

I've mentioned before that I used to a staunch atheist so I understand all this from first hand experience, you can take or leave what I say but I do know what I'm talking about.

I've grown rather tired of the regularity with which I see atheists say things like "but that's not how science works" and "if you understood anything about science" and "that's the difference between science and religion" and "but science isn't about beliefs" and so on, all of which are quite naive and quite arguably wrong.

Anyone writing such stuff immediately comes up on my radar as having been hoodwinked, been misled and see this a lot in debating forums.

I could speak at length about this but I won't, all that would do is see umpteen atheists start to spout exactly the kind of stuff I mention above, so if you really care why not do some actual research?

I suspect that the part that says that "atheists like to attack religion" is just more psychological projection on the part of Sherlock. Evidently he was a somewhat nasty atheist who did indeed spend his time attacking religion, much like he spends most of his time here attacking atheists.
But that's not what is happening in this forum. In the relatively short time that I have been here, the fact is that most of the atheists spend their time making quite thoughtful and logical arguments rather than attacking. In fact, the great part of the ad hom attacks in both a personal and generalized manner are by the theist supporters AGAINST the atheists. Yes, there, have been a couple of outliers in which Catholics and Muslims have been attacked, but they have been relatively few. It's not really an attack forum at this point.

He goes on to say that "I've grown rather tired of the regularity with which I see atheists say things like "but that's not how science works" and "if you understood anything about science" and "that's the difference between science and religion" and "but science isn't about beliefs" and so on, all of which are quite naive and quite arguably wrong."

Arguably is the key word here. All of those statements are indeed true with respect to many of the inputs of the theist believers. We have seen that time and again. It's clearly not "spouting", it is reasoned response.

 

[zyzygy]

Well, by principle of elimination, someone has to take the title, and he has a background in cosmological physics and computation. Objectively speaking, he is up there.

Now that is sarcasm! I have seen no evidence of this exalted background. If he has such a background then why does he believe that the universe was kick-started by a magic god?

 

[zyzygy]

I suspect that the part that says that "atheists like to attack religion" is just more psychological projection on the part of Sherlock. Evidently he was a somewhat nasty atheist who did indeed spend his time attacking religion, much like he spends most of his time here attacking atheists.
But that's not what is happening in this forum. In the relatively short time that I have been here, the fact is that most of the atheists spend their time making quite thoughtful and logical arguments rather than attacking. In fact, the great part of the ad hom attacks in both a personal and generalized manner are by the theist supporters AGAINST the atheists. Yes, there, have been a couple of outliers in which Catholics and Muslims have been attacked, but they have been relatively few. It's not really an attack forum at this point.

He goes on to say that "I've grown rather tired of the regularity with which I see atheists say things like "but that's not how science works" and "if you understood anything about science" and "that's the difference between science and religion" and "but science isn't about beliefs" and so on, all of which are quite naive and quite arguably wrong."

Arguably is the key word here. All of those statements are indeed true with respect to many of the inputs of the theist believers. We have seen that time and again. It's clearly not "spouting", it is reasoned response.

All that I ever do here is ask theists and conspiracy theorists for proof of their claims. The proofs are never convincing and when the flaws in their arguments are pointed out they turn to ad homs and insults.

 

[soylentgreen]

i have trouble letting go of the idea that since galaxies seem to be circling the drain around supermassive black holes, a massive contraction of a previous universe preceded the big bang. however, i understand that there's probably an entropy problem there and that my astrophysics background is sorely lacking.

did a quick search, and it looks like this possibly wrong theory has a name.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia

A galaxy is formed around a black hole on the same principle that planets form around a sun. However galaxies themselves are not circling around a black hole. They are all moving away from each other. In fact no matter where you stand in the universe the galaxies are still moving away.

 

[watsup]

name-dropping doesn't answer the question. :mrgreen:


He asked......

............................is there PROOF of this?



Yes, or no.

When you ask for "proof" as regards science, it shows that you don't know much about the discipline. You will literally NEVER hear a competent scientist ask for "proof" of any theory or process in science. Science is about EVIDENCE. Math is about "proof". Please note the difference.