General

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Seph — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:52:49 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

I'm sorry but Christianity was and is a state funded religion as well, at least according to that ridiculous definition. It was one of the justifications for compulsory education, so that they could teach the children the proper religion when their parents wouldn't.

You didnt answer my question.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Sam Armstrong — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:19:12 GMT

I'm sorry but Christianity was and is a state funded religion as well, at least according to that ridiculous definition. It was one of the justifications for compulsory education, so that they could teach the children the proper religion when their parents wouldn't.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Seph — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:23:25 GMT

Kenneth:

How is atheism a state funded religion? Any proof?

Go to your local university for all the proof you need.

Are you seriously postulating that efforts to teach biblical Christianity in a state run university, versus efforts to teach atheism in a state run university, would be met with identical results?

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Kenneth — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:02:21 GMT

How is atheism a state funded religion? Any proof?

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Seph — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:17:54 GMT

Cal:
Or "unknown."

So you admit that atheism is a religion?

And a state funded one at that?

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Sam Armstrong — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:37:13 GMT

The universe is a doughnut? I like doughnuts.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Bert — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:29:34 GMT

Here's the Universe. Debate over.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Solid_Choke — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:57:18 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

Solid_Choke:

That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.

I agree that he used them to come to a valid conclusion. All I was saying is that incorrect premises can lead to correct discoveries.

He used an unsound (according to modern sensibilities) argument to come to (what we now think is) an approximately true conclusion. I am in agreement with your second point.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:51:02 GMT

Solid_Choke:

That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.

I agree that he used them to come to a valid conclusion. All I was saying is that incorrect premises can lead to correct discoveries.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:49:30 GMT

Esuric:

Sam Armstrong:
And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.

Well, we're back to speculation. Either way, you're just taking the question one step backwards.

And I can take it one step backwards Infinitely. Of course it's speculation. You said I could not logically hold the position that the universe existed without a first mover. I have to use a hypothetical to show that the position can be held logically. You are speculating that nothing existed before the big bang, I'm speculating that everything existed before the big bang.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Solid_Choke — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:44:28 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

Solid_Choke:

Nielsio:

Solid_Choke:

And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now).

Why wouldn't reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood.

So none of this is very impressive.

Do you think the universe has a duty to be understandable to human minds? Why should it? Kepler believed it should because God made it that way. Have you never heard of skepticism? There have been many (nonreligious) people who believe that knowledge of reality is impossible.

I never claimed it was impressive, merely that one of your statements was false (and it is, as I have shown).

The mere fact that he got it right does make it so that he was informed by his religion. The idea that our brains are evolved to understand the universe because it's beneficial to understand the universe is entirely different than the idea that the universe was made so that our brains could understand it. One of those is true, and the other is not. If you pick the wrong one, you are not informed based on that decision, even if some of the same conclusions can be reached.

That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Esuric — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:52:35 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
Things that exist act.

No. Action action involves choice. Comets don't "act;" they wonder aimless through space on a fixed trajectory.

Sam Armstrong:
And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.

Well, we're back to speculation. Either way, you're just taking the question one step backwards.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:07:35 GMT

Esuric:

Sam Armstrong:
That's not what I'm saying. Here's a good question to ask instead of "why is there order". Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order.

But there is order. We can use mathematical formulas to figure out the precise dates of supernovas, in the far distant future (billions of years), and which also reveal the orbits of objects, ranging from moons to galaxies.

All you are saying is that the universe acts in a certain way, and that we have assigned structures to represent those actions. Agreed.

Esuric:

Sam Armstrong:
We exist because of the way the universe acts.

The universe doesn't act; it exists. It's automated. You're dancing around my question.

Things that exist act. Automations act. And what am I dancing around. I've demonstrated multiple ways how order is subject dependent.

Esuric:

Sam Armstrong:
Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe.

The singularity "existed" before the universe.

And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Esuric — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:16:01 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
That's not what I'm saying. Here's a good question to ask instead of "why is there order". Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order.

But there is order. We can use mathematical formulas to figure out the precise dates of supernovas, in the far distant future (billions of years), and which also reveal the orbits of objects, ranging from moons to galaxies.

Sam Armstrong:
We exist because of the way the universe acts.

The universe doesn't act; it exists. It's automated. You're dancing around my question.

Sam Armstrong:
Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe.

The singularity "existed" before the universe.

Re: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?

Esuric — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:09:47 GMT

Cal:
I guess I don't quite understand your argument. If you are willing to accept that something can be infinite, why not accept that there is no creator, but rather that the universe itself is infinite?

(A) nothing in the universe is infinite. It is a series of contingent objects; a contingent series. How does a contingent object (in this case a series) create itself? If you add one apple to another apple you don't get a truck. (B) it simply doesn't correspond to the facts. Cosmic back round radiation tells us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

Cal:
From my limited knowledge of cosmology, cosmologists have traced back the evolution/expansion of the universe to a "singular point of infinite density." Anything before that is merely speculation. If you are willing to accept something as having no creator, i.e. god, why not start with the singular point of infinite density, instead?

The singularity supposedly contained all of the matter and energy in the universe. But there was neither space nor time before the universe, before the "big bang" (some kind of explosion). To say that it existed before the universe is to say that it existed nowhere and never, and that it caused the explosion, or the "big bang." Now, your best position is that belief in this singularity is no different then my belief in a god. Fine. But I would say that it's a semantical distinction. But that's just more speculation.