What is your cosmological belief? Give reasoning and logic for your position.
Now you’re just trying to fuck with us.
Personally, I’m willing to admit that I don’t know as much about it as leading physicists do, and that the models they propose are better than anything I could come up with.
My reasoning and logic: They’re smart people, and they have access to a lot more evidence than I do; furthermore, I know that their speculations are based on informed reasoning rather than wishful thinking (aka “faith”). As for myself, I may know a lot about philosophy, but that doesn’t make me an expert on astrophysics.
Personally, I’m willing to admit that I don’t know as much about it as leading physicists do, and that the models they propose are better than anything I could come up with.
My reasoning and logic: They’re smart people, and they have access to a lot more evidence than I do; furthermore, I know that their speculations are based on informed reasoning rather than wishful thinking (aka “faith”). As for myself, I may know a lot about philosophy, but that doesn’t make me an expert on astrophysics.
Understood and I’m not a scientist either. You refer to “they”, calling them “smart” but some of “they” are Christians who believe, even as scientists, that God did indeed make everything. They use the same evidence the atheists do. So, why trust the naturalist over the theist? Oh, and what is YOUR cosmo belief?
I believe Cosmos are women’s drinks, and that men should drink their liquor straight up, over rocks, or drink high gravity beer.
some of “they” are Christians who believe, even as scientists, that God did indeed make everything.
Some of them may believe that, but they don’t believe it as scientists.
So, why trust the naturalist over the theist?
A naturalist is one who actually looks at nature before jumping to conclusions. The vast majority of theists, in contrast, frankly admit that their theistic belief is based on faith. I always regard someone who has actually looked at something as more reliable than someone who has self-admittedly jumped to a conclusion.
Oh, and what is YOUR cosmo belief?
Asked and answered. Actually, it’s only a person who is neurotically dependent on faith who would be concerned with my answer to such a question. Would you also want to know my opinion about your running injuries, or would you not be better off asking a doctor?
Why does it matter? It exists, we live, that’s all that matters. Seeking out the answers only leads to suffering. The only way to end the suffering is the four noble truths.
But if you REALLY want something from me that is both scientific and religious and atheistic (yes, this theory is all three), I believe the cyclical model theories are correct. Whether it is based on Einstein’s models (that were proven false in the 30s, but might not be), or the Steinhardt-Turok model, or the Baum-Frampton model, they all have something in common. Big bang → universe expansion → universe contraction → singularity → Big bang → universe expansion → universe contraction → singularity → big bang etc infinitely.
There is no beginning or end. Time is cyclical. Everything that exists has existed before and will exist again.
So you’ve got science - Einstein, Steinhardt is at Princeton, Turok at Cambridge, Baum and Frampton at UNC. You’ve got religious - there are a lot of similarities with ancient Hindu cosmological beliefs, which form the Buddhist cosmological beliefs. You’ve got atheism - nothing has ever been created, this also goes with Buddhist cosmological beliefs.
some of “they” are Christians who believe, even as scientists, that God did indeed make everything.
Some of them may believe that, but they don’t believe it as scientists.
*But the theists have the same evidence and yet they have faith. Why are you biased toward the naturalist view, assuming nature is all there is? Many of the theistic scientists do bring their belief into science, just as Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens bring their atheism from a niche’ field into a broader philosophical spectrum for which they may not be qualified? If science is science, then how can the theistic scientists keep their faith? Their science and their belief must be integrated somehow. What makes the arrogant atheist/naturalist right and the theist deluded, illogical, and “wrong”? *
So, why trust the naturalist over the theist?
A naturalist is one who actually looks at nature before jumping to conclusions. The vast majority of theists, in contrast, frankly admit that their theistic belief is based on faith. I always regard someone who has actually looked at something as more reliable than someone who has self-admittedly jumped to a conclusion.
Looking at nature, many scientists DO assume there must have been some type of guidance or forethought. Dr. Tony Flew came to this conclusion, as did Francis Collins and many others. And your naturalistic view, just like the theists, is based very much on faith, having not been present for cosmo. events and having ZERO evidence that the universe spontaneously showed up naturally. Your position is based on faith, too, so what’s the difference?
Oh, and what is YOUR cosmo belief?
Asked and answered. Actually, it’s only a person who is neurotically dependent on faith who would be concerned with my answer to such a question. Would you also want to know my opinion about your running injuries, or would you not be better off asking a doctor?
*I’m not “concerned” with your answer and it’s not neurotic to get the opinion of another person. I’m interested in your answer. You yourself were trusting scientists in the field with your own beliefs about this subject. But no, you have NOT fleshed out your cosmo. view here as far as I can tell. I guess you are afraid to share or can’t get it down to a paragraph or two. Go ahead, there is no ridicule on the LR… *
…trimmed nails…light buffing…no split ends…conditioner once a week…
Oh…this isnt a question about cosmotological issues??
Never Mind
-Ron
I don’t understand the question.
What is your cosmological belief? Give reasoning and logic for your position.
All of the current leading theories in physics are incredibly fascinating. I don’t know where they’ll lead but am interested to watch and see what develops over my lifespan.
Beyond that, I have no opinion really. Why would I? I’m not a physicist. Ask me about data warehousing and I’ll give you some very strong opinions.
like you, i believe in the creation of the universe as carefully set out in scripture - in addition to being recorded in a divine scripture, the evidence for it is all around us, and a great many wise people have believed it for over 2000 years.
i’m talking, of course, about the zoroastrian account of creation, as contained in the book of bundahishn. “in the beginning, there was nothing except ahura mazda, who lived in endless light.”
-mike
I had a mazda ahura. Damn thing would never start in the rain. I sold it.
*** “in the beginning, there was nothing except ahura mazda, who lived in endless light.”***
… and he went Zoom Zoom!
i’m talking, of course, about the zoroastrian account of creation, as contained in the book of bundahishn. “in the beginning, there was nothing except ahura mazda, who lived in endless light.”
You cannot be serious, who made mazda. Who created the light? The answer is of course obvious…Enzo Ferrari.
You cannot be serious, who made mazda. Who created the light? The answer is of course obvious…Enzo Ferrari.
Sorry, it was Etore Buggatti.
What is your cosmological belief? Give reasoning and logic for your position.
Define your terms.
What is your cosmological belief? Give reasoning and logic for your position.
Define your terms.
Define your terms.
no,* you’re* a terms.
-mike
My belief is that it doesn’t matter much what one believes - beliefs don’t define us, they are merely possessions.