Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree11Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:38 PM   #41
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Are you saying that genesis doesn't say that god made the earth as it is?

What philosophical reason should have people at that time had to disagree with a steady state universe?

And I never said you said genesis was a lie. I am saying that.

And belief in science isn't faith. It is a belief in what is seen, touched, measured and calculated.

In some cases there is a conflict. So scientists work to resolve the conflicts. Einstein ran into a conflict in that a calculation of his showed the universe to be expanding when observations went against that. So he attempted to fix it.

That the observations were, lets say inadequate rather than wrong has nothing to do with faith.
I'm saying I didn't bring up Genesis.

"Philosophical reason to disagree with the steady state universe" ?

Wow, you never stop twisting words. No the point is scientism is/was predisposed to agree with the steady state universe.

And belief in science is absolutely faith. Science is what you can see, test and measure. That is seperate from belief in science , or scientism as I am calling it here, to try to give meaning to existence or cope with the futility of life.

Einstein's only conflict was between his calculations and his bias, and for twenty odd years he chose his bias over the natural implications of his calculations.

Last edited by webguy4; April 30th, 2017 at 01:44 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:49 PM   #42
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
I'm saying I didn't bring up Genesis.

"Philosophical reason to disagree with the steady state universe" ?

Wow, you never stop twisting words. No the point is scientism is/was predisposed to agree with the steady state universe.

And belief in science is absolutely faith. Science is what you can see, test and measure. That is seperate from belief in science , or scientism as I am calling it here, to try to give meaning to existence or cope with the futility of life.
And you just have some ideas hardwired into your brain. Wrong ideas but they sure are hardwired. The belief in a steady state universe at the time wasn't a predisposition, it was the result of observations. It has since been shown to be inadequate and incomplete observation but still it wasn't a predisposition, it was a response to observation.

And I am not twisting your words at all. Science only attempts to give meaning to or cope with the futility of life in your imagination and your funny predispositions.

And you still haven't told me the basis on which they should have discounted the idea of a quasi-static universe at the time.
RNG is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 02:11 PM   #43
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And you just have some ideas hardwired into your brain. Wrong ideas but they sure are hardwired. The belief in a steady state universe at the time wasn't a predisposition, it was the result of observations. It has since been shown to be inadequate and incomplete observation but still it wasn't a predisposition, it was a response to observation.

And I am not twisting your words at all. Science only attempts to give meaning to or cope with the futility of life in your imagination and your funny predispositions.

And you still haven't told me the basis on which they should have discounted the idea of a quasi-static universe at the time.
What observation supported a steady state universe? Absurd, there is/was none.

The only reason ever for the steady state theory was to support the delusional fiction the that science can rescue humanity from the futility of life.
webguy4 is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 03:58 PM   #44
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
What observation supported a steady state universe? Absurd, there is/was none.

The only reason ever for the steady state theory was to support the delusional fiction the that science can rescue humanity from the futility of life.
Before Hubble published his observations and calculations, there was nothing to show the universe was expanding. Observed stars were where they always were when looked at over the period of lifetimes.

Science has never, other than in your mind, given a shit about the futility of life. That's your invention.
RNG is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 04:04 PM   #45
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Before Hubble published his observations and calculations, there was nothing to show the universe was expanding. Observed stars were where they always were when looked at over the period of lifetimes.

Science has never, other than in your mind, given a shit about the futility of life. That's your invention.
It never made sense to anyone that stars could shine forever without refueling.

And there were Einstein's equations to show the universe was expanding, if you leave out his fudge factor.

And yes science doesn't care, but believers in scientism do.
webguy4 is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 04:27 PM   #46
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
It never made sense to anyone that stars could shine forever without refueling.

And there were Einstein's equations to show the universe was expanding, if you leave out his fudge factor.

And yes science doesn't care, but believers in scientism do.
What does stars consuming fuel have to do with an expanding universe? Nothing.

I explained why he put in his fudge factor. He was being a good scientist.

And you are the only person I know who defines scientism in that way.

In fact, I've never heard that term before.
RNG is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 05:07 PM   #47
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
What does stars consuming fuel have to do with an expanding universe? Nothing.

I explained why he put in his fudge factor. He was being a good scientist.

And you are the only person I know who defines scientism in that way.

In fact, I've never heard that term before.
Stars shining forever was part of the steady state universe theory at one time. It didint take long though for even ardent proponents to realize that was ridiculous.

No, there was/is no good scientific reason for his fudge factor. No observation. No reasoning . Nothing but his bias against the universe having a beginning and an end. You have cited nothing.


C.S. Lewis

Last edited by webguy4; April 30th, 2017 at 05:10 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 05:17 PM   #48
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
The little known fact of the matter is that even today there is no scientific justification for not saying the earth in the center of the universe. From the point of view of our little planet observable matter is uniformly distributed in any direction you look. In every direction the farther anything we can see is, the faster it is moving.

Two things only support saying the earth is not the center of the universe.

One, some of the math is made simpler.

Two, it fits the philosophical bias of scientism.
webguy4 is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 05:25 PM   #49
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Stars shining forever was part of the steady state universe theory at one time. It didint take long though for even ardent proponents to realize that was ridiculous.

No, there was/is no good scientific reason for his fudge factor. No observation. No reasoning . Nothing but his bias against the universe having a beginning and an end. You have cited nothing.


C.S. Lewis
No, it wasn't considered steady state, it was considered quasi-static. There were observable changes like meteorites.

But I gave you the reason. You just chose to reject it because it blows your hypothesis away.

The beginning and end wasn't a bias, it was the result of inferring the facts based on observations.

Why do you keep trying to shove creationism into science? You claim you didn't bring up Genesis, so are you arguing that they should have known about the big bang even then?

And not knowing about nuclear reactions, how could they predict the end of the world. Now, we know that the earth's sun will go nova and fry us, but the universe will carry on very happily without you. Deal with it.
RNG is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #50
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
No, it wasn't considered steady state, it was considered quasi-static. There were observable changes like meteorites.

But I gave you the reason. You just chose to reject it because it blows your hypothesis away.

The beginning and end wasn't a bias, it was the result of inferring the facts based on observations.

Why do you keep trying to shove creationism into science? You claim you didn't bring up Genesis, so are you arguing that they should have known about the big bang even then?

And not knowing about nuclear reactions, how could they predict the end of the world. Now, we know that the earth's sun will go nova and fry us, but the universe will carry on very happily without you. Deal with it.
You have cited no observation, calculation or reasoning that ever supported the steady state model. None.
webguy4 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
end, world



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama - World Bank To Keep Third World In Poverty Dude111 Political Talk 0 January 26th, 2010 08:41 PM
A Secular World is a Sane World tadpole256 Religion 0 August 18th, 2009 05:18 PM
The New World Order (NWO) is shaping the world in their image. intangible child Political Talk 8 July 29th, 2008 01:11 AM
World Oil teethandclaws Business & Industries 25 January 13th, 2006 08:02 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.