Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[DOC]

Given that second paragraph, I don't see how the CC {Einstein's Cosmological Constant} was an algebraic error.

So it is your belief, that in math, if your figures don't mesh with your current belief system, it is OK to personally add something to those figures to make them mesh.

 

[DOC]

Yes I would.
Answer my question: When did you first know that Eddington's experiment had nothing to do with testing that the Universe was static?

Not until you mentioned that was your take on what was said. But as I have pointed out, the book said that Eddington's experiment proved "general relativity to be true". What you imply after that is dependent on whether you read only one paragraph like you did or the whole chapter like I did. Their language could have been clearer in the Eddington paragraph, but they clearly say it was Friedman that found the problem with the constant in the next paragraph. Nowhere do they say it was Eddington who found the problem with the constant.

The same could be said about the universe being static. Their language wasn't clear in the Eddington paragraph. But it becomes clearer when they talk about Hubble, de Sitter, Wilson etc.

 

[Hokulele]

What was the exact error in your own words?

Hey now, joobz asked first.

In fact, there are a number of questions you have not answered in this thread. Care to take a stab at any of them?

 

[joobz]

So it is your belief, that in math, if your figures don't mesh with your current belief system, it is OK to personally add something to those figures to make them mesh.

non sequitor.

The opperative term in Firegarden's argument is "algebraic error".

 

[DOC]

Hey now, joobz asked first.

In fact, there are a number of questions you have not answered in this thread. Care to take a stab at any of them?

I need to know what the exact error is Joobz is talking about, before I take the time to respond.

And my 104 posts (and many more in Part 1 of this thread) aren't good enough for you, you want even more. OK which question do you want me to take a stab at.

 

[Hokulele]

I need to know what the exact error is Joobz is talking about, before I take the time to respond.

Then go back and read the posts by FireGarden. Any discussion of error is explained quite clearly.

And my 104 posts (and many more in Part 1 of this thread) aren't good enough for you, you want even more.

You are correct. They are not good enough as they fail to address the responses to your OP.

OK which question do you want me to take a stab at.

Please address this post by Fiona, especially the last question. Make sure you read the entire post carefully before answering the question, as you will be required to support your answer.

I will come clean if it helps, DOC. I did know that science says the universe came from something smaller than an atom: and I found this quite interesting but not very exciting. This is because I am not a scientist and I trust those who are to go on researching and learning and disseminating what they learn for the rest of us, at whatever level we would like to know about it. For me that is just about the level called "general knowledge". I cannot follow mathematical arguments and I do not have enough knowledge about physics to read text books. I had trouble when I read A Brief History of Time so maybe I am a lot like you, if you resist reading recommended books because they are too hard for you. I do like to have things outlined for me in this forum because I can ask my daft questions and people are patient in explaining.

I don't ask about things I don't want to know about (well not very often and usually only in social situations where it is polite to do so). I assume this is also true of you, because otherwise you would be wasting other people's time and that would not be polite, IMO.

People here have tried to engage honestly in discussion with you in this thread and in the other one about evolution. I can only conclude that you are not getting the kind of answers you are looking for, therefore.

Since you ask whether most atheists know this, and that has been answered in the affirmative, the second question does not arise, does it? So what is it you now wish to know? Obviously it is not the detail of what is known by scientists, because that has been offered and you have ignored the offer. While reading science books might be hard, if you took up the generous offer made then asked questions where you got lost, I think the people here would be more than willing to help you: so I have found, anyway.

On the basis of your question I am inclined to think you find it hard to accept that people can be aware of the fact you raised at the outset and you are not willing to take the answer "yes" you have been given. Mashuna has very cleverly shown you what to do about that, so if that is the problem you have a strategy. We will all be interested in the results, I imagine.

If you do accept the answer you have been given then perhaps your problem lies elsewhere. Maybe you just find it really difficult to believe that the fact does not cause an atheist any problem. If that is so then, speaking only for myself, I can tell you honestly that I do not find this fact affects my outlook. You asked if atheists do not care about the origin of the universe: well surprising as it may be to you that is exactly where I find myself. I couldn't give a toss, frankly. What science is telling us is interesting but it does not impinge on my life at all and my interests (as in what I really pay attention to) are elsewhere.

I wonder if that is a problem for you. I have seen many people insist that everybody is interested in the "big questions of life" like why we are here and what happens after death. If that is what you believe then I am here for to tell you that it is not universally true. I do not care because I concluded long ago that these things are not knowable. Once I reached that conclusion I never troubled my light-minded little head about it again. I quite like hearing what scientists and theologists are doing about it, but then I quite like reading fiction too. And it has just as much practical importance to me.

Does that help at all ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I probably haven't read every word of the bible, but that doesn't keep me from understanding it. Let's just say I've read enough to of had the top three threads in the religious and philosophy forum.

There is no relationship between the length of the threads you started and the quality of the arguments you've presented. To assert as much is just silliness.

 

[joobz]

I need to know what the exact error is Joobz is talking about, before I take the time to respond.

I agree. There have been multiple errors made by Geisler. It would only make sense that you ask to which one I'm referring.

The geisler quote regarding Eddington was written as though Eddington's experiment was related to the expanding universe.



You also ignored this issue.

Actually, as far as I understand, that's really not the case. The bbt doesn't suggest a beginning so much as a boundary condition.

Also, as Firegarden pointed out, how much latititude do you allow in genesis' description of the universe when making your comparisons. Are you ok with the fact that there is no firmament?

 

[Hokulele]

There is no relationship between the length of the threads you started and the quality of the arguments you've presented. To assert as much is just silliness.

The sad thing is, DOC does not even have the top three threads (in terms of number of posts) in Religion. He seems to be sorting only the last month's worth of threads, not all.

LightCreatedLife still holds the top honor. By a long shot.

 

[Foster Zygote]

LightCreatedLife still holds the top honor. By a long shot.

Yeah, he must really know what he's talking about.

 

[Hokulele]

Yeah, he must really know what he's talking about.

And the poster with the thread with the highest number of views is ...





... kurious_kathy!

 

[Elizabeth I]

You can lead a horse to water...

Or, as the great Dorothy Parker is supposed to have said, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

 

[DOC]

I will come clean if it helps, DOC. I did know that science says the universe came from something smaller than an atom: and I found this quite interesting but not very exciting. This is because I am not a scientist and I trust those who are to go on researching and learning and disseminating what they learn for the rest of us, at whatever level we would like to know about it.

<snip>

I have seen many people insist that everybody is interested in the "big questions of life" like why we are here and what happens after death. If that is what you believe then I am here for to tell you that it is not universally true. I do not care because I concluded long ago that these things are not knowable. Once I reached that conclusion I never troubled my light-minded little head about it again. I quite like hearing what scientists and theologists are doing about it, but then I quite like reading fiction too. And it has just as much practical importance to me.

Does that help at all ?

Yes, while science and theology are interesting to you, they are not very important to you.

But I can assure you that questions about theology are very important to what kind of society you live in. We are living on the remnants of a society that followed the Judea/Christian Ethic. When the remnants of that society are mostly gone, I believe we will be living in a very different society, and its a society that I think most people won't like. But that's a whole other thread.

 

[Mark Felt]

We are living on the remnants of a society that followed the Judea/Christian Ethic.

Please show your working.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, while science and theology is interesting to you, it is not very important to you.

But I can assure you that questions about theology are very important to what kind of society you live in. We are living on the remnants of a society that followed the Judea/Christian Ethic. When the remnants of that society are mostly gone, I believe we will be living in a very different society, and its a society that I think most people won't like. But that's a whole other thread.

I'd lurk that thread. Please link here if you start it. Thanks.

 

[DOC]

I agree. There have been multiple errors made by Geisler. It would only make sense that you ask to which one I'm referring.

The geisler quote regarding Eddington was written as though Eddington's experiment was related to the expanding universe.

Maybe -- if you look at the one paragraph I brought in and ignore the following one I later brought in (that immediately followed it in the book).

From the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Geisler/Turek (Pg. 74):

"By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error. (Incredibly in his quest to avoid a beginning, the great Einstein had divided by zero - something even schoolchildren know is a no-no!) Meanwhile the Dutch astronomer W. de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding of the universe was actually observed by astronomer E. Hubble..."

---

If you read both paragraphs and you still think there is a problem so be it, you have the right to your opinion. But if that is the worse you can say about Geisler's book (that he "implied" that Eddington experiment had something to do with disproving a static universe) I'll be satisified with that.

 

[arthwollipot]

The worst that I can say about Giesler's book is that it appears to contradict every other book I've read about the subject, including The Big Bang by Simon Singh and A Brief History of Almost Everything by Bill Bryson.

 

[DOC]

Please show your working.

You'll see some of my working in the past threads "Would there be more or less crime if everyone was an atheist" thread, and "Has anyone ever gotten off drugs through the power of atheism" thread.

 

[Mark Felt]

You'll see some of my working in the past threads "Would there be more or less crime if everyone was an atheist" thread, and "Has anyone ever gotten off drugs through the power of atheism" thread.

>"Would there be more or less crime if everyone was an atheist"
>"Has anyone ever gotten off drugs through the power of atheism"

what.

Please feel free to bring the excerpts here that show how western society is a result of a "judeo/christian work ethic", unless you're afraid of them being challenged and shown to be wrong.

 

[Fiona]

Yes, while science and theology are interesting to you, they are not very important to you.

But I can assure you that questions about theology are very important to what kind of society you live in. We are living on the remnants of a society that followed the Judea/Christian Ethic. When the remnants of that society are mostly gone, I believe we will be living in a very different society, and its a society that I think most people won't like. But that's a whole other thread.

I have not much time, but what an interesting viewpoint that is, I always think. Of course a lot is implied and little stated so I am not sure what you are actually claiming.

It is true that much of our culture and law is heavily influenced by Judeo/Christian ethics: but also by Roman law and ethics; Greek philosophy; socialist economic analysis; and many many other things. The great advances in social and political arrangements were a product of the enlightenment, and while it takes a long time to change deeply accepted premises which constitute the moral "water we swim in" these things are always changing: sometimes for the better. And there is no necessity to abandon what we might take as good ethical principles contained in any particular system if we reject that system as a whole. We can cherrypick if we like on these matters because if an ethical principle is good then it is good independent of ones views about theology. Secular morality not only exists: it can be superior since it is subject to examination and adapts to new insights. So too does religious morality but it seems to me the latter does so in response to secular progress: not the other way around.

I do not wish to attribute views to you, but it seems as if you may be claiming that without theology there is no morality: if you are then I think you are wrong. If that is your position, then you have apparently addressed it in another thread and I will look into that later. I am having a bit of trouble understanding how it relates to this thread, however, and perhaps you could make the chain of reasoning explicit.

In particular, can you show a logical link between the factual question in your OP which I addressed in the parts you snipped: and the moral underpinnings of societal arrangements which, so far as I am aware, have nothing whatsover to do with the big bang; and expanding universe; or anything else you raised?