Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How long did it take Einstein to form his hypotheses, and much longer did it take for them to be tested out? I'm not saying I'm Einstein, but I do have a bit more difficult task. Though I have the grace to get the job done, so I don't take any credit.
Scientists make public their claims - after they have the evidence to support it - not before. You do not see many peer reviewed science journals that have papers made up solely of a conclusion with the words "Workings and Evidence to follow at some future date yet to be specificed"
Let me continue to develop my thinking in this area. I imagine the scientific method wasn't thought up overnight. Yet with this thinking, perhaps an even better method can be developed. Other than that, this thread of course was never about me stating evidence for God's existence. I have reason to believe God exists, and I'm told that reason is not good. I'll continue to look into these things because I'm confident I'll stumble across some interesting things that might not have been found through the traditional methods and ways of thinking.
I mentioned there would be a day when the universe would be so large, that you couldn't see the nearest galaxies with the most powerful of telescopes. Any creature making discoveries about the world by the traditional method, would say the universe is eternal. That there was no expansion from a singularity. So how could they find out about the distant galaxies and the expansion of space? To them, the existence of other galaxies would be similar to the existence of a god to atheists and agnostics. It's possible, but there would be no evidence supporting it.
Let me continue to develop my thinking in this area. I imagine the scientific method wasn't thought up overnight. Yet with this thinking, perhaps an even better method can be developed.
I suspect that you and MysticPhd should get together ...
I suspect that you and MysticPhd should get together ...
Okay besides that, how would you answer the dilemma I presented concerning the expansion of the universe, and any creature doing science in that day? How would they determine space was expanding at all?
Okay besides that, how would you answer the dilemma I presented concerning the expansion of the universe, and any creature doing science in that day? How would they determine space was expanding at all?
In a hypothetical future where a sentient being can't see other galaxies they would still presumably be in the midst of their own galaxy, however dispersed, and could still detect the expansion. Ignoring the fact that if even other stars were beyond the reach of the most powerful telescope, their star would already be dead and the universe at or near the end of its shelf life ... I suppose they would have no way of knowing. Should that hypothetical being then make up comforting stories to tell himself, or should he say that this information is unobtanium at present?
In a hypothetical future where a sentient being can't see other galaxies they would still presumably be in the midst of their own galaxy, however dispersed, and could still detect the expansion. Ignoring the fact that if even other stars were beyond the reach of the most powerful telescope, their star would already be dead and the universe at or near the end of its shelf life ... I suppose they would have no way of knowing. Should that hypothetical being then make up comforting stories to tell himself, or should he say that this information is unobtanium at present?
Of course making up stories isn't the issue. I think the problem would be their science would say something different than our own. The only evidence we have for the Big Bang theory, is the expanding universe and the subsequent cosmic background radiation. Without evidence of expansion, the radiation by itself wouldn't say anything. So if they could detect it, it wouldn't mean much. Their conclusion would be different in terms of origin of the universe. There will be "live" stars at that time, if I could say it like that. Their galaxy would contain enough energy for it to be able to have some stars similar to our sun, though perhaps not as many. Yet the main thing is this kind of situation presents the limitations of the scientific method. I suppose a question I have, is the scientific method the best method we can produce in order to find out the history and workings of the universe? Is it possible to develop a better method?
Of course making up stories isn't the issue. I think the problem would be their science would say something different than our own. The only evidence we have for the Big Bang theory, is the expanding universe and the subsequent cosmic background radiation. Without evidence of expansion, the radiation by itself wouldn't say anything. So if they could detect it, it wouldn't mean much. Their conclusion would be different in terms of origin of the universe. There will be "live" stars at that time, if I could say it like that. Their galaxy would contain enough energy for it to be able to have some stars similar to our sun, though perhaps not as many. Yet the main thing is this kind of situation presents the limitations of the scientific method. I suppose a question I have, is the scientific method the best method we can produce in order to find out the history and workings of the universe? Is it possible to develop a better method?
It is the best we have found so far. It has also been quite effective and has transformed human society in the past 150 years. It is not infallible -- but nothing, including anything you could come up with, can be. Nevertheless, if you can produce something better, knock yourself out, we'd love to read it here first :-)
My personal view is that looking back to the beginning of life or the birth of the universe is a little like your lonely alien friend looking through a telescope for other galaxies in a distant future. There may simply be no way to settle all these debates and some things will always be unknowns. Science needs data. If you want to find something either better than science or perhaps a non-overlapping magesterium, then you need to figure out some way to exit the universe and observe it from the outside and then be able to understand what you're looking at.
It is the best we have found so far. It has also been quite effective and has transformed human society in the past 150 years. It is not infallible -- but nothing, including anything you could come up with, can be. Nevertheless, if you can produce something better, knock yourself out, we'd love to read it here first :-)
My personal view is that looking back to the beginning of life or the birth of the universe is a little like your lonely alien friend looking through a telescope for other galaxies in a distant future. There may simply be no way to settle all these debates and some things will always be unknowns. Science needs data. If you want to find something either better than science or perhaps a non-overlapping magesterium, then you need to figure out some way to exit the universe and observe it from the outside and then be able to understand what you're looking at.
Hehe! I suppose that is why scientists constructed things like the hadron collider. Trying to break down what the universe is made up of, to determine it's beginning. An inside out view vs the ability to step outside the universe and looking at it. Well, thanks for the conversation, I find it all interesting.
Okay besides that, how would you answer the dilemma I presented concerning the expansion of the universe, and any creature doing science in that day? How would they determine space was expanding at all?
I've been reading the last few pages getting more confused by the minute. What does any of this stuff have to do with the Number One Reason Why People don't Believe God Exists?
I've been reading the last few pages getting more confused by the minute. What does any of this stuff have to do with the Number One Reason Why People don't Believe God Exists?
I see a padlock in the near future.
I think it's pretty obvious that for Heavenese and others like him, there "just must be someone out there" and there "must be some way to prove it other than science". I'd wager that is the #1 reason for a fundamentalist at any rate of the inverse -- why god exists.
From this and other threads I think it's fairly clear that the #1 reason unbelievers don't believe is there's no evidence we can accept as valid. Heavenese is just sure he can provide it somehow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though I have the grace to get the job done, so I don't take any credit.
