I'd say it's more about the collapse of god as we know it. You can't fit a backyard sand and dunes god into the vastness of space. Just doesn't make sense any longer.
Science vs God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it
by yadda yadda 2 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
still thinking
I agree with you about the music Satanus...but I still enjoyed the video. Had me thinking of all the possibilites last night.
Inifinity...such a wonderful concept. Makes the mind boggle. Well...it makes MY mind boggle...LOL
The possiblilty of Black holes being infinate...maybe leading to other dimensions, maybe leading to the final truth of HOW it all began, for us, in our universe. The piece we might need to make it all work...or even more strange...a different dimension using different laws of physics.
Whats outside our universe if not infinity? Is there anything outside our universe? If there is, what is it? It keeps expanding...but what are we expanding into? Will we eventually collide with another universe?
Are these black hoes where universes are created? Do they go bang in another space and time? My mind was just wallowing in thought after watching that video. In spite of the VERY annoying music.
Imagine living millions of years from now...when the planets and stars have all raced so far apart from each other you can no longer see them...and there is NOTHING to see in the night sky. nothing buy darkness and the moon. How weird will that be?
The more I think about the universe...the more strange it becomes. Isn't it freaking wonderful!
-
still thinking
What does INTENT mean? One thing.
Apparently NOT....
Assertions in math texts can play many different roles.
English sentences can state facts, ask question, give commands, and other things. The intent of an English sentence is often obvious, but sometimes it can be unexpectedly different from what is apparent in the sentence. For example, the statement “Could you turn the TV down?” is apparently a question expecting a yes or no answer, but in fact it may be a request. (See Wikipedia about this phenomenon.) Such things are normally understood by people who know each other, but people for whom English is a foreign language or who have a different culture have difficulties with them.
There are some problems of this sort in math English and the symbolic language, too. An assertion can have the intent of being a claim, a definition, or a constraint. Sentences in math, as in ordinary English, can also be questions or commands.
Most of the time the intent of an assertion in math is obvious. But there are conventions and special formats that newcomers to abstract math may not recognize, so they misunderstand the point of the assertion
-
QC
@thinking still
Thanks for reminding me that, in a forum setting it's best to make your point clear beyond doubt. Otherwise you open yourself to non sequitur arguments such as yours.
My point is: Our universe has an elegant, intelligible, and discoverable underlying mathematical structure in quantum mechanics, general relativity and DNA biochemistry, which proves INTENT (it’s thoughtful, it’s measured). Intent in this context means one thing, nothing in the universe science happens by chance.
Mathematics is used in universe science to describe the Laws of Nature. And, universally physicist of all languages understands this math. That degree of universal uniformity can’t be said for languages.
It’s a mistake to conflate various international languages (and their dissimilar grammar and idioms) with the universal math used for universe science (quantum mechanics, general relativity and DNA biochemistry, etc.).
-
yadda yadda 2
I don't see how the discovery of mathematical structures in the universe at the macro and micro level prove thoughtful intent. All you've proven is that there are underlying patterns and common denominators in the mathematics. That doesn't by itself prove any metaphysical intent or mind behind it.
To say that complex genetic information must have come from intelligence, for example, seems a bit like saying that the mathematical information behind waves as they approach and hit the shore must denote intelligence. Or that the mathematical patterns and structures observed behind swirling hurricanes or tornadoes must signify underlying intent. This seems like a kind of anthropomorphising of mathematics.
-
still thinking
I watched that video, thanks QC....... he is saying.....we have 'information'...therefore God.
Doesn't sound very scientific to me. Just because he has no other way to explain the information in DNA.
I wonder which god he attributes the information to. Is he a christian? A hindu? Muslim? Which god did it do you think? Or does he subscribe to the unknown god. The one that explains everything but we can't explain him? The deity with no name and no evidence.
.. Peer review controversy
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[26] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[27] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[28]
The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[29] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[30] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[31]Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[32] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[33] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."
-
still thinking
Thanks for that second video yadda...I was going to say something similar to that.
Humans created math to describe the world around us. It happens to work extremely well. But it does not prove or disprove a god in any way.
Laws are simply ways for us to explain something physical. That is all. They are not god given rules.