ambition only serves a purpose if there is an attainable result. It is hubris to think that man can look beyond the veil of something like 'the beginning of the universe'. we can speculate, sure. however all that is going on is a bunch of handwaving.
Disagree. Theistic religions try to provide an answer that fits within their dogma (right and wrong are subjective). Science attempts to provide facts. Truth is for philosophers.
Honestly, religion is only tangentially related to god, but that isn't the point. My point is that there is nothing we can do to empirically ascertain what caused the beginning of the universe. We can only infer based on our limited observations billions of years after the fact. It was not an attempt to say whether religion or science is right. It is saying that arguing over whether religion and science are right in this case is akin to an ant climbing to the top of his hill and telling his friends that he can see the entire world. i highly disagree with that statement. Theistic religions attempt to provide truth. Science seeks to find a rational, logical system with which to describe and model our surroundings.
I don't disagree. Hawking's conclusions may turn out to be fallacious. Time will (or maybe won't) tell. But at least science is the ant standing at the top of the hill saying "I can see the entire world. But we'd better run some tests, just to be sure." I said much the same thing here. It's amazing to me how people confuse fact with truth so easily. Now I know why philosophy used to be a requirement for all undergrads. :grin:
They probably confuse them because they're like... the same thing. fact /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. truth /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA –noun, plural truths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA. 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
What about him, and how does this contradict what I say in any way or form? Truth isn't just about facts. Facts are only a small subset of the large philosophical umbrella called "truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Well I suppose the universe could be eternal, except for the fact that the Big Bang Theory seems to suggest that the universe is finite. I also don't see how that is circular reasoning, because if something is eternal than obviously it isn't created. If the Big Bang Theory turns out to be false, and the universe turns out to be eternal, and someone says, "The universe never began to exist because it is eternal, and therefore uncreated," is that circular? The argument goes something like this: 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)The universe began to exist 3)The universe has a cause That is a completely valid logical argument, and it calls for a cause to the universe. And because God never began to exist, He obviously doesn't have a cause.
You start there with assumptions that are not in evidence. Did anything ever actually 'begin'? The first law of thermodynamics says energy is never created or destroyed. That would seem to indicate that all energy has always been and will always be, even though the form might be unimaginable from our perspective. Why would everything that begins need a cause? The human perspective makes it seem like it should, but without any information you can't even hypothisize that.
WHOA! They most definitely are not, despite whatever dictionary you pulled that from says. Scientifically, epistemologically and ontologically, they are very, VERY different. Facts make a statement true. Truth does not determine the facts. Which is why science is concerned with determining facts, not truth.
Did she provide any examples of this statement? Because it sounds like just a convenient shortcut to defend your own biases, consciously choosing self affirming, willful ignorance over intellectual honesty.
I think your assessment of Hawking is on point. I know a number of astrophysicists who have done a lot more than he has, but rarely are the most accomplished scientists also the most famous ones. Have you seen the Astronomer H-R diagram: (warning: large image that will be meaningless to most people) Spoiler
Oh great, the Kalam argument pops up. Fallacious assumption in #1. Quantum mechanics says otherwise. Makes #2 and #3 invalid.
I meant that they have done a lot more for their field, not that they have published a lot more papers.
Not that I'm calling you wrong, as I know basically nothing about quantum mechanics, but how does it say otherwise?
I agree science and religion are different, perhaps because they have different objectives. Science expands mankind's knowledge, but religion (faith rather than denominationalism) expands mankind's consciousness. Personally, I believe the two can and should co-exist but also march side by side. Quite a few people get hung up on legalistic verbiage. Examine the story of Adam and Eve. IMO, this is a parable, very much like the ones Jesus used to make points. Humanity in the early years didn't know about such realities as DNA nor would they have understood them. Hence, Biblical writers -- inspired by God -- wrote accounts in a way those early peoples could understand and accept. For example, until recent times, I don't think anybody questioned from where the woman from Nod -- Cain's wife -- came. Anomalies such as this abound in the Old Testament because the Bible is a guide more than a literal history. Facts are not the goal in a parable -- truth is. The mysteries and the miracles of life are amazing, but only the end of life will provide the answers to questions of faith and/or ultimate knowledge. I know I shall have the answer to my beliefs and wonderings all too soon.
