Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gravity
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 48 of 81 (688593)
01-23-2013 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
01-23-2013 6:22 PM


Taq writes:
The irony is that you reject Oser's claims because they conflict with your beliefs, and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong.
And you reject Schroeder's claims because you disagree with his beliefs, and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong. Perhaps you should read Paul Davies, "the Goldilocks Enigma", written subsequent to Schroeder that supports the same postion. Davies is a Physicist with outstanding credientials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 01-23-2013 6:22 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 01-23-2013 7:24 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 62 of 81 (688918)
01-26-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
01-23-2013 7:24 PM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
Theodoric, forgive me for taking so long to reply, but I had to reread portions of Davie's book, since I was suprised by his statments you cited. He made these statements in 2007, the book was published in 2006.
His position has changed since the book, maybe because of pressure from the majority of scienctists.
If you will read his Afterword: Ultilmate Explanation of the Question of Existence pp.261-269, you will understand my suprise.
Summarizing the main positions of the book he explained and commented on each position.
A. The Absurd Universe.
The Universe is mysterious and just happened to permit life. There is no purpose to it.
There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle.
This position he says is probably held by the majority of scientists.
B. the Unique Universe.
A unified theory of everything. It is mostly unchangeable. If there is a God this God has nothing to do with the theory or universe.
C. The Multiverse.
A theory of multiple cosmic entities and our universe one of many just happened to be just right for life.
D. Intelligent Design.
Monotheistic religious view that God created & designed universe to be suitable for life.
E. The life Principle.
The unverse arose from laws or principles that constrained it to evolve toward life and mind. It is Teleological in nature. He says this theory is regarded by atheistic scientists as really asserting the guiding hand of God.
F. The sefl explaining Universe.
The universe explains itself, is self contained and creates itself.
G. The fake universe.
We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is a virtual reality show.
PP267-268
'My own inclinations, it will be clear, lie in the directions of E and F, although there are many details to be worked out. I do take life, mind, and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity. I cannot accept these features as a package of marvels that just happen to be, that exist reasonlessly. It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things--the universe is "about" somethng. But I am equally uneasy about dumping the whole set of problems in the lap of an arbitrary god or abandoning all further thought and declaring existence ultimately to be a mystery."
Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 01-23-2013 7:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:56 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2013 9:23 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 70 of 81 (689022)
01-27-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by cavediver
01-27-2013 6:56 AM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
cavedriver writes:
I can assure you, from both a personal and professional perspective, that Paul Davies sounds nothing like Schroeder and would support very few of Schroeder's positions.
What I mean by "he sounds like Schroeder" is that his view of the universe is that it is Teleological, with purpose, and he does not agree with the majority of scientists that there is no design or purpose or point to it all.
He chooses natural causes, Schroeder and I believe in God as the cause and at this point in time neither of us can be proven wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:56 AM cavediver has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 71 of 81 (689024)
01-27-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
01-23-2013 7:49 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
The equation (1) is not the only error in Schroeder's new book. However, it seems sufficient to limit the demonstration of the inaccuracies in Schroeder's literary production to the above examples.
I will accept cavedrivers rebuttal in re the equation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 72 of 81 (689026)
01-27-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
01-24-2013 1:37 AM


Paulk writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you consider yourself to be non-human and assign different meanings to words that doesn't make Oser wrong, that just makes you incapable of understanding Oser's point.
Or are you claiming that Oser isn't human, uses a different language, and therefore doesn't mean what he seems to say ?
I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2013 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 3:22 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 01-27-2013 4:42 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 75 of 81 (689035)
01-27-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
01-27-2013 3:22 PM


Paulk writes:
In message 45 your wrote: To predate a thing it is necessary to exist at an earlier point in time. There can be no point in time earlier than the earliest point in time by definition. Time exists at the earliest point in time by definition. Oser's point seems entirely reasonable. Can you come up with a real objection rather than just assuming that it is wrong ?
Let me try to clear this up one last time. In reply to your point above, I was trying to clarify that Oser was assuming there was no time prior to the BB.
My position is, That a supernatural being, God, exists before the time of the BB and thus could have created the universe before the time started by the BB.
Paulk writes:
Quite frankly you seem to be arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense and only the deluded could believe it. I wouldn't go that far myself, but it's the clear message I'm getting from your posts.
Quite the contrary I have stated several times on this board that my God is the God of the Roman Catholic Church. That God is Omnipotent and was a supernatural being before the BB. So I am not arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense. Hope this clears up my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 5:00 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024