Author Topic: Podcast #47  (Read 22963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2006, 01:45:32 PM »
Quote from: "Steven Novella"
Regarding the compatibility of creationism and evolution:
If, however, by creationism you are referring not to a scientific claim but to a faith-based belief in the intention of a creator, then it is not meaningful to even talk about compatibility. Science and faith are not compatible or imcompatible - they reside in entirely different realms.


This seems unrealistic to me. The fact is that some people believe god did what is found in science, and some people believe god didnt.  If one believes god is the cause, then purpose, intention, plans and everything else comes into the conversation because living beings do things for reasons.

If one believes no god is involved, then reasons in terms of motivation are a nonissue.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline psyopsgr

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 18
On the first cause of motion or Off with their heads!
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2006, 03:59:15 PM »
Greetings from Athens. I first heard your podcast one month ago and have been hooked ever since...very educational in many respects and a good insight on american popular culture and style of debate too.
     With respect to the 47th episode and your listener;s comment on God, the Big Bang and before, it is obvious to me that the question at hand is a bit beyond the realm of science and basically an age old philosophical question on the first cause or agent of motion. In that sense, i cant see how science can answer what is a basically philosophical question that;s been around at least since Plato and Aristotle. That is, whatever cosmology may discover or theorise on and however far mathematical arguements might lead us, it seems to me that such lines of arguement are defined by the philosophical space that hosts them.  Our physics/science is a discussion  at the very least taking place  within certain metaphysical and ontological assumptions, our physics is not void of metaphysics.
     Ever since i was a teen i figured out that religion is just a very stupid and biggoted way of argueing about pretty traditional fields of philosophy, like metaphysics, ontology and gnosiology. It is my understanding that such a consensus is practically still strong in secular Europe. It is distressing to see alarming numbers of educated, totally functioning people in the richest and most powerful country on earth, stemming from an enlightment tradition, JUST NOT GETTING IT. What will it take for your Puritan founder;s effect of religiosity to be reversed? Is it perhaps time for a french 1789 paradigm to deal with your religious majority?
     I say off with their heads!  :D
 cynic from Greece...my friends though would call me a sophist with a mean streak... I would describe myself as a concerned dreamer ;-)

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2006, 05:14:28 PM »
Welcome.  We need all the weirdos we can get.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline psyopsgr

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Podcast #47
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2006, 06:07:03 PM »
Elvi included?  8)
 cynic from Greece...my friends though would call me a sophist with a mean streak... I would describe myself as a concerned dreamer ;-)

Offline swpalmer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Podcast #47
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2006, 07:45:16 PM »
Quote from: "bort"
[One thing about the article really annoys me though.  They use the phrase "thousand million times."  Isn't this the same thing as a billion times?


At one point I came across a table of the names of large numbers and found:

In North America 1 billion = 1 000 000 000
In the UK 1 billion = 1 000 000 000 000

I assuem that's why you often see "thousand million"

Offline swpalmer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2006, 08:03:55 PM »
My theory of the Big Bang...

I have no qualifications what so ever when it comes to discussing the Big Bang.. but that doesn't mean I can't throw my ideas out there to be torn apart by the people that do. :)

The universe as we know it contains matter and anti-matter.  In my limited understanding I think of them as engeries that when combined cancel each other out and leave you with nothing.

Before the creation of the universe there was by definition, nothing.

If nothing can split apart into two somethings that when combined are nothing again there is conservation of nothingness. :)

If the probablity of positive and negative engeries, matter and anti-matter, (whatever the physics dudes call it) forming spontaneously from nothing is non-zero, even if it is literally infinitesimally small, then if we wait long enough it may happen.

Prior to the creation of the universion time does not make sense.  Time did not exist and so if you had to wait a long time for something to happen, it might as well have happened right away.. there's no difference since there is no time.  So if it is at all possible for nothing to spontaneously give rise to the universe, you might as well say it will just automatically happen.  As soon as there is something by which time can be measured that would be the start of time.  So the start of time and the start of the universe are the same.

My entire idea can be summed up with a single quote of  Douglas Adams, "Anything that happens, happens."

Offline swpalmer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Podcast #47
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2006, 08:07:35 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Quote from: "Steven Novella"
Regarding the compatibility of creationism and evolution:
If, however, by creationism you are referring not to a scientific claim but to a faith-based belief in the intention of a creator, then it is not meaningful to even talk about compatibility. Science and faith are not compatible or imcompatible - they reside in entirely different realms.


This seems unrealistic to me. The fact is that some people believe god did what is found in science, and some people believe god didnt.


From a scientific perspective, it doesn't matter what people believe.  Science isn't allowed to point to the supernatural as a cause.  So from a scientific perspective god can never "do" anything.  As soon as you claim "god did it" you aren't talking science.  Therefore creationism and science are mutually incompatible.

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2006, 03:04:07 AM »
Agreed.  Science is not up to the task of tackling the existance of god.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #47
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2006, 12:03:48 PM »
Well, science is not up to the task of tackling the existence of an omnipotent being which manipulates the universe so it cannot be detected.  Real prick, that guy.
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Re: Big Bang Theory
« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2006, 01:55:45 PM »
Quote from: "swpalmer"
The universe as we know it contains matter and anti-matter.  In my limited understanding I think of them as engeries that when combined cancel each other out and leave you with nothing.


Not quite. A particle and its anti-particle are identical except for their electric charges (which are opposite). When they combine, the charges cancel out, but you are left with the energy of the matter itself, usually released as electromagnetic radiation.  You don't get nothing.

Decades ago, Isaac Asimov wrote an essay called "I'm Looking Over A Four-Leafed Clover" about the (completely hypothetical) possibility that the Big Bang actually produced four universes: matter, anti-matter, negative matter (same as matter but negative mass/energy), and negative anti-matter (same as matter but opposite charge and negative mass/energy), and that the four together cancelled each other out.

The thing is, though, that thanks to quantum fluctuations and the like, it's quite possible for something to come from nothing, even without having to cancel out. It's just that, the more something is involved, the less likely it is to show up.

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2006, 02:08:59 PM »
Quote from: "JD"
Well, science is not up to the task of tackling the existence of an omnipotent being which manipulates the universe so it cannot be detected.  Real prick, that guy.


It is detected all the time.  To science, it just doesn't count.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Podcast #47
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2006, 02:14:42 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Quote from: "JD"
Well, science is not up to the task of tackling the existence of an omnipotent being which manipulates the universe so it cannot be detected.  Real prick, that guy.


It is detected all the time.  To science, it just doesn't count.


Anything that can be detected reliably (repeatably, objectively) counts in science.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #47
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2006, 02:17:15 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Quote from: "JD"
Well, science is not up to the task of tackling the existence of an omnipotent being which manipulates the universe so it cannot be detected.  Real prick, that guy.


It is detected all the time.  To science, it just doesn't count.


Yes it is detected all the time if you come in with the assumption that god designed the universe, but science can't make assumptions.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #47
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2006, 03:10:46 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Science is not up to the task of tackling the existance of god.

Quote from: "Thakkus"
It is detected all the time. To science, it just doesn't count.

Eh?
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2006, 04:57:56 PM »
Quote from: "JD"
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Science is not up to the task of tackling the existance of god.

Quote from: "Thakkus"
It is detected all the time. To science, it just doesn't count.

Eh?


It's an issue of definition.  Ive said this before, but god could moderate a debate on his own existence, and given the current rules, his existence still could not be proven.  

We make rules about how to know things.  This doesn't exhaust the possibility of knowing.  

Skeptics concern themselves with the god issue as intensely as believers do, judging by the content of forums and podcasts.  We're all drawn to the god question.  I say we are drawn by design.  This evolution of sorts is of intelligent origins, in my view.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

 

personate-rain