Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
- From: "ElAlumbrado" <elNOSPAMalumbrado@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:12:51 -0600
"Will Sill" <will@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Clearly, there is "insufficient data" to _prove_ to the skeptic the
> existence of God. If that were possible, all smart people would
> accept His existence and respond appropriately, and no teacher would
> dare teach otherwise.
The whole purpose of a scientific "theory" is to explain "things and
events" which are so far not understood. A "theory" provides a plausible
explanation, based on observed evidence, which can be used to explain
unexplained phenomena and/or predict future results of experimination. A
"theory" is not "proof", and no honest scientist will claim that it is.
A "theory" therefore proposes an explanation that is "plausible" based
on observable evidence.
A "law", on the other hand, such as the "law of gravity", is accepted as
"true" in that basic phyiscal phenomena can be predicted based on
applications of the law. A "law" however does not always provide an
explanation. For example, the "law of gravity", which says (among other
things) that acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth
will cause objects to drop toward the center of the Earth at the rate of
32 feet per second faster for each second of fall.
The "law of gravity", however, provides no explanations as to *why* this
is so, it merely describes *what* occurs when you drop something on
Earth. Yesterday, and explanation of *why* gravity exists might have
been simply "Because God wills it so". Today, an explanation of the
*why* of gravity is proposed by various theories (some of them
contradictory) of the behavior of particiles and waves at the quantum
level. When repeatable experimental evidence leans towards one theory or
another (and, more practically, human technologies can be constructed
based on the predictions of one of the theories) the other theories will
be dropped in favor of the one which appears most accurate.
By these definitions then, the existence of God is a "theory" which
proposes a plausible explanation for as yet unexplained phenomena. The
answer to the question "Why does the universe exist?" may well be
"Because God wills it so", but we have a more thorough understanding
today of *how* the universe exists than we did in the past, and we'll
have an even better understanding tomorrow. We may never, however,
achieve a more satisfactory explanation for the question "Why?".
> Self-important fools say, in effect, "If you can't show me God, and
> explain how He created stuff 'ex nihilo', He doesn't exist." Well, I
> can't do that, and I admit it. Those who espouse Big Bangs and other
> fanciful guesswork as an explanation for our existence strain
> credulity even more: they cannot show me either the Bang or how "it"
> created anything. Nor where the matter came from to create the Big
> Bang.
With reference to the definitions above, the "Big Bang" is not a "law",
it is a theory which provides a plausible explanation for the origin of
the universe. Some years ago, a few very clever astronomists noted that
every observable object in the universe was receding away from every
other observable object. It's almost as if the entire universe were
"printed" on the surface of a baloon that is still being inflated. Or,
more accurately, it's as if the entire universe exists within the
expanding shock front of a huge explosion.
"If this is true", some scientists wondered, "then how long ago did the
explosion (or "Big Bang") occur?" Well, by measuring the rate of
expansion (the "Hubble Constant"), that is, by determining how fast the
"shock front" was spreading, scientists were able to calculate backwards
in time to the moment of the "explosion". While the age of the universe
depends upon some assumptions on our part (such as the density of
matter, which we can extrapolate for the entire universe by what we can
see in the night sky), most cosmologists accept that the universe is
between 12 and 14 billion years old.
Some other clever, but skeptical, scientists said "Well, it there was a
titanic explosion that creasted the universe 14 billion years ago, based
on the observed rate of cooling, we should see certain temperatures and
radiations today in *these* frequencies." And, so they pointed their
radio telescopes at the sky and found exactly the temparatures and
radiations they would expect if the "Big Bang" had occured as the theory
predicts.
Other scientists said "If at the moment of the Big Bang, all the matter
and energy in the universe were condensed down to a single point, there
should have existed some exotic elementary particles which do not
commonly exist in the universe today". And so they bult great machines
to re-create on a small scale the temperatures and pressures that should
have existed just after the Big Bang and found that exactly the same
particles and behaviors that were predicted to exist at the instant of
the Big Bang were created inside the machines.
So, yes, the "Big Bang" is just a theory, but it is one based on an
interlocking set of experimental observations and confirmed predictions.
It is not something some scientists just made up out of thin air, but is
based on observations of the real world.
Notice that there is no mention of the causes or mechanisms of the "Big
Bang", and the theory that "God willed it so" is as valid as any other.
But if the Big Bang itself did not occur, then God is going our of his
way to deliberately fool us into thinking it did. Since I do not believe
that God is a liar, I am willing to accept that the fact of the Big Bang
is true without having a full understanding of the how and why of it.
Isn't that the very definition of "faith"?
> Bottom line: I find it astonishing that a judge has the temerity to
> declare that a teacher may not "mention" the existence of multiple
> theories about our origins.
No argument from me, so long as all are clearly understood as "theories"
and not physical (or religious) "laws".
El Alumbrado
"Civis Texanus Sum"
.
- References:
- OT - Reason Prevails
- From: Kevin W. Miller
- Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
- From: ElAlumbrado
- OT - Reason Prevails
- Prev by Date: Re: Wanted - land in WA or BC
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Alan Balmer
- Previous by thread: Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
- Next by thread: Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
