Re: God Vs Science


Posted by Pasti on Mar 14, 2004 at 17:13
(67.69.240.188)

Re: God Vs Science (peep)

>Concerning the universe as having a "beginning", >you state that "science does not say this." >According to your very next statement, though, >Science does support the notion of it having >a "beginning" because such is "correct in >classical general relativity."

Yes, this is exactly what I state.It might be confusing for some, but it is entirely accurate.I tried to explain why in my post, but I guess you ignored it.
When you are saying that according to science, there is a beginning of the universe, you refer to a particular solution to Einstein equations,which is called the Robertson Friedman Walker solution.
This is what is called a classical solution, since general relativity is a classical theory.Being a classical theory, it DOES NOT have universal validity.In other words,it is valid only within a certain range determined by certain parameters.These parameters are what is called parameters of scale, and below a certain scale, the theory becomes invalid.The values of these parameters are the Plank length LP~10^(-33) meters, and the Planck time, TP~10^(-42) seconds.For distances near these values, Einsteins GR becomes invalid, and quantum effects of gravitation come into play, preventing eventually the initial singularity, the "beginning" part that you are so fond of.
Comfortably beynd these values,the classical theory is valid and can be used.

>Sorry, but your position here is not clear at >all. Is your audience to understand that general >relativity is NOT something that Science routinely speaks of and makes reference to?

It may not be clear, but it is accurate.The fact that Science speaks about GR does not mean that GR is the ultimate theory and universally valid ar any scale.It is a classical theory, and with this come it's shortcommings at the quantum range (and I am NOT speaking about quantum mechanics,but about quantum gravitation).
I agree with you that these "details" are not mentioned in your everyday popular science article,but it is no surprise.

If you want a really good review of quantum gravitation, from the horse's mouth, there is an article in Scientific American from Jan 04, by Smolin.

"If Science, however, is a proponent of such, then a retraction and/or rephrasing of your apparently contradictory statements (made in such close proximity to one another no less) would necessarily be in order."

I will take it that you are not very familiar with GR.Science never said that GR is universally valid at EVERY SCALE.I will further assume that you really didn't know about these "details" I am talking about, and that your argumentation was not intentionally malicious.So read a little about GR and quantum gravitation, to convince yourself.

"No offense intended, but no serious consideration can be given to the remainder of your post otherwise, especially in light of the fact that additional contradictions can be found throughout."

Never assume that your knowledge is complete.In this particular case,you are still about 50 years behind.Do some research and convince yourself.
use your favorite browser and enter the search query "quantum gravity".
And don't be confused by the recent trends in cosmology.They still deal with problems involving classical GR, in the range where this is valid.

>For instance, in one sense, you seem to be >implying that it is ridiculous for one to hold >that there are similarities between what modern >Science says and what portions of the Bible say, >yet you then come right out and >state, "Moreover, the Old Testament seems to >refer to a very modern universe, from the >scientific viewpoint."

Yes,but I don't exactly see where this is confusing.I thought that it was very clear that you cannot make the parallel you wanted between this particular field of science and the first two verses from the Old Testament.
And if you really want to force such a parallel, and you want to be true to youself,you'd better account for the fact that the universe described in these verses is far from its beginning as described by science.I.E. the "beginning" described int he Bible is by no means the "beginning" described by science.
Hpe I made it clearer now.

"Noting a possible confusion of issues, please, in the spirit of true Science, neither force God/Religion into the question, nor force Him/It out of it."

No offense intended to you either, but the confusion seems to lie on your side,in the sense that there are certain issues that you don't know about.But this can be remedied by simply reading more.
And since such discussions tend to become complex in the detriment of clarity,I will happily clear anything I state that you consider blurry.

If you want to follow the spirit of true science, then you should not force this parallel.Is the concept of a creator necessary for science?Not at this moment.Should we look for a creator in science?No,we should not.IF indeed such a creator IS involved, sooner ot later it will become apparent.
Postulating its existence would only bend the spirit of true science, as you call it.And for that matter, this approach has been widely attempted in the past, with the obvious insuccess.

"Rather, just examine and consider the question... concerning the processes governing the formation of the universe now known to exist, are there similarities between modern Scientific and ancient Biblical descriptions of such or not?"

What similarities?Think about this issue.Take any cosmology book, and study the formation of the universe.Then compare that with the verses in question.
These verses contain much too little info to lead to any definitive conclusion.You might want to see the parallel between witht he scientific formation of the universe, while I could easily make an argument along von Daniken's lines, that in fact these verses describe the process of terraforming of the Earth by an extraterestrial civilization.

There is smply too litle info in the verses for any clear cut conclusion, and in the spirit of true science, any such conclusion would be biased.Moreover, if you take into account other arguments,philological and linguistic, as well as historical,the chance for a parallel like your diminish even more.


"Much of what you have stated, Patsi,"

Pasti...

"...noted contradictions included, actually leads to an affirmative answer,..."

That is wishful thinking.I don't see the affirmative answer that you mention.

"and with that in mind, this line of discussion unfortunately must be concluded by returning to you (with some modification) your own question -- where again exactly do you NOT see any similarity between what Science says and what the Bible says?"

The question is yours, not mine.And no,I don't see any similarity that I could seriously consider.I could make arguments for several scenarios,based on those two verses,and even more scenarios if other verses are included.But if I am to be true to the scientific method,none of these scenarios can be ruled to be "the one".
Not that I am the adherent of the concept, but why do you think some people came up with the intelligent design ideea?Because no clear cut argument could be made from the Bible.Think about that.



Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]