So we are akin to pets in a cage..pets that can be left to starve etc...perhaps you could explain just how this love works... Alex
Hi Pad. I have been happily reading all your real science stuff and thank you again for taking the time to make all those posts..I get so much of my news via you I can't thank you enough. I nearly lost the place I used to live in..lost some equipment but manageable..and irony struck...lost a fire pump when the dam flooded and I was down here. All is as good as it can be...need the wheel chair some days...fading slowly I guess. I hope you are well. Alex
Pretty good actually...just had my regular 6 monthly and all A OK. Not bad for an old bloke! Did have a minor run in with a young punk a few weeks ago, nothing to write home about, but he did call me an old bastard. I replied, "I'm their Sonny, you have yet to make it" Just spent 4 months in Fiji off the grid and was absent for sometime...still the best people in the world, fair dinkum! so friendly, so hospitable.....I was always of the opinion when in Rome, do what the Romans do, and previous to this year would always sit down with them, cross-legged on mats, drinking Yaqona [kava] and refusing a chair and/or cushion that they always offered me. This time I accepted all the love and care that was offered....perhaps a sign of advancing years? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! probably. Take it easy.
The church was preoccupied with the prospect of incorporating the pagan notion of a cosmic egg into their tales. And so I regard the BB as suspect entirely for that reason and back in the day that view was common for many scientists. The theory was on its knees saved only by Alan Guth and his notion of inflation. There is no evidence for inflation that I know of... And I doubt that we will ever find evidence that gives it support. Certainly observations support a Big Bang approach but my observation is that all observations are made fit the theory. I think the big bang approach tells us that we can not find a point of creation which no doubt is what the original proponent was seeking...we can't get to a point where we find nothing and can therefore must only conclude a creation point. Folk speculate about the big bang suggesting something from nothing which clearly is a futile search. The serious problem for science is that because the BB is now main stream any alternate can never be funded. I like steady state or some variation as steady state requires no creation point. If I were to speculate to include a BB machinery all I can imagine is a situation where the universe cycles between a very dense state and what we see now. It all turns upon the notion that the universe is expanding and I am inclinded to think that actually our observations may have been misinterpreted. Clearly if that is the case BB is wrong. However I am at a loss to come up with something to confirm or reject the notion that the universe is expanding... What I find difficult to accept is that all there is could be confined to the small region we are asked to accept. The observable universe is approx 90 billions light years diameter and the most conservative model has that which is beyond to be some 250 larger...and so I find it incomprehensible that all that could come from such small beginnings. I think the cosmic egg idea was simplistic and attempts to make it science has been purely driven by the church. What I do find amusing is that theists mostly reject the big bang when really it takes us to a place where a creation point is easy to put on the table. Also I find it amusing that supporters of the big bang can consider no alternative. An eternal infinite universe just makes more sense to me...and happily what I think is mere speculation. Alex
Yes. 800 million people in the world go hungry every day. 9 million are left to starve to death each year. You have the typical overprivileged view of world hunger. "I can get all the food I want; therefore there's an abundance of food for everyone."
There is more than enough food for every human being. Human beings throw away, or waste at least 4.6billion kg of food everyday. If managed properly, that could feed around 2billion people, everyday. That would immediately eliminate world hunger. Humans leave other humans to starve, not God.
The thing is Alex [and remember I'm only a poor old amateur at this game] the BB is not about the beginning of the universe...it's about how our "observable" universe evolved and expanded from a hot dense state.It does not incorporate the universe as a whole and what is beyond our observable horizon. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Secondly, even contemplating a BB beginning, I would see that as a "quality" or excellence of science in general. I mean why would they not reject it knowing that the church would hang their hat on it, knowing that the door was still open for their god of the gaps? This in my opinion was why the otherwise great Freddy Hoyle rejected the BB and proposed the Steady State. Thirdly the BB certainly was not floundering or on its knees before Inflation. Inflation was proposed to explain the flatness and horizon problems, but other models had even more problems. The SS theory for example, would need to explain a region or aspect where the extra matter was created to maintain this steady state. The BB adheres to the notion that no new is created. The other point is that even speculatively extrapolating the BB backwards to arrive at the beginning, leads to the aspect of creation from nothing. Here I propose the Lawrence Krauss hypothetical of nothing not actually being what we commonly perceive as nothing. The quantum foam from whence the BB arose, maybe as close to the common definition of nothing that we can ever get...It actually maybe NOTHING and had existed for all eternity. Far more sensible and logical then proposing a god or other deity existing for all eternity! Anyway at the very least we need a validated observable QGT to even begin to support that hypothesis. [which I like] While Inflation does explain away certain anomalies, it also has made some predictions which have been observed. https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/hub/cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery But otherwise I don't know or have read enough about it to confidently support it, other then Guth did receive the Nobel for it, and most scientists do accept it. The point is that no other theory can match the four main pillars that the BB explain. And yes, the universe still maybe eternal [although we are still open on that question] and that also fits nicely with the BB for reasons I explained in the beginning. And of course it also fits like a hand in a glove with GR, our accepted theory of gravity. But hey! I'm sure one of our experts may be along to tidy up any errors in my rough summation.
Then every single scientist should accept it, as well as every person. Everybody accepts evolution, but not everybody accepts Darwin’s theory. And the majority of those who accept it, do so on the word of the pop scientists. They know nothing about it, other than to spout cliches. If you don’t believe me, just go out tomorrow and ask random people if they accept the theory. If they say yes, then ask them to explain why. Come on Paddoboy You’re not stupid. You know there is, and can be, only one God. It’s amazing how atheists keep repeating the same stuff over and over, even though they’ve schooled in the past. Don’t worry, nobody is preaching in this thread aside from bilvon and Write4U.
Bit lengthy but has some insight on beliefs https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-did-belief-evolve Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We all take certain things for granted Jan...We all take certain things on faith...a faith that stems from reputable reputations. If a doctor tells me I need an operation or I will cark it, I'll probably get a second, professional opinion, then accept them on faith and heir professionalism and reputation. Scientists tell me that we have found more then 3,000 exo planets thus far.Why would I doubt these experts? If they happen to be wrong, then in time it will come to light and I'll accept that reappraisal. We all accept various things based on the reputation and professionalism of the source. We see evolution in action. We have no reason not to accept it, other then having been brain washed into accepting a myth that may or may not give one a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I'm not into theology or religious studies, but I'm pretty sure we have had many different gods throughout the ages, depending on where and when one was indocrinated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We all are inclined to push our beliefs. My agenda is the scientific method and what evolves from that. Despite being a rank amateur. Probably my one regret in life, in that when I did leave school, I preferred fun and games to further education. No one to blame other then myself. This is a science forum but, first and foremost and as such the scientific methodology should prevail.
Then God must REALLY hate the 9 million that die every year. Letting them starve in the midst of plenty. Unrelated question - do you eat meat?
Excuse me while I flip through the Bible here... uh huh... just as I suspected. Right after God says, "Go forth and multiply", we find absolutely nothing on how to manage the food supply for everyone, or any other such global stewardship guidelines. God sticks us here and leaves us to ourselves to manage the world. Fail.
Those who have taken the time to understand it, do accept it, that is, unless their fragile faith based egos fear it. Can't help them. Nonsense. Baloney. YOU know nothing about it. You mean, like the grade five kid in that video I posted who can explain it better than you can explain Gods love?
Well, if the conservative right anti-science, anti-climate change folks have their way, there'll be nothing for anyone.
Nope. Jan is claiming that God makes sure we are not left to starve. Millions are in fact left to starve. So either God has it in for those people - or it's just a side effect of human callousness.
Good point: Matthew 6:26 EDIT: Who he was talking to may explain it, instead of meaning it for everyone. EDIT: I forgot, Jan doesn't think Jesus is God in the flesh.
