General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 1048 times

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2019, 06:06:18 am »
The difference is that postulating a "coder...an intentional intelligence" goes against methodological naturalism and is hence beyond the purview of science. If scientists had abandoned methodological naturalism and just assumed that the apparent design in nature was the creation of a supernatural agent, then we would never have had the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution there would not have been an incentive for scientist to look for a physical means of inheritance and perhaps we never even would have discovered DNA.

I certainly have nothing against people postulating intelligent design. I just ask that they respect the reason why science has to dismiss supernatural explanations, ie., because they short circuit the search for naturalistic ones. Without methodological naturalism we might still be thinking that thunderstorms were caused by the gods (or God) having a hissy fit, or that leprosy and every other disease was caused by sin or demons. 

This is not quite true, though. Richard Lewontin gives a different take on this:

''Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.''
Billions and Billions of Demons

I'm sorry I don't get the connection between the quote and what i was talking about. I mean its subject is the ballpark, but I don't see how any of that addresses the propositions in my post. Sure, science sometimes spends a long time considering things that are eventually disconfirmed, things that are counter intuitive--some of which apparently are true at the quantum level-- and even things that just seem preposterous, but considering divine intervention is simple beyond the purview of science.

The connection is that modern science has a prior commitment to a particular worldview. What is preposterous is that modern science assumes at the start a priori principles of this worldview at the peril of absurdity. The alchemical purview of modern science is excluding formal and final causes, resulting in a mechanistic universe where atoms bump against one another in the void. This view of Democritus has proven to be wrong, but modern science still clings to it with religious fervour.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

1

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2019, 06:20:58 am »
Is there such a thing as ''the scientific establishment''? Sounds even more mythological than ''the scientific method''. At this point I won't even be surprised if the Wizard of Oz was running modern science behind the curtains. It would explain a lot, that's for sure.

OK, I'll agree that "the scientific establishment" is a bit of a nebulous term, but I think we know what it means. It simply means those people working at the elite level in scientific research, peer review, science education, etc. There is no one monolithic scientific establishment, no doubt, but I'd hardly call the term mythological, I mean unless you want to join the postmodernists in a world of absolute relativity. And sure every scientist's methods may are probably to some extent unique to themselves and no one absolute scientific method exists, but it's not like it's some kind of undefinable thing. And one thing that's going to be constant except perhaps at the fringes of the scientific community and perfectly constant at the elite level is methodological naturalism. Many of the people in the community and even the establishment are religious people, but they still don't resort to "God did it" as an explanation for anything.

Instead of ''God did it'' they say ''Dark Matter did it''. Relativity and postmodernism are prevalent in modern science and academia. At the ''elite level'' the commitment to materialism and atheism are the rule rather than the exception, see Lewontin's article. This is reflected in peer review, research and education. Stepping outside this box, as Anthony Flew did, gets you ostracised and called names such as ''demented'' and ''irrational''.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

2

Mammal

  • ***
  • 2973 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2019, 07:43:41 am »
Ethan agrees that the solutions proposed are not without problems, something that I have been saying for months if not years. Also notice that each of the solutions assume the Copernican principle at the start, not surprising that each of the solutions are inadequate to explain the redshift discrepancy.

The assumption here is that the universe is expanding, that it began with a bang and expanded with an accelerated rate. My proposal is that this assumption is faulty and it is not the only game in town. This would solve many problems with the standard model, but it does require abandoning the unproven Copernican principle. Are scientists willing to abandon this philosophical principle? Some scientists may be willing to do that, but they are risking excommunication from ''the scientific establishment''.

The unproven Copernican principle is the threshold test for modern thought, as Michael Rowan-Robinson explains. Anyone daring to question the principle risks being called irrational and being ostracised. What reason is there to uphold this principle other than fear of ostracisement from modern science?
No, the solutions don't "assume" the Copernican principle, plus that's not the reason that they are inadequate to explain what you call the "redshift discrepancy" (?) while there is also not something like an "unproven Copernican principle" anymore. We discussed this before, we showed you this, so you are doing the same thing as always and that is to just ignore proper science and keep on repeating your make-belief pseudo science mantra's.

Your wrote: "The assumption here is that the universe is expanding, that it began with a bang and expanded with an accelerated rate" - yet I pointed you to the evidence that necessitate such a conclusion. You portray part of the evidence in your own signature line, for crying out loud.

I have no interest in debating this with you for reasons I already mentioned and that you have yet again illustrated in your response here.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

3

Tom Paine

  • **
  • 210 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2019, 06:21:03 pm »
The difference is that postulating a "coder...an intentional intelligence" goes against methodological naturalism and is hence beyond the purview of science. If scientists had abandoned methodological naturalism and just assumed that the apparent design in nature was the creation of a supernatural agent, then we would never have had the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution there would not have been an incentive for scientist to look for a physical means of inheritance and perhaps we never even would have discovered DNA.

I certainly have nothing against people postulating intelligent design. I just ask that they respect the reason why science has to dismiss supernatural explanations, ie., because they short circuit the search for naturalistic ones. Without methodological naturalism we might still be thinking that thunderstorms were caused by the gods (or God) having a hissy fit, or that leprosy and every other disease was caused by sin or demons. 

This is not quite true, though. Richard Lewontin gives a different take on this:

''Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.''
Billions and Billions of Demons

I'm sorry I don't get the connection between the quote and what i was talking about. I mean its subject is the ballpark, but I don't see how any of that addresses the propositions in my post. Sure, science sometimes spends a long time considering things that are eventually disconfirmed, things that are counter intuitive--some of which apparently are true at the quantum level-- and even things that just seem preposterous, but considering divine intervention is simple beyond the purview of science.

The connection is that modern science has a prior commitment to a particular worldview. What is preposterous is that modern science assumes at the start a priori principles of this worldview at the peril of absurdity. The alchemical purview of modern science is excluding formal and final causes, resulting in a mechanistic universe where atoms bump against one another in the void. This view of Democritus has proven to be wrong, but modern science still clings to it with religious fervour.

I understand the a priori commitment to naturalism. I understand that as necessary to avoid the short-circuiting of inquiry into natural causes. It does not commit the scientist or anybody else to philosophical naturalism though. Personally I find that the great success of science in finding naturalistic explanations suggests that at least theoretically everything could be explained naturalistically and that probably Nature is all that exists. However, I suppose that there simply is no explanation for why Nature exists. But there must be something that is self-existent, why not Nature?

4

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2019, 06:33:12 am »
Mammal,

''Large-scale anisotropy: Is the universe at very large scales anisotropic, making the cosmological principle an invalid assumption? The number count and intensity dipole anisotropy in radio, NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) catalogue[41] is inconsistent with the local motion as derived from cosmic microwave background[42][43] and indicate an intrinsic dipole anisotropy. The same NVSS radio data also shows an intrinsic dipole in polarization density and degree of polarization[44] in the same direction as in number count and intensity. There are several other observation revealing large-scale anisotropy. The optical polarization from quasars shows polarization alignment over a very large scale of Gpc.[45][46][47] The cosmic-microwave-background data shows several features of anisotropy,[48][49][50][51] which are not consistent with the Big Bang model.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

This is just one of the many problems in physics, but this one in specific is relevant to what we are discussing. The ''cosmological principle'' is derived from the Copernican principle, and as you can read this unproven principle may not be a valid assumption as Wikipedia is beginning to admit. The evidence is not consistent with the current model.

Tom,

''Nature'', ''naturalistic'', ''naturalism'', these are concepts that modern science has difficulty defining, let alone proving the assumptions thereof. The success that you are referring to has very little to do with a priori commitment to naturalism. In fact, it has very little to do with science, instead the success has to do with technology and engineering. Attributing technological progress and engineering achievements to modern science is a category mistake.

Modern science is founded upon the unproven Copernican principle, and new physics is being considered to deal with the plethora of problems that scientists are currently facing. New physics may be too little too late to fix the broken dam of the Copernican principle. What is needed is reason and sense, two necessary things that have been lacking for the past hundred years or so in modern science.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

5

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14044 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2019, 09:17:52 am »
Attributing technological progress and engineering achievements to modern science is a category mistake.

Yeah, we engineers are actually wizards.  However, you better be careful about revealing our secrets, or we might use our arcane rituals to turn you into a newt.

-- This user has been suspended and will return on the 3rd of September --

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

6

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2019, 10:25:05 am »
Wonderer,

Sarcasm isn't going to save modern science from its demise. Four hundred years of alchemy and what has it brought us? Dark matter, dark energy, and billions upon billions of universes that exist only in the minds of scientists and nowhere else. It is time to move on.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

7

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14044 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #82 on: July 12, 2019, 10:42:39 am »
Wonderer,

Sarcasm isn't going to save modern science from its demise. Four hundred years of alchemy and what has it brought us? 

Umm, alchemy hasn't brought us anywhere, except to the threshold of chemistry, a long time ago.  Science has brought us the technology you are using in an attempt to propagate superstitious nonsense, as you slip further and further into derangement.
-- This user has been suspended and will return on the 3rd of September --

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

8

Mammal

  • ***
  • 2973 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #83 on: July 12, 2019, 10:48:02 am »
''Large-scale anisotropy: Is the universe at very large scales anisotropic, making the cosmological principle an invalid assumption? The number count and intensity dipole anisotropy in radio, NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) catalogue[41] is inconsistent with the local motion as derived from cosmic microwave background[42][43] and indicate an intrinsic dipole anisotropy. The same NVSS radio data also shows an intrinsic dipole in polarization density and degree of polarization[44] in the same direction as in number count and intensity. There are several other observation revealing large-scale anisotropy. The optical polarization from quasars shows polarization alignment over a very large scale of Gpc.[45][46][47] The cosmic-microwave-background data shows several features of anisotropy,[48][49][50][51] which are not consistent with the Big Bang model.''
Wikipedia does not update itself, it relies on those who are involved in the various disciplines to submit edits. This is outdated. The citations date back to 1998, 2004, 2008 & 2009. Most of these so-called anisotropic features have been put to bed by virtue of improved data analyses and parallel observations in the latest ESA CMB data release and associated studies. The current data in this respect is consistent with the standard model, as per the many citations I gave you in that other thread re you losing faith in science. There are still some outstanding issues, the biggest one is the difference in the measured rate of expansion. But that does nothing to "the assumption.. that the universe is expanding, that it began with a bang and expanded with an accelerated rate" and does little to disprove the Copernican principle (which was empirically verified in separate research projects that you have been notified of here on this forum). You continue to repeatedly reference outdated stuff.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

9

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #84 on: July 12, 2019, 11:13:16 am »
Mammal,

I have provided you with the latest ESA studies in this thread explaining the anomalies and the inconsistencies with the model. With regard to the Copernican principle, it is unproven and remains so in light of the new Planck data. George Ellis and Paul Davies have brought this to light as well. Read my response to Kurros here:

''Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe. Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.''
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2335.pdf

One alternative is that the Earth occupies a unique position in the universe. Paul Davies mentions this in ''Cosmic Heresy?'':

''Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man's cosmic outlook, that the earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.''
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

10

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #85 on: July 12, 2019, 11:25:27 am »
''People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.''
Profile: George F. R. Ellis, W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55.

The time of hiding philosophical criteria is over, the cat is out of the bag. The question is, what lies ahead of us? Are we going to stick our heads in the sand as a lot of cosmology has done? Or, are we going to start with a clean slate with no hidden assumptions? I can't decide this for you, but I prefer to opt for the latter.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 11:46:20 am by Trinity »
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

11

Mammal

  • ***
  • 2973 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #86 on: July 12, 2019, 12:59:43 pm »
I have provided you with the latest ESA studies in this thread explaining the anomalies and the inconsistencies with the model.
Nope, as I already told you, you have not.

Rest of your post is the same old quote mining trash that we are simply not interested in.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

12

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28124 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #87 on: July 12, 2019, 02:30:25 pm »
Mammal,

You are clearly speaking for yourself and not others, because scientists are interested in it such much that they are considering new physics to explain the anomalies and discrepancies and the resulting inconsistencies with the standard model. One thing that the Planck data has brought into the open is the hidden assumptions in cosmology. This is not going to go away by claiming to have a lack of interest. The CMB anomaly is there, the redshift discrepancy is there, the inconsistency with the standard model is there. Sooner or later scientists have to deal with the hidden and unproven assumptions underlying the standard model, and I suggest you do the same.

''In the meantime, the mystery of the anomalies continues.'' - ESA
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

13

Tom Paine

  • **
  • 210 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #88 on: July 12, 2019, 05:06:55 pm »

Tom,

''Nature'', ''naturalistic'', ''naturalism'', these are concepts that modern science has difficulty defining, let alone proving the assumptions thereof. The success that you are referring to has very little to do with a priori commitment to naturalism. In fact, it has very little to do with science, instead the success has to do with technology and engineering. Attributing technological progress and engineering achievements to modern science is a category mistake.

No, the success of modern science is not due just to the advancement in technology and engineering, though obviously there's a feedback mechanism going on between them with advances in science spurring advances in technology and vice versa. And methodological naturalism is an important element of science whether you like it or not. You are sticking you head in the sand.

Quote
Modern science is founded upon the unproven Copernican principle, and new physics is being considered to deal with the plethora of problems that scientists are currently facing. New physics may be too little too late to fix the broken dam of the Copernican principle. What is needed is reason and sense, two necessary things that have been lacking for the past hundred years or so in modern science.

More ostrich behavior I am afraid. I mean science has probably advanced more in the past hundred years than in all the rest of human history and I'm supposed to believe this can be true when science lacking "reason and sense." Well, something is lacking reason and sense in that picture, but it's not science. Get back to me when somebody besides theologians are having serious doubts about methodological naturalism and the Copernican principle.

14

Tom Paine

  • **
  • 210 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: an argument against the Big Bang?
« Reply #89 on: July 12, 2019, 05:27:54 pm »
Wonderer,

Sarcasm isn't going to save modern science from its demise. Four hundred years of alchemy and what has it brought us? Dark matter, dark energy, and billions upon billions of universes that exist only in the minds of scientists and nowhere else. It is time to move on.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers.

Another part of the statement that the above quote came from is below. Jastrow is simply making the same logical mistakes I have been pointing out in my critique of the Kalam argument and theism in general"

"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion." Jastrow.

How could anything have put the matter and energy into the universe when the universe is matter and energy? Again, if we are correct in assuming the impossibility of infinite regress, then there had to be something that existed uncaused from the beginning of time itself.  What in the world reason is there to think it is something beyond the Universe itself in its initial condition?  OK, it could have been, but it violates Occam's razor to multiply entities so without necessity. It's not clear at all the Universe came into being in its initial moment of existence. if there was no time before the universe began to exist when it did not exist, then logically it did not "come into being" at that point and that is what separates the beginning of the Universe as a whole from the beginning of anything else that exists, and so there is no basis for having any confidence that the "causal principle" applies to the beginning of the Universe.