No, I didn't believe you had. I do however think that both sides use the same argument against the other. One persons prophet is another persons fool and visa versa. Every philosophy has their prophet (teacher, proclaimer of the word/way) even objectivity. To me there is no conflict and neither is more right than the other.

I'm all for saying the jury is out so why make a definitive statement. And yes, anyone can make mistakes and wrong choices.

I think THAT problem comes from scientific and/or mathematical illiteracy on behalf of the 'general public,' which has (have?) come to believe that a) scientific consensus exists OR is even possible, and b) that such consensus is 'proof' of the veracity of their beliefs!

... which discredits a LOT of 'theories' on both sides, unless, of course, you (the generic, not specific 'you,' AJ...) Believe The Theories.
:)

"more perfect understanding of their observations..."
:)

I disagree, wiggys... First, I do know how to answer the "if a tree falls...' conundrum/koan. "First, Define Sound."

Second, I believe that current levels of UNDERSTANDING and comprehension ARE the current blocks to humans being able AT ALL to conceive of 'what was there before it all started'!

But theories and postulates like the ones described in the link Just Might lead us to a way to conceptualize Answers or Images that ARE comprehensible to humans!

Just as I believe that one of the major factors providing the impetus to all discussions about 'rebirth, life after death, heaven, hell,' and whatever else have the fundamental root in the (current) Impossibility of Any Human To Imagine What It IS Like to Not Exist, once they've Existed!"

Picture the answer to THAT one, if you can... I think it'll be more difficult than the 'tree falls Problem.'

:)))))))))))

Should have been not

"The fact there is no creator does not equal random accident. "

Should have been...
"The ALTERNATIVE response 'there is no creator' does not equal random accident."

FIFY....

Hello, Puzzlelady,

I agree very much with what you wrote here.

The only reservation I have is with the injection of purpose. I would much prefer: "...existence is a worthwhile experience and..."

The existence of a purpose implies a willful actor. That in turn goes quickly to supernatural and theology.

Just a minute difference in wording.

AJ, 'Science IS never settled' !
It's always being re-examined based on new discoveries, theories and thoughts.

I'm intrigued by the report because I've not been intellectually satisfied by ANY of the banter about 'dark matter' or 'dark energy.'

Both seem to be cop-out non-explanations for whatever is REALLY going on that we haven't figured out yet.

This may be a foundation for the next steps or levels of that 'figuring out,' and I just welcome the hell out if it!

Thanks for the find and link!

But "God"? Not relevant to the discussion For Me At All. Just as much fun without He/She/It.

Would you agree that individuals can, and often do, make wrong (or mistaken?) choices.
You seem to believe that I tried to ridicule your beliefs? I can assure you that it was never my intention to do that. I think that you may be responding to my, in your opinion, inadequate respect for such beliefs.

I have to respectfully disagree on both points. I recall seeing infinite numbers of scientific reports with pages-long lists of references to other scientific work, either for clarification or economy of space and time to read. Nothing religious there.
In my opinion, you consciously try to promote your religious views to the people here.

Isn't it true that math and geometry are full of formal proofs of all sorts of theorems? Isn't it also true that forensic science on a daily basis proves as true the theories of the prosecutors about what happened in a criminal action case? And proves them beyond reasonable doubt?

There is no reason to assume that the Big Bang was necessarily the beginning of anything, whether matter, energy or time. It could simply have been a transition or transformation point. I find it quite easy to visualize that "beginning" is just one more point along a continuum, and so is "ending". Things change and reshape themselves constantly. Hey, maybe it's all a moebius strip!

I use a waterbed metaphor: push down in one spot, other spots push up. Or the kaleidoscope metaphor of infinite reorganization. I, for one, am happy to know scientists are out there wrestling with new discoveries and definitions, and will happily watch what all they come up with and nod sagely, thinking, "Very interesting. What will they think of next?"

And since there is nothing outside of existence, that excludes any notion of a god. If a god is to be posited, it would have to be part of the existence in some form or other, even if only metaphorically as a place holder for what we don't yet know. Why cling to this current god fallacy when earlier human cultures have managed to rid themselves of all the old deities by and by?

Building murderous religions on such a vacuous concept is a thought mutation that should be cured as soon as possible, and not by the genocide of their members, as so-called civilized folk, including some participants here, enthusiastically recommend, not realizing that that makes them as bad as the worst of those they condemn. We need better, more rational ideas.

Someday we may even be able to answer the forbidden question, "Why does existence exist?" I for one am glad it does. Life is a blast. Thinking is a blast. Keeping life and thinking in existence is a worthwhile purpose and indispensable for moving more knowledge from the unknown to the known compartment. And that is in everyone's self-interest.

It is very interesting. I find these scientific inquires among the most interesting things you can do or read about. What could possibly be more interesting than attempting to come up with the biggest questions in existence...how and why there is existence. We will never know for sure but it is a ton of fun trying!!!

I think Esceptico is missing your point. You are 100% correct. These things can not be proven so no one really knows for sure. I am not sure why the "Principles of Objectivism" is being quoted like they are the ultimate authority. It reminds me of devoted religious people that believe the answers in the bible are the ultimate answer that can not be questioned. I question everything!

That would be my next book :)

I await the shuddering of reality.

Jan, on tenterhooks

Amusing. The implication of a universe without end is a threat to this blog, dare i say Randian Objectivisam? Integral in the heart of every human being is the notion, whether you believe in afterlife or not, that there is a beginning and an end to all things - there is permanence. The Big Bang was science's "theory", which many portray strenuously as fact, used to counter creation, no? When someone speaks of Creation here or anywhere they are slapped in the face with the Big Bang by many who seek nothing more than to belittle for not towing the prevalent conventional wisdom. Suddenly an eternal God is matched by an eternal universe? So everlasting is possible after all? See what I'm getting at?

Personally, I believe in God and an afterlife, and still I respect others by only proclaiming that a person should never rule out the possibility of anything when there is no conceivable way of knowing for sure. I don't knock atheists or anyone else (except muslims for obvious reasons).

And yes, there is a fine line separating worship, reverence, and admiration on this site when it come to Ayn Rand. As some Christians can quote line and verse (I"m not one of them) there are those here who can tell you exactly which of her books to look at, which chapter to search, and maybe even which pages to read to clarify my lack of comprehension when it comes to Objectivism - and they do so off the cuff. Do not discard this assertion as nonsense because I myself have seen it here many times. And I have never, proselytized here or anywhere about my personal beliefs.

" have to invent an undetectable Dark Matter comprising 98% "

As usual, that reminds me...

Sheldon and Leonard on The Big Bang Theory, standing near a white board in the apartment discussing Sheldon's work on String Theory. I'll have to paraphrase...

Leonard: You have to wonder about a theory where you have to invent 23 extra dimensions just to get the math to work out!

Sheldon: Oh, I didn't invent them, those dimensions are there.

Aaargh! I had typed words of utter brilliance to go here. The universe itself would have shuddered. Then a microsecond of pure idiocy manifested itself and it's all gone. It's 1 hour past my time to leave work. Perhaps I'll have the stamina to recreate part of it again, later :(

Very briefly, though, fussiness is awesome and you're not spamming anyone.

["Not false again! Woohoo!" - that is a scientist rejoicing mightily.]

That made my day!

The nerve you touched on was inaccuracy.

The magazine article said what it said, but YOU wrote, "Then these same people due to the PROOF that the laws of physics do not support the big Bang." It is not correct to say that there is proof that the laws of physics do not support the Big Bang. It is correct to say that the mathematics of the theory of general relativity fall apart under the conditions of a singularity. The two statements are not the same.

I didn't misquote your comment re math and Campbell's soup. My salient point regarding your statement was, "It doesn't follow that, just because intelligent men exist, that the universe was created by an intelligence. They're unrelated." That was your ultimate implication and I stand by my reaction. I will grant that my comparing biological evolution to the evolution of knowledge (math) would have been better to be left out. I never implied that you said math evolved from soup but I did accuse you of fudging the difference between the two definitions of evolution, *which you didn't really do*. However, after re-reading your "math didn't come from soup" comment I still claim that it was a ridiculous sentiment with no meaning that was used as evidence to reach a conclusion that WAS NOT SUPPORTED by the statement because the two are unrelated.

Your parallel was not lost on me because there was no parallel.

Don't apologize; you believe what you believe and you're not responsible for my reaction. I own myself. I'd suggest, however, that if you're going to try to present a logical argument for something that you stick to things that are actual evidence, avoid irrelevant comparisons and don't try to claim that geological core samples and DNA are discussed in the bible. This atheist has an app with over 25 versions of the bible on it for the express purpose of having discussions with theists.

I respectfully think you miss my point. Also, you need to distinguish the technical difference between hypothesis and theory. Have you listened to the 20 lecture series of Basic Principles of Objectivism? It is also now in print. Specifically, check Lecture 4 for the answers to everything you have raised here.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I think that it is a shame and potentially a symptom of a deadly disease for this blog that we have been mostly arguing, in this post and several others, about religious tenets. I find it personally offensive when some of the participants here claim that some of the others partake in the Objectivist religion worshiping Ayn Rand. Nonsense!

I am running out of patience.

Its all about $$

OK, I'll get around that one by asserting that people who won't shout Hoorah! and start on a new theory aren't properly called Scientists!

OR, I can point out that global warming/climate change is not science at all, it's politics. There's lots of evidence to support that claim. Furthermore, the "data" that the WARMIES use to support global warming doesn't even count as scientific evidence because it was fabricated, not measured. If I just make up data it doesn't matter where my degree is from, that's not science.