The Moon and Design

Originally posted by karoly aczel
They don't make sense to YOU , you mean ...

Feel free to explain it. Otherwise I will maintain that you didn't understand it either and are just being rude because you don't like the implications.

Originally posted by chaney3
Looney bin?

Upset because I have the edge in this debate?

Come sir, as Einstein said, 'wet kippers don't have edges.'

Originally posted by apathist
Roots are roots. They both began as part of philosophy. They follow different paths today, that is true of course.

[b]Quest for understanding? 'Goddidit' is not understanding.
I agree, that would be a lousy explanation for anything. As a pagan, though, I'm a bit more sympathetic. Ignore the bible-thumpers and we have people searching for [i]meaning[ ...[text shortened]... e genre. I blame abraham.

Anyway, thx for having an open mind and I hope that doesn't change.[/b]

"Roots are roots. They both began as part of philosophy. They follow different paths today, that is true of course."
Astronomy and astrology have the same roots. Ask any astronomer if he respects astrology as a science...
Numerology and mathematics also have the same roots.

"Ignore the bible-thumpers..."
Yes, those... Really, I do. People wanting meaning, we all want it. But the strategy for searching meaning and truth is very much different in religion/spiritually and science.

Please, bear with me. The difference between spiritual and religion is vague for me. Perhaps it is a linguistic thing, or cultural, or just that people in general is not agreeing of what the real difference is. It's worth a thread for itself. I use 'spiritual' and 'religion' as if it is the same thing. Just bear with me on this thing.

"But scientists are guided by spirituality, including a sense of wonder, a search for understanding and meaning, and a sort of faith in the natural world."
In this sense I agree. But this sense of wonder has nothing to do with religion. I've felt it too but not at all in a religion.

A religious person can of course accept religion and be religious himself. But a scientific person cannot use religion in his science as a religious person cannot explain religious phenomena scientifically. So of course there are religious people doing science, and there are scientists believing in his religion.

"Anyway, thx for having an open mind and I hope that doesn't change."
I'm not here to throw my opinions in the face of others. I'm here to learn. By showing my opinions I am open that other people share theirs with me. That makes me think of my opinions once more. Perhaps I am wrong, I don't want to be wrong.

My weak point here is that I don't know exactly the meaning between spirituality and religion. Perhaps I will open a new thread in this subject.

Originally posted by chaney3
Looney bin?

Looney: Overly obsessed with the moon to the point of derangement.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Roots are roots. They both began as part of philosophy. They follow different paths today, that is true of course."
Astronomy and astrology have the same roots. Ask any astronomer if he respects astrology as a science...
Numerology and mathematics also have the same roots.
...

You certainly win that point.

In my view, science is 'easy', because we are dealing with the direct tangible world.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
That guy invented the Harry Potter universe. Rowling should give him royalties.
Cool how he co-writes those books with a scientist, making the text much more meaningful.

Rowling, I had no idea.

You know, I mine the science aisles routinely, and then find gold in the fantasy aisle. And they have all three volumes!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, we cannot. You have stated it multiple times without any justification.

And you deny it, without any justification.

Would you deny that a physical boundary has two sides? We aren't talking about math. We're talking about space and time.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
1. It was constrained by both the laws of conservation and the initial state at time A.
but
2. It was not the the only possible outcome.
Now depending on your choice of language you could sat that:
(1) implies causation either by the state at time A or the laws of conservation or both.
(2) implies no causation or only partial causation....

Here you are examining an event in an existing system, and not an event that produces a universe. I want to point out that you continue to treat physical laws, such as the law of conservation, as if they were some sort of force or energy. They are not. Physical laws are descriptive only.

The laws of conservation do not cause anything. You need to correct this problem with your posts if you wish to make sense.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Come sir, as Einstein said, 'wet kippers don't have edges.'

I'm pleased sir that you've mentioned my new pal.

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God".

Einstein.

Originally posted by apathist
And you deny it, without any justification.

Luckily for me, justification is not necessary. It is the one making the assertion that has to do the justifying. But I am happy to justify it all the same. But be patient. Perhaps I should first say that 'boundary' may be the wrong word.

Would you deny that a physical boundary has two sides? We aren't talking about math. We're talking about space and time.
Yes, we are talking about spacetime, and not objects in spacetime.
Think of the surface of the earth. You can go east and west endlessly, but it remains finite in extent.
Further, you can go south, only as far as the south pole and no further. The south pole forms a 'boundary' or a better word would be 'limit'. There is nothing more south than the south pole. This clearly violates your claim. I think a single exception is sufficient to prove the generalisation to be false.
The universe has no spatial boundaries as far as we know. It may be infinite, or it may be finite. Space is like longitude - going around the equator.
Time may have a minimum, a point where time began. If so, it could be called a boundary, but there would be no 'other side' and there would be no before. It would be like the south pole. This is true by definition.

Originally posted by apathist
Here you are examining an event in an existing system, and not an event that produces a universe.

We are examining what is meant by causation as it is far from clear in each context.
An event that produces a universe, must necessarily exist in some greater context and I see no reason why it would not follow the same basic wording and ideas.

I want to point out that you continue to treat physical laws, such as the law of conservation, as if they were some sort of force or energy.
I need to point out that that is just your, (apparently deliberate) misreading of what I am saying.

They are not. Physical laws are descriptive only.
You are confusing the concept such as 'Newtons First Law of Mostion' with the reality (which Newtons
laws are descriptive of). I am talking about the latter - as should be quite clear from my usage.

The laws of conservation do not cause anything. You need to correct this problem with your posts if you wish to make sense.
You need to correct your understanding of English if you want to gain understanding of my posts. You have gone out of your way to misunderstand some of my posts, even to the extent of suggesting that I though Clarke was posting in this forum. What is your reason for such deliberate misreading? Do you simply not find the topic interesting and so are trolling for laughs?

Originally posted by chaney3
I'm pleased sir that you've mentioned my new pal.

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God".

Einstein.

He wasn't referring to YOUR god. He didn't believe in your personal god and described belief in a personal god (that would be your kind of god) as "infantile" (do you want me to quote what he ACTUALLY said yet again? ) and what he meant by "god" wasn't some supernatural deity but rather "everything". -Well, I agree "everything" exists! 😛 -no argument there! His beliefs were actually in far more agreement with my own and most modern scientists than yours and, if you only comprehended that, I bet you wouldn't keep quoting him.

Originally posted by humy
He wasn't referring to YOUR god. He didn't believe in your personal god and described belief in a personal god as "infantile" (do you want me to quote what he ACTUALLY said yet again? ) and what he meant by "god" wasn't some supernatural deity but rather "everything". -Well, I agree "everything" exists! 😛 -no argument there! His beliefs were actually in far more agreement with my own and most modern scientists than yours.

You don't know who MY God is, so how can you make such a comment?

And are you really comparing yourself to Einstein?

Originally posted by chaney3
You don't know who MY God is, so how can you make such a comment?

which personal god you believe in makes no difference to the fact that Einstein rejected the belief in ALL personal gods therefore rejected the belief in YOUR god.

And are you really comparing yourself to Einstein?

No. Are you comparing yourself to Einstein?

apathist
Would you deny that a physical boundary has two sides?

twhitehead
Yes, ...

Huh. Fences only have one side. I didn't know that.