My objection Ish is that they will often promulgate a theory as fact, which by definition, it ain't!
Some of Discovery's programmes make me whince with the way guess work is offered as factual!
Dark science
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
But if cause and effect are the order of the day, who or what caused the Big Bang? And who or what put the stuff there in the first place to go bang? 
Science and religion have been divorced since John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham divided faith and reason, in the late thirteenth century. Modern science is based on the rationalism of Kant (by artificially restricting what is rational), while religion has been relegated to the irrational (by excluding reasonable faith); although, this is a purely arbitrary and aesthetic division into two opposing halves.
In fact, the rational does not belong exclusively to science: its rational framework is a purely metaphysical assumption (the approximate ordering and uniformity of space and time) and its rational functioning comes from outside of the material world: thought (the practice of thinking), hypotheses and ideas are non-material and come from the human soul, made and sustained by God.
What is needed is a healing of this schizophrenic division, to incorporate a multi-leveled interpretation, based on: the inclusion of the necessary metaphysical foundation and spiritual development of science; and the previously artificially excluded (objectively) rational elements of religion: how truly reasonable faith is dependent upon the revelation of God through the world: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," (Romans 1: 20).
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
You may have missed this because I added it later. But I think it's the answer .. or an answer.
Science and religion have been divorced since John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham divided faith and reason, in the late thirteenth century. Modern science is based on the rationalism of Kant (by artificially restricting what is rational), while religion has been relegated to the irrational (by excluding reasonable faith); although, this is a purely arbitrary and aesthetic division into two opposing halves.
In fact, the rational does not belong exclusively to science: its rational framework is a purely metaphysical assumption (the approximate ordering and uniformity of space and time) and its rational functioning comes from outside of the material world: thought (the practice of thinking), hypotheses and ideas are non-material and come from the human soul, made and sustained by God.
What is needed is a healing of this schizophrenic division, to incorporate a multi-leveled interpretation, based on: the inclusion of the necessary metaphysical foundation and spiritual development of science; and the previously artificially excluded (objectively) rational elements of religion: how truly reasonable faith is dependent upon the revelation of God through the world: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," (Romans 1: 20).
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
In the early days of the Big Bang theory its proponents insisted that pre the Big bang there was nothing Ish!
In recent years the idea has changed to suggestions that there must have been something. One of the ideas was an oscillating universe where the Big Bang had been preceeded by the Big Crunch.
It's here that Dark matter comes into the equation, as without it the universe, it's suggested, will expand for ever.
Then of course you ask 'expand into what?'
Again, the early proponents of the BB said that till the universe expanded into 'it' 'it' didn't exist!
At which point I reach for my bottle of port!
The BB is redolent of 'Let there be light!'
Modifying it to an oscillating universe only suceeds in moving the problem one pace to the side because that simply moves creation further back in time.
A similar argument suggests that the Earth was seeded with life from external sources. Similarly that simply moves the creation of life off planet, and answers nothing.
Here you either give up and start stamp collecting or find the whole question fascinating.
In recent years the idea has changed to suggestions that there must have been something. One of the ideas was an oscillating universe where the Big Bang had been preceeded by the Big Crunch.
It's here that Dark matter comes into the equation, as without it the universe, it's suggested, will expand for ever.
Then of course you ask 'expand into what?'
Again, the early proponents of the BB said that till the universe expanded into 'it' 'it' didn't exist!
At which point I reach for my bottle of port!
The BB is redolent of 'Let there be light!'
Modifying it to an oscillating universe only suceeds in moving the problem one pace to the side because that simply moves creation further back in time.
A similar argument suggests that the Earth was seeded with life from external sources. Similarly that simply moves the creation of life off planet, and answers nothing.
Here you either give up and start stamp collecting or find the whole question fascinating.
And which of those describes you?Digit wrote: Here you either give up and start stamp collecting or find the whole question fascinating.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Round about the time I discoverd girls weren't some sort of lumpy jumpers!
You mean they aren't?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.