nerd 2

BattleshipTx Says:

Jul 22, 2008 - The concept known as the Big Bang was first proposed by Monsignor Georges LeMaitre, a Belgian priest. Lemaitre convinced Einstein that the Big Bang was correct and that there wasn't a static universe. You are right that science spends more time on "How" than "Why". In some ways "Why" is more interesting.

Ateapotist Says:

Jul 22, 2008 - God of the gaps...

Borgnhvatr Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - A scientific theory must be able to predict things. No model is unpredictable. If the theory makes wrong predictions, it's either abandoned or is left to progress. Also, we know why there is gravity. Look up the gravitational well theory. PS. while you're at it, look up what scientific theory means. Read some science journal or whatever. PPS. Ease off the God of the gaps fallacy a bit, OK? (And I apologize if I am offensive, here)

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - none of the scientific hypothesis really predicted anything. things were found that were close enough to be declared predictions. einstein initially rejected the big bang that was the discovery of hubbel. others jumped on the bandwagon later, however, his findings were opposed until einstein begrudgingly admitted being in error. gravity was said to be afunction of attraction of masses to each other. einstein smashed that theory and said that it is a function of the curvature of space ?!

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - i am not talking of G-D of the gaps. rather my knowledge of G-D is a clear and intelligent one based upon clear thought not superstition. it is interesting to the student of the kaballah that modern theories are very close to articulation of the Kaballists and the 4 basic core forces are paralell to the Tetragramaton -the 4 letter name of G-D. however, i basr my belief not on similarities with science but my observations of life.

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - i did not say anything that was gap related. is logic gaps?i have read and heard all kinds of silly statements said by hawking and others on cosmology . ny conclusion is and was that they speak childish.i am not a person who is superstitious. these are symptomatic of gap argument.not only does science not explain why but the understanding of what is today's most modern science can best be understood by today's kabalists such as yitzchok ginsburg . i suggest you read his works.leet's work ok2

Ateapotist Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - Oh yes. You said: "But science has never been able to get to the root cause things, as to why things are the way they are." Because the scientists are working on it. We know a lot more than we did a few hundrer years ago, but that doesn't mean we know *everything*. At least not yet. Furthermore, suggesting a supernatural being as the "first cause" would solve nothing. Why would you suggest an infinitely complex being, when in fact we are trying to explain that complexity through science?

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - i see that you are stuck on first base from the 1800's.today the science is most indeterminate in that i don't know is heard more often than we can now predict everything of 1900. G-D is simplicity itself .the proof of G-D has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge but with abundant knowledge. most scientists today do believe in a supreme being. in fact they believe that G-D directs them to discover new things. we know no more about the origin now than 500 years ago.proof yes, knowledge no!

Ateapotist Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - No, you are stuck on TODAY. What we know in the future is unknown. You can't claim that we will NEVER know the origin, because you DO NOT know. Also, we DO KNOW a lot more about the universe. That doesn't mean there are unanswered questions, and it certainly does not mean cannot answer these questions. "most scientists today do believe in a supreme being." That is a blatant lie. Unless you have a credible source to back this up, which I doubt, since I've heard pretty much the opposite.

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - i am not stuck on today. you must have read paul davies' the mind of G-D . there the best minds in physics present what amounts to nothing, we are no closer to the origin then when the first man looked up at the sky. this is because all rules of physics began at the big bang not before, unless of course there was an original mind which i call G-D. my information is based on things that i read not what i heard as you state. i think you have to prove otherwise . it makes no difference to me .

Ateapotist Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - A Larson and Witham study in 1998 Nature magazine, 7% of American scientists of the National Academy of Sciences believed in a personal god. A study by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat asked 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society whether they believe a personal god exists. From those who answered, 3.3 percent agreed strongly, while 78.8 disagreed strongly (that a personal god exists). You can google the names to find out more about these studies. I'm interested to hear about your sources.

rabbichaimmoshe Says:

Jul 23, 2008 - i could not go back and find the study as i don't catalogue nor do i know under whose auspices the study was done. the caveat to your statement is personal G-D as opposed to Supreme Being that aristotle called the prime mover i believe. the point i make, is that we can only know of things after they became and even those we only know what, not why. as a student in college and later, why was never explained. purpose and order in existence points to a first wisdom with intent, does it not?