Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[paarsurrey]

Actually proofs, evidence, nor scientific knowledge, prove nor support and religious nor nonreligious beliefs like atheism. They are all too anecdotal and subjective to meaning anything in science. Science is neutral.

On the other hand Atheism believes in harmony with science. Not all theists will accept this.

" Atheism believes in harmony with science"

I understand ,Science does not acknowledge that Atheism is harmonious with it. Right, please?
If yes, then please quote from Science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence does support atheism. There is vast evidence that shows that man created gods, usually in his (man's) own image.

There is no evidence to support that Allah or Shiva or Baantu or the Christian God are real. Certainly they can't all be GOD.

Wrong. Again.

Kindly read post #308 by our friend @gnostic in the thread. I understand, he does not agree with one. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

" Atheism believes in harmony with science"

I understand ,Science does not acknowledge that Atheism is harmonious with it. Right, please?
If yes, then please quote from Science. Right, please?

Regards

Science cannot make any hypothesis nor theory any subjective religious belief nor non-belief, because they cannot be falsified by Methodological Naturalism scientific methods, therefore science is neutral concerning subjective theological and philosophical beliefs.

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

"Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications – often moral – of their work, but not the way they practice science.[32]"

Steven Schafersman states that methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."[11]

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism. Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[33] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today"

 

[shunyadragon]

Kindly read post #308 by our friend @gnostic in the thread. I understand, he does not agree with one. Right, please?

Regards

To make the claim of 'Naturalism' supports atheism is to make a Philosophical Naturalism claim that cannot be supported by a scientific hypothesis nor theory.

 

[ChristineM]

I've had a thought on this gravity/universe thing. Did gravity actually exist during the initial inflationary stage?

If the higgs field gave mass to fundimental particles was there no mass in the very beginning. If there was no mass to emit gravitons then there was no gravity

 

[Subduction Zone]

" Atheism believes in harmony with science"

I understand ,Science does not acknowledge that Atheism is harmonious with it. Right, please?
If yes, then please quote from Science. Right, please?

Regards

Where did you get that idea from?

Once again, in your own words please tell us what you think that atheism is.

 

[ChristineM]

Where did you get that idea from?

Once again, in your own words please tell us what you think that atheism is.

He gets these crazy notions that he thinks will discredit atheism when what he is doing is showing how little comprehension he has about what atheism is. I have tried to explain to him in the past, show him dictionary definitions on several occasions an guess what? He ignores facts so he can continue dissing what he doesn't understand.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you read it at all literally several places. When Satan showed Jesus all of the Earth from a "tall mountain". Climbing a tree to see the entire Earth is another example. The "visions" excuse does not work because even in visions this implies a Flat Earth. Then of course there is Religious Forums. The original Hebrew word for "circle" means an inscribed circle, as with a compass. That cannot be a sphere. The Bible describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, but never spherical.

I find Satan showed Jesus all the' kingdoms' ( governments ) of Earth.
Show does Not have to be a literal showing but a projected picture. If we can do that today surely superior Satan could have done that.
The Hebrew word is: HHUG /CHUG which is Not meaning flat.
What do you think of when you hear the word ' vault ', vault even as in a bank vault ___________
Yet we find in the Douay the Hebrew word translated into English as vault - Isaiah 40:22

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not know for sure. Perhaps a time will come when we will know what was before the universe when we solve the singularity problem. Sure, there is no answer at the moment and I am not looking for an answer right now.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
"All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated."
Bg. 2.28
Counter-question, why it should be assumed without evidence that it always existed? Was it a small one in the beginning, a point universe? If it was small at one time, if it is expanding with the speed of light at the moment, then it could also have a beginning.

Isn't it from Bhagvad Gita, as the link shows, please? (Library » Bhagavad-gītā As It Is » Chapter Two).

Regards
__________
[2:29] کَیۡفَ تَکۡفُرُوۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ وَ کُنۡتُمۡ اَمۡوَاتًا فَاَحۡیَاکُمۡ ۚ ثُمَّ یُمِیۡتُکُمۡ ثُمَّ یُحۡیِیۡکُمۡ ثُمَّ اِلَیۡہِ تُرۡجَعُوۡنَ ﴿۲۹﴾
How can you disbelieve in Allah? When you were without life, He gave you life, and then He will cause you to die, then restore you to life, and then to Him shall you be made to return.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I've had a thought on this gravity/universe thing. Did gravity actually exist during the initial inflationary stage?
If the higgs field gave mass to fundimental particles was there no mass in the very beginning. If there was no mass to emit gravitons then there was no gravity

Interesting post ^ above ^ because in Scripture there was No mass in the very beginning, but that God created by providing his GREAT Power and Strength.
Thus, God provided or supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy needed to create the material realm of existence - Isaiah 40:26

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find Satan showed Jesus all the' kingdoms' ( governments ) of Earth.
Show does Not have to be a literal showing but a projected picture. If we can do that today surely superior Satan could have done that.
The Hebrew word is: HHUG /CHUG which is Not meaning flat.
What do you think of when you hear the word ' vault ', vault even as in a bank vault ___________
Yet we find in the Douay the Hebrew word translated into English as vault - Isaiah 40:22

You have to go by what the Bible says. If Satan just showed him all of the kingdoms why climb a tall mountain to do so? You are not being logically consistent.

And you are one hundred percent wrong about your "CHUG" claim:

The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22

"The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 40:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass."

The Hebrew word for ball is "dure" or "dur" or "duhr". You conflated two definitions and sank your own argument.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Hebrew word CHUG HHUG Not as in ball, but as in rotunda, horizon.
A ring is a flat circle but that does Not mean the Earth is flat.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find Satan showed Jesus all the' kingdoms' ( governments ) of Earth.
Show does Not have to be a literal showing but a projected picture. If we can do that today surely superior Satan could have done that.
The Hebrew word is: HHUG /CHUG which is Not meaning flat.
What do you think of when you hear the word ' vault ', vault even as in a bank vault ___________
Yet we find in the Douay the Hebrew word translated into English as vault - Isaiah 40:22

The flat earth claim is veriable and subject to interpretation, but . . . more controversial is clear specific Biblical belief in geocentrism cited many placed in the Bible.

 

[paarsurrey]

If the 'creator' exists, the question of why it exists is still open.

Even the theist has no answer to why there is something (a creator) rather than nothing.

If it is a Science/Scientific issue then it will be explored as per the Science/Scientific Method, if religious then under the religious methodology, please? How one may proceed with it?

Regards
______________
#27

 

[gnostic]

Kindly read post #308 by our friend @gnostic in the thread. I understand, he does not agree with one. Right, please?

RE-read what ecco wrote:

Evidence does support atheism. There is vast evidence that shows that man created gods, usually in his (man's) own image.

Ecco said "evidence", not "natural science" support that men created gods.

Evidence don't always mean "science" especially not "natural science".

Evidence can historical evidence, which are written records or literary evidence. This (history) isn't science. History can either be related to social science or to humanities, and social science and humanities are not "NATURAL" Science.

Archaeological evidence are also not "NATURAL" Science, hence evidence in archaeology don't necessarily point to scientific evidence.

For instance, in archaeology, you go to some sites and compare pottery, like urns, beakers, etc, from different times of different cultures. The styles are not the only differences: it could be different overall designs and structures, use of different paints, different methods to fire and glaze pottery, etc.

In the above example. You need experts in prehistorical or ancient pottery, who may or may not have any qualification of natural science.

What I mean by natural sciences, are branches of studies like physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy. They differed from Social Sciences and other sciences.

For instance, Natural Science and Physical Science, all required any explantory/predictive models to be falsifiable and testable, tested (Scientific Method), and peer-reviewed.

Social Sciences, like psychology and anthropology, don't require to be falsifiable and don't require to folllow Scientific Method protocols.

Do you understand what I saying here?

Evidence depends on what types of science or studies involved.

There are lot of evidence that religion and religious beliefs are all demonstrated to be man-made, including the writing of scriptures.

No, paarsurrey. I don't disagree with ecco's comments.

You have misunderstood ecco's comment and my earlier posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Hebrew word CHUG HHUG Not as in ball, but as in rotunda, horizon.
A ring is a flat circle but that does Not mean the Earth is flat.

You should have been a bit clearer when you acknowledged your error. And you missed the point. The Bible only describes the Earth as Flat, as in the verse that we were discussing, and in deeds. There are Flat Earth verses. Verses that seem to support a Flat Earth. There are no clear spherical Earth verses.

 

[gnostic]

If it is a Science/Scientific issue then it will be explored as per the Science/Scientific Method, if religious then under the religious methodology, please? How one may proceed with it?

As I stated in my last reply to you, not all studies (eg Humanities, like languages/philology, arts, literature, etc) and not all sciences (eg Social Science, like psychology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc) use "Scientific Method".

Only branches and fields in Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences use Scientific Method.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

............., but . . . more controversial is clear specific Biblical belief in geocentrism cited many placed in the Bible.

Cited where please ______________
The 'Earth hangs upon nothing' does Not mean the center - Job 26:7
Those people were without modern technology and yet the Bible was accurate that Earth hangs upon nothing.
The universe keeps being stretched out / expanding - Isaiah 40:22; Jeremiah 10:12.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cited where please ______________
The 'Earth hangs upon nothing' does Not mean the center - Job 26:7
Those people were without modern technology and yet the Bible was accurate that Earth hangs upon nothing.
The universe keeps being stretched out / expanding - Isaiah 40:22; Jeremiah 10:12.

Now you are attempting to take phrases out of context. In Isaiah 40:22 stretching the sky as a tent over the Earth is another flat Earth phrase. You cannot stretch the heavens over a globe like a tent since there is no way to cover globe with a fabric as one would cover a tent. It implies a flat surface with an unchanging "up" direction. It is in your best interest to ignore that Isaiah verse altogether.

 

[Polymath257]

If it is a Science/Scientific issue then it will be explored as per the Science/Scientific Method, if religious then under the religious methodology, please? How one may proceed with it?

Regards
______________
#27

What is the 'religious methodology'?

if there is no way to proceed, perhaps the question isn't very important, yes?