< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 438 OF 438 ·
|Feb-09-16|| ||Big Pawn: <There is, however, an explanation for that. They aren't quite as convincing as you think they are. There are refutations and counter arguments just as most philosophical questions have.>|
Yeah, I noticed you love to make these generalized assertions, but when challenged to debate the specifics, you "have no interest".
Can you tell me, since when is a fool convinced by the truth? Since when is a fool given to rational thinking?
<It is curious that Christian church leaders, regardless of denomination, have not made headlines that God's existence has been proven beyond a doubt.>
Only math can be proven, as I've said many times on this site.
Instead, my aims are rather modest. I seek only to show that theism is the more rational worldview in contrast to atheism.
I believe that rationality provides justification for belief, therefore I try to show that the arguments for theism are always more rational than the arguments for atheism.
This is done by expressing the arguments not in rounded paragraphs, waxing on poetically and rhetorically to make my point, but by expressing them as concisely as possible as valid deductive arguments. In this way we can debate the rationality of the premises specifically and keep the discussion absolutely pinpointed so as to avoid "noise" to hide behind.
I don't participate in arguments for theism apart from formal logic. It's pointless as its too easy for the other side to try to deflect and misdirect and so on.
A fool is never convinced by truth, reason or rationality.
I'm not surprised that you don't find arguments from natural theology (that you aren't familiar with) reasonable or rational.
In closing I will say that you are not interested in a serious discussion like <you rang> seems to be. Since this is <pgp's> forum, and not the food fight Rogoff page, I will carry on with <you rang> as he is serious, interested, and able to engage directly with the premises rather than retreating to hand waving generalizations.
You've disqualified yourself from serious discussion on this page with your dream about me and the pope. I mean really - how childish can you get?
<pgp> asked us to respect his forum and you didn't do that.
I respect <pgp> and his forum, so I will carry on with other respectful posters like <optimal> and <you rang>.
If you want to food fight I can see you on Rogoff.
This page is obviously for serious, elevated discussion.
|Feb-09-16|| ||YouRang: <Big Pawn> Okay, we go back to the contingency argument, and I'll play the role of the atheist's advocate.|
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
From the first and third premises we get
4. The universe has an explanation of it's existence.
and from 2 and 4 we get
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.
The logic is valid here so in order to refute the argument, you have to refute a premise - but which one?
Premise 3 is not in doubt, so 4 and 5 follow if 1 and 2 are also true.
This means that the atheist would have to show 1 or 2 to be untrue.>
First of all, I think the atheist would say that the burden of proof for items (1) and (2) is upon you.
Some thoughts on item (1):
From the philosophy angle, you've cited Aquinas:
<"Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause Ė not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist)" >
Why should the atheist accept this? It's easy to say that the universe might not exist "under different circumstances", but what circumstances? Sure, we might be able to imagine such a case, but imagination has no power over reality. A good thing too, because the atheist has no trouble imagining that there is no God.
Also this thinking distinguishes between things that are inherently necessary and those that aren't. But what basis is there for this bifurcation? IMO, using the word "necessary" demands a qualifier "for what?", but this is left unanswered.
An atheist with a good sense of smell will sense that all these presumptions about necessity and contingency is just a setup for the Christian's punchline: "Everything is unnecessary except for God". And in this case, I would have to agree with the atheist.
You also argued in favor of item (1) from science, saying:
<modern science says that the universe did not always exist. Therefore it is contingent.>
But the atheist can object to this too.
One, the big bang theory doesn't demand that the universe once didn't exist (and it's much more complicated because time itself cannot be measured "before" the big bang. I mentioned earlier that some scientists propose a universe that goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, and we are simply in the latest of countless expansions. In any case, nothing scientifically definite can be said about "time" pre-big-bang
Two, this argument is on shaky ground because the declarations of modern science are subject to revision. Today, scientists are grappling with "dark matter", "dark energy", and who knows what will be next. And who knows how these things will alter the next "latest theory" of the universe's origin? I pity anyone who's faith in the existence of God hinges upon the latest views of science!
As an aside, this argument certainly gives the atheist reason to see the Christian view as confused and inconsistent, being that a great many Christians adamantly reject the big bang theory on grounds that it denies the existence of God!
|Feb-09-16|| ||YouRang: Continuing with the contingency argument:
Your premise (2) says: <If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.>
I'm not sure what your support you offer for this claim, but I can guess that the atheist will think that this is just another example of Christians assuming that anything not yet explained by science must be explained by God.
There are several wonders that people once thought were miracles by God, and they even had Biblical support for thinking so. For example, rain and lightning and wind (e.g. Psalm 135:7) and the rainbow (Gen 9:13), let alone that sun, moon, and stars.
Over time, however, science has toppled the "miracle from God" explanation with natural explanations for each of these things.
Extrapolating from this observation, atheists have some justification for dismissing claims that God is the only explanation for things yet unexplained (*).
So, even if we want to say that the big bang was indeed the beginning of our universe, the atheist needn't assume it was created by God. Perhaps there is a deeper natural explanation. For example, perhaps there is a "super universe" that looks like a sea of bubbles, where each bubble is universe. Some bubbles form for natural reasons, and other pop. And, this super-universe is eternal.
In any case, I think the contingency argument falls way short of being convincing at all to a reasonable atheist.
(*) Christians should also learn from this observation, and stop assuming that all unexplained things must be miracles. IMO, God works most profoundly through providence -- ordinary things that nevertheless all work together for His ultimate purposes.
The Bible verses that give God credit for rain, wind, lightning, etc., are not wrong just because those things operate according to natural laws. If God made those natural laws, then the credit belongs to Him.
|Feb-09-16|| ||YouRang: BTW, while these sorts of discussions are interesting, I do have limits on the time I can spend here. I'll respond when I can, but it may be spotty.|
|Feb-09-16|| ||Robed.Bishop: <BP: I'm not surprised that you don't find arguments from natural theology (that you aren't familiar with) reasonable or rational.> |
Where do you get your information? You have no idea what I'm familiar with or my position on natural theology.
Let's review. Here is the essence of your original statement: <What I'm not OK with is the false narrative that atheism and science go together and that atheism is the default position. This is my real point of focus.>
You gave the example of the Big Bang. I agreed with that.
I stated that theism has also impeded science. After a time, you denied that, perhaps with a qualifying statement. You also asserted that the church has fostered and advanced science. I did not address that and so did not disagree with you. In fact, I also agree with that statement.
So we can conclude that we all agree that the Big Bang example is evidence of atheism impeding science and so agree that at least once, atheism has impeded science. Whether it is still doing so has been postulated but not really discussed. I have not, however, disagreed with the proposition.
The only point of disagreement is whether "theism," as we've been using the word, has impeded science. Do I want to debate the point? No. I fully understand the facts and the meaning of the word "impeded." I am not interested in changing your mind on the subject.
End of story.
I'm not sure why you think that I'm hostile to your point of view regarding your "objective evidence" arguments. I do not find them persuasive but I have never suggested to you that you are wrong for thinking otherwise. I am critical of the fact that you appear to be dismissive of those that disagree with your conclusions regarding the arguments. Rational people can disagree.
|Feb-09-16|| ||Robed.Bishop: <pp> I have a question for you. Given the threat that you see to Christianity in America, as you document daily, what do you think should be done? But before you answer that, letís see if we can agree on a few fundamentals first. |
1. We can generally divide Americans into three groups. Group A are vocal Christians, those who fight for Christianity and live it daily. Group B are vocal atheists, non-believers who fight to remove prayers from schools, etc., enforcing the separation of church and state. Group C are those who are everyone else, including those who believe in God but do not practice their religion and would not fight to keep Christianity as part of the ďAmerican way,Ē non-vocal atheists (those not trying to influence anyone), Jews, Buddhists, etc.
2. Group C is the largest group, followed by Group A then Group B. Itís not important that Group A be bigger than Group B, but it is important that Group C be the largest.
1. That America was founded on Christian ideals (indeed, settlers fled England at least in part to avoid religious persecution). That historically, America has been a ďChristian nation,Ē using Christian symbols, etc.
2. That grounded in the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court opinions is the fact of separation of church and state.
3. That to the extent that these two propositions are contradictory, vocal atheists have been using the separation argument to eliminate Christianity symbols and traditions in America by removing prayer in school, etc.
The Current Situation
1. That by removing Christianity from our schools, courts, etc, we have weakened or eroded Christianity generally in America.
2. That one way Christianity is weakened in America by the separation of Christian ideals describe in #1 is that Christianity is not reinforced in schools, etc.
3. That as our children fall away from Christianity, they go from Group A to Groups B and/or C, but mostly Group C. Therefore, as time goes on, unless something changes, Group A will continue to shrink and Groups B & C will get bigger. As Group B expands, the rate of change will accelerate.
So to the question. If you agree that this is generally accurate, then how do you propose to reverse the trend? And letís eliminate changing the separation of church and state because that ainít gonna happen.
If you donít agree that this is generally accurate, then letís see where we disagree and see if we can come to some agreement. The foundation Iíve laid out is simply a way to define the problem so we can look at solutions. If we cannot agree on the problem, we wonít be able to discuss solutions.
|Feb-09-16|| ||playground player: <Robed.Bishop> I don't have the energy this evening to answer you thoroughly, so please bear with me.|
A few preliminary remarks:
1. I do not agree that the Constitution mandates any kind of "separation of church and state" that manifests itself, as it does today, in the state evangelizing for secular humanism at the expense of Christianity.
2. Christian parents ought to pull their children out of public schools. The school system is too far gone to be reformed.
3. Political action is necessary, if only to buy time.
And here I am temporarily out of gas.
|Feb-09-16|| ||Robed.Bishop: <pp> Take your time. I'm in no hurry. I ask the question because it clearly matters to you and your frustration is evident in your writing. |
Another thought: While it's true that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the First Amendment, I think you'll find that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the long-held view. Ironically, history shows that both "rationalists" and "evangelicals" supported this notion.
Excerpts from A "Cockeyed Contention" by Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry -- Metro New York:
"In fact-and it is a little-known fact today-devout evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the separation between church and state that took shape in the formative years of the republic. In 1784, the revolutionary firebrand Patrick Henry introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that would have assessed taxes on all citizens for the support of "teachers of the Christian religion." That proposal was defeated by a now-unlikely but then-familiar coalition of dissident evangelicals and Enlightenment rationalists, led by James Madison. The rationalists feared religious interference with government and the religious minorities feared government interference with religion."
At any rate, get better!
|Feb-09-16|| ||cormier: http://time.com/4214323/british-bys...|
|Feb-09-16|| ||YouRang: <Big Pawn>< ... Therefore, I see no reason for you to say, <God also made it so that those who discover and explain the universe don't necessarily have to recognize God as the creator>.|
This directly contradicts scripture, showing your comments on this matter to be a bit cavalier.>
My comment was simply:
<God also made it so that those who discover and explain the universe don't necessarily have to recognize God as the creator>
I don't think this contradicts any scripture. Rather, I simply stated what strikes me as a rather obvious observation:
Many of the people who do excellent work at developing theories that explain nature do not believe in God. Therefore, it's safe to say that God didn't require people to believe in Him as a condition for being able to study and explain things in nature.
But don't make too much of this. Being able to explain nature well does nothing to improve one's standing before God. One can be brilliant by all human standards, and yet still a fool before God. One can invent convincing reasons for why nature does not constitute evidence for God, and yet still be without excuse.
Now God may label someone as a fool, and I daresay that to Him, we all are. Which of us has never said or done something foolish?
So, I don't think it's our place to go around telling others that they are fools. If we do believe in God, it's not because we have superior intellect.
My reading of the Bible suggests that God doesn't have so much use for people who consider themselves wise. On the contrary, we are more useful if we can humble ourselves, and treat others with love, respect, and patience -- just as we would like to be treated ourselves.
|Feb-09-16|| ||SugarDom: No Christian in this forum are acting otherwise, I believe. |
We're past stoning and condemning people. Lol.
But we are required to stand our ground and confirm our principles.
|Feb-09-16|| ||optimal play: <OhioChessFan: <how is it we went from humans that are unable to write, communicate intelligently, create tools, build cities to intelligent, modern-like humans all of a sudden between 4000 BC and 3500 BC?> <opt: The Neolithic Revolution, then progress built upon progress. Just look at the explosion of technological progress in the last 100 years!> Begging your pardon, but that in fact is a point for the YEC crowd and it amazes me you don't recognize that. Start extrapolating backwwards from a century long explosion to a few gazillion years of what you interestingly call "progress" and surely it dawns on you that it is an incredible accident of history that man exists now. My explanation for that is man's been around a few thousand years. Yours is "Meh, I guess I beat odds of a few gazillion million to 1.">|
Actually, my explanation is that over the last three million years the Earth has experienced about 20 cycles of glacial and interglacial periods. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago which allowed for the development of agriculture. Civilisation simply wasn't possible before then.
Anyway, our good friend <Big Pawn> has posited that the Big Bang could theoretically have occured as recently as 6,000 years ago depending upon assumptions regarding the speed of light remaining constant.
If it was shown that this was in fact the case, would you be prepared to accept the creation of the universe in accordance with the Big Bang theory even though it was not literally in accordance with the 1st chapter of Genesis?
By that I mean, if the revised age of the universe occuring from the Big Bang proved a young earth creation in accordance with the Genesis time-frame, would it make any difference if the specifics of creation did not align with the six days as detailed in the 1st chapter of Genesis?
Would it then be a possibility that you could accept the Big Bang theory as a valid scientific explanation, or would you still reject it on the basis that the universe could only have been created in six specific days exactly as detailed in the 1st chapter of Genesis?
Thanking you <OCF> in advance for your response.
|Feb-09-16|| ||SugarDom: What's the problem here?
We know that God created the universe, earth and all creatures.
Time is relative. 6 billion years can seem 6 days elsewhere.
|Feb-10-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <opt: Actually, my explanation is that over the last three million years the Earth has experienced about 20 cycles of glacial and interglacial periods. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago which allowed for the development of agriculture. Civilisation simply wasn't possible before then.>|
"Well, here we are. Since I a priori know the earth is a gazillion years old, I need to affirm <something> that explains the DNA odds against man existing with the level of technology and population that now exists. How about the development of agriculture? That doesn't essentially change the DNA odds against, but it might muddy the waters a little."
<Anyway, our good friend <Big Pawn> has posited that the Big Bang could theoretically have occured as recently as 6,000 years ago depending upon assumptions regarding the speed of light remaining constant.>
I'm familiar with those too. Science makes unprovable assumptions about the past all the time and somehow gets a free pass on it.
<If it was shown that this was in fact the case, would you be prepared to accept the creation of the universe in accordance with the Big Bang theory even though it was not literally in accordance with the 1st chapter of Genesis?>
No, although I don't care for the "if you're wrong, will you still say you're right?" formulation. But that's fine. I reject the if. If I asked "If science proves the only way the universe could have been created was in 6 days, would you be prepared to accept that?" Kind of a loaded/dodgy question for either side.
<By that I mean, if the revised age of the universe occuring from the Big Bang proved a young earth creation in accordance with the Genesis time-frame, would it make any difference if the specifics of creation did not align with the six days as detailed in the 1st chapter of Genesis?>
<Would it then be a possibility that you could accept the Big Bang theory as a valid scientific explanation, or would you still reject it on the basis that the universe could only have been created in six specific days exactly as detailed in the 1st chapter of Genesis?>
I'd reject it.
|Feb-10-16|| ||cormier: Gospel: " Your Father who sees in secret will reward you "|
|Feb-10-16|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Feb-10-16|| ||playground player: <Robed.Bishop> Thank you for your patience. I want to answer you carefully, because you're entitled to a careful answer, and trying to come up with one is pertinent to my ministry (if I may call it that).|
Further, my editor has suggested I post our dialogue on my blog, which I will do. Don't worry--I won't misrepresent you.
Let me start by addressing "separation of church and state," which our country's founders never envisioned as a means of driving Christianity out of public affairs and making government the exclusive province of unbelievers.
In fact, we got along quite well for most of our history before anyone realized that the First Amendment gives atheists the right to shut down all public expression of religious belief. Or at least of Christian belief--in my neck of the woods, atheists got rid of our town's century old Christmas parade, but don't seem at all bothered by the annual Hindu festival.
The American people and the American church are to blame for allowing this state of affairs to develop.
If most Americans belong to your Group C, which I grant seems likely, then they won't care, may not even notice, when Group B goes around Christian-bashing.
But how did so many of us wind up in Group C?
I think it's because too many of the churches, for 100 years and more, sank into self-involved pietism first and then went on to mutate into "seeker-friendly" houses of entertainment rather than worship, or even heresy or outright paganism. About ten years ago I wrote a series of articles about paganism in Mainline Protestant denominations. It was pretty bad then. I doubt it's gotten better since.
(I must add that if I really, for sure, knew what to do about all this, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be doing it. But for now, at least, I'm more in the role of a watchman trying to wake people up.)
Long-range, I believe we need political victories which will eventually result in a Supreme Court whose members don't see themselves as on a mission to disable Christianity and Christians, and who will have the courage to reverse certain abuses. We will also need both national and local leadership that embraces America's Christian founding instead of rejecting it.
Short-term, though, Job One has got to be to get Christian children out of teachers' union-controlled, anti-Christian public schools. Without that, no other victories can be sustained and built upon, in the unlikely event that any victories are won at all. The anti-Christian Left has long known that controlling the culture leads to control of everything, politics included, and they have succeeded in totally dominating public education.
Christian-friendly "reform" of the public school system is simply not possible. It's too far gone.
Tens of millions of Christian children need to be taken away from these schools and given Christian educations, either at home or in a Christian school. Homeschooling has never been easier or more practicable than it is today, and it will get easier still, less costly, and more efficient as the technology continues to improve and more and more people get involved in it.
Homeschooled children, by the way, routinely outperform the publicly schooled in every academic area. I've taught in public school; I know what I'm talking about.
And that's about as far as I can go today.
|Feb-10-16|| ||Robed.Bishop: <pp> So in the short term, pull kids out of public schools in favor of denominational schools. |
I agree that for the most part, private schools outperform public schools and the rise in popularity of charter schools shows that Americans are dissatisfied overall with public schooling, though not for religious reasons. I think this approach has merit because it achieves two goals. It reinforces religious beliefs while providing a good education.
One drawback of course is the expense of private schooling. In order for this to be successful, and to avoid public funding (for obvious reasons), religions will have to either build more schools or otherwise provide financial support for church members. To make this happen requires one to be an activist in the church, to change the direction of the church to support education instead of just providing masses, something that is doable across different denominations.
Another solution regarding schools is to try to pass legislation that protects religious freedoms in schools, perhaps even offering classes in religious study. Then, as a parent, you could have your child take a class in all religions or a class for Christianity. I don't know how feasible this is, but as long as classes are offered to every denomination (or at least for those who have an interest), like Title 9 in sports, then maybe so.
Long-term political solutions are more problematical. In our current landscape, we have two major parties running for office and I don't see that changing in the near future. Independents, however, have become a large force in politics and I think independents will continue to grow. Indeed, in at least two states, independents are now the majority "party" (Mass. and Alaska), though there may be others. (My brief research showed that not all states provide party affiliations, though that seems wrong. I don't have time to look deeper right now, and I think Arizona has more independents as well.)
Given that it will be either extremely difficult or impossible for the democrats or republicans to elect a candidate without support from independents, we need to try to understand why independents (those without a party preference) are independents.
Let's propose that one reason people are independents is because they do not think that republicans are always right and they are not always wrong; that democrats are not always right and they are not always wrong.
It could also be that there is something in the parties' platforms that keeps them from registering as one or the other. In other words, they are "generally" more liberal or more conservative, but that there is something about the party as a whole, or an important issue, that keeps them from registering that way. For example, a person who is generally liberal might not vote for a democratic candidate because of the candidate's stance on abortion. Or a more conservative person votes against a conservative candidate because of the candidate's stance on abortion. Obviously, it could be any number of things, but you get the idea.
It could also be that they are generally in favor of the conservative fiscal agenda but against the conservative social agenda, or vice versa with democrats.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of other reasons, but those come to mind off the top of my head.
I will stop here for now to give this more thought and to give you time for input. To make political change, this will have to be the focus. The democrats are going to be against you, but the evangelicals will be for you. That leaves other republicans and independents. Again, take your time. I know you have a boo boo.
|Feb-10-16|| ||optimal play: <OhioChessFan> <"Well, here we are. Since I a priori know the earth is a gazillion years old, I need to affirm <something> that explains the DNA odds against man existing with the level of technology and population that now exists. How about the development of agriculture? That doesn't essentially change the DNA odds against, but it might muddy the waters a little.">|
Not quite a gazillion years old, more like 4.5 billion.
And the explanation for man having the level of technology that now exists is the evolution of our brain, opposable thumbs and the end of the last ice age.
That also explains the development of agriculture.
Anyway, thank you for your answer to my question regarding the Big Bang.
In response to your question <"If science proves the only way the universe could have been created was in 6 days, would you be prepared to accept that?"> my answer is an emphatic YES!
If science provided substantial new evidence that showed the universe was created in six days then of course it would be accepted, since that is how science works -- on the basis of evidence!
Contrast that with your position, whereby the Big Bang is rejected, not because it may or may not be scientifically invalid, but simply because it doesn't comply with a literal understanding of the 1st chapter of Genesis.
That really says it all!
In that regard, you should also reject heliocentrism on the basis that it does not comply with Joshua 10!
Just try to think about what you're saying ...
It amazes me that you can't recognise the absurdity of your position!
|Feb-10-16|| ||playground player: <Robed.Bishop> I have posted the first part of our discussion on my blog--pretty much verbatim. Copying it out the hard way turned out to be a big job; but at least it forced me to read your words very carefully.|
<cormier> Thanks, mon ami, for sharing my blog posts on your Facebook page. If everybody did that, I might actually sell some books!
Good night, everybody.
|Feb-11-16|| ||playground player: <Robed.Bishop> What I'm hearing from many people is despair. They think the country is past saving: the Left has won, it'll be all downhill from now on. Unless God personally intervenes.|
Certainly the prospect is a daunting one. Thanks to the long negligence of the church (the legacy of Cyrus Scofield and his adherents, who fostered the notion of "don't bother, the Rapture's coming soon"), the de-Christianization of America has had over 100 years to grow very high, put out countless branches, and put down exceedingly deep roots.
Personally, I had a sense that when the Supreme Court forced "gay marriage" upon our culture last year, we crossed a line that won't be easy to cross back. I felt--not reasoned--that we'd burned our bridges.
Now this development would not have been possible without the contribution of the public schools and our fat, overgrown university system. We bear the children, and the Left gets to train them. And train them they do.
It's true that Christians in America don't have to put up with anything like the lethal persecution suffered by Christians in many other countries. Here, all they do is mock us incessantly, turn our children against us, destroy us if we decline to take an active part in a "gay wedding," and make us pay for other people's abortions. But few Christians I talk to think it'll stop there.
Nevertheless, regardless of eschatology, I believe God wants us to try, at least, to turn our country off this evil course. And getting Christian children out of the public schools is the most necessary first step.
It also doesn't help, that we send our young people to "colleges" swollen to several orders of magnitude beyond their natural capacity, there to learn how to be self-righteous, thin-skinned, ignorant and useless Social Justice Warriors, with inane degrees in This-studies and That-studies, indoctrinated by professors who are passionately committed to transforming America into a vast prison camp with themselves as the jailers.
If we can't get back some degree of control over the education of our children, anything we might attempt politically will be in vain.
Even so, I very much doubt a President McCain or a President Romney would have publicly described abortion as "how young girls achieve their dreams." Or urged state sttorneys general not to enforce immigration laws, and not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
Winning over independents--that's not so hard. Romney won the independent vote, big-time, but still lost the election. Winning over "other Republicans"--that, too, should be possible: especially when the Democrat alternative is known and widely loathed.
So, yes, I've devoted a lot of time and effort to politics, without much to show for it.
But the Left didn't achieve all its victories overnight, nor did they achieve any of them with anything like majority support. The spiritual and cultural havoc they have wreaked on America is testimony to what a determined minority can do when they really put their minds to it.
We must learn to do the same.
|Feb-11-16|| ||cormier: Gospel: " He who loses his life for my sake will save it"|
|Feb-11-16|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Feb-11-16|| ||playground player: <optimal play> If Science were to prove that you are not you, would you accept that as true?|
J.R.R. Tolkien once used a scholar's own methodology to "prove" he wasn't Professor So-and-So, but rather an ancient Irish sun god.
Really, now--if it's "science," does that mean it's true by definition?
|Feb-11-16|| ||YouRang: <New developments unfolding in science>|
It seems that a couple black holes collided over a billion years ago, and the effects are just now reaching the earth. As a result, scientists believe they have, for the first time, detected "gravitational waves", which were predicted by Einstein 100 years ago. On the cosmological scale, "just in the nick of time"!
<"It is the first ever direct detection of gravitational waves; it's the first ever direct detection of black holes and it is a confirmation of General Relativity because the property of these black holes agrees exactly with what Einstein predicted almost exactly 100 years ago."
- Gravitational waves are prediction of the Theory of General Relativity
- Their existence has been inferred by science but only now directly detected
- They are ripples in the fabric of space and time produced by violent events
- Accelerating masses will produce waves that propagate at the speed of light
- Detectable sources ought to include merging black holes and neutron stars
- LIGO fires lasers into long, L-shaped tunnels; the waves disturb the light
- Detecting the waves opens up the Universe to completely new investigations
That view was reinforced by Professor Stephen Hawking, who is an expert on black holes. Speaking exclusively to BBC News he said he believed that the detection marked a moment in scientific history.
"Gravitational waves provide a completely new way at looking at the Universe. The ability to detect them has the potential to revolutionise astronomy. This discovery is the first detection of a black hole binary system and the first observation of black holes merging," he said.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 438 OF 438 ·
Times Chess Twitter Feed