The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[idav]

Secondly, in quantum physics, we have to remember that some sub-atomic particles can seemingly disappear, only to show up somewhere else. Electrons, for example, will sometimes do that. Is it possible that this could account for our minute universe maybe to just seemingly pop out of nothing?

It is a decent idea but what bugs me about it is the electron or particle has to exist for it to pop here or there and/or then somewhere else. Like the word you used "seemingly" disappear.

 

[idav]

If to the contrary.....substance can move without something to move it.
That would be very...unscientific.

Substances move by causality so an spirit type agent wouldn't be necessary. The river moves the rocks down the path but there is no conscious agent doing this. Your saying there needs to be a mover but I would say there just needs to be movement. There is no way to say if there is a conscious force controlling particles at the quantum level because we can't find a mover. We just see movement and activity with no source.

 

[metis]

It is a decent idea but what bugs me about it is the electron or particle has to exist for it to pop here or there and/or then somewhere else. Like the word you used "seemingly" disappear.

Yes, exactly, and this is what the quantum physicists have noticed. However, they don't know if it's always true. I'm very suspicious of claims for "uncaused causes", but I certainly am not intelligent enough to deny their hypothetical possibility.

 

[1robin]

It is a decent idea but what bugs me about it is the electron or particle has to exist for it to pop here or there and/or then somewhere else. Like the word you used "seemingly" disappear.

I was surprised to hear that is not the case. I just read the other day that particles do pop into existence from non-existence but not without a cause or a pre-existing thing to create them. They even suggested an electron or it' s sub components is not what disappears one place and appears another. It is the information that composes the atomic element that is transferred. That all sounds very mysterious but regardless nothing is coming from nothing nor without a cause in any event. Before the BB there were no energy fields to produce anything and no information to transmit.

 

[1robin]

And numbers are a cognitive construct existing only in the mind of Man.
Valid?.....sure......as long as you don't say they are substance or force.

That was pretty much my point.

 

[1robin]

That may depend on how one defines "space". Within an atom, the volume involved is mostly "space" (although probably not impermeable), and if cosmologists are correct with their mathematical models that our universe prior to the BB was a highly condensed area even smaller than a present-day atom, then there probably was "space", but extremely minute.

What constituted the singularity (and that seems to change day by day) is irrelevant because the latest models say it is not eternal, it came into being. No matter what is said or guessed at we are still stuck with a nothing prior to having something. I mean an actual nothing, not the modern nothing that is actually something. Non being. I agree with you take on what atoms are mostly composed of but I do not see it changes anything.

 

[1robin]

Where are the eyewitness accounts? Who are these other enemies that Jesus appeared before and where can I read their eyewitness accounts?

And if they do actually exist, what reason do we have to believe they are accurate, given that we know how faulty the human memory can be?

Paul saw a light and heard a voice. Maybe he simply had a seizure or something.

To save time I am only going to deal with a single one because 1 or a thousand will make no difference to you.

Seizures do not blind you, and especially do not predict the exact moment you will see again and then have it occur. Paul had never ever displayed any known signs of epilepsy or anything similar. Once again your operating of faith based preference. I am aware of epilepsy producing religious lie experiences. I am not aware of a single one transforming a life and leading to evangelism at the risk of death for many years and a 100% shift in ideas held to the utmost instantly. Epilepsy is one of the worst straws I have ever seen a non-theist grasp for. His vision and subsequent experiences confirmed exactly hat he had at one time believed perfectly wrong, they made predictions that came true, they satisfied perhaps the most scrutinizing and experienced critics possible - the other apostles even when on counter positions. There were never ever any better experts on who was an apostle that the other apostles and unanimously they approved despite being extremely selective. I can on and on but there is little point.

 

[metis]

What constituted the singularity (and that seems to change day by day) is irrelevant because the latest models say it is not eternal, it came into being.

Absolutely false because the cosmologist simply have no idea whatsoever where the minute universe came from and how long is was this small speck before expansion, and time tends to be highly distorted by our present standards anyway under those circumstances. There are numerous hypotheses, and I've already mentioned an excellent book by Gasperini, "The Universe Before the Big Bang". I can also cite some others that I've read from research cosmologists themselves.

No matter what is said or guessed at we are still stuck with a nothing prior to having something.

Absolutely false again. We don't yet know exactly what we're dealing with here because not enough evidence one way or another has come in to them to draw any solid conclusions dealing with origins.

BTW, even if supposed evidence came in that indicated that our universe had no cause, that still leaves the theistically inclined with nothing since there's not likely to be any link to any deity or deities. Therefore, 0 + 0 = 0.

 

[1robin]

You said this:

Christians on the basis of faith have added more to scientific knowledge than any other cultural group. You ever heard of Newton, Faraday, Da Vinci, Maxwell, Kepler, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Boyle, Planck, etc. In fact if you include the scientific contributions of people who had faith in God it would dwarf what was produced by those that did not.

To which I responded that Christianity was the only game in town for a very long time so it's not all that surprising that these people identified themselves as Christians.

Then you said:

Christianity was not only not the only game in town originally, it was persecuted by the most powerful empire on earth and even their by their own countrymen. Unlike Islam it did not grow based on power, loot, raiding caravans, and force in those early decades. It only had the strength of it's message to overcome the world, and did so astonishingly well. Your referring to a time long afterwards when that message had converted the empire that had tried so many times to destroy it. Yet even then it was not the only game in town. What I mentioned happened mostly during the enlightenment. Which was not as commonly thought a push back against faith, it was a push back against corrupt church domination of intellectualism. Even during the enlightenment it was Christians making the most progress. At that time less than 30% of humanity was Christian, yet most of the science came from that 30%.

So then I pointed out that many of the people in the list you gave where dead before the Enlightenmnent occurred. To which you replied:

Those names were not connected to the enlightenment.

Which was exactly right. Not one name I mentioned was made in an enlightenment context. It had not even occurred to me when I gave those names. The enlightenment only popped into me head farther down the page and it's only relevance was with the requirement to be a Christian to do science ion Europe and not in connection with the names, and even that was not always the case.

So yeah, I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say. With good reason, I think.

Good or bad I hope I cleared it up.

It's not that hard if you fear being murdered for expressing any other belief.

Yes it is. It is easy to sign a card saying Caesar is God. (something so many Jess refused to do that Pilate's successor said if they did not stop killing them there would be no one to sign anything left), it is next to impossible to live as if he was God. That is also why it is so easy to condemn a huge number or Catholic leaders in history, they did not act as they claimed to believe. Regardless it did not stop Galileo and many others from contradicting church dogma time after time after time. How many went to they stake willingly, or be burned on crosses by the thousands, or even risk everything to fight the most powerful empires in history over and over and over to understand humanity (especially Christian humanity will not long abide oppression). Very little truth is actually snuffed out by tyranny.

Well gee, it certainly sounds like you think their contributions were insignificant to me:

Find a single sentence I have ever made in a thousand posts on science that says that.

You've stated several times that you've never heard of any scientists from China or the Middle East. What's the point in saying that if not to diminish their contributions to science?

Read what you quoted and then what you said I said. I never said I had not heard of scientists from all manner of non-Christian nations. I said Christians as a cultural group out produced any other. I also said their progress was of a more essential and necessary kind by and large. I must have said three times that in general science can be done without them but they are necessary for very specific of branches on it in general. That is why their were both non-Christian scientists and they are were not necessary to go back from DE to algebra or early geometry. My claims a relative, and have never been absolute. I spend 80% of every post with you explaining away your misconceptions, splitting hairs, and semantics which is a real shame. You can be a formidable debater the 20% of the time your discussing issues that are not moral ontology one's anyway.

You're going to attribute the fact that most modern day scientists identify as non-religious to the fact that minor fluctuations occur in the makeup of most groups? I don't know if I'd say that's a minor fluctuation. What do you think is motivating modern day scientists, since it's obviously not religious faith?

It's extent is not minor compared to Christianity it's longevity is very minor. If this same thing went on another 400 or 500 years then we have something simple drifting could not explain. I will not speculate too much on motivation (I imagine money is number one, fame number two, arrogance number three but could be wrong). I do however see theological preference coloring things constantly, and on both sides.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Many nonreligious and non-Christian scientists were pioneers in many scientific fields as well. Minimize then if you like. We could very easily say that Christians were just building on the earlier work of the Greeks, as you pointed out when talking about Muslim scientists, if that's the way you want to play it.

I am sure they were and I am also sure there is at best fractional comparison. The best way to indicate what I mean is to say that if I wanted to damage scientific progress the by far most promising target would be Christian input. I would do more damage I think by removing them, than any three other similar groups. Keep in mind this is not even a contest. My main point is that any pathetic idea that Christianity and science are incompatible is abhorrent and the arrogance required to constantly say this is despicable. Just night I watched a debate where three quotes from respected secular scientists indicate the latest trends in science include the inherent relevance of theologies inseparability with science. I can even tell you why if you want something else to dismiss.

So what?
I've heard of them. So where does that leave us?

If a formal education in science does not even hint at a single name you gave then I think where that leaves is obvious.

His Encyclopedia of Medicine was apparently considered standard reference material throughout the Islamic and European world for over 500 years. He also invented some surgical instruments that are still in use today. So I don't know why your extensive education didn't cover him. Maybe you didn't go to medical school?

Again medicine is not traditionally in my experience considered a core science. In this lab I work with 4 people who have 4 masters, a Phd, and a bachelors including me in science. Not one had a single medical class of any kind. I consider medicine it's own thing. I really am impressed by it, and would give Muslim's as much credit as anyone but it is not considered by me and I think most as a traditional science.

Maybe the film didn't mention him because it's about Alfred Blalock and Vivien Thomas.

You did not read slowly enough. There is a scene where medical pioneers and greats are referred to in order. There could have been some criteria that excluded some I do not know. Let me just do this. We have been discussing science that contends with the bible. Cosmology, physics, biology, genetics, and mathematics are the traditional areas where that occurs (or at least the absurd extremes of them). That was the context of my claims. In fact I at the outset was the first to comment on Islam's medical contributions and have done so in dozens of posts. OF what help is that in either a defense of atheism or an attack on theism and science.

We're discussing science. Why would medicine not fall under that category?

I am not officially excluding it from science. I am saying it is not among the subjects usually brought up in a theistic debate and not what most think of as a core science. Even if you included it would have negligible effects on my claims anyway as Christianity has an enviable medical record as well.

You said the vast majority of scientific inventions and breakthroughs were made by Christians and downplayed the contributions of scientists from other parts of the world.
You said this:
Never heard of half of them. I was never ever taught about a single one in ten years of college, I never saw them in a single text book, even in the history of mathematics and physics classes. I have read about a few of them on my own and they are scientists but not among the Newton and Da Vinci type. Did you think I claimed you cannot find dozens of names of scientists in other cultures or something. Was a single one of them the father of a academic field?
So I gave you an example of a Muslim scientist who was a father of an academic field.

I originally said scientific field but got in a big hurry and was too general here, and that was stated within the context of theistic debate. What is all this about anyway. Let me officially re-state my claims and be done with this.

1. In the traditional scientific fields used commonly in theistic debate Christianity as a group has out produced any other similar group and therefore no justification can possibly back up any claim that Christianity and science are incompatible. That is the main reasons for my claims and is too counter pure arrogance and an all to common occurrence.
Secondary claims.

1. Christianity has contributed more to classical science that any other similar group and combined with a few Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians constitutes that bulk of core scientific breakthroughs and fields.
2. I have no reason to exclude medicine from science but generally do not think of it as a core discipline. Even included nothing changes above as Christianity has done it's share for medicine as well.
3. There are a myriad of other scientists that made meaningful contributions but that does not affect any claim above.

I think I missed a couple, but my count comes to something like:

Non-religious/Atheist/Agnostic = 25
Unknown = 24
Jewish = 14
Other = 2
Deist = 2
Christian = 29

I just got very hung up here at work but I quickly scanned that list and saw 2 atheists. At best I may have missed 3. I did not see an agnostic category or a non-religious category. I think your extrapolating somehow. Let me investigate more as soon as I have time.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely false because the cosmologist simply have no idea whatsoever where the minute universe came from and how long is was this small speck before expansion, and time tends to be highly distorted by our present standards anyway under those circumstances. There are numerous hypotheses, and I've already mentioned an excellent book by Gasperini, "The Universe Before the Big Bang". I can also cite some others that I've read from research cosmologists themselves.

Good grief, how about the latest prominent model and it's co-creator.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Since Universe means everything (in a natural sense) exactly what existed before everything began to exist? I guess that everything only means some things as well as nothing meaning something these days. What's next?

Probably the most famous question in science is why is there anything instead of nothing. If there has always been something that has been quite a waste of time. Not to mention nothing natural has any reason to believe capable of being eternal or infinite even in theory. If there has always been something then time is infinite and since an infinite number of past events is not traversable there is no way to reach this on and now. Appealing to bounded infinites are no help because recurrence has been annihilated and time is not redundant.

Even Hawking agrees with my claims: To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.
The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking

That analogy only works if you comparing nothing to nothing.

As much as I cannot stand Krauss here is the title of his book: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

I am sure he spends the entire book explaining endowing nothing with properties the absence of being cannot posses but the title is enough.

Absolutely false again. We don't yet know exactly what we're dealing with here because not enough evidence one way or another has come in to them to draw any solid conclusions dealing with origins.

BTW, even if supposed evidence came in that indicated that our universe had no cause, that still leaves the theistically inclined with nothing since there's not likely to be any link to any deity or deities. Therefore, 0 + 0 = 0.

I can prove that is the common model or predicted buy the models using only atheists and or non-theists if you wish. Both my sources above were non-theists. Every single video representation I have seen of the BB is of nothing that then is something that rapidly expands. You cannot even defend natural infinites or eternities theoretically.

You seem to suggest that while you cannot know anything about the universe origin you can be quite sure you know no deities were involved. Remarkable. Are not the person who claimed to have Jewish leanings?

Your equation is also meaningless. It should have been.

the probability of all non-natural possible creators - the probability of all natural creators of the universe equals 100%.

IOW

A supernatural explanation - a natural explanation = 100%
X - Y = 100% is the probability of X
X - 0 = 100%

The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%.

 

[metis]

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Citing one man's opinions establishes much of nothing. Real science works on consensus building, even though deviation from consensus is not only allowed, it's encouraged.

Even Hawking agrees with my claims: To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

Hawking has theorized within the last two years that our universe could hypothetically have been "created" by gravitational energy alone.

The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%.

Of the various cosmologists I've read, including having as subscription to Scientific American for over 40 years whereas I have been following the research on this, I have never seen one single cosmologist who would agree with you. Beliefs are not necessarily facts.

 

[shawn001]

Good grief, how about the latest prominent model and it's co-creator.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Since Universe means everything (in a natural sense) exactly what existed before everything began to exist? I guess that everything only means some things as well as nothing meaning something these days. What's next?

Probably the most famous question in science is why is there anything instead of nothing. If there has always been something that has been quite a waste of time. Not to mention nothing natural has any reason to believe capable of being eternal or infinite even in theory. If there has always been something then time is infinite and since an infinite number of past events is not traversable there is no way to reach this on and now. Appealing to bounded infinites are no help because recurrence has been annihilated and time is not redundant.

Even Hawking agrees with my claims: To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.
The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking

That analogy only works if you comparing nothing to nothing.

As much as I cannot stand Krauss here is the title of his book: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

I am sure he spends the entire book explaining endowing nothing with properties the absence of being cannot posses but the title is enough.



I can prove that is the common model or predicted buy the models using only atheists and or non-theists if you wish. Both my sources above were non-theists. Every single video representation I have seen of the BB is of nothing that then is something that rapidly expands. You cannot even defend natural infinites or eternities theoretically.

You seem to suggest that while you cannot know anything about the universe origin you can be quite sure you know no deities were involved. Remarkable. Are not the person who claimed to have Jewish leanings?

Your equation is also meaningless. It should have been.

the probability of all non-natural possible creators - the probability of all natural creators of the universe equals 100%.

IOW

A supernatural explanation - a natural explanation = 100%
X - Y = 100% is the probability of X
X - 0 = 100%

The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%.

"The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%"

LOL

Well, no need to do any more research in cosmology or science at all then, Robin just answered a question that cannot be answered.

What evidence to you have to show a "supernatural cause"?

Of course your also going to say it was the god YOU BELIEVE IN as fact.

I can use the exact same argument your using to say I believe aliens in another universe created this universe. Prove that wrong. Or is that a possibility?

Science doesn't work by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. This is also bias.

If it did then a pink elephant created the universe. Prove that wrong.

 

[1robin]

Citing one man's opinions establishes much of nothing. Real science works on consensus building, even though deviation from consensus is not only allowed, it's encouraged.

This just keeps getting better. He is not my brother and does not work at Wal-Mart. He is one of three cofounders of the most prevalent model in cosmology after the BB. The reason it is constantly referred to and present in every debate I have seen on cosmology is that it was designed to be bulletproof and robust. It made irrelevant all the ambiguities other hypothesize. It doe snot matter what the singularity was composed of or did. If a universe is on average expending it cannot be eternal or infinite. Not only that but he then went on to dismiss as impossible all the major counter guesses and stated the simple reasons why. His theory only confirmed the consensus among cosmologists it did not create it nor contend with it.

Hawking has theorized within the last two years that our universe could hypothetically have been "created" by gravitational energy alone.

I use his statement all the time. This gem goes like this. Because such a law as gravity exists, then the universe literally can create it's self from nothing.

1. The nothing is still there.
2. Gravity is something and so is equivalent of his saying that because something exists then something can produce something. Groundbreaking.
3. It is an incoherent piece of philosophy so bizarre it attracted no less than six of the brightest scholars around who preceded to rip the whole book to pieces in the best scientific presentation I know of. It included a pure mathematics professor from Oxford and a philosophers who sits of three boards.

However the most damning thing in that terrible book was to insist that even though he had no training in philosophy he termed it as a dead science. This of course angered his colleges quite a bit as utter arrogance. Never the less he agrees that nothing existed just as I said he did despite attempts to use semantic magic to get out of it.

Of the various cosmologists I've read, including having as subscription to Scientific American for over 40 years whereas I have been following the research on this, I have never seen one single cosmologist who would agree with you. Beliefs are not necessarily facts.

Well since we are in a world or time frame of it composed mostly of evidenced based beliefs and not facts then the discussion is meaningless I guess. I disagree with not what you claim but with what you say it means. I would go on and list entire catalogues of quotes and names but it appears I am digging in the sand here. No matter how much waste is removed more fills up the hole.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To save time I am only going to deal with a single one because 1 or a thousand will make no difference to you.
Seizures do not blind you, and especially do not predict the exact moment you will see again and then have it occur.

Actually, seizures that occur as a result of occipital lobe epilepsy can be triggered by visual stimuli like flashing lights and can cause temporary blindness or decreased vision.
Also, take note how I also said "or something." There are a number of things that can cause temporary blindness like exposure certain kinds of plant sap, shingles, exposure to intense light after prolonged exposure to darkness, retinal migraines or retinal spasms, to name a few.

Can you elaborate on what you mean in the bolded part of your statement?

Paul had never ever displayed any known signs of epilepsy or anything similar.

How do you know?

He could have had any number of medical conditions that you or even he was unaware of.

Once again your operating of faith based preference.

Um, nope.

I'm looking for a reasonable explanation rather than just assuming some miracle occurred.

I am aware of epilepsy producing religious lie experiences. I am not aware of a single one transforming a life and leading to evangelism at the risk of death for many years and a 100% shift in ideas held to the utmost instantly.

Maybe this is one such case.

But once again, it doesn't really matter what you're aware of as you are not privvy to every single thing that's ever occurred to every single individual in the history of mankind.

Epilepsy is one of the worst straws I have ever seen a non-theist grasp for.

What's so unreasonable about it?

His vision and subsequent experiences confirmed exactly hat he had at one time believed perfectly wrong,

How so?

they made predictions that came true,

What predictions?

they satisfied perhaps the most scrutinizing and experienced critics possible - the other apostles even when on counter positions. There were never ever any better experts on who was an apostle that the other apostles and unanimously they approved despite being extremely selective. I can on and on but there is little point.

Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of his Heaven's Gate cult that he and his nurse were the two witnesses described in the Book of Revelation and that Applewhite was directly related to Jesus, based on some near-death experience he believed he had been through. Those people were convinced enough by his claims to commit suicide.

Jim Jones convinced hundreds and hundreds of people to kill themselves (including their own children) based on his teachings which included him being the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

Those people were convinced by what they heard. Does that make the claims true?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which was exactly right. Not one name I mentioned was made in an enlightenment context. It had not even occurred to me when I gave those names. The enlightenment only popped into me head farther down the page and it's only relevance was with the requirement to be a Christian to do science ion Europe and not in connection with the names, and even that was not always the case.

Um, okay so what were you talking about when you said, "What I mentioned happened mostly during the enlightenment?"

Find a single sentence I have ever made in a thousand posts on science that says that.

I just gave you one in the very post you were responding to.

Again, "In my ten years of higher education not one Chinese or Muslim was ever even mentioned in the history of my academic disciplines. They of course existed but were not necessary to establish the development of science."

Read what you quoted and then what you said I said.

I'm sorry, yes, you said you'd never heard of half of the ones I listed.

I never said I had not heard of scientists from all manner of non-Christian nations. I said Christians as a cultural group out produced any other. I also said their progress was of a more essential and necessary kind by and large. I must have said three times that in general science can be done without them but they are necessary for very specific of branches on it in general. That is why their were both non-Christian scientists and they are were not necessary to go back from DE to algebra or early geometry. My claims a relative, and have never been absolute. I spend 80% of every post with you explaining away your misconceptions, splitting hairs, and semantics which is a real shame. You can be a formidable debater the 20% of the time your discussing issues that are not moral ontology one's anyway.

What does this mean, then?

"In my ten years of higher education not one Chinese or Muslim was ever even mentioned in the history of my academic disciplines. They of course existed but were not necessary to establish the development of science."

You spend 80% of your posts explaining away everyone's "misconceptions" of your posts.

It's extent is not minor compared to Christianity it's longevity is very minor. If this same thing went on another 400 or 500 years then we have something simple drifting could not explain. I will not speculate too much on motivation (I imagine money is number one, fame number two, arrogance number three but could be wrong). I do however see theological preference coloring things constantly, and on both sides.

Oh okay. So when we're talking about these Christian scientists we're talking about people who are so purely devoted to their god and the nature he produced that they can't help themselves but to learn about and explore said nature. But when we're talking about non-religious scientists we're talking about people who are in it for the money, in it for fame or in it because they're arrogant? Are you for real? Yeah, you could definitely be wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am sure they were and I am also sure there is at best fractional comparison. The best way to indicate what I mean is to say that if I wanted to damage scientific progress the by far most promising target would be Christian input. I would do more damage I think by removing them, than any three other similar groups. Keep in mind this is not even a contest. My main point is that any pathetic idea that Christianity and science are incompatible is abhorrent and the arrogance required to constantly say this is despicable. Just night I watched a debate where three quotes from respected secular scientists indicate the latest trends in science include the inherent relevance of theologies inseparability with science. I can even tell you why if you want something else to dismiss.

According to the list of the most influential scientists in history that you provided, removing the non-Christians from the list would probably do more damage than you seem to think.

Like I said, I don't think most versions of Christianity are incompatible with science, just the more fundamentalist type of ideologies.

If a formal education in science does not even hint at a single name you gave then I think where that leaves is obvious.

Oh I'm sorry, you must be the only person in the world whose ever had a formal education in science and know everything and everyone of any significance that ever existed. My bad.

Again medicine is not traditionally in my experience considered a core science. In this lab I work with 4 people who have 4 masters, a Phd, and a bachelors including me in science. Not one had a single medical class of any kind. I consider medicine it's own thing. I really am impressed by it, and would give Muslim's as much credit as anyone but it is not considered by me and I think most as a traditional science.

You consider medicine it's own thing, that is separate from science? In what way is it separate from "science?"

How is it that you think you can claim that most people don't think of medicine as scientific in nature or separate from science, or whatever it is that you're saying?

You did not read slowly enough. There is a scene where medical pioneers and greats are referred to in order. There could have been some criteria that excluded some I do not know. Let me just do this. We have been discussing science that contends with the bible. Cosmology, physics, biology, genetics, and mathematics are the traditional areas where that occurs (or at least the absurd extremes of them). That was the context of my claims. In fact I at the outset was the first to comment on Islam's medical contributions and have done so in dozens of posts. OF what help is that in either a defense of atheism or an attack on theism and science.

You've claimed before that people in the Bible knew things about medicine and health that they couldn't possibly have known. So I'd say medicine should appear in your list of sciences that pertain to Biblical claims.

I am not officially excluding it from science. I am saying it is not among the subjects usually brought up in a theistic debate and not what most think of as a core science. Even if you included it would have negligible effects on my claims anyway as Christianity has an enviable medical record as well.

It certainly appears as though that's what you're trying to do.

I originally said scientific field but got in a big hurry and was too general here, and that was stated within the context of theistic debate. What is all this about anyway. Let me officially re-state my claims and be done with this.

1. In the traditional scientific fields used commonly in theistic debate Christianity as a group has out produced any other similar group and therefore no justification can possibly back up any claim that Christianity and science are incompatible. That is the main reasons for my claims and is too counter pure arrogance and an all to common occurrence.

While I agree (and have said so several times) that Christianity and science aren't necessarily incompatible, I disagree that medicine isn't considered a science and judging from the list you provided, I don't know that we can say that Christianity as a group has outproduced everyone else in scientific endeavors.

Secondary claims.
1. Christianity has contributed more to classical science that any other similar group and combined with a few Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians constitutes that bulk of core scientific breakthroughs and fields.

What is "classical science?"
Medicine has been around for a very long time.

2. I have no reason to exclude medicine from science but generally do not think of it as a core discipline. Even included nothing changes above as Christianity has done it's share for medicine as well.

Then why are you trying to exclude it?

3. There are a myriad of other scientists that made meaningful contributions but that does not affect any claim above.

Right, but not as meaningful as anything any Christian scientist has ever done.

I just got very hung up here at work but I quickly scanned that list and saw 2 atheists. At best I may have missed 3. I did not see an agnostic category or a non-religious category. I think your extrapolating somehow. Let me investigate more as soon as I have time.

I had to do a bit of my own research on those that were not labeled or mislabeled. For instance, Marie Curie is listed as a lapsed Catholic when she apparently identified as agnostic.

I used "non-religious" or "agnostic" to denote people who never mentioned any religious affiliation, who just didn't care for it or never made any religious claims about belief or disbelief in any god(s). Perhaps some of them should have been lumped in with the "Unknowns."

I used "unknown" to denote those whose religious affiliation or lack thereof simply could not be ascertained in any way.

I used "other" to denote "Platonism" and "Greek philosophy."

However, as I said, I missed about four of them somehow and I really don't feel like tallying them up again as it is somewhat time-consuming.

Since you're the one who provided the list and made claims about it, maybe you should look it over a little more closely. Let's see what you come up with.

 

[shawn001]

Just another route

Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

And our universe may sit in another universe's black hole, equations predict.

"Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rnate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

 

[metis]

This just keeps getting better. He is not my brother and does not work at Wal-Mart. He is one of three cofounders of the most prevalent model in cosmology after the BB.

You still don't get it-- he's not the "Lone Ranger" when it comes to cosmology. How many times do you have to be told that before it sinks in? And even if he was the "Lone Ranger", does that mean he must be correct? C'mon, use some basic logic here.

I use his statement all the time. This gem goes like this. Because such a law as gravity exists, then the universe literally can create it's self from nothing.

1. The nothing is still there.
2. Gravity is something and so is equivalent of his saying that because something exists then something can produce something. Groundbreaking.
3. It is an incoherent piece of philosophy so bizarre it attracted no less than six of the brightest scholars around who preceded to rip the whole book to pieces in the best scientific presentation I know of. It included a pure mathematics professor from Oxford and a philosophers who sits of three boards.

However the most damning thing in that terrible book was to insist that even though he had no training in philosophy he termed it as a dead science. This of course angered his colleges quite a bit as utter arrogance. Never the less he agrees that nothing existed just as I said he did despite attempts to use semantic magic to get out of it.

It's so interesting how you throw Hawking under the bus when he says something you don't like, but he's some sort of genius when he says something you agree with.

You also seemingly are unaware of the fact that gravity is an energy form that's influenced by graviton, and energy by definition changes in ways that are not always predictable (i.e. quantum mechanics). Because of this, gravity itself in not a single unchanging entity, therefore its existence in no way negates the possibility of infinity, which posits changes going back indefinitely.

Well since we are in a world or time frame of it composed mostly of evidenced based beliefs and not facts then the discussion is meaningless I guess. I disagree with not what you claim but with what you say it means. I would go on and list entire catalogues of quotes and names but it appears I am digging in the sand here. No matter how much waste is removed more fills up the hole.

If the "discussion is meaningless" then why have you kept posting on the subject, especially since you keep on contradicting yourself and posting your beliefs as if everyone here must somehow be so gullible as to blindly accept your "facts"?

Anyhow...

 

[shawn001]

Robin, those scientists are saying there is no "nothing," in fact what they thought was nothing was actually something. You still don't get that at all.

Then you asked where did the bang happen, on another post. That showed you didn't understand the theory right out of the gate.

So now, we can both agree, super intelligent Aliens in another universe did it without any evidence what so ever. Yes?

Basically that is your argument only instead of aliens you inserted the God YOU personally believe in.

If you close your eyes and try to think of "nothing" you can't.