Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 14:45:37 UTC, amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

James Redford wrote :

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:38:44 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

science has always been the enemy of religion in the
past.

and in the present it seems , they support
eachother.

now that all sounds good ...

but if we think about it a little bit : how and why
?

1) because religion cant fool mankind anymore with
flat earths and other nonscientific nonsence : if you
cant beat them join them.

that way religion still reaches it goal.

they have bet on the wrong horse in the past.

but now religion calls itself " science ".

and religious scientists " confirm it ".

2) to fund and support religion/science by "
recommending eachother "

3) so that people like hawking could develop their
physics theorems based on " religious axioms " in
mathematical perspective.

which are btw very weird theorems with 2 dimensional
time etc

4) to create a feeling of " i told you so " for the
ones who defended religion and became a scientist
later.

regards

tommy1729

The modern discipline of science is a product of the
Christian
institutions of the universities, and Christian
theological training
has traditionally placed heavy emphasis on training
in the natural
sciences. For much more on this, see the below
article and book by
Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:

"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,"
LewRockwell.com,
May 2, 2005
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
(Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Publishing, 2005)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387

Below one can obtain Chapter 3: "How the Monks Saved
Civilization"
from the above book for free:

http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=
CH001

For the reasons behind the Galileo Galilei and
Catholic Church affair,
see:

Prof. Jerry Bergman, "The Great Galileo Myth,"
Investigator, No. 95
(March 2004), pp. 36-47
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

----------

It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the
scientific
community which greatly held up the acceptance of the
Big Bang (for
some 40 years), due to said scientific community
regarding it as
lending credence to the traditional theological
position of creatio ex
nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply
to a singularity
itself. The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa
1930, was Roman
Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître;
and it was
enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951,
long before the
scientific community finally came to accept it. In an
article by Prof.
Tipler, he points out that many in the field of
physics abandon
physical law when it produces results they're
uncomfortable with,
i.e., in reference to religion. As regards the Big
Bang, Tipler gives
the following example involving no less than
physicist Prof. Steven
Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived
to support
religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When
I was a student
at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in
cosmology from the
physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class
that of the
theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State
Theory because
"it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my
emphasis). In his
book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg
explains his
earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "[O]ur
mistake is not that
we take our theories too seriously, but that we do
not take them
seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that
these numbers and
equations we play with at our desks have something to
do with the real
world. <b>Even worse, there often seems to be a
general agreement that
certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for
respectable
theoretical and experimental effort.</b>" [My
emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book,
the Big Bang
Theory was an automatic consequence of standard
thermodynamics,
standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear
physics. All of the
basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was
well established
in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was
worked out.
Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because
he didn't take the
equations of physics seriously, but because he did
not like the
religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure
Quality or Enforce
Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and
Design (PCID),
Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003).
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.p
df Also
published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent:
Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski,
"Foreword" by
John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and
Tipler wrote about
concerning the antagonism of the scientific community
for religion,
resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his
book The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books,
1996), pg. 62,
Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a
beginning, probably
because it smacks of divine intervention. (The
Catholic Church, on the
other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951
officially
pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible).

right 1951.

but religion is so much older than that.

its just "interpretation" , just like those moslims claiming there is science in the koran " hidden in verses "

to get credibility , there should have been CLEAR scientific predictions in the original religious books.

why wasnt the big bang a theory of the church in say the year 1729 ?

because it isnt clearly in the bible.

in fact the church defended flat earth theory.

also in accordance to the bible , they then said.
....

Umm, have you got a good citation for that? There were a couple of
medieval flat-earthers, cited by Andrew Dickson White, but they were
(AFAIK) so far from eminent or powerful that we'd never have heard of them
without White's help.


--
Dan Drake
dd@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.