Scotty99

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

A lot of other religious people don't see these as incompatible, either. It just depends what sort of creator you have invented. 

I dont have like an idea of what my "ideal" creator would be, its not like that for me. I just think when you take everything into account a creator makes more sense than not.

On 2/10/2018 at 11:56 AM, Sensei said:

The problem with creationists is that they claim Earth is not >= 4.5 bln years old, and just 6k y +- couple thousands years old, or so..

If they would learn quantum physics at primary school, and understood and accept radio-dating of rocks like Rubidium-87... it would be much easier..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium–strontium_dating

 

Creationists are making dinosaur's park showing how they lived together with humans.. I see there nothing but plain rubbish.. made by people who have no bloody idea what they are talking about.. So why such nonsense being continued.. ? To more stupefying people?

 

 

I don't really know what i am in regards to classifications, for example i see no problem with evolution and us having a creator. I dont understand why many think these things are incompatible.

I just want to add i feel this entire thing is who can guess best. I dont think there is a reward or anything but i do wish science took intution into account more than just data and observations.

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Just to flip this on its head and offer another perspective: not all religions have creation stories and many that do don't have a creator - more a creative force as Itoero put it. So the association between creator and religion isn't so strong as appears from the Western perspective.

The reason that people associate a creator and religion is that the Abrahamic faiths are ubiquitous in the West and they assert (often aggressively) the existence of a creator. Nothing controversial and you're free to hold a belief in a creator without religion. But this will naturally lead to questions about how and why your belief is different to mainstream teachings. So it's strange you would bring this up then refuse to take questions on it.

Like in the middle-east where all those people fervently believe in a creator? It being scientifically proven would mean nothing to the truly faithful.

So sure i dont doubt there would be some sections of the planet that would be unwilling to waiver from their beliefs, but i truly do think it would be a unifying event that would change the world for the better. Thats part of where im getting all this, i feel we had that in the past as some point. Ancient cultures were clearly far far more advanced than what meets the eye, if you can try and imagine a society where you actually KNOW something like that, would internet and phones and jobs and stuff really be that high on your priority list? Heck no it would probably look something like ancient cultures did. If science was actually able to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that a creator exists it would change everything, i think that is the next scientific revolution.

And i already answered the questions as to how i got here, its a combination of things i touched on, really not important to the gist of the thread.

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Doesn't "creator" point to a personal god?  I would say: "creative force".

To some maybe? I dunno. I just think its important to separate the idea of a creator with religion, i feel this is going to have to be the way forward for not only the advancement of the human race, but also scientific endeavors.

Just imagine this for a second, lets say science finds something that makes it so that its undeniable we were created. It would be such a crazy and unifying event, if there was universal knowledge of a creator (like i believe we had in the past) it would refocus the entire planet, for the better.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Why do you assume that people who don’t agree with you are somehow ignorant and “need to do research”? Maybe they are already very familiar with the subject .

If you are unable to provide any evidence supporting your beliefs then there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously. 

 Its one of those topics that gets no where, ive been there before on this forum. If people want they can search my post history for the specific reasons i have came to these conclusions, but i will not post them in this thread.

Why do you care anyways? Ive decided that i feel there are flaws in the copernican principle, are you not ok with someone having a different opinion on the matter? How i got to this point isnt really important, its that im here. Id rather have conversations about the question posed in the OP, and how i feel it is important that people are able to seperate the idea of a creator to religion, its still baffling to me that so many people even if they disagree with what a religion says will base a creator around that same framework. 

lol no its not imperative, you are free to do your own research on the topic as i did.

I do understand the feeling you must have tho, would be like the rug taken out from under your and for that i do apologize. There are a lot of problems in science today, it is in my opinion many of them stem from the fact we declared the earth insignificant.

This is one of those topics you dont see talked about much, as most of science is "moving forward". You can trust me when i say that the CP is discussed a lot behind closed doors.

Just now, Strange said:

We know (from scientific evidence) that the brain cannot be trusted. 

Well ive been on both sides of this discussion strange, which brain do i not trust

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Yet you are unwilling to share the facts on which you based your conclusion. Choosing not to share facts on a science discussion forum is neither smart nor courteous. It smacks of trolling. I am reasonably sure you are not stupid, nor do you intend to troll, or be rude, so I look forward to reading about the facts you base your world view on.

Definitely not trolling, main reason for the thread is to just get people's thoughts on why religion is so tightly entwined with discussions of a creator, been some good replies so far.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Any scientist who does not admit ignorance is not worthy of the name scientist. I am hugely ignorant. Specifically I am ignorant of this dissension in the scientific community regarding the Copernican principle. Please help educate me by providing links to articles, preferably peer reviewed, that discuss it.

Trust me you dont want to go down that road, its too big to get into here. It really is a agree to disagree sort of situation with the copernican principle.

1 minute ago, koti said:

I see hope in the fact that you seem reluctant in explaining this. Presumably it is shame which prevents you from explaining this ridiculousness further. I would urge you to hold on to that shame and guide yourself in such a way that you will be able to express your views without that shame. Having said that;

Earth is not in the center of the observable universe, amongst others WMAP project gave us evidence for this, we are sure where we are and it is not the center of the universe.

I don't think there is anything to explain, it would simply turn the thread into me linking articles and others linking articles and in the end nothing would be accomplished. There is definitely dissention among the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle, denying this only admits ignorance.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I can relate to this quite strongly. These are the same kind of thoughts I used to have, but then I learned the art of skepticism and critical thinking and I grew up. I thoroughly recommend it. Everything you are speaking of is based on your feelings. Great things, feelings, but utterly useless in determing facts and understanding reality.

Its based on both fact and feelings, intuition is something that needs to be taken into account......and i trust my brain.

2 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

In my opinion this world is just too evil and cruel for there to be a caring world.

If there was a God who cares about people then the world would not have been such a bad place for so many people.

Also I wouldn't be such a lonely loser if there was a higher being who truly cared about me.

But look at me: I'm 32 year-old lonely loser who can't even get a single date with a girl. I'm so ugly and pathetic that i'm even afraid to leave the house and socialize with other people.

I can't even get a single kiss or hug from a girl so this is why I think I'm the ultimate loser when it comes to girls.

 

Just know one thing my dude, everyone has something special......you just need to find it. It took me to 35 years to figure out what i was good at, were late bloomers is all  

1 minute ago, koti said:

This is especially interesting, could you abbreviate on this and explain what exactly you mean?

Id rather not get into it here to be honest, just know as someone with zero ties to religion ever i came to the conclusion on my own its more likely we are in the center of the universe than us being a random speck revolving around a random star.

I used to be like most people and would say of course there is other life in the universe, look how big it is and how many trillions of galaxies there are. Alas the deeper i dug, the more and more likely a creator became to me.

I wont be getting into specifics in this thread, but there is plenty of reading material out there for people wanting to do some research on the copernican principle.

11 minutes ago, koti said:

The concept of a creator is based only on belief (not evidence) that is why it is tied with religion. As opposed to the OP, I was always puzzled why a cosmically insignificant, 160K year old species belief could have a chance of being true on a 4,5 billion year old earth. Human existence is a grain of sand in the vast dunes of time and evolution which took place before us and most likely will take place long after we are gone. Our human beliefs have such an incredibly small chance of being true in this fantastically big void of time and space that I find it equally plausible that our creator is a pink flying unicorn flying around in space quacking like a duck. 

As for the bold part, that makes up about 1/2 of how i came to my conclusions......i feel we are significant. Ive done plenty of research about the copernican principle, and i feel that is where science took a wrong turn.

The other half is human history. We really have no clue about anything past a couple thousand years ago, a tiny tiny sliver of time. I find it very likely we have been more advanced in the past than we are now, and no im not saying we had 12g lte 15 or 20,000 years ago  To me its very plausible we have had a greater understanding of this universe in the past, that has simply been lost to time. Basically we are in a "lost" period of human history right now, how else would you explain the technological boom of the past 100 years when the great pyramid was the tallest structure on the planet for 3,800 years? I strongly feel we knew things in the past that we don't now.

There is more to it than that obviously, but those are two i feel pretty strongly about.

Whats funny is i just now stumbled across someone who kind of thinks like me, but not exactly:

This "mystic" gets a lot of what i get, the first 10 minutes of that video he is literally describing me lol. When i was young (about 13) i decided in my head to not stick tight to any one way of thinking, at that age i realize that is how people get into arguments and how fights start. I was trying to outsmart my parents and it wired my brain in a way where i dont tie myself to anything, its been a huge positive and negative in my life. I havent even finished the video, but 20 minutes in i think some of you may find it a bit interesting.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

As this is a belief without evidence, it is basically a religious belief. 

But I have seen lots of discussions by people who think we were created by an alien intelligence or are part of a simulation or ...

So your belief may not be unique. And your belief you can’t discuss it appears to be false. 

I mean, i have my reasons of course. I didn't just wake up one day thinking this stuff, ive done some research over the past few years and that is the conclusion ive come up with. I know others have came to similar conclusions, but they seem few and far between.

Well im not allowed to think that, or at the very minimum im unable to have conversations about it lol. (in reference to your last quote)

To me its almost inevitable we have a creator, and its just as likely none of our religious texts are accurate. I think this way for a variety of reasons that are not really relevant to the thread. I guess its just surprising to me more people have not come to this conclusion, and want to have discussions about it.

Never understood why people cannot have a conversation about a creator without bringing up religion. 

I think its fairly likely we were created but we have either lost that knowledge to the past or never had it at all.

Very odd to me that the wiki page for creationism starts off with this line:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation"

So i am not allowed to believe in a creator without taking our current religious texts into account lol? Just incredibly odd to me, /shrug.

what does science have to do with that? isn't that a philosophical question not a scientific one?

I am not sure we can have a conversation if you aren't aware of what the copernican principle denotes.

Well many strange, big one being it gets science away from the idea we aren't special.

 

 

Let me say from the outset, that I am a relative newbie and a lay person to boot, but one that has read up on plenty of cosmology and GR by reputable authors.

I also started a thread yesterday on what some refer to as "pop science" and while extolling pop science presenters such as Carl Sagan and Neil De-Grasse Tyson, I also stated that if one is really interested or concerned about any aspects of current cosmology, he then certainly needs a more professional rundown.

Now that I have said that, let me answer in my layman's fashion a few of the misconceptions you appear to have.

Firstly, how can you sit there with a straight face and say the BB is not or very rarely challenged?

That is simply wrong...Back in the early fifties the BB was on level terms with two other hypothesis on how the universe came to be...[1] The Oscillating theory, and [2] The Steady State of Freddy Hoyle notoriety.

But guess what? as evidence was gathered the BB was the only one of the three that rose above the pack so to speak, and the other two sunk into oblivion. Then another astronomer proposed a mechanism he called "Electric or Plasma universe" and a book was published called "the BB never happened" by Eric J Lerner.

Most of the points in that book that the supporters of this new idea were raising were all explained away and again the BB remained as the accepted mainstream model.

It has continued to grow in stature and although some nagging little inconsistencies may remain, overall the evidence supporting the BB is overwhelming. And of course the fact that it and GR are so complimentary of each other, is further evidence of why it remains as overwhelmingly supported.

 

You also mention truth...Science/cosmology constructs models that reflect what we see"and makes successful predictions and matches further observations, irrespective of what you see as truth or for that matter what I see as truth.

 

Your suggestion of ID and a god is nothing more then a superfluous mythical idea that early man in his ignorance proposed, and that now through science, [despite the so called problems that you have raised] has largely been discarded.

Plus of course anything supernatural and/or paranormal simply are not science nor align with the scientific methodology.

 

Let me finish with my own personal observation: The stage we are at now, cosmology is able to reasonably paint us a picture of the universe from 10-43 seconds after the actual BB event, with the evolution of spacetime, the decoupling of the "Superforce", the creation of our first fundamental particles, the first element, stars, planets, the rest of the elements, Abiogenesis, and how that life evolved, right up to the present time, and then also predict with confidence what our future solar system's history will entail, merging of our local group of galaxies, and even beyond.

I think that is a testament as to how beneficial the sciences particularly cosmology and astronomy are to mankind.

I'm not sure we can have a conversation if you can write off the idea of a creator so quickly.

Given the current state of cosmology i am surprised anyone can feel confident going forward with any of the theories, or ok with the amount of patchwork that needs to be done.

I personally believe there should be teams of people working on an advanced geocentric model, that is where i would start with this re-imagining. I of course know there are problems with the geocentric viewpoint, but given the current situation i feel it deserves another look.

The big bang is constantly challenged? Outside of the absurd (multiverse) i dont see much if any of that....

It just strikes me as odd that article breaks down the problems in science today nicely, but not once suggests an alternative to the big bang.

Id just like to see science get to a spot where they can bring intuition into the mix. I think now would be a better time than any, given the current situation.

Get the peer review of that article first.

 

I don't conclude anything without examining the math and data myself

Peer review of what lol? Its not a study but a "state of things" article.

Science is doing nothing but trying to patch up the model to explain away the CMB results, i saw this happening 2 years ago when i made my first post on this forum.

When did I state abandon either?

Today we are fortunate to have sharp, fundamental questions imposed on us by observations. The fact that our leading ideas have not worked out is a historic opportunity for a theoretical breakthrough. Instead of closing the book on the early universe, we should recognize that cosmology is wide open.

 

That is the last paragraph from that article. Explain to me why its ok to abandon (what these professors are suggesting) the inflation theory but the big bang is sacred and must not be challenged.

That is BS. I study the CMB data for my model building all the time. I also have the technical know how that I do not require any words or sentences in any Papers I read.

 

Unless you study the actual mathematics and data yourself exclusively without reading a single line.

 

You are at the mercy of everyone elses conclusions instead of your own.

 

Unless you know better ie understand the models and math you are at the mercy of pop media and every alternate theory out there as you do not have the tools necessary to form your own opinion based strictly from the data

You deny these anisotropies are present? You deny the CP is in question? Did you read the article i linked above from scientific american with professors from harvard/princeton shunning the inflation theory based on the findings from the CMB?

How are you so unaware of science's current predicament being a regular on a science forum mordred?

Thanks for demonstrating my point. A physicist would review the professional paper. Inflation has always been challenged ever since Guth first proposed the model

So its cool to abandon the inflation model but not the big bang?

Explain that one away lol.

Heh, apparently science is also on the verge of abandoning the inflation theory:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

I guess that is another way of explaining away the CMB anisotropies...

And zapatos, please...

I read the articles you linked. It seems as if you are saying they show evidence of God. Do I have that correct?

I am saying you are not privy as to why the cosmological principle is being scrutinized as such.

Most people aren't aware of the anisotropies present in the CMB, not something they really want getting out.

For science to have a conversation about a creator, there must be evidence to work with. Are you suggesting there is or will be evidence of God?

Scroll up a few posts to the articles i linked...

The reason the CP is being questioned is not only that it isnt homogenous like we expected, but it also has an anisotropy (basically a preferred sense of being/direction) that is aligned exactly to the axis (ecliptic) of this tiny little rock we call earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

They have sent up at least 3 missions (maybe more by now?) and they have all come back with the same results. Instead of using intuition science is now trying to rewrite the cosmological principle to wipe away this result.