scientists and God
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/articles/03e.pdf
"Here, nature has been kind ..."
What is meant by this phrase is that God has been kind in making this part of the derivation simple, by creating nature to be straightforward here, except the authors have replaced "God" with "nature." Interesting. The phrase doesn't make sense otherwise: they are personifying nature as if it created itself, which is basically to thank nature for doing absolutely nothing, since nature is a lifeless, intangible idea.
Yet the leading theory is still the Big Bang ... (until String Theory may be tested, to my knowledge.) I mean, science still seems to be pointing toward the supernatural as far as cosmology is concerned: if the Big Bang is the best theory we have ... then what was before that time? If the universe has a central point of origin, then what is beyond (or behind) that point in time?
And more pressing still: If the universe is expanding from a point in time, then it has an edge, much like the surface of an expanding balloon.
And yet, as these questions stand, they consider it more proper to talk as if nature created itself. Political correctness and philosophy are both silly things just to make people happy...
... bet you thought this post was going to be long-winded and more substantial, huh?
Note: That link was from http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/03.htm found at http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/index.htm.
"Here, nature has been kind ..."
What is meant by this phrase is that God has been kind in making this part of the derivation simple, by creating nature to be straightforward here, except the authors have replaced "God" with "nature." Interesting. The phrase doesn't make sense otherwise: they are personifying nature as if it created itself, which is basically to thank nature for doing absolutely nothing, since nature is a lifeless, intangible idea.
Yet the leading theory is still the Big Bang ... (until String Theory may be tested, to my knowledge.) I mean, science still seems to be pointing toward the supernatural as far as cosmology is concerned: if the Big Bang is the best theory we have ... then what was before that time? If the universe has a central point of origin, then what is beyond (or behind) that point in time?
And more pressing still: If the universe is expanding from a point in time, then it has an edge, much like the surface of an expanding balloon.
And yet, as these questions stand, they consider it more proper to talk as if nature created itself. Political correctness and philosophy are both silly things just to make people happy...
... bet you thought this post was going to be long-winded and more substantial, huh?
Note: That link was from http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/03.htm found at http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/index.htm.