No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Agaliarept on Dec 2, 2015 3:01:37 PM
Scientific proof of god?

A mate has been going on about this documentary recently. I watched it last night and think he makes some pretty compelling arguments.

45 min doc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvJg1_Ny6w0

5 min teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thu
mb/6/60/CMB_Timeline75.jpg/1024px-CMB_Timeline75.jpg


Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:02:04 (#1 of 403)

Anyone with a few pare minutes want to share their opinion?

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:02:49 (#2 of 403)

Dang! Modz, thread header should be Scientific proof OF god?

can you help?

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:03:09 (#3 of 403)

Your might want to correct pare as well.

Bonusy - 02 Dec 2015 15:03:27 (#4 of 403)

Maybe God is judging you through your typing.

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:03:33 (#5 of 403)

Can you summarise the documentary?

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:07:07 (#6 of 403)

Can you summarise the documentary?

The 5 minute teaser does that better than I could...

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:07:53 (#7 of 403)

I watched half the five minute video.

The fact of a beginning to the observable university says nothing about the existence or non existence of a god. The science does however clearly refute the story of creation given in any religious texts in important details.

Therefore it seems to me this is a case of "cherry picking".

guigal - 02 Dec 2015 15:08:03 (#8 of 403)

Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah (Wikipedia)

He boasts excellent scientific credentials but he doesn't seem to be making very good use of them.

RosyLovelady - 02 Dec 2015 15:08:55 (#9 of 403)

I can think of other publicity-hungry scientists of whom the same could be said.

TheExcession - 02 Dec 2015 15:09:27 (#10 of 403)

Maybe he's dyslexic and thinks he's found proof of the existence of dog?

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:10:04 (#11 of 403)

Therefore it seems to me this is a case of "cherry picking".

That's what I thought.

The second half of the long doc gets very weird. He tries to equate 'luck' as proof god is still managing the universe.

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:10:21 (#12 of 403)

But there are some good points

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:10:33 (#13 of 403)

Anyway proof of the existence of god fundamentally undermines the key tenet of the judeo-christian tradition: faith. So, you know, he's a bad Jew and a bad scientist.

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:11:58 (#14 of 403)

Anyway proof of the existence of god fundamentally undermines the key tenet of the judeo-christian tradition: faith

Although he isn't claiming to have discovered anything rather pointing that others have discovered things.

So a good Jew and bad scientist!

JudgeMentalist - 02 Dec 2015 15:12:05 (#15 of 403)

Can't watch it right now, but religion is based on myths intertwined with historical facts, science is based on provable theory. Granted some scientists are also religious adherents, but most of the ones I've met keep their faith rather quietly. The premise of the thread suggests an attention-seeking scientist rather than any compelling scientific theory, let alone fact.

Agaliarept - 02 Dec 2015 15:13:15 (#16 of 403)

The premise of thread suggests an attention-seeking scientist rather than any compelling scientific theory, let alone fact.

You should watch it then.

It doesn't come across that way when you watch. He's more like a conspiracy crank, quite entertaining.

Plus he has the oratory style of a drunken uncle at a Bar Mitzvah.

Pentecost - 02 Dec 2015 15:17:15 (#17 of 403)

The immediate fallacy is when he speaks of the laws of nature - which are our way of saying that it behaves according to rules - and then uses that interchangeably with forces of nature, which drive effect and behaviour.

Then there's a slick as shit slide from one wrong verbal description of the big bang to one selected verbal description of God, and that's a proof?

He's talking bollocks.

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:17:54 (#18 of 403)

science is based on provable theory

Not it isn't.

thisonehasalittlehat - 02 Dec 2015 15:18:28 (#19 of 403)

Religion is a provable theory. When god turns up. Science is disprovable theory.

JudgeMentalist - 02 Dec 2015 15:18:51 (#20 of 403)

Oh, alright then.

Hi xarts!

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Science