Posted: Sep 29, 2010 2:15 pm
Ichthus77 wrote:Don't quote me on this, but Brian Greene isn't into cyclic model theory, he's a string theory dude (not sure if they are mutually exclusive).
They are not.
When I said "there is a cycle 1" I didn't mean he agrees w/ the model. You should read it like this: "if the cyclic model is correct, there is a cycle 1". Dawkins is referring to the multiverse in Delusion (entropy would still apply).
So ?Do you think atheists must thinkn like Dawkins or something ?
Here is a relevant quote from Fabric: "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started."
, and how many times do we need to tell you that except some theists no one pretends to know the explanation ?
Of course he is not saying there is a God who started it (nor that there is something beyond the natural/physical that started it)
So you were quote mining , and misentrepreting him for your own ideological unscientific bias .Good job.
, nor is he even saying he agrees w/ the cyclic model (either way, I'd be willing to bet he's rootin' for the self-bootstrapping, circular argument universe that Dawkins is rootin' for--granted,
This...
Dawkins says he doesn't "know" this..
..contradicts this , and you seem to be under the impression that dawkins is supposed to be some kind of authority amongst atheist
personalizing the argument for whatever obscure agenda arn't you ?
.but...that would be like me saying "I don't believe in logic, because it is possible there is a valid circular argument out there, we just haven't found it yet").
What is this supposed to mean?What is dawkins supposed to believe ?What he claims he doesn't know?Could you cite the exact sentences from him you are trying to discuss so we have some context?You have already shown quote mining before so this is needed.
I have e-mailed Greene about that quote I just posted, and this is the last I heard from him:
Cool
I would say that no cyclic process that has any quantum probability for being disturbed (however small that probability may be) could have persisted indefinitely toward the past (or future).
All best,
BG
Woaw ,we have no working model for the existence of the universe, what a big news...wait not actually except you nobody has been pretending to know.
For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith
That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.
Read it , you don't understand what faith is .And you pretend that making a provisional conclusion with the avaible evidences is the same as having faith.I guess you have trouble with people not doing belief without jusfitication.
But you have one thing right , about many kind of deities , atheists are gnostic .The christian god is one of those i am gnostic about since he is self contradictory.I am agnostic about general Deism because it makes no sensible claims about the nature of the sentient being supposed to be the creator/initiator of the "universe" even if it can't be used as a final explanation.