[QUOTE=lightwait]
In the Greek language the word for heaven is kosmos.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Where did you look it up? That’s the definition I’m familiar with, and I checked Dictionary.com. I’ve since looked at a few others, none of which agree with you. Several of them say precisely what I said:
“Middle English, from Greek kosmos, order.”
[/QUOTE]
Yeeesh.
The Greek word for the heavens was ouranos ('[symbol]ouranos[/symbol]), HOWEVER, the word kosmos ([symbol]kosmos[/symbol]) had a whole range of interrelated meanings. One of them was “order” and, by extension, “all of everything,” (since they perceived the universe as ordered, not chaotic, giving us our word cosmology), and then took on the specific connotation of the ordered bodies in the sky, from which successor languages such as Russian, used it to mean the heavens–as in “cosmonaut” that could be a direct borrowing from Greek to mean sky traveller.
At any rate, while it would have been more appropriate for lightwait to provide the citation for his definition, (or, better, a link), it is pretty clearly a definition taken from some reference (I’m guessing Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the New Testament), and is certainly a more appropriate definition than a single word etymology from dictionary.com, On the other hand. the original comment was off-base and not really relevant. And on still the other hand, it is getting to be a really big deal over a pretty innocuous comment that did nothing to support or undermine anyone’s actual thesis.
[QUOTE=lightwait]
I have never suggested Gamow or anyone else is correct or incorrect. I suggested that the physics community is growing in understanding. I say as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies. To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth—is a falsehood.
[/QUOTE]
If you are trying to show that physics updates itself, a 1961 update of a 1947 book is hardly the way, especially since you quote Gamow as saying relatively few updates were necessary. True then, hardly true today.
This matters because of your claim that the Big Bang is an assumption. In 1961 it was still a more or less unverified hypothesis. The discovery by Penzias and Wilson that Gamow’s prediction was correct made it more than that. We can quibble about what is meant by truth, but at this point calling the Big Bang just a theory is as silly as calling evolution just a theory. Your posts would be a lot more credible if they included evidence you’ve read something about cosmology written in the past 20 years.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s your viewpoint. I, on the other hand, regard believers as the victims and tools of the psychological virus called religion. Jesus was an ancient con man or lunatic who brought history’s greatest evil into existence, Christianity. “You who believe” are not “the light of the world”; you are a curse upon it, the human manifestion of a corruption, a madness eating away at humanity.
Silly nonsense, even if there was a God or your religion anything but a mental illness and con game. You’d never get every person on Earth to believe your particular brand of madness without lots and lots and lots of death. And your religion won’t save anyone’s life, much less raise them from the dead.
No, you are simply the vector of the disease that has eaten your mind. You are trying ( badly ) to spread the disease that is using you because it has reduced you to a tool of it’s expansion. A cold makes people cough and sneeze mucus to spread itself; your religion makes you sneeze it’s message onto this message board.
And Jesus is dead, and he’s going to stay dead.
[/QUOTE]
Atheism is fortunate for its eloquent defenders. Christianity is fortunate for the rest.
I never though you were a crackpot, just a person seeking God, and apparently given the spiritual gift of evangelism and possibly wisdom to interperate scriptures, I was wondering about the gift of prophecy also or in place of the gift of wisdom.
[QUOTE=lightwait]
I have never suggested Gamow or anyone else is correct or incorrect. I suggested that the physics community is growing in understanding. I say as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies. To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth—is a falsehood.
My attitude is in a correct posture—I am not here to mislead anyone, nor am I here to practice humility.
[/QUOTE]
So, you say (that is, state the assumption) as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies, eh? Obviously, the first assumption to dismiss would be this statement itself. Seeing as it itself is specifically the sort of assumption that it itself refers to.
A more sensible mindset is to refrain from accepting statments for which there is poor or unconvincing justification. Unfortunately this mindset (being a sensible one) pops the fragile bubble of ‘credibility equality’ that you are attempting to pretend exists between religion and science.
To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth is a falsehood only if the big bang is in fact not true. Which there is zippo reason for believing. Your assertion that it is false is just another “assertion of truth” that should be dismissed summarily. Just like all other lame attempts to equate the uncertainty of accepting science with the uncertaintly of accepting some religion or another.
You attitude is that you are a fountain of truth and that every thing that crosses your lips must be True, with a capital T, because you said it, and reality be damned if reality doesn’t agree with you. For this to be ‘a correct posture’ a deciever God would have to be in play, of which the only one I know of is the FSM. Are you prostelyting for the FSM?
I do accept and agree that you’re not here to practice humility. That is very clear.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
So, you say (that is, state the assumption) as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies, eh? Obviously, the first assumption to dismiss would be this statement itself. Seeing as it itself is specifically the sort of assumption that it itself refers to.
A more sensible mindset is to refrain from accepting statments for which there is poor or unconvincing justification. Unfortunately this mindset (being a sensible one) pops the fragile bubble of ‘credibility equality’ that you are attempting to pretend exists between religion and science.
To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth is a falsehood only if the big bang is in fact not true. Which there is zippo reason for believing. Your assertion that it is false is just another “assertion of truth” that should be dismissed summarily. Just like all other lame attempts to equate the uncertainty of accepting science with the uncertaintly of accepting some religion or another.
You attitude is that you are a fountain of truth and that every thing that crosses your lips must be True, with a capital T, because you said it, and reality be damned if reality doesn’t agree with you. For this to be ‘a correct posture’ a deciever God would have to be in play, of which the only one I know of is the FSM. Are you prostelyting for the FSM?
I do accept and agree that you’re not here to practice humility. That is very clear.
[/QUOTE]
You are looking for an argument—I am not the one. When you learn to read without assumption, then you will be able to articulate in due fashion.
I am signing off of this thread, however, you “boys” have not gotten rid of me.
[QUOTE=lightwait]
I am signing off of this thread, however, you “boys” have not gotten rid of me.
[/QUOTE]
If you continue to post insults, “they” will not have to get rid of you: you will be gone.
(I am also a bit curious why you sign off insulting posts with the tag “blessings.” That seems a tad counterproductive–to say nothing of hypocritical.)
[QUOTE=lightwait]
You are looking for an argument—I am not the one. When you learn to read without assumption, then you will be able to articulate in due fashion.
I am signing off of this thread, however, you “boys” have not gotten rid of me.
Blessings
Blessings
[/QUOTE]
Don’t be so sure every one is judging you. Some are here to learn, just as you too are. Peace be with you.
[QUOTE=lightwait]
I have never suggested Gamow or anyone else is correct or incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
You used the first edition of his book as a cite for the idea that if you look far enough with a big enough telescope all you will see is evenly spread light and used his definition from back then as your definition of “optical horizon” rather than the current, rather more terrestrial meaning of it. It seems to me that if you are citing a source you must believe that source to be correct. Otherwise, why would you cite it?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
(I am also a bit curious why you sign off insulting posts with the tag “blessings.” That seems a tad counterproductive–to say nothing of hypocritical.)
[/QUOTE]
It seems to be a habit of a certain type of Christian. They mix in platitudes like “Blessings” or “God hates the sin and not the sinner” in order to appear or feel compassionate. Generally while insulting people or threatening them with eternal torture.