CBR has the answer

TVF wrote, after quoting Mikko's "I didn't realize spambots could be so sophisticated.":

"Much like chess programs that can beat grand masters, AI programs have as one goal to be able to fool everyone into thinking they are human. Their sophistication continually increases.

Despite our efforts, we now have many registrants posting nonsense here . . ."

Spambots are a fascinating challenge, besides being a nuisance. It is important that they be targeted precisely, "smartly", with minimal "collateral damage". So too many similarly irritating humans . . . But there is a problem here:

It is very important that we not "throw the baby out with the bathwater", lose too many dissenting voices, potential Galileo's, potential Jesus's and so on. That could be the beginning of the end of our civilisation . . .

The forms of the solutions that are adopted to resolve those two problems will distinguish cultures, distinguish between cultures with a future and cultures without a future . . .

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i>
<br />It is very important that we not "throw the baby out with the bathwater", lose too many dissenting voices, potential Galileo's, potential Jesus's and so on. That could be the beginning of the end of our civilisation . . .<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Although you appeared to say this as a caution about my remark that we have too many registrants posting nonsense, it is precisely because we have already lost so many good dissenting voices and potential Galileos because of the rising noise levels that we are concerned. If we don't act, the forums may eventually become nothing but unintelligible noise that serious posters would have no appetite to put up with.

I'd like to think that the solutions we are considering will be welcomed by all who are here for the learning environment. -|Tom|-

Why did the Big Bang take off in such a way that most comologists were taken in by the theory.

Many scientists still hang their huts on it.

Is there something that I'm missing in its logic.



Have a nice day

Harry

It is true, as Tom writes, that ". . . many good dissenting voices and potential Galileos [are being lost to] rising noise levels . . . If we don't act, the forums may eventually become nothing but unintelligible noise", consistent with the new thread at

metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=796

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Harry</i>
<br />Why did the Big Bang take off in such a way that most comologists were taken in by the theory. Many scientists still hang their hats on it. Is there something that I'm missing in its logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Lemaitre, who did the original formulation, was a Catholic and a Jesuit priest. It seems clear his motivation was religious. Even today, Steven Hawking reminds us in his best seller "A brief history of time" that the Big Bang is the only cosmology approved by the Catholic pope.

I recently presented my paper, "The top 50 problems with the Big Bang", to a meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. The paper is devastiting to the Big Bang, showing that it does not have a single leg left to stand on, not even the basic ideas that motivated it -- universal expansion (which does not exist) and the microwave radiation as a fireball remnant (it is actually the minimum temperature of matter in space, not a remnant of anything). Afterwards, an ad hoc group of Catholics approached me about sending a letter to the Vatican to caution the pope against over-investment in the Big Bang, lest we have another Galileo incident.

It seems clear that one major reason for BB popularity is that it supports the belief systems of Catholics, fundamentalists, and other religious groups. If there was a Big Bang, then there must be a God. So for those who believe in God, supporting BB would be a natural. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Harry</i>
<br />Why did the Big Bang take off in such a way that most comologists were taken in by the theory. Many scientists still hang their hats on it. Is there something that I'm missing in its logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Lemaitre, who did the original formulation, was a Catholic and a Jesuit priest. It seems clear his motivation was religious. Even today, Steven Hawking reminds us in his best seller "A brief history of time" that the Big Bang is the only cosmology approved by the Catholic pope.

I recently presented my paper, "The top 50 problems with the Big Bang", to a meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. The paper is devastiting to the Big Bang, showing that it does not have a single leg left to stand on, not even the basic ideas that motivated it -- universal expansion (which does not exist) and the microwave radiation as a fireball remnant (it is actually the minimum temperature of matter in space, not a remnant of anything). Afterwards, an ad hoc group of Catholics approached me about sending a letter to the Vatican to caution the pope against over-investment in the Big Bang, lest we have another Galileo incident.

It seems clear that one major reason for BB popularity is that it supports the belief systems of Catholics, fundamentalists, and other religious groups. If there was a Big Bang, then there must be a God. So for those who believe in God, supporting BB would be a natural. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fr. Lamaitre's motivation may have been theological, but if so it was based on his own theology and not that of the Catholic church. The Church has been very careful to purge from its doctrine anything that might be either settled or contradicted by proper scientific inquiry. As a longtime Catholic and a recipient of a Jesuit education I know of no Catholic tenet which would be threatened by BB, MM or any other scientific cosmology. One thing that the Catholic Church definitely does NOT do is look to science to justify its religious doctrine. If what Steven Hawking claims is true and not a misunderstanding of the Pope's position, it is truly unfortunate and deserving of criticism by Catholics.

Of all the oxes that are gored by discrediting the BB, the Catholic faith is not one of them. I also wouldn't be too quick to lump the Christian fundamentalists (actually, its the Evangelical Christians that people usually mean) in with the BB advocates. Theres a big difference between 4000 years and 12 billion so I don't really see how BB fits their religious doctrine at all.

A more interesting question to me is why is BB so popular among atheists? It seems to me the necessity of a First Cause is a much bigger threat to atheism than the absence of one is to theists who believe in an eternal God.

JR