[johnbrandy]

RE: Stefan, in the first place, I did not define the word theory anywhere in my comments. Given this grievous error, why should I expect what follows in your comments, to be any less accurate, or fair-minded. Though, I do concede, applying the word theory to the statement, "the universe is not infinite in age...", might be confusing. I can only assume this usage is what you are speaking to, since you failed to refer to a specific example. There are formal and non-formal theories. The theory of the Big Bang is a formal theory. The theory that "the universe in not infinite in age..." is a non-formal theory, in the way I used it. There may well be formal theories for such. Of course, I was responding to the statement and information as presented. If, in fact, you cite, through your links, a proposition that qualifies as theory, relative to "the universe is not infinite in age...", my usage is correct; in the formal sense of a theory. I did not anticipate the need to make, what for me, is an obvious distinction. In addition, I also referred to the quote in question, as a proposition, and a postulate; potentially differentiating between the formal and non-formal usage.
 

You stated, "The accuracy of a theory depends on the strength of the assumptions it makes".
The "accuracy" of a theory depends on the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced. Case in point; The Big Bang theory is based upon knowledge and understand, derived and deduced from optical and electronic instrumentation. It is the accuracy and consistency of this information that must be assessed, to determine the viability of the theory. In short, the theory must consist with the facts, not with the so-called "strength of the assumptions". If anything, the assumptions you refer to, are the theory itself. Scientific theories start with facts, the assumptions, if you like, represent the theory, or the elements for forming a theory. Therefore, your opinion that the way I "define" theories do not have accurate explanatory power, is without foundation, in view of the understand you present.

I choose not to specifically respond to your additional statements. They are equally misinformed. I will explore the idea of entertaining a proper discussion, or dialog. In order to effectively engage in a thoughtful and productive dialog, as a minimum, we must use terms and language that are mutually understood. Rather that offer potential and actual correctives to my terms, ideas, or word usage, you suggest, in blatant terms, they are improper, and merely cite Wikipedia, and other links. If you hope to offer a counter argument, why do you not specifically focus on every instance you question, and demonstrate in clear and coherent language, the reasons for your position.(I used the word position, since you have failed to formulate a coherent and comprehensive argument). References, such as Wikipedia, should be used to support a comprehensive argument, and not employed as a substitute for explaining your opinion. My gaol is to expand my understand, and widen my perspective through thoughtful and constructive dialog. This goal is unachievable if participants do not utilize sound principles of argumentation; in part, explored above.     

[_Stefan_]

John

Given that this discussion is on a science forum, the proper formal use of terms is in order.

In places where you have used the term theory, "hypothesis" might fit better.
I am unclear as to whether the question of the universe's age is a theory or hypothesis on its own or just a part of a main theory. To me it seems to be the latter.

You did not define any terms explicitly. I considered your "definition" to be implicit in the first 10 or so lines of your post.

'The "accuracy" of a theory depends on the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced.'
Of course, otherwise what is the need or basis for the theory? I considered "assumptions" as only 1 aspect of the basis for a theory, because that was the aspect relevant to your comments, "The weakest theory is a theory predicated upon, or extrapolated from another theory" and "One theory supporting, or generated from another; is therefore demonstratively false". Here the assumption is that the founding theory from which the secondary theory is derived, is accurate. This accuracy is, as you say, determined by "the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced".

And yet, you have not demonstrated how the big bang theory and "finite age hypothesis" are false, nor how your hypothesis is correct.

How convenient for you to ignore my other comments. Perhaps you should demonstrate how and why they are "equally misguided", rather than just stating that they are.

John, the facts speak for themselves, and I directed you to them. There are entire articles there to answer your questions, but you seem to ignore them. I see no need to waste my time reiterating the contents of those pages. My "position" is that there is strong evidence supporting the big bang theory and the hypothesis of the finite age of the known universe. I am not arguing with you about the evidence, I am merely informing you. I have supplied that information. You have ignored it.   

I suspect this conversation is going nowhere. If you read and understand the pages I linked to, all well and good. If not, then that's your loss. Sometimes I get the feeling that certain people are willfully ignorant. Oops, am I being arrogant again? [] 

[johnbrandy]

Re: Friend Stefan, You are correct, this discussion is going nowhere. Please, let us agree to disagree. You have stretch my understanding, and forced me to think. I do not wish to loose your respect. It is clear to me that you are worthy of respect. Respect, through a shared vision; truth and understanding, in our particular ways of thinking, is infinitely more important that opinions about the Big Bang, and related issues.  Thank you for the opportunity to exchange serious and thoughtful ideas. Besides, thanks to you, I am now in need of some serious rest.   

[_Stefan_]

John, likewise. Thank you for the intellectual exercise.

[Titanscape]

Sociologically, and looking at this with a view to other's skepticism to the possibility of the continuation of the mind after death, it could be a paradise, another Earth or a Hell, depending on who is there, and if there is interaction. So to be eternally alone and cold, or hot with humiliation, never to see the sun or light again, is a horror. To have to make a new world with re-establishment of police... would be challenging, also some form of sickness.

And to be in light, apart from humiliations, diseases, crime, and to be loved... would be paradise. Brotherly love...

The mind is not merely the function of the nervous system, that's not a Christian point of view, but oldish science.

If there is re-incarnation, someone must administrate it. I don't believe in it. But in judgment, and division, clean from unclean. Light and love to Heaven, dark and cold to Hell. With mercies, and powers to save, ultimately, we are all cold, without power from on high.

I believe in the existence of the human heart of the spirit, mind, will and emotions, and conscience. That they continue after death eternally.

An Aussie atheist of fame died and came back to life on the operating table, he said he saw nothing... which I heard before, but scientifically writing, he noticed time go by. Perhaps a floor.

Other's experienced the same, but after time heard angry shouts...

Others see light. And people they knew, they even eat things. They see angels and Jesus with wounds.

Matter is stable, we accept it is there somehow... the mind... where did it come from? I think this leads back to the belief in intelligent design in me. Then, you know, the soul is awesome, the body, the planets, and the size of the universe... makes me confident that there is a Heaven, and creator. And I believe He went from Heaven to Earth, and to Hell, even the Pit, and returned and made a Way from any place to His Throne.

I suspect that science will ultimately say, that they know for sure that the  minds will decay after death, and cease to exist.

[that mad man]

I have a good friend who died when he was 14.

He was riding his bicycle when he was hit by a lorry and crushed. On arrival at hospital he had no brain activity and was pronounce dead. While laying on a hospital table covered with a sheet a nurse noticed some movement and resuscitation began.

He then spent over 6 months in a body cast and had to learn how to walk and talk again.

He is now 33 and suffers from a few mental problems, self harm and depression mainly but he is one of the nicest people I know and care about. Although we don't talk much about what happened he has told me several things that upset him and annoy him, mainly that he has no memory of anything before being hospitalised. The worst thing for him is he feels robbed of his childhood. When he regained consciousness he didn't recognise anyone, family or friends and had no idea what had happened to him.

He said his mind was blank and any events before the accident he still cant remember. He had no bright light or tunnel experience and just woke up with a blank mind.

To put a bit more perspective on the matter: he came from a very Catholic family, was deeply religious, went to bible classes and according to his parents and friends wanted to be a priest!

He like me is now agnostic and is happy if people want to believe in a religion but also gets annoyed when people start preaching to him that their religion out of the many is the only one or way as if its fact.

What happens after death seems to depend on which God or religion you tend to believe in but if that belief gives comfort to some then that's good.



 

[_Stefan_]

The dying brain is just that - dying. Why would you trust as evidence of an afterlife, the subjective experiences of a mind in such a drastically altered state of consciousness? Do you think that the faeries that a drugged-up person hallucinates really exist outside the hallucinator's mind?


The mind is what the brain does.

When the brain is damaged or altered, the mind is also altered. When a person loses their brain to Alzheimer's, is their mind gradually leaving the brain to exist on, in an afterlife? What tripe.

[Titanscape]

Mainstream science back in the sixties  did not profess the idea that the mind is only the working of the brain, from what I read. Some US uni psychology.

"For every action of the mind there is a corresponding action somewhere in the nervous system."

For young guys in my faith I write bits that help them not to doubt and to stir interest, also for my conscience. But here, mainly hypotheticals for science guys.

[_Stefan_]

You don't make much sense.


Besides that, get with the times. The neuroscience of today does not agree with dualism. Mind and brain are no longer considered to be separate by serious brain scientists. Dualism is an evidence-lacking, outdated concept.

[Titanscape]

Do you recall an experiment in which a Doctor attempting to prove that humans were simply biological organisms and nothing more, took a terminally ill patient and set up a specially fitted room with monitoring equipment, to gain data at the moment of that patients death?

After he died, at that moment, he lost a measured number of grams. And it was not urine or gas, the room was fully fitted.

Personally I am more that a dualist, I would see, a division between the human spirit, and soul, or mind will and emotions. And the body, and the sinful nature in the body. I am a Christian.

[paul.fr]

Do you recall an experiment in which a Doctor attempting to prove that humans were simply biological organisms and nothing more.....

This is not true, and has been discussed here a few times. Such as:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=904.25